[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

You said that the union could file a grievance if they were preventing him from playing for a "non football related reason", but that they could "get away with it" if he was a lesser player.

So it violates the CBA to sit him to await trade offers, but it's OK to sit him because of the investigation, and, then perhaps trade him? I'm not sure what the functional difference is between those things. But I'm sure they can just say whatever the CBA requires to not have to play him, because playing him doesn't seem like an option for them. It's pretty obvious why they'd be sitting him.

It's crazy to me that there's any circumstances that would result in a CBA violation for not playing an accused sex offender with pending criminal investigations and civil lawsuits, regardless of whether they are also having trade discussions about him. Though the union also thinks it's a CBA violation to consider vaccine status in player transactions and how likely a player is to be banned from the team facility at any moment, so what do I know.

That bold part is what the union would want to have on the record. If it is the investigation, that is one thing. If it for the trade situation, that is something else. I don't know what the CBA allows or does not allow in either case. It does feel wrong to me that a team can make a player in good standing inactive because someone won't offer them 4 first round picks in a trade.
.