Raiderstation

Dr Death wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 6:23 pm Who cares? It's not like he ever did a damn thing for the Raiders. He played 5 fücking games. It aint like we're going to miss him. Move on.

Not to play devils advocate, but the atrocious defense last year suggests they could have really benefited from a player like him on the line. I believe the team absolutely missed his production after getting injured, and the team defensive stats back that up.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 7:50 pm I know, but why not wait to cut him until the appeal is decided in your favor? If you lose the appeal and youre forced to take another 35 million cap hit, wouldnt it be better to see if his rehab worked out so you at least get some return for the 35 million?

There would be no appeal if they had not released him. When they released them, they also said (paraphrasing), "By the way, we're not going to pay you the rest of the money because you were not serious about following your rehab protocols and schedule."

Here's an excerpt from The Athletic article posted a few pages back:

What kind of grievance was filed?

This might seem like a minor detail, but it’s an important one. There are two types of grievances a player can file. There is an injury grievance and a noninjury grievance. Wilkins has filed a noninjury grievance against the Raiders.

The root of the issue is the Jones fracture Wilkins suffered last year, his first season with the Raiders after leaving the Miami Dolphins and signing a four-year, $110 million contract, with $84.75 million guaranteed. As reported by The Athletic, the Raiders informed Wilkins before OTAs that he needed a second surgery on his foot after his recovery from the Jones fracture — which typically takes three to four months — surpassed the standard timeline. Wilkins did not get a second procedure and opted to continue his rehab.

The Raiders catapulted the response from Wilkins into their decision to release him, but that is not what the grievance is about. The grievance is regarding the Raiders’ decision to void the remaining $35.2 million of guaranteed money left on his contract.

I don't see anything wrong with football players kissing.

Sold My Soul wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:02 pm

Are those AI Gamini's boys?

Atlasffa wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 8:18 pm There would be no appeal if they had not released him. When they released them, they also said (paraphrasing), "By the way, we're not going to pay you the rest of the money because you were not serious about following your rehab protocols and schedule."

Here's an excerpt from The Athletic article posted a few pages back:

What kind of grievance was filed?

This might seem like a minor detail, but it’s an important one. There are two types of grievances a player can file. There is an injury grievance and a noninjury grievance. Wilkins has filed a noninjury grievance against the Raiders.

The root of the issue is the Jones fracture Wilkins suffered last year, his first season with the Raiders after leaving the Miami Dolphins and signing a four-year, $110 million contract, with $84.75 million guaranteed. As reported by The Athletic, the Raiders informed Wilkins before OTAs that he needed a second surgery on his foot after his recovery from the Jones fracture — which typically takes three to four months — surpassed the standard timeline. Wilkins did not get a second procedure and opted to continue his rehab.

The Raiders catapulted the response from Wilkins into their decision to release him, but that is not what the grievance is about. The grievance is regarding the Raiders’ decision to void the remaining $35.2 million of guaranteed money left on his contract.

Maybe Im misunderstanding the process. Does voiding guaranteed money for cause, eg failing to appropriately rehab an injury, also mandate that the player be released? Or is the contract still in effect, but now that guaranteed money becomes non-guaranteed? IOW, could the Raiders have voided the guarantees in question and kept the player?

I know I made a post in this thread today, but its not here now. So now there's censorship police out on the new site in force. What a drag the world can be these days. Hope no one gets offended by the use of the word drag

One day, maybe in the next century, maybe the next millennium, I hope the people of this world have finally chilled the f[raiders_icon]ck out.

btw, imo posting a picture of two men kissing is disgusting and should be reason for suspension.

No but for some crazy ass reason that's ok, acceptable these days.

ELCAraiderfan wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:25 pm I know I made a post in this thread today, but its not here now. So now there's censorship police out on the new site in force. What a drag the world can be these days. Hope no one gets offended by the use of the word drag

One day, maybe in the next century, maybe the next millennium, I hope the people of this world have finally chilled the fück out.

btw, imo posting a picture of two men kissing is disgusting and should be reason for suspension.

No but for some crazy ass reason that's ok, acceptable these days.

Relax man, it's just a dream.

Trainnvain wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:36 pm Relax man, it's just a dream.

There’s a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation, which means there’s a 50% chance nothing matters anyway.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:13 pm Maybe Im misunderstanding the process. Does voiding guaranteed money for cause, eg failing to appropriately rehab an injury, also mandate that the player be released? Or is the contract still in effect, but now that guaranteed money becomes non-guaranteed? IOW, could the Raiders have voided the guarantees in question and kept the player?

If both parties agree, a contract can be restructured. In this instance, the team wanted the player gone regardless of price so there was nothing to negotiate. (There are articles in above posts that explain the contract stuff in detail.)

Unless management was living under a rock (possible) when the original contract was negotiated, they must have known there was something a little off about this guy. There was plenty of tape floating on the web showing him with weird behavior going back to college days. In retrospect, seems people looked the other way because he was playing decent; however, for whatever reason, Miami wasn't willing to fork over the big bucks. Raiders signed him to a huge guaranteed amount of $ and then he gets injured. And then management changes. So at that point he's not playing football, not cooperating with management on his rehab protocol, and "playing around" in the locker room. New regime saw enough and released him. He was paid all but the last $35.2M and they said they weren't going to pay it because he (Wilkins) negated the contract by not following the rehab protocol. Reporting, up to this point, indicates that the "weird" behavior was not part of the denial of pay but I'm guessing it helped shorten the amount of time on management's patience meter.

He wore out his welcome with coaches, teammates, and management. The lawyers will make a ton of money arguing about the merits of his grievance. We may know in a couple of years if Raiders are on the hook for $35.2M or not. What we know for sure right now? He was paid an obscene amount of money for 5 (five) games and he is gone.

https://www.raidersbeat.com/report-says ... a-setback/

This shit is weird. I wonder if we will ever know what creepy shit he was really doing.

....all weird stuff aside, if there was still no time line for the guy to get back on the field, and the feeling may have been that his not having the 2nd surgery doctors seemed to have all said he needed, the probability was much higher that were he to even make the field, it wouldn't be for long. and that's a lot of money and uncertainty for a guy who, as it turns out, wasn't doing what he needed to do on his end to get back out there.

...it's too bad, because we could have used him, but that is easier for me to say as it wasn't mine being grabbed.

LayneStaley wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:41 pm There’s a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation, which means there’s a 50% chance nothing matters anyway.

If simulation is our reality then simulation = reality. They are one in the same I'd argue.

Atlasffa wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:00 pm If both parties agree, a contract can be restructured. In this instance, the team wanted the player gone regardless of price so there was nothing to negotiate. (There are articles in above posts that explain the contract stuff in detail.)

Unless management was living under a rock (possible) when the original contract was negotiated, they must have known there was something a little off about this guy. There was plenty of tape floating on the web showing him with weird behavior going back to college days. In retrospect, seems people looked the other way because he was playing decent; however, for whatever reason, Miami wasn't willing to fork over the big bucks. Raiders signed him to a huge guaranteed amount of $ and then he gets injured. And then management changes. So at that point he's not playing football, not cooperating with management on his rehab protocol, and "playing around" in the locker room. New regime saw enough and released him. He was paid all but the last $35.2M and they said they weren't going to pay it because he (Wilkins) negated the contract by not following the rehab protocol. Reporting, up to this point, indicates that the "weird" behavior was not part of the denial of pay but I'm guessing it helped shorten the amount of time on management's patience meter.

He wore out his welcome with coaches, teammates, and management. The lawyers will make a ton of money arguing about the merits of his grievance. We may know in a couple of years if Raiders are on the hook for $35.2M or not. What we know for sure right now? He was paid an obscene amount of money for 5 (five) games and he is gone.

So, there was no agreed upon restructure. The Raiders unilaterally voided the guaranteed 35 million for cause on Jun 4. So, for all intents and purposes he was cut on Jun 4. Why was the cut not announced for another 50 days? Are they required to hold up the announcement while the 50 day non-injury grievance clock runs? If thats the case, then the



weird weird incident is a red herring that had no bearing on the Raider's decision, unless it happened prior to Jun 4. The 50 day gap makes it seem as though there were two separate things happening -- voiding the guarantee for the injury rehab sitch and then cutting him for the weird incident.

heavyD wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 6:21 am WTF? I have a hard time believing he was released because he was tickling toes or grabbing nutsacks. The Raiders clearly feel that with him not having the surgery that they saw no timetable for him to return and the new regime simply acted quickly rather than have the dark cloud of his status hang over training camp. Remember the new regime inherited him and clearly didn’t think he was a good fit for what they are trying to build.

I don't. Read a player took his conduct human resources. Improperly touching another gets you fired especially if the victim feels it was sexual in nature.

LayneStaley wrote: Mon Jul 28, 2025 9:41 pm There’s a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation, which means there’s a 50% chance nothing matters anyway.

Take the red pill.