The Christian Wilkins Situation

About 10 days ago, I got an email from a reader and frequent commenter here; he uses the screen ID, TenaciousP.  He asked if was going to write about Christian Wilkins and I responded that I did not think so because I did not see much to comment on at the time.  Well, that was then and this is now.  So let me do a reset for folks who may not be nearly the Oakland/Los Angeles/Las Vegas Raider fan as TenaciousP most definitely is:

• In 2024, the Raiders signed Wilkins as a free agent offering a contract reported to be 4 years with a total value of $110M with $57.5M fully guaranteed and another $27.25M conditionally guaranteed.  That is a big deal for a DT and Wilkins is a top shelf DT when healthy.
• Last season, Wilkins played in 5 games and suffered a “Jones fracture” in his foot that had him miss the rest of the season.  The injury needed surgery which was done, and Wilkins was involved in rehab.
• The injury had not healed as anticipated and the Raiders’ doctors said that a second surgery was needed; Wilkins demurred and chose to continue rehab.  Training camp was about to open, and he was still unable to practice.  The Raiders put him on the “PUP List” – – the “Physically Unable to Perform List.”
• The Raiders then released Wilkins and have deemed that those “conditional guarantees” worth $27.25M are null and void.  Obviously, the NFLPA chose to fight for Wilkins’ voided guarantees on his behalf; that is what unions are supposed to do.

Here is where I get into deep yogurt.  When a team seeks to nullify “guarantees” in a contract, the team has to specify why they seek to do so.  There are some obvious reasons:

• The player cannot fulfill his obligations under the contract – – say if the player is in jail or is dead.  Pretty obvious situation there …
• The player does not fulfill his obligations under the contract – – say if he does not report to Training Camp or refuses to dress on game day.  Pretty obvious situation there too …
• The player cannot fulfill his obligations under the contract – – say if he is suspended by the league for violating the Substance Abuse Policy.  Less obvious that the items above but not too difficult to deal with …
• The player engages in “conduct detrimental” to the team and its unity.  Now we are in the highly debatable area of contract interpretation where I am indeed over my head.

Did Wilkins’ refusal of that follow-up surgery lead to his inability to play for the Raiders and therefore is his lack of ability to play due to some sort of breach of the terms?   I suspect that the Raiders can find a half-dozen doctors that would support their assertion that was the case AND I think that the NFLPA can find a half-dozen doctors that would support the assertion that continued rehab was a prudent course of treatment.  The NFLPA has a nice sound-bite on its side here because back in the Spring, Raiders’ head coach, Pete Carroll, said that Wilkins was working hard to recover.  Here is some of Carroll’s comment:

“This has been a difficult recovery and he’s done everything he needs to do.  He’s been here every day. He’s here early, working hard, but we’re still working it, and he’s not ready to get back out. We’re in the midst of a long, challenging process here. So, fortunately there’s a lot of time, and we’re going to take every bit of it. We’ve really tried to be really diligent about the way we’ve worked it and the way we’ve monitored it and all of that, and he’s really been on board the whole time. But it has been challenging.”

Granted, Pete Carroll is not a doctor, and his comments have nothing to do with the medical issues in the matter.  Nonetheless, it would seem difficult for the Raiders now to claim that Wilkins is a slacker who refused to do what was necessary to heal his foot.

And if that were not enough controversy/oppositional behavior, Adam Schefter reported last week that there was an incident in the Raiders’ facility recently where Wilkins “playfully” kissed a teammate on the forehead and the teammate took offense.  So …

• Does that constitute “conduct detrimental”?
• Was the “playful kiss on the forehead” a “one-off” incident or is there a pattern of “other stuff” at work there?

I have not read a report that says what the Raiders claim as the basis for voiding those conditional guarantees so I have no idea what the arbitrator in the case will have to deal with.  I am confident, however, that it will not be an open-and-shut case on either side.  I am confident that the arbitrator will earn his/her fee on this one.

So, a shoutout to TenaciousP here.  All I can say is, better late than never.

Finally, the mention of the “playful kiss” here reminds me of a great observation by H. L. Mencken:

“When women kiss it always reminds one of prize fighters shaking hands.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………