I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Joe Jurevicius to prove where he got his staph infection.

I think it's going to be even more difficult to prove the Browns did not do all they could to keep their place clean and sterile. It's just very hard for me to believe the Browns were that lax given it's in the Browns interests to keep their players healthy.

I think the Cleveland Clinic will do everything it can to keep this from going to trial.

I think Jurevicus will get an out-of-court, confidential settlement.

Then I think LeCharles Bentley jumps in and files his suit.

I'm told the medical reports on Joe Jurevicius' knee were not good. That reality, combined with his age, led the Browns to release him.

And there you have it.

For now at least.

The Browns also released offensive tackle Kevin Shaffer Thursday night — before he was due to be paid a $1 million roster bonus. This addresses one of the bigger mistakes of the Phil Savage regime — and shows why the present practice by George Kokinis and Eric Mangini of not spending money at will is a good one. Shaffer was paid like he was the best offensive tackle in the league merely because he was a free agent. As we learned, he wasn't even among the better offensive tackles in the league. Shaffer may be back … at a salary much more commensurate with his abilities.

The release of Joe Jurevicius sounds like one of those occasions when a guy coming off an injury meets a new coaching staff and new front office that wants him to reduce his pay following injury.

It shows why players always cackle when they are criticized for not being loyal or sentimental, because clearly loyalty and sentiment run both ways. Jurevicius was aching to finish his contract with the Browns for the Browns. Evidently the Browns didn't want to pay him $2.4 million – even though he wanted to come back after a hellish year when a staph infection almost ended his career and forced him to have at least six procedures on his knee. It's not like he got hurt; he went in to have his knee cleaned out.

There were risks with Jurevicius playing, yes. Guys who went through what he went through have not been terribly successful getting back on the field. I've talked to a lot of guys, too, who promise they'll play again after a serious injury, then don't. So perhaps the Browns felt it was unfair to the rest of the team to carry a guy they simply did not believe could return.

Jurevicius could have stayed for less money. Ryan Tucker agreed to reduce his pay to the veteran minimum to play one more year in Cleveland. Jurevicius, in a statement released by his agent, said he was willing "to take a steep pay cut." Perhaps "steep" was in the eye of the beholder, and Jurevicius wanted more than the Browns were willing to pay. Or perhaps it wasn't the money that forced him away. Perhaps there was something else.

Put yourself in his shoes. At age 34, you've proven your value and your professionalism. You go through hell to get back, and then you're asked to take a pay cut by a team that is signing guys like Robert Royal and Hank Poteat. This says nothing about the new guys' value, just that if you're Jurevicius you must look and wonder: Why do I have to take this kind of pay cut?

It's interesting that the Browns asked for the pay cut. The salary cap does not seem to be an issue, so in essence the team was telling one of its veterans he had to either prove himself again, or that he wasn't worth the money he was going to make, or that he was too injured to play. In my mind, there doesn't seem to be middle ground. If there is I'm all ears. The team also had the option of bringing Jurevicius in for camp to see how things went, but chose not to follow that course.

The team could help itself with a more thorough explanation – George Kokinis conference call perhaps? – than the one provided in the team's release. All parties involved – the fans, Jurevicius and the team – would seem to benefit from a 15-minute explanation.

Now the question becomes: Who the heck is going to play receiver?