What does Suh get?

[mraynrand]

You can look at it as fining him $164,000, or you look at it as just not paying for games he doesn't play because he F'ed up. The way I look at it, it is not so much an enormous fine but instead it is an enormous amount of money to pay a guy for doing nothing for two games (when he is doing nothing because he broke the rules).

I'm not exactly getting you here. Suh is out 164K. OK, so he gets two games 'off' and still collects the prorated bonus, but he's still short 164K. Maybe it should be even more?

[sharpe1027]

I'm not exactly getting you here. Suh is out 164K. OK, so he gets two games 'off' and still collects the prorated bonus, but he's still short 164K. Maybe it should be even more?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that Suh is effectively "fined" 164K. I'm basically saying that I don't look at it as being a fine. He doesn't need need to pay the amount of lost salary. You can look at it as a "fine," but I simply look at it as if he was being paid to do a job that includes playing in 16 games. From the owner's perspective, that's a lot of money to pay a guy sitting on the bench because he broke the rules.

If you hired someone to paint four rooms in your house, would you pay them the full value if you had to kick them off the job for stealing something and they had not finished three of the rooms? If you paid them for most of the job up front, would you be justified in asking for at least part of that back? Think of the games as being painted rooms and the up front money as the singing bonus.

[mraynrand]

In your painting analogy, your painter not only would lose part, if not all the fee in a small claims court (probably not recoverable), but would also be jailed for theft. Suh is going to presumably be seeing some of these types of effects also. I would assume he has incentives in his contract for playing in games, for making the pro bowl, and even for making playoffs, etc. all of which are being put at risk or are lost due to his actions, just like the housepainter. He's not being paid for the games he missed, and that money is being sent (I assume) to the NFL as a fine. So it's paid as a fine. You're arguing he should be penalized even more, since he's getting those two games off. I'm arguing he is being penalized more in all those other things, but if you think he should be fined above and beyond his two-game check, you have a point there. But, perhaps that's excessive.

[sharpe1027]

Look at it from an owner's perspective. They effectively are paying him $X amount per game based upon the salary + pro-rated bonus. They still are going to be effectively paying him a lot of money to sit on his ass for two games. It's not about how much Suh is "out," it's about how much he is still getting paid.

[Smidgeon]

Per PFT:

"Schefter explains that Suh has been encouraged by the NFLPA to pursue the appeal, in order to ensure that players who engage in similar behavior won’t be suspended in the future."

So the NFLPA thinks that players shouldn't be suspended for kicking people while they're down? Pretty sure the NFLPA isn't actually paying attention to the players who have been saying he deserves suspension...

[mraynrand]

Look at it from an owner's perspective. They effectively are paying him $X amount per game based upon the salary + pro-rated bonus. They still are going to be effectively paying him a lot of money to sit on his ass for two games. It's not about how much Suh is "out," it's about how much he is still getting paid.

The team isn't recovering the fine money. The league is. So the team is out the money and out Suh's services. The team is getting hammered for the terrible actions of it's employee, but they still desperately need his services. From my perspective, both Suh and the Lions are being punished, but that makes sense. Both are responsible/accountable for Suh's actions. In that way it's not quite like your housepainter. The Lions aren't subcontracting Suh - he is an integral employee, who they can't easily fire.

The bottom line is how much exactly should Suh and the Lions be punished? It's pretty clear from what you write that you think it should be much more. How much?

[Smidgeon]

I'd also like to see the appeal process tell Goodell he went light and mete out an extra game of suspension.

[pbmax]

Per PFT:

"Schefter explains that Suh has been encouraged by the NFLPA to pursue the appeal, in order to ensure that players who engage in similar behavior won’t be suspended in the future."

So the NFLPA thinks that players shouldn't be suspended for kicking people while they're down? Pretty sure the NFLPA isn't actually paying attention to the players who have been saying he deserves suspension...

I just came back to comment on this. It almost makes no sense in any fashion except to argue it as precedent.

Suh is in trouble partly because he has been fined and flagged for unsportsmanlike behavior before. I would guess that the NFLPA wants to be clear the precedent is a pattern of penalties, fines and ejection. Not simply a single penalty and ejection, especially since the ejection carries its own fine if I remember correctly.

[sharpe1027]

The team isn't recovering the fine money. The league is. So the team is out the money and out Suh's services. The team is getting hammered for the terrible actions of it's employee, but they still desperately need his services. From my perspective, both Suh and the Lions are being punished, but that makes sense. Both are responsible/accountable for Suh's actions. In that way it's not quite like your housepainter. The Lions aren't subcontracting Suh - he is an integral employee, who they can't easily fire.

The bottom line is how much exactly should Suh and the Lions be punished? It's pretty clear from what you write that you think it should be much more. How much?

Is Suh's unpaid salary is sent to the NFL? I don't think so. I think that a suspended player should not be paid for the games they are suspended, and I think that their signing bonus could be reasonably included as part of this valuation. I'm not advocating anything else.

[pbmax]

Look at it from an owner's perspective. They effectively are paying him $X amount per game based upon the salary + pro-rated bonus. They still are going to be effectively paying him a lot of money to sit on his ass for two games. It's not about how much Suh is "out," it's about how much he is still getting paid.

The owner's gained additional means to recover bonus money after the last CBA compared to 2006. And their unavailability (whether retired, incarcerated, or suspended) might subject them to forfeitures. But the team wants Suh back and to play at 100% for them. Going after his signing bonus now would simply make a bad situation worse.

It wouldn't happen unless his behavior was so egregious that the team contemplates terminating his services.

[pbmax]

Is Suh's unpaid salary is sent to the NFL? I don't think so. I think that a suspended player should not be paid for the games they are suspended. I'm not advocating anything else.

Yes, it is. The NFL collects all the fines for the year and distributes it through NFL Charities to make videos of players dancing on School buses.

[sharpe1027]

Yes, it is. The NFL collects all the fines for the year and distributes it through NFL Charities to make videos of players dancing on School buses.

Is unpaid salary considered a fine?

[sharpe1027]

The owner's gained additional means to recover bonus money after the last CBA compared to 2006. And their unavailability (whether retired, incarcerated, or suspended) might subject them to forfeitures. But the team wants Suh back and to play at 100% for them. Going after his signing bonus now would simply make a bad situation worse.

It wouldn't happen unless his behavior was so egregious that the team contemplates terminating his services.

Under the current agreement, it would never happen. My point was that hypothetically, the suspension process might be more evenhanded if it included the bonuses. Should a player be "fined" more simply because they structured their contract differently and have higher game checks and a lower signing bonus?

[mraynrand]

Under the current agreement, it would never happen. My point was that hypothetically, the suspension process might be more evenhanded if it included the bonuses. Should a player be "fined" more simply because they structured their contract differently and have higher game checks and a lower signing bonus?

Life ain't fair, is it? I'm just guessing Suh knew this was going to happen, and structured his deal to reduce a potential fine to 164K with a couple extra bye weeks to boot. What a country!

[sharpe1027]

Life ain't fair, is it? I'm just guessing Suh knew this was going to happen, and structured his deal to reduce a potential fine to 164K with a couple extra bye weeks to boot. What a country!

Your right. Life is not fair. I guess we might forget about fixing any problems, life's not fair after all.

Suh's a smart man if that's what he did since he'll likely have more problems in the future.