Bengals to set record?

[dando]

"It appears that the primary pyros of Cincinnati's explosive three-wide sets of years past may soon all have shed their stripes.

Chris Henry's already gone. Chad Johnson wants to be. And now, in Peter King's MMQB Tuesday Edition column, the Bengals are expressing serious doubt that they can hold on to T.J. Houshmandzadeh beyond the 2008 season, after which his contract expires."

Franchise tag, yo. If TJ were smart, he's sign a one-year deal or accept the tag, and wait for the supposed uncapped season in '10 to go FA. Sounds like NFL civil war is just over the horizon. :irked:

EDIT: the problems the Bengals will have signing TJ is whether they do a deal to extend T Andrews as well as a few other recent picks like CBs Joseph and Hall. Some tough choices will need to be made on the likes of Willie, Levi and Rudi. :( Unfortunately CJ's deal kind of hems them in with how much they have him signed for as well as the cap hit if they treade him. :irked:

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Franchise tag, yo. If TJ were smart, he's sign a one-year deal or accept the tag, and wait for the supposed uncapped season in '10 to go FA. Sounds like NFL civil war is just over the horizon. :irked:

EDIT: the problems the Bengals will have signing TJ is whether they do a deal to extend T Andrews as well as a few other recent picks like CBs Joseph and Hall. Some tough choices will need to be made on the likes of Willie, Levi and Rudi. :( Unfortunately CJ's deal kind of hems them in with how much they have him signed for as well as the cap hit if they treade him. :irked:

-Kevin

Chad's deal is really good. His salaries are pretty low compared to say Javon Walker who got a deal with $27M over the first 3 years. That's the same deal Randy Moss signed. The cap is also exploding. For the most part, a team can keep a guy if they want to pay enough. Chad's cap hit after June 1 is basically nothing. His dead money would be $8M and his salaries (excluding bonuses for the next 2 years) are $7.5M. They'll essentially break even.

[nrc]

Franchise tag, yo. If TJ were smart, he's sign a one-year deal or accept the tag, and wait for the supposed uncapped season in '10 to go FA. Sounds like NFL civil war is just over the horizon. :irked:

Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown were pilloried for voting against the current deal. Who's laughing now? Nearly everyone agrees it was a mistake.

[dando]

Chad's deal is really good. His salaries are pretty low compared to say Javon Walker who got a deal with $27M over the first 3 years. That's the same deal Randy Moss signed.

IMO, which is precisely why he's throwing his tantrum now. :irked: I'm not a capoligist, but from what I've read, the cap hit is $8M for Ocho period. The Bengals are only ~$10M below the cap as it is, so they don't have much room to throw $$$ @ TJ to keep him if he commands say $10M per. :(

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown were pilloried for voting against the current deal. Who's laughing now? Nearly everyone agrees it was a mistake.

I doubt they're laughing, but they were certainly right. Although, Ralph Wilson's reason "I didn't understand it" doesn't really cast him in such a great light. :)

No question the NFLPA crushed the NFL at the bargaining table. Good luck getting all that back.

[Insomniac]

IMO, which is precisely why he's throwing his tantrum now. :irked: I'm not a capoligist, but from what I've read, the cap hit is $8M for Ocho period. The Bengals are only ~$10M below the cap as it is, so they don't have much room to throw $$$ @ TJ to keep him if he commands say $10M per. :(

-Kevin

Yeah, I'm sure it's about money. Of course, all these guys just ignore their bonuses. Add 2M/yr to all those salaries and it's about 4yr/$27M which isn't that much below the top of the market. The full $8M only hits their books if they trade him before June 1 or cut him before June 1 and don't designate it a post June 1 cut. I don't think they'd cut him since he can net them some high draft picks and they can wait 3.5 weeks to trade him so they don't have to take the entire $8M this year. They could also restructure a big contract like Carson Palmer's if they wanted to take it all this year. Of course, I think they're digging in. Chad is either staying home or catching passes from Carson Palmer.

[dando]

Of course, I think they're digging in. Chad is either staying home or catching passes from Carson Palmer.

Ya think?


And they're digging in with Chad Johnson, who says he wants out of Cincinnati after playing two seasons in a 2006 renegotiated contract with four years left (at $3 million, $4.5 million, $5 million, $6 million.

"We've made it clear what the stance is,'' Lewis said. "It's not going to change, today or in August, whenever. You cannot allow a player to get up on his high chair with four years left on his contract and demand to get out. If you do that, you set a terrible example for the rest of your team, and we won't do that.''

We'll see. Sounds like a long, hot summer in Cincinnati.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/06/mailbag/index.html

Message to Ocho, don't **** with Marvin.

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Ya think?

My point was the salary cap consequences aren't preventing them from trading him. :p

[dando]

My point was the salary cap consequences aren't preventing them from trading him. :p

Your $.02 on that subject differs from Hobson on Bengals.com. I've not read anywhere that the cap implications go away after June 1. *shrugs*

-Kevin

[TKGAngel]

I doubt they're laughing, but they were certainly right. Although, Ralph Wilson's reason "I didn't understand it" doesn't really cast him in such a great light. :)



Ralph is 88 years old. He's allowed to be a doddering fool from time to time. When he departs this earth, kiss the Bills goodbye.

[nrc]

Ralph is 88 years old. He's allowed to be a doddering fool from time to time. When he departs this earth, kiss the Bills goodbye.

I would bet that the comment was taken out of context - and probably deliberately. After their dissent on the last agreement the ridicule that the new guard and big market teams directed at two men from families that helped make the NFL what it is today was shameful.

[WickerBill]

Message to Ocho, don't **** with Marvin.

-Kevin


Harrison? No doubt! He crazy.

[Insomniac]

Your $.02 on that subject differs from Hobson on Bengals.com. I've not read anywhere that the cap implications go away after June 1. *shrugs*

-Kevin


Answer: After June 1, the team can stretch their salary cap liability over the next 2 seasons. Let's look at our example above, where a player signs a big contract for 4 years, including a $1 million signing bonus.

If the player is cut after the first year of the contract, the remaining $750,000 of the "un-amoratized" signing bonus hits the cap immediately (accelerates). However, if he is cut after June 1, the team can spread that money over Year 2 and 3 of the contract instead of taking the full brunt of the cap hit in Year 2.

Doing this will save $500,000 against the cap hit for Year 2.

Clearly, this practice is a nice way of freeing up cap space in a given year. Note, however, that the money still has to be accounted for against the cap -- and the remaining $500,000 that was never accounted for will hit the cap in Year 3. In essence, many NFL teams have mortgaged their future by overusing this practice, whereby they continue to pay against the cap for players who have not been on the roster for over a year.

This is how the old CBA worked and this has not changed in the new CBA.

In the new CBA they added 2 things. One was the ability to cut a player before June 1, but designate it a post June 1 cut. The reason is that it would allow veterans to hit the market in March when all the money is flowing and the team can get the salary cap advantage without holding the player until June 1. Think of the McNair situation a couple years back.

The best thing I can find was speculation that this would be done with Shaun Alexander (but it wasn't).


A more likely scenario: The Seahawks will designate Alexander a post-June 1 cut and save themselves more than $4 million under the cap.

The agents for Jones and Alexander did not return phone calls Friday.

Alexander is scheduled to earn $4.475 million in 2008. He counts $6.775 million against the cap because of his signing bonus. If he is waived before June 1, he will count $6.9 million against the cap because the remaining bonus money he is owed is rolled forward to 2008.

Under the collective bargaining agreement, if he is designated a post-June 1 cut, only $2.3 million counts against the 2008 cap and the remaining $4.3 million is delayed until 2009, allowing the Seahawks to use that money to sign players this year.

The second thing was changing trades to work the same way as releasing a player. In the previous CBA, any trade always resulted in an immediate acceleration of the remaining portion of signing bonus in that year. Now it can be split over 2 years just like releasing the player if the trade happens after June 1. This could promote more trades during the season. I can't find an example (or a copy of the CBA).

Bottom line, Bengals.com is wrong. I'm 100% sure of it.

[Insomniac]

I would bet that the comment was taken out of context - and probably deliberately. After their dissent on the last agreement the ridicule that the new guard and big market teams directed at two men from families that helped make the NFL what it is today was shameful.

That is possible, but their objections were more about the additional revenue sharing than the terms with the NFLPA. Personally, it's hard to fault either side.

The TV money alone covers all player salaries. I can see from the big market teams, why should they divide money that they actively get on their own? Why should a team share naming rights revenue with them when they refuse to sell naming rights to their stadium? Why should a team like New England, where the owner paid for the Stadium out of his own pocket have to share money with teams who got tax payers to build them a stadium? Kraft has a mountain of debt for his stadium and Mike Brown doesn't. At the end of the day, every one of these billionaires have black balance sheets. I'd be concerned if the small market teams were losing money.

The small market teams want more revenue sharing to reduce the disparity in cash flow for things like signing bonuses and other large capital expenses.

[nrc]

Bottom line, Bengals.com is wrong. I'm 100% sure of it.

Wrong about what? They've never said that dealing him after June first offers no relief, if that's what you mean.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6733

Sure, you can lessen the hit by trading him or cutting him after June 1. But what good does a post-June 1 trade do for you in 2008, when the draft is already over? And do you think you're going to get a player near what Chad brings them?

They're simply not going to hobble themselves this year and possibly next in order to trade proven talent for potential in a way that encourages everyone to start holding the team hostage whenever their deal falls behind the deal of the week. The only way Chad leaves Cincinnati early is with a really epic deal that they'd be crazy to pass up.

[Insomniac]

Wrong about what? They've never said that dealing him after June first offers no relief, if that's what you mean.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6733


They're simply not going to hobble themselves this year and possibly next in order to trade proven talent for potential in a way that encourages everyone to start holding the team hostage whenever their deal falls behind the deal of the week. The only way Chad leaves Cincinnati early is with a really epic deal that they'd be crazy to pass up.

I was only going by what was said here. I read it as an implication that Chad could not be cut/traded because of the $8M proration of his signing bonus remaining. I would expect an article discussing the cap implications of trading/cutting Chad Johnson to not leave that out.

Reading the link you sent, I'm not sure that is what dando read.


Sure, you can lessen the hit by trading him or cutting him after June 1. But what good does a post-June 1 trade do for you in 2008, when the draft is already over? And do you think you're going to get a player near what Chad brings them?

[dando]

Reading the link you sent, I'm not sure that is what dando read.

Actually I was trying to find that linkage. :) I read Hobson's scribbles regularly. :thumbup: IIRC, dealing him after June 1 allows them to spread the hit over 2 seasons rather than just '08. That was based on some discussion by the local sports radio guys, so who knows. Again, I'm not a capoligist, just an Innerweb 'expert'. ;)

I really, really hope this Simpson kid is as good as I've been reading, rendering CJ as an afterthought. :)

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Actually I was trying to find that linkage. :) I read Hobson's scribbles regularly. :thumbup: IIRC, dealing him after June 1 allows them to spread the hit over 2 seasons rather than just '08. That was based on some discussion by the local sports radio guys, so who knows. Again, I'm not a capoligist, just an Innerweb 'expert'. ;)

You're confusing too. :p

[FTG]

They're simply not going to hobble themselves this year and possibly next in order to trade proven talent for potential in a way that encourages everyone to start holding the team hostage whenever their deal falls behind the deal of the week.

The Eagles tried that with TO. We'll see.

[dando]

Yer just confused by spygate distraction. :gomer: These aren't the droids you're looking for. :)

I should have added to my original post that the conventional wisdom is that they can split the cap hit, but can't eliminate it. Yer the one acting as a capoligist. :gomer: :p

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

I should have added to my original post that the conventional wisdom is that they can split the cap hit, but can't eliminate it. Yer the one acting as a capoligist. :gomer: :p

It's fact, not conventional wisdom. :p

[nrc]

In other news, the Bengals waive Odel Thurman and the owners opt out of the CBA. Next stop, salary cap Armageddon in 2010. :D

[dando]

the owners opt out of the CBA. Next stop, salary cap Armageddon in 2010. :D

Both sides are idiots. Where have I seen this kind of greed previously? :irked: The other day I heard that the NFL was a $7B annual rev entity (sounded a tad low to mw, tho). That isn't much in the grand scheme of things. Be careful you don't screw your customers, NFL egits.

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Both sides are idiots. Where have I seen this kind of greed previously? :irked: The other day I heard that the NFL was a $7B annual rev entity (sounded a tad low to mw, tho). That isn't much in the grand scheme of things. Be careful you don't screw your customers, NFL egits.

-Kevin

The owners bent over in the last negotiation. Now they're trying to fix. They actually think they can get Upshaw and the players to give back money? This will be entertaining.

[dando]

The owners bent over in the last negotiation. Now they're trying to fix. They actually think they can get Upshaw and the players to give back money? This will be entertaining.

They have themselves to blame, but they also don't have the guaranteed contracts ala MLB. Personally if the NFL didn't exist, I'm not sure I'd care. I follow the NCAA pro league much more than the NFL, but don't tell Gordon Gee. :gomer:

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

They have themselves to blame, but they also don't have the guaranteed contracts ala MLB. Personally if the NFL didn't exist, I'm not sure I'd care. I follow the NCAA pro league much more than the NFL, but don't tell Gordon Gee. :gomer:

-Kevin

Ohh yeah, no doubt. They agreed to it. Just saying, they got crushed. It's funny too. All to avoid an uncapped year. There would be replacement players if there was a lockout. It's pretty clear that there is plenty of money for everyone, but the players need the owners more right now. It will be interesting to see what impact the UFL will have on all this, if any.

[Sean O'Gorman]

Ohh yeah, no doubt. They agreed to it. Just saying, they got crushed. It's funny too. All to avoid an uncapped year. There would be replacement players if there was a lockout. It's pretty clear that there is plenty of money for everyone, but the players need the owners more right now. It will be interesting to see what impact the UFL will have on all this, if any.

Let there be a lockout. I want to see Shane Falco make another comeback.