An attorney's perspective: What will likely happen to Hardy from a legal standpoint :(

[t96]

You know, you get what you pay for. I guess that G-man said "fug it" and figured that he may as well run with it for at least another year. I mean it can be justified if you get the commensurate production (not that I agree with it). Some here have said that G-man never intended to re-sign Hardy. Well I've thought about it, and it seems like I distinctly remember something about Hardy turning his nose up to 8 mil per year (although I don't know if that was official). In any event, if Hardy was tagged to essentially be rented for a year, that was an ill-advised, head-scratching move. Even still, I would have liked to have seen us work out some type of sign and trade deal with the Raiders to acquire Jared Veldheer (along with the possibility of Denarius Moore). If that didn't work, I would have let Hardy walk and tried to sign Veldheer anyway. I believe the team would have been way more balanced, as the offense would have been much more efficient.

 

I have an extremely difficult time believing that DG had no intentions of signing Hardy long term. The way he loves pass rushers, and how hard they are to find, I just can't believe it. If we couldn't afford him then that's different, but I think it's the DV thing (and mainly the media and league's responses) that changed it. The tag was just a way of keeping him while negotiations were still in progress, and to see more from him. Don't think there's a chance in hell he intended to just have a one year rental while in the process of a rebuild (particularly on the o-line, responsible for keeping our franchise QB healthy).

[top dawg]

I have an extremely difficult time believing that DG had no intentions of signing Hardy long term. The way he loves pass rushers, and how hard they are to find, I just can't believe it. If we couldn't afford him then that's different, but I think it's the DV thing (and mainly the media and league's responses) that changed it. The tag was just a way of keeping him while negotiations were still in progress, and to see more from him. Don't think there's a chance in hell he intended to just have a one year rental while in the process of a rebuild (particularly on the o-line, responsible for keeping our franchise QB healthy).

I agree. I believe that people started that revisionist thinking to make themselves feel better about tagging Hardy, in essence leaving us "broke" for another year. I mean, renting him made absolutely no sense. Some have suggested that we may have done it for the compensatory pick, but that's just as unbelievable. I just don't believe---no, I know that G-man is not that stup---err, thoughtless.

[teeray]

I am through debating this. The league may suspend him, but this will end up in a court.

If he is suspended it is BS on a bunch of different levels, and I would say that about any player not just Greg Hardy.

But most of this is speculative because commissioners example list voids mist precedents.

We will see once the smoke clears

[GRWatcher]

I said from the very 1st Hardy thread that there was a good chance that he would be suspended no matter the trial outcome, even if found innocent. Because Goodell is god in the NFL and worded the CBA that way and Jerry Richardson cried (effectively throwing Hardy under the moving bus). And that the NFLPA would probably take it to court. Now Peter King has an attorney saying the same thing and, well,

 

I do not, however, think he should be suspended as Rice & Peterson were because they plead guilty, no contest; Hardy did not, nor was he found guilty.

 

So you don't listen to the lady in the crowd, I don't care.   Just pay me.