(07-27-2023, 02:53 PM)jj22 Wrote: It is weird given he had 2 years left on his deal.. Was it necessary? 

Besides it's a 3rd contract and into his 30's which was supposedly a no no now....

I'd think he'll be solid for the next 3 years. Adding a year on while manipulating the yearly numbers would be a positive. 

(07-27-2023, 02:58 PM)jj22 Wrote: 2 years left on his contract with other potential extensions that could be done with players going into their last year. Drafted a first round DE, why not extend home grown talent in Hubbard (which we can say goodbye to now), breaking their 3rd contract philosophy. 

Not saying I don't like Trey, but the move is odd. But folks know that since I rarely saw Trey as an extension candidate on this board. 

It's not odd when you factor the cost of replacing a pass rusher of his caliber on the open market.  And, there is nothing at all wrong with having starter quality depth in a young guy like Murphy.  We all saw what happened when the OL had to rely upon sketchy depth players the past two seasons.

(07-27-2023, 02:52 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: never saw that...

Wonder how much this happens around the league.

I guess it depends on how badly folks get pissed off, lol. I've been that mad a time or two.

The twitter consensus i've seen is that this is a move to free up space for the Higgins extension.

Signing a FA to a 4 year contract, only to rework it after 2 years should be far more noteworthy then you guys are giving it. From this FO and from a philosophical standpoint.

I'm not saying I am against it, but I do find the move a head scratcher.

(07-27-2023, 03:07 PM)jj22 Wrote: Signing a FA to a 4 year contract, only to rework it after 2 years should be far more noteworthy then you guys are giving it. From this FO and from a philosophical standpoint.

I'm not saying I am against it, but I do find the move a head scratcher.

I guess i'm just having trouble seeing the negative here. You give a good player another year and potentially help free up money to sign another good player. 

You almost have to be looking for something negative in this, it would seem. 

Glad to see it. Didn't expect this one today but pleased none the less.

(07-27-2023, 02:39 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: As many have said, I would think this shifts salary to THIS year, to better flex out Joe and Higgins' eventual extensions.

What? No way it shifts salary to this year. That is what the extra year is for, lowering the cap hits for 2023 & 2024 by adding an extra year for Hendrickson's deal, 2025. More years, but less average per year, more guaranteed money. A possible Reader extension would likely follow the same formula, though he is on the last year already.

We'll use the added space to do some creative extensions for Joe, Tee, & Wilson. Which we'll try and structure to take advantage of that added space this year as much as possible. 

Word from the insider guy on Cincy Jungle is the plan is to do something big, creative, & unprecedented. He does not know if they will pull it off. 

(07-27-2023, 03:14 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I guess i'm just having trouble seeing the negative here. You give a good player another year and potentially help free up money to sign another good player. 

You almost have to be looking for something negative in this, it would seem. 

Bingo

(07-27-2023, 02:58 PM)jj22 Wrote: 2 years left on his contract with other potential extensions that could be done with players going into their last year. Drafted a first round DE that theoretically would cover against any potential loss of Trey after the 2024 season, why if given out extensions to players with two year left on their deal, not extend home grown talent in Hubbard (which we can say goodbye to now), breaking their 3rd contract into their 30's philosophy..... 

Not saying I don't like Trey, but the move is odd. But folks know that since I rarely saw Trey as an extension candidate on this board. 

This smells to me like Trey / and or his Agent pushed for an extension. He didn't hold out or make a big deal, but a move like this is player driven.

Can someone tell me when the last time a non QB was extended with 2 years left on their contract. A FA signing?

1) Performance on the field. Hendrickson is more of a force rushing the passer and is more valuable than Hubbard.

2) Salary cap savings.  Hubbard's highest salary in futures years is lower than Hendrickson's lowest salary in future years.  So they can create more cap savings in future years by extending Hendrickson compared to Hubbard. This allows them to spend that savings on other extensions like Burrow, Higgins, or Wilson.

I think the logic on this one is . . . uh . . . pretty logical.

This is what teams do with core players who they expect to be on the team. They front load the contract to create savings down the road. It makes sense with your core players and only your core players who have high cap hits in future years.

This is a process.  They forced Mixon to take a pay cut because he has no leverage. Mixon's pay cut finances the cash to front load Hendrickson's extension.  They recoup a cap savings on both contracts to apply to their ongoing extension negotiations.  This how modern NFL front offices should manage the salary cap. It's pretty shrewd in my opinion. Halle-freakin'-lujah!

(07-27-2023, 03:07 PM)BengalBob Wrote: The twitter consensus i've seen is that this is a move to free up space for the Higgins extension.

Didn't Mike Brown say they accounted for Joe?  Seems to point toward them making a point to free up money for Tee (or another player)?  

(07-27-2023, 03:46 PM)phil413 Wrote: Didn't Mike Brown say they accounted for Joe?  Seems to point toward them making a point to free up money for Tee (or another player)?  

I cannot think of another reason why you’d do this deal unless it’s for Tee. Burrow dough is already accounted for. Believe that.

I wonder if Reader was asked to do this as well ans declined so they asked Trey.

(07-27-2023, 03:14 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I guess i'm just having trouble seeing the negative here. You give a good player another year and potentially help free up money to sign another good player. 

You almost have to be looking for something negative in this, it would seem. 

I didn't say it was a negative. I said it was weird. And I gave reasons why which were legit given the lectures we heard about no 3rd contracts especially going into players 30's. Given he had 2 years left on his deal... I personally don't know why folks would be triggered by me saying it was weird especially given the reasons I gave for thinking it was. No one is focusing on the reasons I gave for saying it was tho so that is that.

I never said it was a bad move. People just like putting words in my mouth just to have a reason to meltdown over something I never said or implied.

(07-27-2023, 04:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: I didn't say it was a negative. I said it was weird. 

Maybe that's how some read it as a negative, but I wouldn't say it was a negative.

Gotcha. I think i get where you're coming from though. Not expected to re-sign after current contract expires. Draft Myles Murphy. I just see it as a pleasant surprise. 

(07-27-2023, 04:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: I didn't say it was a negative. I said it was weird. And I gave reasons why which were legit given the lectures we heard about no 3rd contracts especially going into players 30's. Given he had 2 years left on his deal... I personally don't know why folks would be triggered by me saying it was weird especially given the reasons I gave for thinking it was. No one is focusing on the reasons I gave for saying it was tho so that is that.

I never said it was a bad move. People just like putting words in my mouth just to have a reason to meltdown over something I never said or implied.

yeah, I hate it when posters "meltdown". 

(07-27-2023, 03:45 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:   This how modern NFL front offices should manage the salary cap. It's pretty shrewd in my opinion. Halle-freakin'-lujah!

Is it? You see restructured deals to create cap space. You don't see extensions after 2 years on a 4 year contract for FA signing.... Unless the player holds out or demands it. 

Again, not saying the move is a negative, I'm not sure it should be how the salary cap is managed either tho.

(07-27-2023, 04:44 PM)jj22 Wrote: Is it? You see restructured deals to create cap space. You don't see extensions after 2 years on a 4 year contract for FA signing.... Unless the player holds out or demands it. 

Again, not saying the move is a negative, I'm not sure it should be how the salary cap is managed either tho.

Essentially, this is a restructure.  With one extra year.  The extra year would allow you to pro-rate an bonus over an additional year if they wanted. Front loading the means less dead money and more cap savings if they do cut him when he is aging if his production declines. And we haven't seen how it's structure to potentially included voidable years.  I think we will have more clarity once the contract numbers are available to review.

Trey Hendrickson on his extension: “It’s to keep me in the building. I wanted to stay a Bengal. They gave me a tremendous opportunity two years ago. There were a lot of question marks around my name. They believed in me. I have the same desire to prove them right.”

— Charlie Goldsmith (@CharlieG__) July 27, 2023

In non-Joe Burrow news, Bengals DE Trey Hendrickson’s 1-year extension includes $21M in new money, with a $5M raise for 2023 and $16M in 2025 (2024 is unchanged).

The deal gives Hendrickson deserved security and the Bengals a bit more cap space to work with this year.

— Field Yates (@FieldYates) July 27, 2023

Did not even think something like this would be happening, but have no problem with it. We know him, he knows the system. Can help young ones as they come in.