(08-15-2024, 10:31 AM)Sled21 Wrote: If it were up to me and I was making the rules (which obviously it's not and I'm not) I would say a contract is a contract. You and a team come to an agreement on terms and sign for X number of years. You play those years under that contract, period. Whether you shine or stink, the contract is honored. No re-negotiating or extensions until the contract it over. If a player violates the contract, he is unable to play in the league again until he honors it. If a player is injured and his career over, the injury settlement is a percentage of the contract computed on how far into the contract they played. Problem solved.

Big issue.  Unless there are bonuses stipulated in the contract for it, players aren't paid to practice.  They are paid for games via game checks. They don't even get paid for preseason games.

Another sticking point is these are professional athletes that play a contact sport.  There's always SOMETHING wrong with them, always something that hurts or aches or doesn't feel quite right.  Does a team have a right to force a player to practice when they "don't feel right"?  I mean, look at Burrow and his calf last year.  Not saying he was "forced" but he practiced when he knew he wasn't completely right and sustained a significant injury.

(08-15-2024, 11:06 AM)jj22 Wrote: Yet a team can cut them anytime? So much for that contract....

There lies the problem with this argument. We like to force players to honor a contract, yet teams are free to treat a contract like it's worthless. 

Exactly where did I say that? I said Whether a player stinks or shines he gets paid the contract. The only caveat was if a player cannot continue his career, he gets an injury settlement. Reading is fundamental.

(08-14-2024, 03:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I know he's not taking this into account, but think at how much more money he'll make off merchandise and things like television appearances once we win the city's first Super Bowl.

That's possible, but other than a few pizza commercials I don't recall seeing Matt Stafford, for example, all that much.  I feel like you'd have to be pretty popular to get enough opportunity to make money on other stuff in order for it to compare to what you can make playing in the NFL at the top of your position group.  I assume that stuff is just icing on the proverbial cake rather than something players can be expected to factor into their "what can I get right now now now in black and white" contracts.

I also recall the commercial stalwarts like Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahommes making commercials before and after winning the SB (and Baker Mayfield doing the same minus the SB thing), rather than winning it and it then waiting for advertisers to come calling.  

(08-15-2024, 11:19 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: This is strange logic. Extending a contract is equivalent to not honoring the contract? 

I would just do away with extensions, period. When the contract is over, the player is free to stay or leave on a new contract either way. Make it easy

(08-15-2024, 11:35 AM)Whatever Wrote: Big issue.  Unless there are bonuses stipulated in the contract for it, players aren't paid to practice.  They are paid for games via game checks. They don't even get paid for preseason games.

Another sticking point is these are professional athletes that play a contact sport.  There's always SOMETHING wrong with them, always something that hurts or aches or doesn't feel quite right.  Does a team have a right to force a player to practice when they "don't feel right"?  I mean, look at Burrow and his calf last year.  Not saying he was "forced" but he practiced when he knew he wasn't completely right and sustained a significant injury.

The only caveat I mentioned was career ending injuries. As for the rest, they can put whatever they want in the contract, same as now. But to me a contract is a contract.

(08-15-2024, 11:35 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Exactly where did I say that? I said Whether a player stinks or shines he gets paid the contract. The only caveat was if a player cannot continue his career, he gets an injury settlement. Reading is fundamental.

ok, I thought that point was regarding wanting an extension. 

(08-15-2024, 11:06 AM)jj22 Wrote: Yet a team can cut them anytime? So much for that contract....

There lies the problem with this argument. We like to force players to honor a contract, yet teams are free to treat a contract like it's worthless. 

This is not really accurate.   The contract states that the player can be cut at anytime, thus the potential of being cut is in the actual contract.  It also states the player will be paid all of the guaranteed money agreed to in the contract despite being cut.

(08-15-2024, 11:37 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I would just do away with extensions, period. When the contract is over, the player is free to stay or leave on a new contract either way. Make it easy

This would just make things unnecessarily rigid in my opinion. The added flexibility of extensions is a bonus for both teams and players. Teams are able to secure longer term deals with players they like and players are able to add more guaranteed years of work. Extensions allow for the honoring of an original contract while simultaneously agreeing to a new one. Anecdotally, this happens all the time in my industry (technical consulting). It's very common for an extension to hit several months prior to "contract end".

As a fan, it would suck IMO. I'm imagining a scenario where Joe Burrow finishes his rookie contract out without an extension and hits the open market only to be swept away by a more cash flush owner. 

(08-14-2024, 10:03 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: Yes, but that’s a bigger issue, more of an NFLPA/bargaining agreement thing.  I see both sides.  I’m mostly ok with players using their leverage when they can BC NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed.  The owners are really the ones benefiting the most.  How is it the most violent major professional sport is the one with the least player security.  

If I’m the bengals, what really is the rush?  He is under contract for 2 more years.  

IMO get the deal inked.  Meet him in the middle and push some of the guarantees to injury guarantees.  Assuming he doesn’t get hurt, he will see the money.. bengals MO,  if he gets hurt?
He gets his guarantee.  

Idk, this shouldn’t be this hard.

This.  Sometimes doing what's best for the team is doing what's in the best interest of the player.    I also feel like the earlier you do it the lower the payout you're having to make.  I see no use in making it a moral sticking point.   Him wanting to sign now has definite benefits - not the least of which is he is practicing with the team.  

If we had signed Bates and Tee earlier I think we could have afforded to have them here.   I think the same applies to Chase.

My guess is the two sticking points are length of contract and guaranteed money.   To me give him more of the latter and cave on the amount of guaranteed money.

These players have been motivated towards staying here.    That is an important piece of leverage that is being squandered because of the "it's a business" justification.  There is only one thing that has to be justified.   Putting together a winning team in the narrow windows you have.

It's the Bengals' job to figure that out and stop telling people they are asking too much.   We did a nice job signing our linebackers.  We need to do the same with the highest level players on our team.    When you have elite players you need to find a way of keeping them - unless you have a bonafide way or replacing them with lower priced players who fill a specific role.   You're not going to replace Chase or Burrow.  And honestly I don't think you're going to replace Higgins.   His replacement is not on the team.

You don't allow what you can't replace to leave the team:  Bates, Reader, Chase, Higgins and Burrow.   So far we have 1 for 5.   I believe we'll get Chase, but it will take to long and the chemistry between Chase, Burrow and the rest of the team will take too long to get on point.

Just get it done.   

I usually wouldn't care about this, but there is just too much riding on this season to let this continue.

If I'm the Bengals, and I'm planning on signing Chase to an extension regardless, I'd really have to think twice about how I approach being so stubborn with these kinds of things.

(08-15-2024, 12:47 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I usually wouldn't care about this, but there is just too much riding on this season to let this continue.

If I'm the Bengals, and I'm planning on signing Chase to an extension regardless, I'd really have to think twice about how I approach being so stubborn with these kinds of things.

The consequences of being so firm on Tee is losing the threat of a plan B in negotiations with Chase.  They keep bringing up the pie, but I can't fault Chase's camp for playing hardball given the situation the FO painted themselves into.  They may have wanted Chase more, but the timing of Tee's extension forced their hand. 

It looks like they're going to let Tee leave for a comp pick and keep tagging Chase or be forced to trade him if they don't extend him.  If they don't want to pay him, they've got to draft better so good players are taking those pieces of the pie.  

Front office ultimately did it to themselves.

But it'd be unforgivable if they let Bates, Higgins, AND Chase walk for NOTHING. I don't think i'd ever look at the front office the same.

(08-15-2024, 01:34 PM)NotBigzo Wrote: Front office ultimately did it to themselves.

But it'd be unforgivable if they let Bates, Higgins, AND Chase walk for NOTHING. I don't think i'd ever look at the front office the same.

You'd never look at the front office the same?  This is the same front office that brought us years of futility prior to Joe Burrow.

(08-15-2024, 01:18 PM)phil413 Wrote: The consequences of being so firm on Tee is losing the threat of a plan B in negotiations with Chase.  They keep bringing up the pie, but I can't fault Chase's camp for playing hardball given the situation the FO painted themselves into.  They may have wanted Chase more, but the timing of Tee's extension forced their hand. 

It looks like they're going to let Tee leave for a comp pick and keep tagging Chase or be forced to trade him if they don't extend him.  If they don't want to pay him, they've got to draft better so good players are taking those pieces of the pie.  

If they don't pay Chase then I'm done with this team. The of absolutely zero reason why they can't pay him. 

If they let Bates, Higgins, and then Chase all leave without an extension I'll be dumbfounded. 

They'll pay Chase. I have no doubt. It's just a matter of when. It might not be this offseason, but we have plenty of time still (3 more years).

(08-15-2024, 10:20 AM)Southpaw Frerotte Wrote: Weird take.  Draft picks are slotted.  Are you suggesting the Bengals trade down and/or out of the first round in the instance they have a high first round draft pick again?  

Of course draft picks are slotted. But when a team gives guaranteed money to a draft pick -- in Chase's case $20 million dollars -- they take a risk. In some cases they don't work out -- I gave three examples -- and the team loses.  They still have to pay the money even if the player is a bust. There is nothing weird about stating that. When a contract is signed, I would expect both sides to honor the agreement. 

Having a hold-in and not practicing with the team with two years to go is a bad look, imho. I love Chase's play. I was hoping beyond hope the Bengals would draft him. And he's given me a lot of joy. And I hope the Bengals give him a new contract. But in the meanwhile, honor the one you signed.

(08-15-2024, 01:18 PM)phil413 Wrote: The consequences of being so firm on Tee is losing the threat of a plan B in negotiations with Chase.  They keep bringing up the pie, but I can't fault Chase's camp for playing hardball given the situation the FO painted themselves into.  They may have wanted Chase more, but the timing of Tee's extension forced their hand. 

It looks like they're going to let Tee leave for a comp pick and keep tagging Chase or be forced to trade him if they don't extend him.  If they don't want to pay him, they've got to draft better so good players are taking those pieces of the pie.  

Chase is under contract for another two seasons.  Beyond those two seasons the Bengals can tag Chase just like they did Tee.  They could then tag Chase again another season and still be under the 35 million Jefferson got.     The Bengals have Chase the next 4 years so Chase isnt forcing anything

(08-15-2024, 11:36 AM)Nately120 Wrote: That's possible, but other than a few pizza commercials I don't recall seeing Matt Stafford, for example, all that much.  I feel like you'd have to be pretty popular to get enough opportunity to make money on other stuff in order for it to compare to what you can make playing in the NFL at the top of your position group.  I assume that stuff is just icing on the proverbial cake rather than something players can be expected to factor into their "what can I get right now now now in black and white" contracts.

I also recall the commercial stalwarts like Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahommes making commercials before and after winning the SB (and Baker Mayfield doing the same minus the SB thing), rather than winning it and it then waiting for advertisers to come calling.  

I agree, but then again Stafford doesn't have the personality and doesn't look like someone you'd want trying to get people excited about a product or event, but Chase does.

Also, Stafford, while playing an obviously big role in them winning, wasn't a top player at his position like Chase is. 

With Burrow's improved protection, I feel like a very big year is coming up for Chase and the advertisers will come calling.

It's also not like how it used to be with only big market players getting exposure because with the internet and things like fantasy football, more people will become fans of Chase, Burrow, and the team. 

(08-14-2024, 03:27 PM)NotBigzo Wrote: It's business.

You guys wouldn't be okay with being criminally underpaid despite bringing an assload of value to your employer.

At least I would hope not.

The Bengals are valuable because they are an NFL team.  If Chase retired tomorrow the NFL would continue on without him and Mike Brown would still be a billionaire.

(08-15-2024, 01:50 PM)Southpaw Frerotte Wrote: You'd never look at the front office the same?  This is the same front office that brought us years of futility prior to Joe Burrow.

Right?  Not hard to tell who have been fans for longer than Burrow's arrival.  Mike Brown was referred to as the worst owner in pro sports multiple times since he took over.