Didn’t porzigis get accused of rape and claim he was being extorted and what ever happened there? Just wondering because I have no idea how this type of situation usually plays out
Giving Demaryius away really sucks if this is the end of AB. Harry can’t come back for 2 months and Gordon is always on thin ice. We are not that far away from Gunner running routes.The Pats went from having too thin of a WR depth chart to having too many, but now they're rocketing back in the other direction. It's impressive really
How hypocritical would it be of Kraft, for example, to insist that BB cut Brown before the truth is known, because just the accusation has been made?Despite some of the reactionary responses about the veracity of the claims, nobody really has any idea what happened yet. I’m comfortable letting the process play out a little more before declaring either side is telling the truth. From the Patriots standpoint, though, it shouldn’t matter. They took a chance on a risky guy, he didn’t even make it to his first practice without a major problem/distraction. And regardless of what really happened, at minimum his responses to the accuser are pretty awful and disturbing. He’s not worth the trouble. Cut him as soon as possible. He can have his day in court on his own time and dime.
Maybe. We don't get our $9M or whatever it is in cap space back, so it's not exactly the same. We have an investment that may be worth protecting...I honestly don't know. I trust whatever the team decides to do. They'll have more info than I will.The point is that we should react the same way whether this emerged before or after he signed with NE.
Yeah, I can’t imagine the team will let this become a major issue that drags throughout the year. I just hope we can get some real clarity one way or the other and find out for certain what occurred.We should know by tomorrow afternoon how the Pats will approach this. Bill won’t mess around. if they don’t want to deal with this story he will be cut. If he practices and Bill says that he won’t comment on it, it means they’ll weather it.
I believe that the Pats would have grounds to get that back.Maybe. We don't get our $9M or whatever it is in cap space back, so it's not exactly the same. We have an investment that may be worth protecting...I honestly don't know. I trust whatever the team decides to do. They'll have more info than I will.
If the Raiders could cut him without cap issues I'm pretty sure the Patriots can.Do we know the cap implications of cutting him? Does the 2020 cap hit get accelerated?
Do they have the cap space to do it immediately?
I want to believe that one of two things is true: They didn’t know or they ave reasonably certain based on something concrete and specific that the claims are untrue.If the patriots knew, and still decided to sign him and trade Demaryius, wouldn’t it seem to mean that they don’t find the accusation credible? It seems highly unlikely that they would sign him, knowing he had a credible rape accusation against him, and just hope it wouldn’t come out.
If they didn’t know then obviously thats irrelevant
There's no acceleration as it's after June 1st. The team would be off the hook for NLTBE incentives. There would be a pro-rated cap hit in 2020 for the signing bonus.Do we know the cap implications of cutting him? Does the 2020 cap hit get accelerated?
Do they have the cap space to do it immediately?
Why do you think the Pats likely knew about it? Genuine question.I honestly doubt it’s much of a distraction past the original news cycle, which will last a week. Nobody has the attention span for anything past that anymore, and some other squirrel will pop up.
I go back to the Pats likely knowing of this and still signing him. I don’t think he’ll get cut, barring something more at this point.
The Raiders gave him a very small signing bonus, the Pats gave him 9 million. But it’s still possible there’s contract language to cover this, assuming Pats didn’t know.If the Raiders could cut him without cap issues I'm pretty sure the Patriots can.
Are you for real?Hope so. Dude is a rapist. Krafts wife must be rolling over in her grave especially given her hardline stance on domestic abusers. I can only imagine how she'd feel about a rapist like AB. All women need to be believed
Thanks. Ok, so no change from where they are now. Except of course not getting the player.There's no acceleration as it's after June 1st. The team would be off the hook for NLTBE incentives. There would be a pro-rated cap hit in 2020 for the signing bonus.
The texts shared with IncarceratedBob, of all people, indicate the Raiders were aware. Which means Rosenhaus likely was, and I just can’t see him burning bridges with BB over a 9 million dollar signing bonus.Why do you think the Pats likely knew about it? Genuine question.
Not being snarky, but ownership has its privileges. Really don’t think the two are comparable. He has zero equity or goodwill built up here. And a multi-year legal and bad publicity mess is certainly not what they were signing on for. He gets his day in court, but he has no inalienable right to employment with the Patriots. Were I making the decision, I’d release with as little financial/cap damage as possible.How hypocritical would it be of Kraft, for example, to insist that BB cut Brown before the truth is known, because just the accusation has been made?
I will also be very disappointed if neither of those were true. But even if one separates morality from it, it would have been stupid to sign him and trade Demaryius if they knew this might happen. So I’ll be very disappointed if neither of those is true, but unless the patriots are both morally bankrupt and stupid, I think one of them MUST be true. Unless Thomas is cooked and they were gonna get rid of him anywayI want to believe that one of two things is true: They didn’t know or they ave reasonably certain based on something concrete and specific that the claims are untrue.
If it is not one of those two things I think I will be disappointed.
This. And let’s remember this is a civil case not a criminal one like Kraft or Chung.Are you for real?
Let’s hope you never have to learn the hard way that people — including women people — lie and make shit up all the time.
I’m not claiming that this woman is a liar or AB is not a rapist. I don’t know whether either is true.
But those kind of blanket statements are ridiculous.
Maybe you’re going for parody there and I’m just missing it.
My guess is that the Pats, having signed Brown and traded Thomas, are not going to act rashly and will let things play out.
I get the “avoid the circus” reaction but in light of the owner and starting safety having been accused of crimes, and both not having been suspended or disciplined in any way by the NFL or the team, I believe the Pats will again allow the legal system to run its course before taking action.
After all, we don’t live in s country when we knee jerk believe in every accusation.
It's possible they could go after the bonus if AB misrepresented the status of this matter, but there are way too many unknowns at this point to determine the feasibility.Thanks. Ok, so no change from where they are now. Except of course not getting the player.
Thank you for this. I figured you might be one of the rational voices here.Are you for real?
Let’s hope you never have to learn the hard way that people — including women people — lie and make shit up all the time.
I’m not claiming that this woman is a liar or AB is not a rapist. I don’t know whether either is true.
But those kind of blanket statements are ridiculous.
Maybe you’re going for parody there and I’m just missing it.
My guess is that the Pats, having signed Brown and traded Thomas, are not going to act rashly and will let things play out.
I get the “avoid the circus” reaction but in light of the owner and starting safety having been accused of crimes, and both not having been suspended or disciplined in any way by the NFL or the team, I believe the Pats will again allow the legal system to run its course before taking action.
After all, we don’t live in a country where our legal system takes as true in knee jerk fashion every accusation that is made by anyone, regardless of their sex.
I get that, but my point is the Raiders were able to void his contract. How would it look if the NFL allowed the voiding for the Oakland crap but not for being sued for rape? Can you imagine how that would look?The Raiders gave him a very small signing bonus, the Pats gave him 9 million. But it’s still possible there’s contract language to cover this, assuming Pats didn’t know.
There are several issues here: First, the complaint is civil, not criminal. And it's doubtful the NFL could void a contract over a civil complaint that hasn't been adjudicated. Also, the NFLPA could fight it, much like they did with Aaron Hernandez.I get that, but my point is the Raiders were able to void his contract. How would it look if the NFL allowed the voiding for the Oakland crap but not for being sued for rape? Can you imagine how that would look?
"Oh, he doesn't get paid if he acts out, but accused of rape? Sure pay him." Folks would have a field day.
Yes. I don't think anything new has happened recently, but the ESPN reporting makes it seem more like extortion.Didn’t porzigis get accused of rape and claim he was being extorted and what ever happened there? Just wondering because I have no idea how this type of situation usually plays out
After asking the Knicks in October to help her get the $68,000 from Porzingis, the woman emailed the Knicks a series of text messages that included Porzingis' invitation to visit his apartment the night of the alleged assault. Porzingis told her that he was "drunk," according to the texts. The woman agreed to come to his apartment, responding: "I'm not fancy at all. I'm in flip-flops and a night dress. I'm basic. ..."
In the handwritten letter that she described as a contractual agreement with Porzingis for payment of $68,000 -- a copy of which was obtained by ESPN -- Porzingis' name is misspelled and it is unclear whether the signature belongs to him.
In the alleged agreement, the woman wrote: "This agreement effective February 7, 2018, acknowledges the fact that an unexpected escalated sexual intercourse due to an inevitable physical attraction on the part of Kristap (sic) occurred subsequently, warrants compensation payable towards (the woman's) siblings college tuition in the amount of $68,000. ...
Yeah I didn’t say he had an inalienable right to employment or anything like that. Just that Kraft was accused of being in a sex trafficking ring and it seems like that was not really true. He knows a little something importance of letting things settle out though the legal process before jumping to conclusions.Not being snarky, but ownership has its privileges. Really don’t think the two are comparable. He has zero equity or goodwill built up here. And a multi-year legal and bad publicity mess is certainly not what they were signing on for. He gets his day in court, but he has no inalienable right to employment with the Patriots. Were I making the decision, I’d release with as little financial/cap damage as possible.
Don’t forget Randy Moss, on the eve of SB 42.It is a civil suit, not criminal. Then you have instances involving Reuben Foster, Brian Banks and Marshawn Lynch. I am not taking lawsuits like this at face value.
Isn’t there a morals clause or am I imagining this?I skimmed, so perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see anything in the standard player contract that would require a player to disclose the existence of a threatened civil lawsuit. So I’m not sure why people think the Pats would be able to recoup AB’s signing bonus if they choose to cut him.
Fair enough. I just don’t think whatever criticism that would come from Kraft appearing hypocritical on this, would pale in comparison to the mess that would come up with keeping him around for a protracted, and likely pretty ugly, legal fight over these accusations. For a guy who has other baggage, and who hasn’t even been to one practice yet. And if it comes to light that he in anyway lied or failed to disclose this situation to the Patriots before signing the deal, it’s an absolute no-brainer to me.Yeah I didn’t say he had an inalienable right to employment or anything like that. Just that Kraft was accused of being in a sex trafficking ring and it seems like that was not really true. He knows a little something importance of letting things settle out though the legal process before jumping to conclusions.
If there is strong evidence that this occurred, he will but cut immediately, just like Ray Rice and Aaron Hernandez.He's not getting cut. It's a civil case that will take years to get resolved.
There are a lot of truly awful people in the NFL, from the owners on down. As long as AB catches balls on Sunday and schedules his deposition during the off-season, this will be a nothingburger by Friday.
That's not to say he didn't do this, just that I find it highly unlikely this results in him being cut.
I don’t think he was making any assumptions, but rather just wondering about it from a legal perspectivei would make no assumptions about her going to the police, one way or another.
Doubtful a civil complaint which hasn't even gone to trial is nearly enough to trigger the moral turpitude clause.Isn’t there a morals clause or am I imagining this?
I normally wouldn’t, but when it’s combined with a public statement the accuser looks forward to working with the accused’s employer, especially one with such publicity, I give it some weight.i would make no assumptions about her going to the police, one way or another.
Yuck. I wish I hadn’t read that. Nope—I never sexually assaulted anyone, Bill.
Was he asked specifically about the sexual assault, or about “his troubled past,” which BB easily could have been thinking on the field/locker room stuff.Yuck. I wish I hadn’t read that. Nope—I never sexually assaulted anyone, Bill.
Mostly but I also was speculating or at least asking whether it was common for lawyers who bring sexual battery cases to first advise going to the police. My perception is that’s kind of the standard advice.I don’t think he was making any assumptions, but rather just wondering about it from a legal perspective