NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell yesterday said that Patriots Owner Robert Kraft's decision to accept the league's Deflategate punishment "will not affect" QB Tom Brady's appeal of a four-game suspension, adding that he is "open to any new information Brady may provide," according to Mike Reiss of ESPN BOSTON. Goodell, speaking at the NFL's owners meeting in S.F., said, "I admire and respect Robert. We've had plenty of discussions over the last couple of weeks, and this was his initiative and something he wanted to do. I certainly admire the step he took. We may disagree on things but that's not unusual." Reiss noted Goodell "sidestepped a question on whether he would remove himself as arbitrator of Brady's appeal." Asked what he would have to hear from Brady to possibly reduce the suspension, Goodell said, "The key for us is to allow any information that Tom Brady and his representatives have ... is there any new information that he can bring more clarity to or something that wasn't considered in the Wells report?" (ESPNBOSTON.com, 5/20). USA TODAY's Lindsay Jones wrote Goodell "hardly sounded like a man who was prepared to step aside from the process." Goodell several times during his 23-minute news conference also "referenced the appeals process established in the collective bargaining agreement and said it is his duty to regulate issues that affect the integrity of the game" (USATODAY.com, 5/20).
WANTING TO HEAR BRADY'S STORY: In Boston, Ben Volin writes Goodell at least "sounded willing to hear Brady's side of the story and reconsider his punishment." Goodell "reiterated several times" about hearing directly from Brady, as thus far, the Patriots and Brady's agent Don Yee "have done all the talking." Many have "theorized that Kraft's decision to stand down and not appeal is part of a deal with Goodell to reduce Brady's suspension, but Goodell said the two are unrelated" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/21). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Matthew Futterman noted the timetable for Brady’s appeal "hasn’t been set," and if Goodell "doesn’t recuse himself, the NFLPA is likely to take further legal action" (WSJ.com, 5/20). Meanwhile, Goodell yesterday said that the league "had nothing to do with the Patriots’ decision to indefinitely suspend two employees linked to the DeflateGate scandal." Asked if the NFL played a role in the suspensions of Jim McNally and John Jastremski, he simply said, "No." In N.Y., Michael O'Keeffe notes Goodell's answer comes after ESPN's Adam Schefter reported Tuesday that the two men had been "punished at the request of the NFL" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/21).
BACK-DOOR DEAL UNLIKELY: In N.Y., Gary Myers writes if there was a "behind-the-scenes deal between Kraft and Goodell to take care of Brady if Kraft accepted the punishment, well, nobody is admitting it." Such a scenario "is unlikely," as it would "destroy Goodell’s credibility" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/21). On Long Island, Tom Rock notes Giants President & CEO John Mara "is not buying into the conspiracy theory." Mara said that he "doubts there is any quid pro quo." Mara in an e-mail wrote, "I do not believe there is any deal between the League and the Patriots regarding Brady's status" (NEWSDAY, 5/21). But Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio said, “I can’t process the notion of Robert Kraft so quickly changing his tune, changing his position, giving up his appeal rights, without getting some sort of promise, consideration, something in return." Florio: "Whether it's a reduced Tom Brady suspension, whether it's a Super Bowl in Foxboro in the year 2025, whether it's something else we're not even thinking about -- I don't see Robert Kraft giving up that right to appeal these punishments without getting something in return, having some understanding" ("PFT," NBCSN, 5/20).
MAKES SENSE TO ME: ESPN BOSTON's Reiss noted if Kraft had "appealed the penalties, he would have been doing so" to Goodell, and the "overriding sense was that meant it was a dead end." There was "no chance Goodell, who already authorized the penalties, was going to reduce them because nothing had changed for him to do so." So if Kraft decided to "take that step, he would have been doing it mostly for optics and the perception that he was still 'going down swinging.'" But "more than optics would have been in play when it comes to Kraft's standing among league owners." Over 21 years, Kraft has "built a reputation as a bridge-building owner who is influential in league circles because of his ability, in part, to generate consensus." By following through on an appeal "that had no chance of succeeding, he would have been putting that standing at risk" (ESPNBOSTON.com, 5/20). In Boston, Chris Villani writes the "hugely unpopular decision by Kraft will ultimately come back to benefit the team." Kraft "chose to make life a little easier" for the other 31 owners, and taking the "high road here will help the team at some point in the future" (BOSTON HERALD, 5/21). In Providence, Bill Reynolds writes, "It's time to move on. And it was a good move." There was "never going to be any real victory here, not one Patriots Nation wanted anyway." There was "no way the rest of the football world ... was ever going to wipe the slate clean and go back to some idyllic time when the Patriots were universally loved and respected" (PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, 5/21).
