Donte Stallworth Sentenced to Just 30 Days in Jail
by Chris Pokorny on Jun 16, 2009 1:35 PM EDT
in General News
148 comments
Cleveland Browns wide receiver (or provisional member; however you'd like to look at it) Donte Stallworth pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter charges. His punishment? I think Deadspin.com sums it up pretty well...
Stallworth did appear in court today and has been sentenced to 30 days in jail, which is slightly less than 15 years. He will also serve two years house arrest, 1,000 hours of community service and will be on probation for eight additional years. In addition, he already reached a financial settlement with the family of the victim, Mario Reyes, and will avoid a civil lawsuit. That's some nice lawyering, boys.
According to the Miami Herald, Stallworth was immediately taken into custody and will serve his time at Miami-Dade County jail.
I'm sure a lot of people are very surprised by the simple "slap on the wrist" Stallworth has received. Now that the legal proceedings are pretty much over, we should be hearing from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in the future to see what disciplinary action the league will take. In my mind, I envision the Browns releasing Stallworth before the start of the season. If his suspension is not too lengthy though, who knows -- Stallworth might be wearing a Browns uniform after all this season.
UPDATE (1:31 PM): According to Maria Ridenour of the Akron Beacon Journal...
An NFL source said commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to discipline Browns receiver Donte' Stallworth before the start of training camp after he pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter Tuesday.
Hopefully that league source wasn't me (see earlier in post). Only kidding. Ridenour also cites a case from 1998:
Rams defensive end Leonard Little pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in 1998 when his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit during an accident that killed the driver of the other vehicle. Leonard was suspended for eight games.
0 recs |
148 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Ah, the American Justice (sic) System. The net that catches the minnows and lets the Whales slip through…
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Jun 16, 2009 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Whale with $$
30 days in jail is absurd.. Almost mocking Mario’s worth as a human being. But..
“..he already reached a financial settlement with the family of the victim, Mario Reyes, and will avoid a civil lawsuit.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if Reyes’ family got more money than Mario can ever earn in his life time. It sucks for Mario, but his family should be well taken care of.
Still, this is not a good way to set an example to stop drivers from driving under influence. If you get hit by a drunk driver, I guess we need to pray that the driver is a multi millionaire. Crazy.
by seattlehorn on Jun 16, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As mentioned below, we are trying to avoid rushing to judgment without knowing all the facts of the case
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not by chance, that
There are only two factors in American justice. One is money, and the second is connections. Anyone with both can act with impunity, as this case demonstrates. Those of us without either are essentially non-entities. I’m sure there are those that will howl upon reading this, but the remark is based on observation, not what I’d like to believe.
by chokkan7 on Jun 17, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In defense of the judge, and not Donte, isn’t the community service that Stallworth can provide of more use to society than locking him away. I mean, he made a HUGE mistake, but it was a mistake, not a malicious decision. There was no intent. In this instance, isn’t everyone better off knowing A) that some (minute) good can come from his service and B) he will be monitored for the next decade to ensure that he’s learned from his mistake?
I mean, it’s a horrible situation, but why destroy two lives over an accident?
by danvail on Jun 16, 2009 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In defense of the judge, and not Donte, isn’t the community service that Stallworth can provide of more use to society than locking him away.
I mean, it’s a horrible situation, but why destroy two lives over an accident?
i do hear what you’re saying, but this isn’t really the deal. this man is responsible for the end of another human life…pretty much the worst thing that you can do in a career as a homo sapien. i don’t want to turn this into a political/emotional conversation, so let me just say that he could both do good (community service) and be forced to feel the full brunt of his actions (in prison) at once. leaving him essentially free after 30 days appears to be a pretty light sentence.
i don’t have all the facts, by any stretch, though, so this is pure conjecture on my part. in my limited dealings w/ the justice system, i would imagine the reyes family signed off on the deal w/ the judge, which does mean something.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, thanks for bringing that up. As our community guidelines state, if people try to bring up a flaming political debate, I’ll remove the comments. Please get in touch with each other personally to discuss heated stuff.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jun 16, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to get in touch with every single one of your personally so that I can partake in a heated exchange.
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you have a problem with the whig party, bring it.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am more interested in debating the merits of a constitutional monarchy against an absolute monarchy
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought we weren’t supposed to talk about American politics?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Jun 16, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I more for tradition then democracy. That’s just me.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name the movie:
“No matter how ridiculous us Americans find the thought of having a queen may be…”
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Naked Gun — I must have watched that movie a hundred times when I was in junior high and high school.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 16, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct! I still watch it frequently, is that a problem?
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love that movie, not the TV version though.
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jun 16, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sending people to jail for long periods of time probably always destroys their lives. Why ever do it, then?
by joeee on Jun 16, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Essentially, to remove them from society, and to protect society from their actions. So, would sending Stallworth to jail for a long time have any probability of protecting society? I would guess that the judge and prosecutor took a hard look at his likelihood of committing similar crimes in the future, and determined that he was at minimal risk.
The sentence seems really light, true, but I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the judge here. However, not to Stallworth: he should have known better, and could have easily avoided this.
by drjeo on Jun 16, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not commenting on the case per say. A family friend of mine has interacted with him and says Stallworth is a really great guy.
This is manslaughter and has a lot of question marks. I’m only saying that his being remorseful doesn’t warrant no jail time at all. Jail is psychological – a justice system that is fair and consistent is the only one that works. That’s why you have to send people to jail even if they’re remorseful or won’t ever commit another crime in their lives.
by joeee on Jun 16, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there will be a lot of questions about this. I’m just trying to avoid the knee-jerk “he should have gotten more time” argument by asking why? I also agree that the justice system should be fair and consistent. However, cases are context-specific, so it’s really difficult to compare one with another. I think Stallworth deserved jail time, but I don’t necessarily agree that it’s necessary to send people to jail. I think it really depends on the context. From what I’ve read, mandatory sentencing guidelines, which seek to provide a “level playing field” have been largely unsuccessful for that very reason.
Anyway, I do respect your argument. It’s well-stated and rational.
by drjeo on Jun 16, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The distinction I’m trying to draw is between a case where there was intent to harm and one where there was none. In this case, there was no intent to harm others. There was negligence, recklessness, and disregard – but no intent to cause harm. I think that’s why it’s POSSIBLE that the punishment wasn’t outlandishly short, or some kind of abomination of justice.
by danvail on Jun 16, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap. Holy freakin crap.
Martha Stewart got 5 months for insider trading.
Donte Stallworth got 1 month for Manslaughter.
Awesome.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 1:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No, I think it is a shame. Plaxico Burress will spend more time behind bars than Donte Stallworth.
It is a sad day for our legal system.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I know. Just trying to throw in a little Martha Stewart humor.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Martha Stewart’s catch phrase is “it’s a good thing.”
by gahnki on Jun 16, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really a valid comparison. I think Martha Stewart’s sentence was not actually for insider trading: it was for supplying false information to the government when they were investigating her for insider trading. Lying to the feds is always going to be regarded a serious affair.
by drjeo on Jun 16, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, it was obstruction of justice. still pretty hard to believe.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The two years house arrest would prevent him from playing football, wouldn’t it?
If that is the case, then we will definitely release him regardless of the punishment from Goodell
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 1:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you are allowed to leave house arrest for work. This is just a guess though, maybe someone else could have an answer.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I am not sure. I was basing it on the fact that Vick wasn’t able to do any football related activities while he was under his house arrest.
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happened to that Michael Vick fanpost someone put up?
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jun 16, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A little farther down the list.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is true. not really comparable, but look at the vick situation. he’s allowed to leave his home for work…making $10 an hour…it makes me laugh knowing i make more than a pro QB. technically since stallworth isn’t (at least at the moment) losing his job as a football player to pursue a career in construction..haha $10 an hour…he should be allowed to leave for games, but what about practice? anyone have any insight?
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Under house arrest you should be able to leave for work, school and work – related activities. Practice = work – related activity.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is as close of a recent house arrest incident for an NFL player (besides the Vick situation) that I can find: involving former Bengals WR Chris Henry
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jun 16, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is a current Bengals WR.
Actually, reports are he is a “new” Chris Henry; spending time with his fiance, kids, and at the practice facility.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Vick’s problem is that he is not hired by an NFL team right now, and that his sentence required him to work at a construction job.
You are allowed to go to work while under house arrest, but I think that would require the Browns to say they want Stallworth to report to some mandatory camp sometime, that the NFL clear him to play, etc. Thats what would make sense to me, anyway.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
at the time
he was still under contract with the falcons. he was just released on friday. i could be wrong, but i think goodell gave him the ultimatum (like a month ago?) of getting another job to “show he’s changed” or whatever. feel free to correct me if thats not true.
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if it was exactly Goodell who gave him the Construction job. I think he’s still creating his punishment.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
might have been
just another part of his rehab in society.
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I would’ve had him work at a Kennel. Or could that’ve been bad?
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
incredibly ironic
i’m no PETA supporter, but what he did was really cruel. as long as the punishment fits, or surpasses the crime, i’m all for it.
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he was under contract, but I don’t believe the other two criteria were met: the Flacons had publicly stated they did not want him back, and I am 99% sure he hasn’t been cleared by the NFL to come back, the one-man jury is still out. I can be under contract with someone to work August-February, but they might not require me to leave my house in May/June.
Right now, Stallworth is under contract, but he wouldn’t be allowed to leave his home unless the Browns said they wanted/needed him at the facility and Goodell OK’d it. If both of those things happened, I think the justice system would let him go to practice.
Also, I thought it was Vick’s actual criminal sentence to work that construction job as part of some sort of halfway house-type deal. So, he could leave for work and work-related activities, but all of those would be construction-related, not NFL-related.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I thought it was Vick’s actual criminal sentence to work that construction job as part of some sort of halfway house-type deal. So, he could leave for work and work-related activities, but all of those would be construction-related, not NFL-related.
this is accurate
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
after all is said and done...
…he’s still one of the browns, and yeah he had a bad year due to injuries, but he’s still a solid #2. at the very least he can share his knowledge with robiskie and massaquoi, in the event he can’t play. shouldn’t we all be in support of one of our players?
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope the Browns cut Stallworth. I have taken a small bit of pride in the fact that the Browns do not have a collection of criminals. The rest of the AFC North has turned the other cheek when it comes to star players on their team and legal issues. Yes Jamal Lewis had his legal issues as a member of another team, but he did serve his time.
I am willing to support players that have served their time. I do not like Mike Vick. I think what he did was disgusting. He served his time. He payed his debt. He should be allowed back in the NFL.
Donte Stallworth is getting off so easy it is sad. The same goes for Leonard Little. Taking another persons life is not forgiven after 30 days in jail, at least not to me as a Browns fan, as little as that may matter.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
noted
yeah his jail time is practically non-existant. but he’s under house arrest for 2 years, plus 1000 hours of community service (which i think is plenty of time for him to make up for something he did), and 8 years probation. this stuff will be following him after his contract is up with us. thats a long, long time.
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like he’s the kind of guy to not take it lightly either, and it will stick with him mentally for much more than 8 years.
He’s getting off really easy, though.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what would you feel is appropriate?
adding jail time? prolonging the house arrest? etc etc…
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, take pride in the fact that he’s getting off easy not because of the legal system but because the victim’s have agreed to compromise. It’s been said Stallworth’s done all he could for the victims. He’s paying a settlement, doing a large chunk of community service and at least agreeing for a term in jail. It’s been said the victim’s have agreed to it, so how are we to say he got off easy? Both parties made a mistake that day. Sure Stallworth’s mistake was much larger but the victim did “J – Walk” (if you’ll take that as a large mistake) so we can’t truely lump it all on Stallworth.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s fine if Mr. Reyes’ family made good with Stallworth. I was just speaking as me, a Browns fan.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
These comments appear to reflect Stallworth’s reaction to this situation:
Stallworth, 28, told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Dennis Murphy that he hopes to get involved in drunken-driving education programs.
“I accept full responsibility for this horrible tragedy,” said Stallworth, who was accompanied at the hearing by his parents, siblings and other supporters. “I will bear this burden for the rest of my life.”
(quotes from ESPN)
by drjeo on Jun 16, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was expecting him to be release years from now, not weeks.
by gahnki on Jun 16, 2009 2:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This does seem very light, but according to this story from ESPN the family of the vicitm was okay with it. They seemed to just want to get this all over with and move on. Here’s a quote from the story.
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle cited Stallworth’s lack of previous criminal record, cooperation with police and willingness to accept responsibility as factors in the plea deal. Rundle also said the Reyes family — particularly the victim’s 15-year-old daughter — wanted the case resolved to avoid any more pain.
“For all of these reasons, a just resolution of this case has been reached,” Rundle said.
None of the Reyes family attended the hearing. Their attorney, Rodolfo Suarez, read a statement saying the family wants to “bring closure to this emotional and tragic event.”
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 16, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle cited Stallworth’s lack of previous criminal record, cooperation with police and willingness to accept responsibility as factors in the plea deal.
that alone speaks volumes of stallworth’s character.
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least they are ok with it.
Take a cab.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was actually arrested in Miami-Date back in 2006 for “resisting an officer without violence.” Prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, though – so his record remained clean; well, at least until this.
by DrewskiC on Jun 16, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in 3 years
he probably got his act together.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does that even mean?
“resisting an officer without violence” doesn’t sound like a big deal and is questionably even a crime to me.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just read that...
he is also receiving a lifetime suspension of his driver’s license, but has the ability to receive a limited license for employment after 5 years.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This makes me want to puke. I sincerely hope this man never plays football again, until justice is served.
by Simmsinns on Jun 16, 2009 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I know that the term “justice is served” is commonly used, but I don’t know what it really means. Clearly, no amount of punishment in the form of jail time, fines, community service, or whatever is going to restore this man to his family. So, what “justice” is there? If I’m told that Stallworth took responsibility for his mistake, is going to support the family financially, showed genuine remorse, cooperated fully with the police, and is going to serve some jail time, that seems pretty just to me. Would more jail time add to any of these consequences of his actions? Would it make him less likely to offend again in the future? Would it be helpful to the survivors? If not, then I don’t see how it can be viewed as “justice.”
If you’re talking about punishment, then that’s a different thing. I understand someone saying “this person behaved in an irresponsible manner and caused (or at least significantly contributed to) the death of another individual. I think they need to be punished and their life utterly destroyed.” That seems pretty draconian to me, but it’s understandable. But it has very little to do with justice.
by drjeo on Jun 16, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other issue is that we just don’t have the facts of the case available to us. There have been rumored reports that the deceased victim was actually the one breaking traffic laws, and that despite the fact that Stallworth was driving under the influence, he was not at from a moving violation standpoint. This could explain the seemingly small penatly
This is why I stated below I felt it was best to avoid discussing the legal consequences because we were not involved nor do we have any access to the full information
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pedestrians don’t always have the right away.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct. Again, I don’t want to speculate because I don’t have any of the facts, but there is a lot out there that we might not know about
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On ESPN, their legal expert (Roger Cassick?) mentioned that the prosecution might have trouble prosecuting this case if it went to court. Not only was the victim not in a crosswalk but he he was running to catch a bus and may have run in the street in front of Stallworth’s car. There is no excuse for him to be driving after drinking, but as you said we don’t know the details of the accident.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 16, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
After having heard the many more details of the case as disclosed by ESPN, I’d gladly retract my previous statement, if they are true.
My mistake was making a rush to judgement based on the way some other news sources are only saying the headline.
by Simmsinns on Jun 16, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t want to seem insensitive, but I am not here to debate the merits of the legal system or whether or not this punishment is just. I think our best efforts will be put toward discussing whether or not Stallworth should be a part of this team going forward
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 3:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think we need him. Maybe we should let this play out a little more, though.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree, but I wanted him cut before this incident even happened
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
After the draft? We definitely needed him before acquiring Furrey, Patten, and the rookies.
Our WR depth chart as of this moment could be:
Braylon
Furrey
Robo
MoMass
Patten
A healthy, focused Stallworth could be anywhere from #2 to #5, depending on Furrey, MoMass, and Robo. Would we get a focused Stallworth? I think so. A healthy Stallworth? He has played 16 games 3 seasons out of 6.
And that doesn’t even take into consideration anything Goodell may/may not do.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had posted before the offseason began that I wanted to cut Stallworth because I didn’t feel that his production merited the roster bonus we were going to pay him or his hefty salary. I felt those resources could be better allocated elsewhere. I wasn’t opposed to renegotiating his contract to keep him on the team, but for me it was more about what he was getting paid instead of our other options at the position
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t disagree that he is getting paid way too much to play like he did last year, but where else do/did you want to spend the money? Haynesworth? TO? Plax? DeAngelo Hall?
TJ might have been worth it. Bart Scott and Jason Brown, maybe as well, but Brown got paid too much.
Why cut him if we weren’t in cap trouble, weren’t going to spend the money elsewhere, didn’t have other options, and could always cut him later?
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not all stallworth's fault
it was a bad year for everyone. so based on performance last season, should we take back most of DA’s money from the big deal we gave him? or take money from edwards because it was the first time we ever saw him play that poorly?
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the flexibility to add multiple cheaper options, not spend it all on one player. Browns teams under Savage suffered in depth because he often spent on a couple big name players. Most of Savage team’s were at or near the salary cap. One reason we could not add Ty Law last year instead of trading for Travis Daniels was that we were at the cap limit. This year, we are far under the cap because Mangini and Kokinis purged the team of a lot of the bad contracts. Instead of using up all of the space, they created flexibility to add multiple players. We signed far more free agents this year than any other. This is the approach I want to take, and it starts with removing yourself of bad contracts. An occasional bad contract is okay, particularly if the player has a chance to redeem himself
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
does stallworth have the opportunity to redeem himself, in your opinion?
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, given his legal trouble it makes it increasingly unlikely. Stallworth had loads of potential early in his career, but has never really seemed to capitalize on it outside of a productive first half of the season with Philadelphia and I think one good year with New Orleans. Unfortunately his career path has not been on the way up, and he has a littered injury history. For these reasons, I consider it a bigger risk to try and see if he lives up to his large contract
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
after the league dishes out its punishment, what do you think mangini will do? he’s kind of had a ‘no excuses’, ‘take no prisoners’ attitude towards what he wants on his team hasn’t he?
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure to be honest. I think it depends on what the punishment is. The intent originally was to give Stallworth another year to prove himself as evidenced by the team’s decision to pay his roster bonus. If he isn’t suspended for very long, I could see Mangini taking him back
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ty Law is old. Not that Travis Daniels was good, but Ty Law would not have been worth it. There could be situations in the future where a solid player is available in such a situation, though.
I really don’t think we were pressed hard against the cap. USA Today salary figures are the closest thing I can find to cap numbers in a quick search, and they don’t say a whole lot about salary cap ramifications.
I agree that taking on cap-unfriendly contracts is not a good thing to do—that is more than clear. And, I’ll admit I care a whole lot less about the salary cap than the depth chart. But I don’t think its as bad as you are making it sound. Maybe it is and I am just out of touch with reality. Either way, Kokiman seem to be doing a good job with that sort of thing.
I don’t want to sign a bunch of crappy players. As long as we can get solid players in FA, I have no problem with a “more and cheaper” approach there. If we don’t get impact players in the draft, we are screwed anyway.
You also make a good point below about having the flexibility to extend players. That sort of cap room would be nice.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am going mostly off of memory. I remember Savage saying something to the effect of being near the limit and not being able to pursue certain alternatives due to cap restraints when Daven Holly went down. I do find the NFL salary cap very complicated, I actually still can’t figure out how the cap hits work when trading or cutting a player, and I have made the attempt to understand. The problem is that the full details of NFL contracts are not made public, which makes it difficult to fully understand the effects of certain contracts. That said, there are still certain clues out there, like when the Browns released Shaffer, I felt it was obvious that Mangini viewed that as a bad contract, that despite taking a cap hit, this player was not productive enough to warrant the amount of money he was being paid
by Roger Dorn on Jun 17, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that was a self-imposed limit so that they did not get in to a situation where they couldn’t go after future FAs or extending players.
I don’t know everything about how cap hits work, but I do know that basically when players get a signing bonus, the cap hit is split up over the years of the contract.
Lets say Donte had a 7mil. signing bonus. That means instead of taking a whopping 7mil cap hit (plus whatever salary he earned in his first year) that 7 million cap hit is spread out as 1mil for each of the 7 years of the contract.
If we cut him in year 2 of that hypothetical contract, we’d still have 6mil of that bonus to account for. I believe the remaining 6mil cap hit is accelerated into the year we cut him.
I thought the Browns released Shaffer because he had a terrible year last year. He also was not playing up to his contract, though, and those two things kinda go hand in hand.
by rufio on Jun 17, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other interesting stuff I just found:
-Signing bonuses count toward payroll numbers, but only the prorated amount of a signing bonus counts toward the cap. This is how Washington had a payroll of 92.41 million in 2000 when the cap was 67 million.
-Only the top 51 player salaries for a team count against the salary cap in the offseason. During the season, all player salaries count toward the salary cap.
-Back loading contracts longer is a great way to make players cut-able down the road. Their signing bonuses are mostly accounted for, and if 10 million of a 6 year, 20 million contract is in the 6th year, the cap figure for that player is probably very low for the first 3-4 years.
-Veteran contracts can not be “back loaded” into an uncapped year. So as of now, a player’s base salary cannot increase by more than 30% from 09 to 10.
-Because the CBA hasn’t been extended, no signing bonus proration can go beyond 2012. All signing bonuses (maybe just for veterans?) need to be fully accounted for by 2012.
-If a player reworks his deal and gets a new signing bonus before all of his original signing bonus has been accounted for, AND gets a new signing bonus, he can have two prorated bonuses counting against the cap at the same time. So if Stallworth got a 7 million signing bonus (7 year contract) and we rework his deal and sign him for 6 years with another 6 mil signing bonus, his bonuses will count for 2mil against the cap for the next 6 years.
-Guaranteed money ≠ signing bonus.
-Despite his fairly ridiculous contract, Jamal Lewis will only count for 4 million against our cap/against the lack of a cap in 2010.
-Players are cut on/after June 1 because after that date, the remainder of their signing bonuses are a little more spread out. So, because it is after June 1, if we cut Stallworth and his hypothetical 7mil signing bonus now, it would be better than if we did it prior to June 1. If we cut him now, 1 mil of that signing bonus would have been accounted for in 2008, we get to account for the normal prorated amount in 2009 (1million) and then in 2010 we take the big cap hit of the remainder of the bonus, which is 5 million. If we cut him before June 1, it’s 1 mil for 2008, then 6 mil (the remainder) this year.
Don’t know if you knew that stuff, but I sure didn’t. This is the most detailed information I can find on our contracts.
by rufio on Jun 17, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting. I will need to re-read to make sure I get some of this down
by Roger Dorn on Jun 17, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sure these are only half the rules, too. I couldn’t even find anything about the clause Savage used where Likely-To-Be-Earned bonuses were different than Not-Likely-To-Be-Earned ones.
That’s why USA Today thinks Pontbriand’s cap figue is 8+million and it is actually 1.something million, adding the difference of 6.something million to our salary cap.
Now I know why you hire someone whose sole responsibility is to manage your cap.
by rufio on Jun 17, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do know that the likely to be earned are counted as cap credits which is awesome if you can use it effectively like we did with Pontbriand
by Roger Dorn on Jun 17, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really know if the Browns need him or not. But I think your suggestion is good…let’s see what happens now.
by drjeo on Jun 16, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think he’s a valuable asset. lets face it, cribbs probably won’t see a lot of time at WR, and who knows how robiskie and massaquoi will pan out.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That still leaves Patten and Furrey and Hubbard
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Jun 16, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no offense but
hubbard who?
and weren’t patten and furrey to be more of a #3 receiver like jurevicius? this wouldn’t be a problem if mangini never cut him anyway…
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mangini actually offered to renegotiate his contract, which Joey did not want to do. Given this stage in his career and coming off a majory surgery and staph infection, I understand why he would want to do that
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn’t be a problem is Joe didn’t get a staph infection. As much as I wanted him to come back strong, it would have been considered a big surprise if he had done so.
Paul Hubbard is a beast. There is no questioning his athletic ability. His hands, intelligence, and route running are very questionable, but we haven’t seen him for close to a calendar year, and it should be his full time job to work on those things.
Its also pretty unlikely that both Robo and Massaquoi will be worse than Stallworth was last year.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don’t need him. We have several prospects for a number 2 and good depth to build on.
by tjk_doc on Jun 16, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so we would rather have prospects occupying starting jobs with average contracts rather than a proven guy who will be around for awhile and we know what to expect.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion, Furrey will probably take the number 2 spot, who has been around a few years. I know that there will be competition, but I think it will be more for the #3.
Also, my opinion might be a little biased, as I have never really liked Stallworth from the beginning.
by tjk_doc on Jun 16, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m not quite sure what you think stallworth has proven. in 11 unforgettable games last year, he caught 17 balls for 170 yards and 1 td. he’s never played more than 13 games in a season (which he’s done one time), and has never reached or exceeded 1,000 yards in a season.
add to that these kinds of off-field distractions, and i’m not sure why the team would hang onto him.
but, perhaps mangini and kotnkus (sp) will be convinced by his contrition and give him a second chance.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he was referring to his past seasons with the pats, eagles,or saints? But then again he wasn’t spectacular there either like you said. Good point though.
by tjk_doc on Jun 16, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretending that this incident never happened, I think there is a case to keep Stallworth, but for me not at his current salary. I tend to hold the opinion that drastically overpaying unproductive players is a detriment to the team’s future
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like we have enough WRs to effectively cut him. Some may not be proven but we have experienced veterans behind them anyways.
by SpecialBrownie on Jun 16, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am ok with this.
I also think it might be fair to ask him to take a pay cut, if his contract is really cap-unfriendly.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
7 years $35 mil. plus a signing bonus in there somewhere. $5 mil/year sounds reasonable
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he plays like the 13- to 16-game, 700-900 yard Stallworth and not the 11-game, 170 yard Stallworth, maybe.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you never know
those extra 2-5 games could’ve been huge…oh who am i kidding?
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
$5 million a year for 170 yards and 1/2 TDs is horrific. He needs to be up near the 1000 yard mark and at least 5 Tds for that salary to be worth it
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
your call
stallworth in 2008 – 17 catches, 170 yards, 1 touchdown, 15.5 YPG, 11 games
furrey in 2008 – 18 catches, 181 yards, 0 touchdowns, 20.1 YPG, 9 games
patten in 2008 – 11 catches, 162 yards, 1 touchdown, 32.4 YPG, 5 games
last year was forgettable for all three of them. and for the record, stallworth has played in 13+ games 4 times. (02, 04-05, 07.) he only has 332 fewer career yards than patten, and more than twice as many as furrey.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are leaving out one important detail….contracts.
You make a good point that each of those players had similar stats. Now tell me who we are getting the most production out of for each dollar spent
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats debatable because you can bring into account all kinds of factors, like age, our choice at QB, or something like we don’t know like how we will perform on 3rd downs this year. plus lets play pretend, say he never got hurt, and this incident never happened. he could’ve had a stellar year and we can sit here and say he’s worth every penny.
rufio just made a great point that if he’s healthy and focused, he can be versatile enough to sit anywhere on the depth chart and perform to the best of his ability
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as there is a salary cap, then contracts are a hugely important factor when constructing a roster. Overpaying for players that are not producing for whatever reason will restrict our ability to build a full team and negotiate with better free agents in the future. Stallworth certainly could have had the chance to live up to his salary in the future, but the team needs to make an evaluation that he will do so. He did not come close to playing to his salary last season
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but we aren’t up against the cap right now. His salary might come in to play in later years, but not this year. If we are cutting him now, we could always cut him later if we need space, too.
Its hard to judge because we don’t know the details of the contract, though.
If we looked like we were going to try to sign big name FAs out there right now (Greg Ellis, Travis LaBoy), maybe. But I don’t think this is the time to do it based purely on the cap.
In fact, the dwindling economy might have more of an impact on financial decisions right now than the cap does. How bad is Lerner hurting?
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We were at the cap limit last year. Thanks to Mangini and Kokinis, we now have plenty of cap flexibility. This is why we were able to add more depth than in years past.
My understanding is that Lerner is not restricted when it comes to spending except for the salary cap.
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he did fire, like, 20 people.
i realize he’s probably divested a lot of it, and diversified plenty, but a lot of his dough had to be tied up in Bank of America stock, still. as well, i’m sure they took a nice piece of change from the now-defunct BAC dividend.
not saying they’re hurting, exactly, but i’d imagine it’s not such a lock that he’ll spend every available dime…at least in the short term.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the firings had more to do with the leaks of information that ran rampant in the organization than the need to cut back on money. It’s possible the entire organization was becoming complacent in their work, and this was an opportunity to make necessary cuts
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you may be right…but they haven’t built back up a similar staff in pr/communications. perhaps it was a bloated one to start with, but it seems as though there was some economic motivation.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My friend who studies sports management told me the Browns made 80 million in profits last year. Don’t know how they split the fiscal year up, though.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that sounds insanely high. not saying he’s making it up, but that just seems hard to believe. would be interested if there’s any backup to that.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 17, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL is a cash cow business, dominates the other leagues. The teams all split the profits from league ventures like the NFL network
by Roger Dorn on Jun 17, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course i’m aware of the economic dominance of the NFL. not only do they split the NFLN, but they equally split their billion-dollar CBS/FOX/NBC/ESPN deals.
$80mm annually is just bananas, though. for a 16-game schedule. and with a $120mm player payroll. but i’ll do some looking.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 17, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
on the one hand, it would be important to know what he means by “profits”, but i see no definition under which $80mm makes sense.
this article (from fall ‘08), though, would indicate that it’s very unlikely that the browns made even $50mm last year, making $80mm WAY unlikely, especially for a team that didn’t make the playoffs.
what’s more, i’ll just say i have it on very good authority that the browns made NOWHERE near $80mm last year, the year before, or the last 2 years combined. not even in the vicinity.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 17, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I found this saying we got 37.2 in profit in 2001, this saying we were up to 40.2 in 2002, and then nothing after that. Whatever, maybe I had 4 beers instead of 2 when I was talking to my buddy and maybe he was exaggerating a bit and maybe I am not even correctly remembering what he said.
Regardless, it doesn’t exactly sound like the Browns were hurting so much they needed to fire a bunch of low level staff. I mean, they could have just kept Romeo on or hired a cheaper coach than Mangini if they needed to save a quick million or two.
Oh no! We are only going to make 40.15 million instead of 40.2 million unless we fire some scouts!
by rufio on Jun 18, 2009 5:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the question is was he referring to gross profit? net profit? profit before taxes? there are a number of different profit lines on an income statement and 80 million could true for one of them
by Roger Dorn on Jun 18, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i’m not sure the need was there to cut pr staff or the team was going bankrupt, but i think it’s indicative of the fact that the staff got a little bloated, and it was time to tighten the belt, financially.
the point here, though, was just that the browns didn’t make $80mm, or anywhere close. not calling you (or your friend) a jerk for saying so, i was just shocked at that number, and set out to attempt to validate. the info i heard was that 2008 profit (i’m talking net profit, after taxes, debt, etc) wasn’t close to $80mm, nor was it close to $40mm.
and to roger, i see no line on the income statement at which $80mm make sense except maybe gross profit, which is all but meaningless, quite frankly.
anyway, onward and upward…
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 18, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Analyzing gross profit for an NFL team is pretty meaningless
by Roger Dorn on Jun 18, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was pretty sure we were healthily under the cap. Where did you learn that we were at it?
I’d like to see more of the salary cap information available to the public.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll repeat here, I was watching a Phil Savage “press conference” last year shortly after the Daven Holly injury. The actual figures are impossible to come across
by Roger Dorn on Jun 17, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s really not debatable which players provide more bang for the buck. the answer is clearly and unequivocally that stallworth is the worst value, by a long shot.
now, your point may be that he is also more likely to recover and contribute at a greater rate than the others…but he’s still got a long way to go to be as valuable, dollar-for-dollar, as furrey or patten.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, and so long as there is a salary cap in place, it is extremely important to maximize the production we receive for each dollar spent. The more we can get good production from our cheaper players, the more we have to extend our best talent, and also be active for the really strong players in the free agency market. Less cap flexibility increases the likelihood that our top talent will walk in free agency, but also limit ourselves in adding depth
by Roger Dorn on Jun 16, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Furrey was held out of 8 games last year because the coaches didn’t like him. He got a concussion but then wanted to come back and they didn’t let him.
He also had no shot at producing in Detroit. Calvin Johnson is one of very few WR who has the talent to produce with that line/lack of running game/lack of QB.
Furrey isn’t a world-beater, but Stallworth isn’t either.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
Furrey’s play in 2006 or 2007 would replace K2’s in either year.
1086 yards at 11.1 ypc? Yes please.
664 at 10.9 would help our offense too.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lack of QB
orlovsky unknowingly running out of the back of the endzone. enough said.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jun 16, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, Stallworth played all 16 games in 2004, 2005, and 2007.
by rufio on Jun 16, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i totally whiffed…i saw GS and gloss over G. my numbers were starts…and the catches/yards remain unchanged.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jun 16, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN has put up an interesting article and video covering the Stallworth situation. Their legal guy thinks that Stallworth didn’t get any special treatment.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jun 16, 2009 5:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I saw that live. I certainly changed my perspective.
by Simmsinns on Jun 16, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is just a horrible mess. Why guys drink and drive is beyond me. Retired from the military and the consequences for DWI or DUI is career threatning. I have seen young airman suffer tremendously.
Just take a freaking cab. These athletes have a ton of coin, goodness. Just a shame.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Jun 16, 2009 7:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It is a shame. Being a veteran myself as well, I have seen several careers end because of things like this. I even lost a friend who came back home from a tour in Iraq just to be killed by a drunk driver while she was going home to see her family. I don’t mean to jump on my soap box, but I just can’t forgive things like this.
by tjk_doc on Jun 17, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have all the facts, but I have to wonder if it’s something that the victim hasn’t tried before. I’m not blaming the victim (so please don’t think that) but if he was truly taking care of his entire family, did they have insurance? Could they have afforded to take care of him if he had lived? Could they have afforded his medical bills? Those are things I ask when I read that they settled for an unannouced sum.
He lived in Miami, walking illegally in an area where there are many clubs and bars. I think its carelessness on both parts, and that his family benefitted more if Stallworth could go back to work than in jail. I also see that Stallworth still has league punishment due him. He could lose his current job and in a matter of hours be just as middle class as you or I.
by Tamara on Jun 17, 2009 11:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
in a matter of hours be just as middle class as you or I.
if we had made several million dollars in the last few years, sure.
by drjeo on Jun 17, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Browns News/Information
Pro Football Critics
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Blogs
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities
The Watercooler
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Waiting for Next Year
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
