Volson Renegotiates Contract

[*pally*]

This one hasn't formerly been announced but is on the Bengals transaction report from 5/14. What the changes are will be interesting to watch. Every season of the contract thus far has ended up with him getting performance-based enhancers because of his playing time. But logic says he had to have taken a pay cut. He was due to make $3.8 million with minimal dead money

The odds are this means he is likely to be on the team

05/14
Re-negotiated the contract of G Cordell Volson.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 06:26 PM)pally Wrote: This one hasn't formerly been announced but is on the Bengals transaction report from 5/14.  What the changes are will be interesting to watch.  Every season of the contract thus far has ended up with him getting performance-based enhancers because of his playing time.  But logic says he had to have taken a pay cut.  He was due to make $3.8 million with minimal dead money

The odds are this means he is likely to be on the team

05/14
Re-negotiated the contract of G Cordell Volson.

I have no problem if he is on the team, hopefully for a lot less money than almost 4 million.

I also hope the new OL coach can help him greatly improve.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

It would be the third different guy the Bengals had take a paycut this offseason.

Just in case any of the "sign a contract, honor the contract" folks were counting.

[*michaelsean*]

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It would be the third different guy the Bengals had take a paycut this offseason.

Just in case any of the "sign a contract, honor the contract" folks were counting.

The contract say you can cut him. They are offering him an option.

Not exactly big savings either way though.

[NUGDUKWE]

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It would be the third different guy the Bengals had take a paycut this offseason.

Just in case any of the "sign a contract, honor the contract" folks were counting.

Yes exactly. This one was done quietly last week and people just noticed it on theyre list of transactions. I really hope this is a sign we are gonna either extend Trey or bring in an outside FA. Not really a good look trying to pinch pennies with guys. Even if we think they should take a paycut are filling out our roster with guys that played so bad we can force them into a paycut. 

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It would be the third different guy the Bengals had take a paycut this offseason.

Just in case any of the "sign a contract, honor the contract" folks were counting.

It is a business. The Bengals have honored the contracts. None of these guys had to say yes to a pay cut. 

Just like Trey does not demand a huge pay increase. 

At a minimum, we created more carry over for 2026 cap. 

I don't think many fans in here believe Volson was worth almost 4 million in 2025 and then a FA in 2025. If he took a cut, he and his agent understood it also.

[samhain]

Hell yeah!

3D chess Super Bowl blueprint here. Keep most of the same shitty guards. Sign a journeyman backup that's possibly marginally better than your starters. Draft a mid round borderline starter.

Better get them boys fitted for rangz boyeeeee!!!! We have so much borderline starter depth that we could lose 3 to injury and still maintain the same poor level of play.

I know for sure that after last season, the one thing this team needed to succeed was cheaper players. Not better ones, but the same ones making less money.

[QueenCity]

Asking players to take a pay cut without another move is dumb business.

They didn't need an extra 2-3 million for Birthdays and Christmas money. They need to use that to improve the roster or extend Trey.

[CottonHill]

The fact that we are paying an oft injured #2 wr 30million dollars and still have this guy starting at guard troubles me. It’s the exact opposite way a Super Bowl team is built

[*ochocincos*]

What I'm suspecting this is....

"Hey Cordell, you are getting too much money for your rookie contract. We need to renegotiate, or else..."

"Well, Mike/Katie, this is because of performance bonuses based on the league policy on how many games y'all put me in."

"Yea...we probably shouldn't have done that....cuz you not worth that much $$ for your actual performance on the field bruh."

[J24]

(Yesterday, 09:34 PM)CottonHill Wrote: The fact that we are paying an oft injured #2 wr 30million dollars and still have this guy starting at guard troubles me. It’s the exact opposite way a Super Bowl team is built

The FO could have signed Tevin Jenkins for 3,550,000 this season. The issue isn't Tee or his contract. It's the fact that the FO is run by a bunch of lazy morons.

[phil413]

(Yesterday, 06:26 PM)pally Wrote: This one hasn't formerly been announced but is on the Bengals transaction report from 5/14.  What the changes are will be interesting to watch.  Every season of the contract thus far has ended up with him getting performance-based enhancers because of his playing time.  But logic says he had to have taken a pay cut.  He was due to make $3.8 million with minimal dead money

The odds are this means he is likely to be on the team

05/14
Re-negotiated the contract of G Cordell Volson.

I was wondering if the performance bonus counts against the cap because that's probably the money he's handing back.  As in, maybe he's less of a cut risk without the raise he earned.  Either way, his actual performance earned him a paycut which further defeats the old quote from I believe Mike Brown years ago equating draft success with playing time. Like if we play crappy players it means they're good.  

They wanted to get ahead of the program by "making" a mid round pick at least a fringe starter at a position of need, hoping that he breaks out.  At least now, they've got one more year of sunken cost fallacy at less cost.  I'm not mad at him being on the roster as the 9th guy for cheap.  

[*ochocincos*]

(Yesterday, 09:34 PM)CottonHill Wrote: The fact that we are paying an oft injured #2 wr 30million dollars and still have this guy starting at guard troubles me. It’s the exact opposite way a Super Bowl team is built

I agree, it's a travesty that we have to likely see one if not two of Ford, Patrick, Volson, and Kirkland start on the OL this year.
And I was surprised the Bengals were willing to pay so much for a WR2.
With that said, I do wonder if the pressure (threat?) of potentially not signing Chase played into the decision to sign Higgins or not.
That additional $$ could have gone a long way in signing two good veterans at other positions at G/DL and drafted a WR early to replace Higgins instead.


I would have been completely ok, possibly even more excited, if Bengals had instead signed James Daniels + Chase Young and drafted Egbuka in Rd 1.
To me, that would have given a really good, versatile IOL in his prime, a good DE2 in his prime age to replace Hubbard, and a really sound, productive WR from a college who has been churning out good WRs in recent years to be the new WR2 for years to come.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(Yesterday, 09:34 PM)CottonHill Wrote: The fact that we are paying an oft injured #2 wr 30million dollars and still have this guy starting at guard troubles me. It’s the exact opposite way a Super Bowl team is built

The fact that you don't watch Video or read up on things is even more troubling.

Fairchild has been running with three ones since camp started and Volson won't see a second of starting time unless someone is hurt. 

Lazy.

The starters will be Fairchild and Patrick, book it.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 07:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It would be the third different guy the Bengals had take a paycut this offseason.

Just in case any of the "sign a contract, honor the contract" folks were counting.

You keep throwing out that false equivalency. A contract says a player will play for a certain franchise for a certain number of years, and right there in the contract it tells the player what the contract guarantees. Money guarantees, no cut clauses, etc. If a team has paid the player all his monetary guarantees, and there is no "no cut" clause, and then they renegotiate or cut the player, the team has lived up to it's part of the bargain. 

[J24]

(8 hours ago)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: The fact that you don't watch Video or read up on things is even more troubling.

Fairchild has been running with three ones since camp started and Volson won't see a second of starting time unless someone is hurt. 

Lazy.

The starters will be Fairchild and Patrick, book it.

Kinda of hoping Rivers eventually takes over at RG this season.

[Stewy]

(3 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You keep throwing out that false equivalency. A contract says a player will play for a certain franchise for a certain number of years, and right there in the contract it tells the player what the contract guarantees. Money guarantees, no cut clauses, etc. If a team has paid the player all his monetary guarantees, and there is no "no cut" clause, and then they renegotiate or cut the player, the team has lived up to it's part of the bargain. 

Stop!  You're cutting into peoples need to be dramatic!

[Stewy]

On a serious note:

It has been widely discussed that Pollack was not a talent developer (not knocking on him, but it isn't his forte). His skills were related to scheme. Our new coach, Peters?, is a talent developer, and brings in new concepts in hand use, stance, leverage from the wrestling/jiujitsu (sp) world. My conclusion has been that Peters evaluation period of our OL is long over, and the fact that we kept Volson says to me that he thinks there's something salvageable there even if it is just as a backup.

Also I suspect that Volson's contract changes are related to heavily incentivized version, and less base salary.