DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns DL Desmond Bryant Likely Out For Season With Torn Pec

Some teams woulda just cut him flat out. Some would have paid him a little and cut him but I dont know of any that would have paid him his full amount considering he was not at the complex when he was injured. When you are away from the trainers working out on your own, you are at risk. When you are playing basketball or blowing yourself up with fireworks, you put yourself at risk.

Browns werent cheap here.

Yeah, it seems weird to punish/blame a player for working out.

I'm sure players around the league got the message.

I would like to see some examples of similar situations w/other teams/players.

Which is why the Browns did the right thing.

there is this new invention called Google lol

I would like to see some examples of similar situations w/other teams/players.

Fine, feel free to search the big world wide web

I don't see how this is a bad message....at all. I'm under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that most teams in similar situations pay an injury settlement (a portion of their annual deal) and cut ties completely. And if they're older, like North of 30, they may never sniff a contract again.

Here, the Browns are essentially doing the same while offering him a chance to stick on a roster, at 31, and get some of his contract back plus the full amount based on incentives....not sure what those incentives are.

The agreement favors the organization, but shouldn't it? I don't think this sets any negative standard whatsoever for the FO's PR. So many expected to Browns to pay something out to Bryant this year anyway and they did that. Plus they're offering a chance to remain. I think it's a slight one, but one nonetheless.

What I don't know is whether the % of money given is on par with other injury settlement-esque agreements. Maybe someone else has info on that...again I'll repeat that it's curious that the Bryant side agreed to such an enormous cut next year in the contract. I wonder why?

If Joe Banner did this, he's being frugal and prudent. If the 'Moneyball' FO does this, they're cheap as hell!

You have a gift for making the most bizarre, untrue statements ever uttered on this board.

You spoke like you KNEW for sure.

I did google it and I really couldn't find anything either way. I was trying to get a legit answer to the question.

Yeah Memphis, I don't think any of us think it is a bad thing.

Considering you just said this....



You using 'cheap' about this FO decision, I think I made a very accurate one.

That's odd, because I did not see you mention me by name. You made a general comment that was absolutely false in regards to what the majority of the board would have said and will say.

Yeah, I was a huge Banner fan.



Why would a player wish to risk his contract trying to stay in tip top shape during the off season? Yet if a player comes in out of shape or a little overweight, that gets leaked to the press and they are made out to be the bad guy.

This is a good move IMO. Worst case? He never plays again and we just lose money from this year

I didn't say you liked Banner. I made a comparison between the two regimes. Those that did, would have said one thing. It was not my intent to assume you liked Banner. My bad if it came across like that.

Additionally, my reply to you was how the FO handled the injury, regardless of his offseason activities. In fact, I don't know what you're specifically referring to about being out of shape or anything like that. I'll assume something is talking about that on the thread, and I'll try to find it. I think all front offices would have done the same thing in one way, shape, or form. The injury happened and I think they addressed it adequately and won't effect the FO's PR in the league, IMO.

I take it you believe they should have kept the contract the same without doing anything. Is that it? If that's the case, I'll respect that but not sure I agree with it. That may be the case with a star player in the middle of his career, but not in Bryant's situation.

I just believe that it's wrong to punish a player for trying to do the right thing. And it's not isolated to our FO.

And an example of what I was referring to is Josh Gordon this season. It was widely reported he came into camp overweight. And yes, he took some grief for it.

I just don't believe the league should be able to have it both ways. You either expect your players to work out hard and remain in shape during the off season and do not punish them for doing exactly as you expect them to do. When doing what you expect them to do causes them to risk losing two thirds of their contract.

What kind of message does that send to players? It tells them they have one of two choices. Protect their contracts by not working hard during the off season or risk your money. I would never expect a good player who is pretty much guaranteed a roster spot to ever come into camp in great shape. The league has set an example that it's simply not worth the risk.

DeMarcus Ware started this season with an NFI from his bad back from last season and restructured his deal. Denver

Link

Connor Barth restructured after being put on NFI for a torn achilles at a charity basketball game. Tampa Bay

Link

Closest I could find. Seems most guys end up staying on the NFI list and just don't get paid. They usually were less well known players though.

Junior Galette's modest 2016 contract was reduced to $1 million salary instead of $1.5 million due to his NFI (achilles).

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/junior-galette-7083/


Minimum salary for player with 6 accrued seasons like Galette is $715k.

I think that, many times, these are the result of injuries that result from activities the team prohibits, either specifically, in the player's contract .... or "strongly suggests" they refrain from participating in. For example, riding a motorcycle could be such an activity .... and it was when Winslow crashed his bike.

Here is from when Winslow was injured:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=2051653

Section 3 of the NFL's standard player contract stipulates, in part, that a "player will not engage in … any activity other than football which may involve a significant risk of personal injury. … Player therefore agrees that club will have the right … to enjoin the player from engaging in any activity other than football which may involve a significant risk of injury."

But two league sources said Monday night that Winslow's contract includes language which is even more specific and limiting, and which expressly forbids riding a motorcycle. Many teams include such specific language in the addendums to contracts, especially those involving high-round draft choices. An agent who negotiated the contracts of some high-round Cleveland draft choices in recent years said the Browns routinely include such restrictions.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now this is from many front offices ago, but I think that it is fairly standard, and I bet that we had similar language in a contract for a player who we gave an average of $8 million/year to. I suspect that Bryant was hurt during a prohibited activity, and that's why the "Browns may cut him" rumors hit.

Thanks for the info.

So, you and steve believe that this won't be a black eye on our organization w/potential free agents both for our team and other teams?

I know you didn't ask me, but I certainly don't see it as a black eye.

Guy got hurt, out of season. Browns could've cut him, but instead, they're giving him well over a million. And, it sounded like, next year, he could, with incentives, recoup much of what he "lost" this year.


Get cut, make nothing? Or make $1.25 million while you sit a year and heal?

Dang. We have a company, right here in the tiny village of (guess), that, if you're sick and can't work, they pay you half of your wages. (not for the flu, or something like that. If you need surgery, for example. Hurt your shoulder raking leaves? Need surgury? Out of work for 3 months? You get half your wages, PLUS, the insurance)

And some dolts gripe about that benefit with "well, I can't live on half my wages" I get it. Be glad you get half, they don't owe you anything.

Honestly I have no idea. I came across the Junior Galette thing earlier in the day because I was wondering the same thing when the news broke.

Okay.

I just like thinking big picture and winning the war rather than small battles.

We already have a bad rep. Don't want to add to it.

But, if other teams do it, than it should not be a big deal.

Desmond Bryant will never play for us again. When he was on the field, he was one of our best defensive players.

He is getting over a mil this year and can make all he would have made next year.

He knows he probably won't be here next year. Getting the mil this year keeps him from having to dip in to the rainy day fund.



Good deal for all.

If Desmond Bryant was a Harvard guy they wouldn't have put the screws to him. This front office just doesn't get it.

LINK

Ahhhh.........making fun of mac. How refreshingly new.

Desmond Bryant, Browns agree to new contract after summer injury

BEREA, Ohio -- Defensive lineman Desmond Bryant and the Cleveland Browns have agreed to a new contract as a result of him tearing a pectoral muscle working out on his own before the season.

ESPN Insider Field Yates reports via a league source that the Browns will pay Bryant $1.25 million this season while he is on the non-football injury list. He had been due to make $6 million.

The Browns did not have to pay Bryant at all because his injury happened when he was working out in New York before training camp. He will miss the entire season, but will make more than $1 million while injured.

In 2017, Bryant will take a cut from $7 million to $3 million (non-guaranteed), but the contract is structured so that he can recoup the entire $4 million he lost via incentives, Yates reports.

So instead of cutting him, they give him over a million dollars. Then make it so he can get the rest back if he plays next year. And some are calling it screwing him over. Typical crap from those who want to make anything this organization does look bad.

IMO, they did him a favor.

Sounds like it was a fair solution for both sides.

That has been going on for over a decade. You should know.