50 replies to this topic

[RedOctober3829]

The New England Patriots are expected to release defensive end Jonathan Fanene on Tuesday, according to a source.
Fanene was one of the Patriots' most expensive offseason additions in free agency, with the team signing him to a three-year, $9.85 million contract. He received a $3.85 million signing bonus.
The former Cincinnati Bengals defensive end has had some problems with an injured knee. According to a source, he might need arthroscopic surgery later in the week.

John Clayton

http://espn.go.com/b...jonathan-fanene

I had high hopes for him, but with the depth of the position being what it is it wasn't worth spending the coin on him if he's injured.

[Old Fart Tree]

Too bad - I had really high hopes for him. I thought that was going to be a great under the radar signing. It wasn't a good sign when he couldn't get on the field against Philly.

Edited by Old Fart Tree, 21 August 2012 - 02:59 PM.

[jsinger121]

That's a big disappointment there.

[jsinger121]

Official Now

New England Patriots ‏@Patriots
#Patriots have released DL Jonathan Fanene, OL Kyle Hill & K Chris Koepplin.

[jsinger121]

shalise manza young ‏@shalisemyoung
Fanene had not practiced at all in August...league source said he has been struggling with an inflammatory issue, possibly arthritis

[Mystic Merlin]

Sounds like his knee is shot. Too bad - dude can rush the passer. Alas.

[MainerInExile]

Sounds like his knee is shot. Too bad - dude can rush the passer. Alas.

Still, the d-line depth has looked good. I don't think this will hurt too badly (except in Mr. Kraft's pocketbook).

[dcdrew10]

Brace's durability gives me pause. It seems like he can never take the next step because he gets hurt, fails his conditioning test or gets surpassed by an UDFA. Hopefully yesterday's game is not another tease.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

"Another tease?"

Isn't this preseason his first tease since the day he was drafted?

[Shelterdog]

"Another tease?"

Isn't this preseason his first tease since the day he was drafted?

He had a great preseason game in 2010 against St. Louis. 7 tackles, a sack, looked dominant. Started the first couple of games of the season before being benched for, like, ever.

Other than that he's been shitty for three years.

Edited by Shelterdog, 21 August 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Lack_of_Imagination]

Too bad - I had really high hopes for him. I thought that was going to be a great under the radar signing. It wasn't a good sign when he couldn't get on the field against Philly.

This.

That's a big disappointment there.

and That. Next to Lloyd of the FA signings I had the most excitement for Fanene by far

[RedOctober3829]

The Fanene release would lead me to believe that Justin Francis could be on the final 53-man. They love him.

[TheoShmeo]

It's nice to see that BB understands the concept of a sunk cost and didn't let the rather large signing bonus get in the way of his decision making. Not that we should expect anything less from Bill.

[epraz]

It's nice to see that BB understands the concept of a sunk cost and didn't let the rather large signing bonus get in the way of his decision making. Not that we should expect anything less from Bill.

Agreed. And it's unfortunate that they wasted 3% of the salary cap for a guy that never played a down. I guess they have the space this year.

[tims4wins]

One question that came up Tuesday when the Patriots released defensive lineman Jonathan Fanene was what would happen to the $3.85 million signing bonus the team paid him this offseason.

A few details have emerged that paint a clearer picture as to where this could be headed.

Fanene, as had been reported by ESPN senior NFL writer John Clayton, was having problems with an injured knee (he missed the team's last 13 practices). The possibility of arthroscopic surgery later this week was raised by Clayton.

Meanwhile, Ross Tucker of Sirius XM NFL Radio tweeted this morning, "According to NFL source, Pats cut Fanene under 'Failure to Disclose Physical Condition.' Likely going after that $3.85M SB he got."

Here is one additional note: Of that $3.85 million signing bonus, $1.35 million was deferred until March 31, 2013. One would think the Patriots will attempt to at least keep that portion of the signing bonus.

Reiss

[dcmissle]

Reiss

Lipstick on the pig.

Good luck with this really. You have the ability (i) to submit a player to a thorough physical before you sign him, (b) to work him out. And you're claiming "failure to disclose" because the knee didn't hold up? Reminds me of Scott Sauersuck and the Red Sox.

[Shelterdog]

Lipstick on the pig.

Good luck with this really. You have the ability (i) to submit a player to a thorough physical before you sign him, (b) to work him out. And you're claiming "failure to disclose" because the knee didn't hold up? Reminds me of Scott Sauersuck and the Red Sox.

Kind of hard to judge a case without knowing the facts, right? What if he failed to disclose a diagnosis/condition/surgery/ when directly asked about it. You could easily imagine, for example, an agent knowing the knee was going to be an issue, going opinion shopping and having eight doctors look at the knee, and then showing the Pats only the good opinion while hiding that the other exams had ever taken place.

[dcmissle]

Kind of hard to judge a case without knowing the facts, right? What if he failed to disclose a diagnosis/condition/surgery/ when directly asked about it. You could easily imagine, for example, an agent knowing the knee was going to be an issue, going opinion shopping and having eight doctors look at the knee, and then showing the Pats only the good opinion while hiding that the other exams had ever taken place.

I can imagine one exculpating circumstance from the Pats' standpoint -- if he executed a release of medical records and then arranged for a doctor or hospital to withhold certain records.

That's basically it. If he did this, shame on him, and going after the signing bonus is totally justified. But it's doubtful. The records don't go from you to the team; they go from the medical professional to the team.

The due diligence burden is on the team. It happens all the time -- that's why certain guys slide down draft boards in April.

[PaulinMyrBch]

I can foresee a situation where a player in a free agent year fails to disclose the severity of a knee problem to everyone, his physician, team trainers and physicians, etc.

Where an offseason physical for a lineman might not discover something that is going to flare up as soon as he starts to stress that particular joint. But I'm a bit naive here, would they do extensive tests, x-rays, MRI's, etc. on joints that were not thought to be anything but healthy in an intake physical?

[bakahump]

In regards to the "wasting 3%" its exactly this kind of forward thinking cap management (lets ditch a sunk cost) and roster construction (we have scouted and or developed multiple kids making the league minimum or on rookie contracts who can provide the same or better potential production) that allows them to "waste" that 3%.

To bad but if the team has decided that he is of no use....then the call had to be made.

[j44thor]

I think the problem here is that he wasn't on PUP so he was deemed to be healthy enough at some point. Also if they do go after the Signing bonus this could cause ramifications when trying to sign future FAs, especially older vets that could be injury prone.

They better have a rock solid case against Fanene. Otherwise how do they prove that the injury happened before the signing and not after. Just look at all the players that came into camp and have hardly practiced.

[Shelterdog]

I can imagine one exculpating circumstance from the Pats' standpoint -- if he executed a release of medical records and then arranged for a doctor or hospital to withhold certain records.

That's basically it. If he did this, shame on him, and going after the signing bonus is totally justified. But it's doubtful. The records don't go from you to the team; they go from the medical professional to the team.

The due diligence burden is on the team. It happens all the time -- that's why certain guys slide down draft boards in April.

I think you missed the point of my scenario.

Fanene's knee hurts. He goes to see Dr. Andrews--or better yet, Kobe's guy in German. The doctor writes in his files "this guy's leg is going to fall off in six months." Fanene doesn't tell the Pats he saw the Doctor because, well, duh, so when the Pats go to get the medical records they don't know to ask the particular doctor.

It's not like once you have a medical release, you press a button and you get all of a guy's medical records from everywhere in the world.

It's a totally fact dependent question and none of us know the facts.

EDIT: Clarity, and also to note that agents give teams medical information all the time--Sam Bradford's agent famously (well, famously among NFL draft nerds) sent every team a letter from Dr. Andrews saying that Bradford's shoulder was fine

Edited by Shelterdog, 22 August 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[wutang112878]

Kind of hard to judge a case without knowing the facts, right? What if he failed to disclose a diagnosis/condition/surgery/ when directly asked about it. You could easily imagine, for example, an agent knowing the knee was going to be an issue, going opinion shopping and having eight doctors look at the knee, and then showing the Pats only the good opinion while hiding that the other exams had ever taken place.

Lets say the Pats asked about the knee and he said 'no its fine', in that case if they believed what a FA looking for money said then they are really the ones at fault IMO. Or if they believed medical reports that the agent got, again they didnt really do their due diligence.

Having said that, does anyone have any info regarding the 'Failure to disclose' aspects of the new CBA? I briefly searched through it and couldnt find anything about the players responsibilities in this area. It seems logical to me that to get the signing bonus back the Pats are going to have to prove that Fanene knew about this, and somehow violated whatever the agreement was in the CBA and didnt disclose it to the Pats during free agency, and I have a feeling that will be a difficult thing to prove.

[wutang112878]

I think you missed the point of my scenario.

Woops, wish I read this before my last post. But I guess this comes down to the language in the CBA about this 'disclosure' issue. In that case is Fanene obligated to tell the Pats 'hey, I went to one doctor who said my knee is going to be a problem, here is his phone number...' I really have no idea, and I dont think this goes to the "Forfeitable Breach" category of disputes.

[MainerInExile]

Aren't we talking about the dreaded a-word? Arthritis? How much can arthritis be detected during a standard pre-signing physical?

[Shelterdog]

Woops, wish I read this before my last post. But I guess this comes down to the language in the CBA about this 'disclosure' issue. In that case is Fanene obligated to tell the Pats 'hey, I went to one doctor who said my knee is going to be a problem, here is his phone number...' I really have no idea, and I dont think this goes to the "Forfeitable Breach" category of disputes.

Well the NFL Player Contract attached to the CBA says that the player agrees to make a "full and complete disclosure" of any physical conditions and the team can "terminate" a contract if a player fails to make a "full and complete disclosure and good faith response" to club physicians during the physical. It's not immediately clear what happens to signing bonuses if you "terminate" the contract.

[Otto]

One step in the medical exam process is the player completes a questionnaire that asks very specific questions about body parts, joints, previous and existing injuries, etc.

[Old Fart Tree]

I wonder how bad this makes the Pats look to prospective free agents... I honestly have no idea. Oh well, bummer all around.

[Dogman2]

One step in the medical exam process is the player completes a questionnaire that asks very specific questions about body parts, joints, previous and existing injuries, etc.

And this speaks to exactly what Shelter has been saying. It follows that Fanene lied about the extent of his injured knee for the contract.

[Shelterdog]

And this speaks to exactly what Shelter has been saying. It follows that Fanene lied about the extent of his injured knee for the contract.

At least that's what they'll say, and they're probably not going to say it unless they have something to work with.

[dcmissle]

I think you missed the point of my scenario.

Fanene's knee hurts. He goes to see Dr. Andrews--or better yet, Kobe's guy in German. The doctor writes in his files "this guy's leg is going to fall off in six months." Fanene doesn't tell the Pats he saw the Doctor because, well, duh, so when the Pats go to get the medical records they don't know to ask the particular doctor.

It's not like once you have a medical release, you press a button and you get all of a guy's medical records from everywhere in the world.

It's a totally fact dependent question and none of us know the facts.

EDIT: Clarity, and also to note that agents give teams medical information all the time--Sam Bradford's agent famously (well, famously among NFL draft nerds) sent every team a letter from Dr. Andrews saying that Bradford's shoulder was fine

I get the point. Telling a doctor to suppress information (my scenario) leads you to the same place failing to tell a team you have seen a doctor who bears bad news (your scenario). In both cases, the team is misled.

This, of course, does not prevent a team from doing its own evaluation -- thorough physical examination, MRIs, you name it. Nor does it prevent a team from putting a guy through a vigorous workout and then having him examined.

I think I'd probably do that considering that when you are paying someone a signing bonus -- in this case, almost $4 million -- you are paying him, literally, for signing his name on a line and nothing more. Better to catch something on the front end than chase the money on the back end.

[Cellar-Door]

At least that's what they'll say, and they're probably not going to say it unless they have something to work with.

My guess (and this is a guess) is that he both in the questionaire and the physical didn't mention any problems with his knees at all, then shows up to camp unable to practice because of his knee. They then did imaging tests that showed clear degenerative damage, advanced enough that he would have been having issues when he signed. They don't do MRIs of every joint during the pre-signing physical, it would take a ton of time and money, they just look at problem areas where he has had past injuries.

[DrewDawg]

Colts apparently trying the same thing with Larry Lumpkin, who was cut today.

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt
"Failure to disclose physical condition" a rarely-used NFL designation but used twice ystday, for Fanene (Pats) and Lumpkin (Colts).

[Shelterdog]

This, of course, does not prevent a team from doing its own evaluation -- thorough physical examination, MRIs, you name it. Nor does it prevent a team from putting a guy through a vigorous workout and then having him examined.

Right. And do you have an basis whatsoever to think that the Pats didn't give him a physical examination?

It looks pretty obvious in retrospect that they should have looked at his knee more carefully, but as cellar door points out, you can't realistically test everyone for everything.

[dcmissle]

Colts apparently trying the same thing with Larry Lumpkin, who was cut today.

Andrew Brandt ‏@adbrandt
"Failure to disclose physical condition" a rarely-used NFL designation but used twice ystday, for Fanene (Pats) and Lumpkin (Colts).

"Rarely-used" does not mean too much if, as this article states, the designation was instituted this year. http://espn.go.com/b...w-injury-clause. Brandt is a very good reporter and should know this.

I have no reason to believe the Pats didn't administer a physical. According to the article above, Fanene participated in the first 5 practices, then missed 13. He played a full season with the Bengals last year, last on New Year's day. "Degenerative condition" hints at arthritis; knee scheduled to be scoped.

This designation does not require the Pats to claw back the bonus. They've paid him $2.5, with $1.35 outstanding.

[wutang112878]

One step in the medical exam process is the player completes a questionnaire that asks very specific questions about body parts, joints, previous and existing injuries, etc.

Wow, thanks for the info.

I cant believe the NFLPA agreed to this. If I was an owner, and really cared about PED issues, I would have wanted this 'voidable' clause for PED suspensions rather than players hiding injuries but thats just me.

[dcmissle]

Wow, thanks for the info.

I cant believe the NFLPA agreed to this. If I was an owner, and really cared about PED issues, I would have wanted this 'voidable' clause for PED suspensions rather than players hiding injuries but thats just me.

Why? A player is only obligated to disclose what he knows. It's fair to ask him what he knows.

In this context, for example, Fanene may well say, *I didn't know. I played 16 games last season. I came into camp, and after practicing for a week, my knee flared up.*

If so, unless there is a smoking gun that refutes the explanation, good luck recapturing that signing bonus.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Or they give Fanene a hard enough time about it that he settles and goes away with $1 million or so.

[j44thor]

Well the NFL Player Contract attached to the CBA says that the player agrees to make a "full and complete disclosure" of any physical conditions and the team can "terminate" a contract if a player fails to make a "full and complete disclosure and good faith response" to club physicians during the physical. It's not immediately clear what happens to signing bonuses if you "terminate" the contract.

There probably isn't a single player in the NFL that doesn't have some sort of injury or health concern even as minor as knee soreness. This clause seems to open up a massive can of worms and give teams the ability to get out of contracts even easier than before.

[TheRooster]

Part of this may be pain tolerance. If a player says, "I swear that I can't play b/c it hurts too much" in the interest of collecting a paycheck (or keeping a bonus) without actually playing, why shouldn't the team have some recourse. I'm assuming there is no clear structural damage (torn ACL, etc.). Sure he might be in agony, but if he said "knee is fine" at signing day then something is fishy.

[wutang112878]

Why? A player is only obligated to disclose what he knows. It's fair to ask him what he knows.

Fair to a degree, but lets honestly talk about the game, its brutal and is horrible for the human body. How many offensive or defensive lineman, RBs and linebackers probably have arthritis after 5+ years in the league?? The team doctors that are prescribing all the anti-inflammatory drugs know its a huge problem.

Now if the guy had a torn ACL or MCL or rotator cuff and somehow got by his physical and didnt disclose it, that I could understand. 99% of the time you cant play through those injuries and that should be disclosed to a team before signing with them. But in the case of Fanene if it is truly arthritis or a cartilage issue that means he needs to be scoped or needs microfracture, medically thats very much a gray area. Some guys are able to play through almost bone on bone situations [different sport but Kobe Braynt comes to mind] and then some guys just cant.

So in that regard, I think the NFLPA should have protected the players somewhat so they wouldnt have to disclose injuries that are 'wear and tear' type of stuff, like arthritis, constant muscle strains, range of motion issues, etc.

Edited by wutang112878, 22 August 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[MainerInExile]

This designation does not require the Pats to claw back the bonus. They've paid him $2.5, with $1.35 outstanding.

This is important. One thought is that they're fine with the $2.5, but don't want to pay the deferred part. Let's not jump to the conclusion that the Pats are trying to claw anything back.

[NHbeau]

Just tossing this out there. Is it possible he was fine at the physical and got hurt say playing basketball or some such at home? Then comes in and try's to hide it? I doubt we'll ever hear what really happened this being BB's team and all. At some point though you have to think if they are pushing this they must have some pretty solid evidence.

[simplyeric]

I get the point. Telling a doctor to suppress information (my scenario) leads you to the same place failing to tell a team you have seen a doctor who bears bad news (your scenario). In both cases, the team is misled.

This, of course, does not prevent a team from doing its own evaluation -- thorough physical examination, MRIs, you name it. Nor does it prevent a team from putting a guy through a vigorous workout and then having him examined.

I think I'd probably do that considering that when you are paying someone a signing bonus -- in this case, almost $4 million -- you are paying him, literally, for signing his name on a line and nothing more. Better to catch something on the front end than chase the money on the back end.

Sometimes a party will do "due diligence" and no more, specifically in order to leave some liability with the other party. Maybe they did an evaluation, asked the relevant questions, weren't even necessarily sure they got the real answer, but said "well, we've got enough here to make it his responsibility". They might assume (or in fact actually know) that there was a doctor visit that contains the injury info. If he doesn't offer it, it's like an offsides play: the other side screwed up, we get a free play, and if it doesn't work out oh well.

And as for signing of free agents... Maybe they WANT to make aging/injured free agents think twice about their disclosures. A. Incomplete disclosures make the team worse, which might be a bigger negative than not being able to sign questionable free agents. B. with the rise in chatter about injury liability (more concussions than knees, but still) it puts more burden on the player. Oh you say no injury issues? We'll sign you but don't come complaining to us about it later...

[BigJimEd]

This designation does not require the Pats to claw back the bonus. They've paid him $2.5, with $1.35 outstanding.

It doesn't mean they are going after any of the bonus. This is just all media/fan speculation at this point.

[j44thor]

It doesn't mean they are going after any of the bonus. This is just all media/fan speculation at this point.

What is the point of the designation then if there aren't any financial implications? They could have simply cut him like they did Britt Davis and Dane Fletcher. Contracts aren't guaranteed until game 1 is played.

[Shelterdog]

It doesn't mean they are going after any of the bonus. This is just all media/fan speculation at this point.

It is but as j44thor points out, why make the designation (and why cut him instead of putting him on IR and hoping he gets better) unless you're trying to get cap and/or financial relief?

[wutang112878]

It is but as j44thor points out, why make the designation (and why cut him instead of putting him on IR and hoping he gets better) unless you're trying to get cap and/or financial relief?

The only other real motivation I can think of is if they have something against his agent and feel like they were tricked. I know they have had issues with Condon, Mankin's agent, and the agency with the 2 brothers whose name I cant remember, but I dont think they have had issues with Angelo Wright. But perhaps this was enough for them to want to get back at him? Just a guess

[BigJimEd]

It is but as j44thor points out, why make the designation (and why cut him instead of putting him on IR and hoping he gets better) unless you're trying to get cap and/or financial relief?

Not sure why they didn't put him on IR unless they feel he wouldn't be back healthy enough to be effective. I'm not saying they won't go after some or all of the bonus,. I'd guess they probably will but right now it is all speculation. We don't have any even unnamed sources at the moment. The pats may just be keeping all of their options open.

Some reports suggest the designation is designed as a way to inform other teams there is an injury. Although, I'm not sure why it would be termed "failure to disclose" if that was simply the case.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Ohmygooooood this conversation is so laaaameeeeeeee.....