NFC West Notes: Kendricks, Williams, 49ers

Mychal Kendricks‘ sentencing date keeps getting postponed, and the Seahawks keep reaping the rewards. Per Brady Henderson of ESPN.com, Kendricks is now due to be sentenced for insider trading — which he pleaded guilty to in September 2018 — in February 2020 (Twitter link). The date has been pushed back five times now, and instead of losing Kendricks on November 21 (the most recent date), Seattle will have their starting weakside ‘backer for its playoff run.

Now for more from the NFC West:

  • The Cardinals signed tight end Maxx Williams to a modest one-year, $805K pact this offseason, but they have been impressed enough with his performance — especially as a pass blocker — to sign him to an extension several days ago. And he will get a sizable raise, as Ian Rapoport of NFL.com says the two-year pact, which keeps Williams in the desert through 2021, is worth $7MM (Twitter link).
  • 49ers CB Jason Verrett and DL Kentavius Street are both getting healthier and are candidates to come off of IR at some point this season, as Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports Bay Area (citing head coach Kyle Shanahan) tweets. Both players have had difficult injury luck in their careers, so this is encouraging news, and San Francisco would surely love to have Verrett and Street as depth for the stretch run.
  • The news is not as good for 49ers rookie WR Jalen Hurd, as Shanahan says it’s unlikely Hurd will be ready to come off of IR this year (Twitter link via Maiocco).
  • The 49ers are also planning on being without DE Dee Ford for a couple of weeks, per Maiocco (via Twitter). Injuries have limited Ford during his first year in San Francisco, though he has managed to post 6.5 sacks. Ford is currently dealing with a hamstring injury.
View Comments (28)
newest oldest

28 comments on “NFC West Notes: Kendricks, Williams, 49ers

  1. JJB0811

    Gotta love the judicial system. A man openly states he stole money, which he is using to postpone his trial to earn more money!

    • crosseyedlemon

      Not quite accurate JJ. Kendricks plead guilty and agreed to make full restitution. This impressed the presiding judge who stated it’s the first time he’s actually had a pro athlete take accountability for his actions. Kendricks shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as the leagues woman beaters and violent offenders.

        • yourmomsbox

          no, a felon is not a felon. case by case and I hate the Seahawks so I’m not jaded or anything. There is a difference between someone who commits a financial crime and owns up to it including pays back every cent plus fines. Then, you have someone who commits a violent felony or felony theft by robbing homes. shut up

          • crosseyedlemon

            Totally agree and one would have to be very naive to think that Goodell and most of the league owners haven’t been involved in business deals that weren’t even more unsavory than what Kendricks did. They are probably texting each other and making jokes about what an amateur crook Kendricks is compared to themselves.

      • compassrose

        I thought they weren’t going to give him jail time because of his actions just a fine. I also thought he didn’t know what he was doing was illegal until too late. Which ignorance is not a defence.

        Hope the fine is true and he keeps contributing to the Hawks. Lastly insider trading doesn’t mean he stole money from anyone. He could have gotten info on an IPO that was opening low and the stock would grow fast. You are probably thinking of a Ponzi scheme.

        • crosseyedlemon

          If he is to be only fined (and I think you are right about that) then the delays really don’t benefit Kendricks at all because his lawyer will still have the meter running.

        • JoeBrady

          insider trading doesn’t mean he stole money from anyone
          ———————————————–
          Trading on inside information is always stealing money. You are either getting out of a stock before he tanks, or getting into one before anyone else knows of some favorable event.

          That’s why it is ‘illegal’.

          • compassrose

            If you use my example that is not stealing from anyone. It actually helps the IPO grow. Which puts money into the owners pocket. It is illegal because it benefits an investor over another. You are right at one point the IPO has so many stocks available and this makes less for others to buy. It does not directly take money from someone just makes them miss out on some. Always is a tough word to use there are usually a few incidents that make it wrong.

          • crosseyedlemon

            I don’t think anyone is arguing that a crime didn’t occur Joe. Now lets say that I give you some inside information that a horse called Bet the Farm is going to win his race tomorrow and you place a bet and score a jackpot payout. Should society demand that you be locked up for gaining an advantage over other people at the racetrack?

      • JJB0811

        He’s had his sentencing pushed back 5 times now. It’s because he’s making 6 figures. Maybe he has to play to pay, I don’t know. But the fact a well off person can continually delay starting his sentence is my point.

        • compassrose

          I agree but no different than any other rich person. Hire good lawyers and that’s what you get sad but true.

        • crosseyedlemon

          I would suggest to my friend JJ that the reason the sentencing is continually delayed has nothing to do with Kendricks financial status but simply because the courts have more important cases to deal with.

        • crosseyedlemon

          The courts set their priority on getting people who are a danger to society off the streets and Kendricks really doesn’t fit that profile.

      • crosseyedlemon

        He didn’t profit in any way and there were no victims. That comment by Dufus is just ridiculous. Should a single mother who steals a jar of baby food from a grocery store to feed her infant child be treated the same as a drug gang member who brutally murders someone for a pair of sneakers?

        • JoeBrady

          “there were no victims.”

          Suppose I want to buy 100,000 shares of GM at $90 because my research shows they are a good takeover target. The controller for GM then tells Mr. Boesky about a planned takeover already in the works, so Mr. Boesky buys 100,000 shares and the price goes to $100. The $1M he just made should’ve been my $1M.

          That’s why it is illegal.

          • kjt404

            Though I agree insider trading is a crime, it’s a bit different when an individual who doesn’t run a major corporation commits the crime as opposed to someone like Martha Stewart who was President of the company benefiting from insider trading. So the two offenses are not equal.

            As for your “the $1M he just made should have been mine” argument. Playing the stock market is not a queue. It is first come first serve. Just because the man in your example had inside information doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t have come along and bought shares while you were dragging your feet and/or doing your due diligence. You would not be a victim because you aren’t entitled to that money, that money was not yours. You had the potential to make that money and maybe even anticipated earnings on your future stock but again that does not make it yours. Missing out on potential earnings does not make you a victim. Aside from your attempt to create a victim in that last line, that is a good example of how insider trading works.

            • JoeBrady

              you were dragging your feet and/or doing your due diligence. You would not be a victim because you aren’t entitled to that money, that money was not yours.
              —————————————————-
              If there were three people involved, the insider trader, me and you, then the insider trader stole money from either you, me, or both of us.

              And it doesn’t matter too much to me if it was the president, or someone lower on the chain (I think it usually is someone lower).

        • JoeBrady

          Should a single mother who steals a jar of baby food from a grocery store to feed her infant child be treated the same as a drug gang member who brutally murders someone for a pair of sneakers?
          ——————————————————–
          And should a wealthy athlete not be treated more harshly for stealing money, than the woman stealing a jar of baby food?

            • JoeBrady

              The DA can make almost case a borderline capital crime, or a don’t-even-bother-showing-up misdemeanor. Juries and grand juries do the same.

              • crosseyedlemon

                Prosecuting DAs almost always have an impressive conviction rate though and that is because they can choose to take the slam dunk cases to the courts while seeking settlements in cases that are more iffy for them.

          • crosseyedlemon

            Of course Joe. I made the comparison to refute the comment that a felon is a felony, which implies that things are either black or white. In the real world there are many shades of gray between those two other colors.

        • paddyo875

          A “drug gang member?” You may want to refrain from watching local news or avoid the clickbait in tour news feed.

  2. DarkSide830

    this is yet another indictment on the judicial system. crazy they can never get anything done in due order or put their foot down at any time.

Leave a Reply