05-06-2023, 07:57 PM
(05-06-2023, 07:50 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I remember back when Carson Palmer forced a trade out of Cincinnati, Mike Brown was on record saying "Carson made a commitment to us, and we made a commitment to Carson". They were hell bent on not trading him until they got on offer they couldn't refuse.
It was silly to think the Bengals were going to entertain the idea of cutting Mixon or trading Jonah. That's just not how they operate and it's not how they've ever operated. They value the commitments of players and the contracts that they sign.
Another part of me makes me wonder the kind of message that would have sent if this organization were to cut Mixon. We know the Bengals don't guarantee money, but the essentially guarantee length of contract. They RARELY cut guys before their contract is up (especially star players or larger contracts).
If they were to cut Mixon (VERY liked on the team, outspoken leader), their credibility with holding true to contracts would have been shot. Not great timing when you're trying to sign Higgins and Burrow long term and most likely not offering a ton of guaranteed money (at least to Higgins). I really do think this is a big part of why Mixon wasn't let go.
So, do I think the Bengals wanted to cut Mixon and trade Jonah? Yeah, I do. Especially the first part. I think the Bengals know the kind of message that would have sent to the players in the locker room and around the league, though.
I think that's part of it. Likely, going hand in hand with this is how careful the Bengals structure contracts. So as to not get in situations, where they have to restructure deals. Because the Browns aren't independently wealthy and the team IS their business, they have to be very careful. Thus it does seem they have old school commitments in a league where most business is ruthless.
Considering the OP and my comments, i think it will be very interesting to see what the key extensions look like going forward.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
