Eric Reid thread

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by dj43:
Yes, it is.

It is hard to keep them separate given they came from the same team, were reportedly friends and joined in together in protest.

No one will ever know for certain but I would bet Reid would have a job if he were not so closely connected to Kaepernick.

I really think that is the case, I think his separation from the coalition and continued protests also come into it though.

I agree that played a part, however, even that is a Kaepernick connection as CK had not be invited and Reid expressed his dissatisfaction with that as a part of his reason for not staying in the coalition.

In the end, the timing of his decision to enter the collusion action was the last straw. He's done.

Too bad. I always hoped he could stay with the team. He's a good dude.

Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I doubt the case will ever come to court. Mark Geragos will drag this out as long as he can and milk as much money out of it as he can and then run after the next gold-covered ambulance. He already has a net worth of $25,000,000 and he did not get that from pro bono. He's a celebrity lawyer who loves the spotlight.

Originally posted by dj43:

Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I doubt the case will ever come to court. Mark Geragos will drag this out as long as he can and milk as much money out of it as he can and then run after the next gold-covered ambulance. He already has a net worth of $25,000,000 and he did not get that from pro bono. He's a celebrity lawyer who loves the spotlight.

I wonder if kaep will sue him for collusion if he doesn't win the case?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by dj43:
Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I doubt the case will ever come to court. Mark Geragos will drag this out as long as he can and milk as much money out of it as he can and then run after the next gold-covered ambulance. He already has a net worth of $25,000,000 and he did not get that from pro bono. He's a celebrity lawyer who loves the spotlight.

I wonder if kaep will sue him for collusion if he doesn't win the case?

Might even kneel in protest.

Originally posted by VaBeachNiner:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by dj43:

Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I doubt the case will ever come to court. Mark Geragos will drag this out as long as he can and milk as much money out of it as he can and then run after the next gold-covered ambulance. He already has a net worth of $25,000,000 and he did not get that from pro bono. He's a celebrity lawyer who loves the spotlight.

I wonder if kaep will sue him for collusion if he doesn't win the case?

Might even kneel in protest.

Then he'll throw a fit about it but it'll get intercepted by Sherman.

Originally posted by dj43:
Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I'm not sure I'm following your point, but... from my understanding, even if only two teams were involved, that does technically constitute as collusion. It doesn't have to be a collective effort of the league, even just two teams being involved constitutes as a violation of the CBA.

I originally thought collusion meant the entire league, but someone else corrected me on this recently. I can't find the source on this, but I definitely read clear verbiage that cleared this up.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by dj43:
Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I'm not sure I'm following your point, but... from my understanding, even if only two teams were involved, that does technically constitute as collusion. It doesn't have to be a collective effort of the league, even just two teams being involved constitutes as a violation of the CBA.

I originally thought collusion meant the entire league, but someone else corrected me on this recently. I can't find the source on this, but I definitely read clear verbiage that cleared this up.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.

what confirms collusion though?

and what would it mean if the other 30 teams not part of the collusion don't think he's worth signing?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

what confirms collusion though?

and what would it mean if the other 30 teams not part of the collusion don't think he's worth signing?

For the collusion element the parties liable would only be the one's who communicated slander to Reid and or Kap, stating teams shouldn't sign them, or should force them to stop protesting if they did.

For the NFLPA case it's only the Bengals & Seahawks who would be in the frame

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by dj43:
Collusion, in the case of the NFL, would be a hard point to win. It would have to be more than just two teams telling each other they are not going to hire him. In such a case, there might be a judgement against those two teams but that would not necessarily include the other 30 teams.

I'm not sure I'm following your point, but... from my understanding, even if only two teams were involved, that does technically constitute as collusion. It doesn't have to be a collective effort of the league, even just two teams being involved constitutes as a violation of the CBA.

I originally thought collusion meant the entire league, but someone else corrected me on this recently. I can't find the source on this, but I definitely read clear verbiage that cleared this up.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.

I don't have a definitive answer either. What I have heard is that if only two teams had communication, and those two teams had been in contact with them, that would constitute a case against the two teams. As to whether or not that would then involve the league as a whole, I have heard both "yes" and "no" answers.

I've got to think the only parties seeing the light of day in this case are the lawyers racking up the hours.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by mojave45:

But back to Reid, I really truly believe he would be playing this year if he hadn't joined the collusion case. He just did that to himself. It was a slow market for safeties, not just him. He has skills that could have been used by several teams I think. He just didn't want to give it time. Now if there is a smoking gun type of evidence and it wins the collusion case for him it would cause me to reassess Reid's situation.

I dont see how this makes sense at all given the fact that he didnt join the collusion case until free agency was months into the process, and he was already spurned by the Bengals.

So unless your opinion is that if Reid didnt join the collusion case, he would have been signed in the last 7 days, then your opinion makes zero sense based on the timeline of events.

So no one gets signed, ever, after the draft, and late into the process? There has never been a year where there were an excess of Free Agents at one position and some were signed late and had to possibly take pay cuts? Right. Glad you educated me on this non existent fact.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by mojave45:

But back to Reid, I really truly believe he would be playing this year if he hadn't joined the collusion case. He just did that to himself. It was a slow market for safeties, not just him. He has skills that could have been used by several teams I think. He just didn't want to give it time. Now if there is a smoking gun type of evidence and it wins the collusion case for him it would cause me to reassess Reid's situation.

I dont see how this makes sense at all given the fact that he didnt join the collusion case until free agency was months into the process, and he was already spurned by the Bengals.

So unless your opinion is that if Reid didnt join the collusion case, he would have been signed in the last 7 days, then your opinion makes zero sense based on the timeline of events.

So no one gets signed, ever, after the draft, and late into the process? There has never been a year where there were an excess of Free Agents at one position and some were signed late and had to possibly take pay cuts? Right. Glad you educated me on this non existent fact.

You made the claim that if Reid never joined the collusion case, he would have been signed already.

This has nothing to do with me trying to say free agents dont take pay cuts, im spite of your condescending claim I did.

It has to do with your weirdly specific idea (time wise) that he would have been signed if he didnt jump on the collusion case.

So you are saying that between 4 and 11 days after the draft, Reid would have signed a contract if no lawsuit. Thats what your posts essentially meant. I never said that free agents dont sign late. I never said they dont take paycuts if there was an excess of a players.

I just found your idea that he would definitely have signed a contract in a 7 day window, 4 days after the draft, to be an oddly specific suggestion to be treated as fact.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by mojave45:

But back to Reid, I really truly believe he would be playing this year if he hadn't joined the collusion case. He just did that to himself. It was a slow market for safeties, not just him. He has skills that could have been used by several teams I think. He just didn't want to give it time. Now if there is a smoking gun type of evidence and it wins the collusion case for him it would cause me to reassess Reid's situation.

I dont see how this makes sense at all given the fact that he didnt join the collusion case until free agency was months into the process, and he was already spurned by the Bengals.

So unless your opinion is that if Reid didnt join the collusion case, he would have been signed in the last 7 days, then your opinion makes zero sense based on the timeline of events.

So no one gets signed, ever, after the draft, and late into the process? There has never been a year where there were an excess of Free Agents at one position and some were signed late and had to possibly take pay cuts? Right. Glad you educated me on this non existent fact.

You made the claim that if Reid never joined the collusion case, he would have been signed already.

This has nothing to do with me trying to say free agents dont take pay cuts, im spite of your condescending claim I did.

It has to do with your weirdly specific idea (time wise) that he would have been signed if he didnt jump on the collusion case.

So you are saying that between 4 and 11 days after the draft, Reid would have signed a contract if no lawsuit. Thats what your posts essentially meant. I never said that free agents dont sign late. I never said they dont take paycuts if there was an excess of a players.

I just found your idea that he would definitely have signed a contract in a 7 day window, 4 days after the draft, to be an oddly specific suggestion to be treated as fact.

My point was, and still is, that he panicked because he had not been signed early in the process. I do still believe he would have played this year if he had shown a bit of patience.I think that went out the window with the collusion case.

Do you guys remember what happens if Kap or Reid prove that there was collusion?

Yeah they get some money of what they might have missed out, but there is something WAAAAAY more important that can/will happen.... that the Owners would not f**king want, but would have no choice but to deal with.

Which is the one reason I don't see the powers of the NFL, letting Kap or Reid win the judgment. They would work something out behind the scenes.

There is TOOOOOOO MUCH money at stake.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
Do you guys remember what happens if Kap or Reid prove that there was collusion?

Yeah they get some money of what they might have missed out, but there is something WAAAAAY more important that can/will happen.... that the Owners would not f**king want, but would have no choice but to deal with.

Which is the one reason I don't see the powers of the NFL, letting Kap or Reid win the judgment. They would work something out behind the scenes.

There is TOOOOOOO MUCH money at stake.

so if they lose..it can't be that they were wrong ?