(12-04-2018, 01:52 PM)mon4078 Wrote: I think they probably did offer him a lower amount because the thought the already had his replacement.

"The Bengals wanted to keep Whitworth, and he wanted to return to Cincinnati. So why didn’t it happen?"

"It wasn't that the Bengals didn't try. A source close to the negotiations said they were competitive in their offers, but the gap between the money offered in the first year and the amount of fully guaranteed money the second year was just too great."

"The Bengals tried to plan for this day, looking to the future by drafting tackles Cedric Ogbuehi and Jake Fisher in the first and second rounds of the 2015 draft. But Whitworth was just too good to lose his spot, and Ogbuehi and Fisher weren't good enough to even challenge him for it.

To understand what happened, it would be necessary to go back to 2015, when Whitworth and the Bengals were trying to negotiate a contract extension. The talks dragged on through September of that year before the Bengals gave in and gave Whitworth a one-year, $9 million extension.

The Bengals' reluctance to move forward with the negotiations did not sit well with Whitworth's camp. It was a bitter taste that lingered.

It appeared that both sides were moving forward when the Bengals made offers to Whitworth's representatives in the weeks leading up to free agency, but they did not take the necessary steps to ensure he would not leave for another team.

A source close to Whitworth wondered why the team did not place the franchise tag ($14.8 million for one year), or transition tag ($12.6 million) on him. The transition tag would have allowed them to assess Whitworth's value while having the opportunity to match, while the franchise tag, though expensive if Whitworth actually played on it, could have protected their investment while they continued to negotiate.

The Bengals did neither."



http://www.espn.com/blog/cincinnati-bengals/post/_/id/26272/bengals-make-huge-mistake-in-losing-andrew-whitworth-to-rams

What a joke of a franchise.

I can't find the article, but supposedly they were walking around the combine telling people that Whitworth was going to resign.

(12-04-2018, 01:19 PM)jj22 Wrote: One day someone will leave the Bengals and have something nice to say about them.

(12-04-2018, 01:49 PM)GodFather Wrote: Said Nobody....

Well.....I did meet Kimo Von Olhoffen a few years ago....he said nice things about Son of Paul.

(12-04-2018, 12:14 PM)Wyche Wrote: So......does this mean my "cheap bastard" comments were not out of line a week or so ago?

Yes because Whit is talking bout th length of the contract instead of the money.

Unforgivable

The Bengals had zero interest in retaining Andrew Whitworth.

Typical Mike Brown. Not a surprise at all.

And this was after he got to see just how bad Ogbuehi and Fisher were. But hey, Paul Alexander could always play him a song.

(12-04-2018, 12:38 PM)Whatever Wrote: Except that's not what Whit said.

But he did say this which is quite telling...

and the excitement to try and go win, really not having much of a commitment from them,

(12-04-2018, 03:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes because Whit is talking bout th length of the contract instead of the money.

No, I'm pretty sure total money being offered by other teams was quite a bit more than the total money offered by Mike Brown. And, clearly Whit had more than one year left in him.

I didn't read OP's article, but the Whit quote he showed mentions nothing of length, just that the Bengals offer wasn't on par with the others.

You could read that as money or length, really. Something tells me it was a bit of both.

(12-04-2018, 03:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes because Whit is talking bout th length of the contract instead of the money.

Lol, good one.

(12-04-2018, 12:24 PM)Whatever Wrote: They weren't close on the total value, that much is known already.  They were suppossedly close on per year average, and Whit doesn't address that in his comments.  So basically, the author is just trying to create a spin on already known info based on recent comments.  

Kat Terrell outlined before that the Bengals' offer was about a 1-year, $10 mill deal.
Compare that to 3-year, $35 mill (average per year - $11.67 mill)

(12-04-2018, 04:12 PM)BengalChris Wrote: No, I'm pretty sure total money being offered by other teams was quite a bit more than the total money offered by Mike Brown. And, clearly Whit had more than one year left in him.

Apparently this was not the Bengals' view.  The sense I have after what I've read is that money being offered was comparable in the amount (though it sounds like it was heavily tied to incentives), but that they clearly doubted his ability to play at his pro bowl level for more than one year. 

And I think they believed, because of Paul Alexander, that Og and Fish (emphasis on Og) were going to pan out - that we really should not need to pay Whit at that level for more than one year.   Alexander grossly overestimated in his assessment of Og.

Combine that with other successful teams like the Patriots and the Steelers who always seem to know when to cut a player and I would imagine they felt they could not realistically afford to tie up their cap with that kind of commitment.  They based their decision based on what better teams are able to assess.

But they do not have the talent in their front office to correctly assess how long a player is going to be worth the money.

And they failed to assess the value of the man's character and the impact that had on the team.   Whit was gold, and I don't think he would have played beyond his ability to perform at a top level.  He would have terminated his own contract.

Huge, Huge failure at the front office level.   And if they had not messed around the year before they would have save money and been able to get him signed.

They squatted on him.   And it says SO much that they were the ONLY team that did not present a competitive offer.

(12-04-2018, 04:02 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: The Bengals had zero interest in retaining Andrew Whitworth.

That is just not true. 

(12-04-2018, 01:29 PM)Whatever Wrote: We already knew the Bengals were only offering 1 year.  1 year/$12 mil isn't close to 3 years/$36 mil, especially if you're an aging vet.

Except it is unlikely they offered $12m.

The Franchise Tag that year for OL was just a little over $14m.

What we already "knew" was that Hobson loves to spin things with lies, and the Bengals are cheap. Also that there's a segment of the Bengals fandom that will readily believe anything they read from Hobson for God-knows-what reason.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

That said, Andrew Whitworth actually got $12.5m in the first year, including a $5m signing bonus which means he got that upfront.

Then he had another $2.5m guaranteed.

So even if the Rams cut him after 1 year, he would have walked away with $15m.

So lets pretend the Bengals DID offer him 1yr/$12m. That's not the same as a guarantee of 1yr/$15m, with $5m of that coming the second you sign on the dotted line. Was ANY of the Bengals offer guaranteed? Potential money isn't the same as real guaranteed money.

In comparison, Burfict got a $3.3m signing bonus from the Bengals on a $32.5m deal. There is a huge difference on getting $5m today or getting $5m over the span of 12-14 months in terms of how much money you can then make by investing that money.

The Bengals are cheap.

(12-04-2018, 04:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I didn't read OP's article, but the Whit quote he showed mentions nothing of length, just that the Bengals offer wasn't on par with the others.

You could read that as money or length, really. Something tells me it was a bit of both.

Yeah, the Bengals offered a 1 yr- 10m deal. There had to be some part of Whit that took that offer as an insult, compared to what others were offering. The Bengals could have easily structured the deal in the same way the Rams did...basically a 1 year guaranteed deal, with a 2 yr option that they could walk away from only owing 3m I think. 

But, they didn't and now Whit is playing for a legit SB contender and his supposed replacement is such a dud he can't stay off the inactive list even when he's completely healthy and other T's are injured.  

(12-04-2018, 04:52 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Yeah, the Bengals offered a 1 yr- 10m deal. They're had to be some part of Whit that took that offer as an insult, compared to what others were offering. The Bengals could have easily structured the deal in the same way the Rams did...basically a 1 year guaranteed deal, with a 2 yr option that could be bought out for 3m I think. 

But, they didn't and now Whit is playing for a legit SB contender and his supposed replacement is such a dud he can't stay off the inactive list even when he's completely healthy and other T's are injured.  

The worst bust since Akili Smith.

The franchise tag is there for a reason. It was obvious at the time that they should of tagged Whit and waited to see if the two draft picks were good or turds. We found out which they were the hard way.

Witt isn't the first and won't be the last player to be bitter over contract negotiations and the Bengals aren't the first nor last to have these things blow up in their faces. It's just another yawner to me. He's going to make around 34 MILLION with LA and I'm supposed to feel sorry? In contrast Ogbuehi makes a bit over 9 MILLION to sit on the bench . The average grade school teacher is paid around 54 THOUSAND and arguably contribute FAR MORE to society than any football player.  
Personally I don't think any football player is worth a million bucks much less multiples of millions, but nobody is asking my opinion on these matters so I don't really care that he left for 34 MILLION bucks. I might have done the same thing, but then I don't go through life worrying about my lack of millions of dollars ..