Whitworth-Bengals lowballed

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-04-2018, 04:52 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: 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 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.  

Found it.

It wasn't close. They offered him a one year, incentive laden deal of UP to 10 million vs $13 million year 1 w/ the rams and at least $2.5 guaranteed the next year, almost assuring him he wouldn't be on the street in Year 2 at age 35.

— Katherine Terrell (@Kat_Terrell) December 4, 2018

Wasn't just 1yr/$10m, it was apparently UP TO $10m if he hit a ton of incentives.

Hopefully now we can keep the "it was just the years" people making excuses for the Bengals quiet, too.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-04-2018, 04:52 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: 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 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.  

(12-04-2018, 05:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Found it.

It wasn't close. They offered him a one year, incentive laden deal of UP to 10 million vs $13 million year 1 w/ the rams and at least $2.5 guaranteed the next year, almost assuring him he wouldn't be on the street in Year 2 at age 35.

— Katherine Terrell (@Kat_Terrell) December 4, 2018

Wasn't just 1yr/$10m, it was apparently UP TO $10m if he hit a ton of incentives.

Hopefully now we can keep the "it was just the years" people making excuses for the Bengals quiet, too.

Wow. So not only was it much shorter AND basically all incentives, the max potential of the deal was still well under what other teams were offering in base pay. 

No wonder Whit was insulted.

[Bengalholic]

(12-04-2018, 05:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Found it.

It wasn't close. They offered him a one year, incentive laden deal of UP to 10 million vs $13 million year 1 w/ the rams and at least $2.5 guaranteed the next year, almost assuring him he wouldn't be on the street in Year 2 at age 35.

— Katherine Terrell (@Kat_Terrell) December 4, 2018

Wasn't just 1yr/$10m, it was apparently UP TO $10m if he hit a ton of incentives.

Hopefully now we can keep the "it was just the years" people making excuses for the Bengals quiet, too.

Thanks. I didn't remember that it involved incentives to get there. Just embarrassing all the way around.  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-04-2018, 04:59 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: 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.

Thing is.....they could've used the transition tag to evaluate his play for the season, and saved money.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(12-04-2018, 04:45 PM)3wt Wrote: 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.

This post is Gold.

The team screwed this up in every way possible. They could not have done a worse job.  And this is a microcosm of the entire organization. 

In the 90's they were set up to fail.

Since ML joined they are not set up to succeed. 

Subtle difference but end result is the same. 

[Yojimbo]

(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.

This is where my thoughts went as well. The Bengals probably didn’t want Whit back because they thought they had the future in Ced. So, they lowball knowing Whit will turn it down and the team can save face by saying “we tried, he didn’t want to be here”

[fredtoast]

Bengals offered $10 million (I guess we are taking that number as accurate). He signed with Rams for $11.25 million per year.

The rest of the contract terms are only a big deal if Whit wanted to get paid for not playing or paid top money for not playing well. And that is exactly what the Bengals were afraid of. Mike Brown got burnt on the contracts he gave to both Levi Jones and Willie Anderson so he was a little gun shy about promising to pay a lot of money to a guy for not playing.

Lots of other teams do the same thing with older players. The only reason it was such a disaster here is because the replacements we had were total crap. Nothing wrong with the Bengals plan. It is exactly what the Patriots do. We just failed horribly in the execution.

[Circleville Guy]

(12-04-2018, 05:16 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Thing is.....they could've used the transition tag to evaluate his play for the season, and saved money.

Then transition tag. The point is, the new guys were unknowns. They gambled and lost big time.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(12-04-2018, 05:26 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: Then transition tag. The point is, the new guys were unknowns. They gambled and lost big time.

It was not even a gamble, they had already seen how shitty Og and Fisher were. The plan had 0% chance to succeed, that is suicide not gambling. 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-04-2018, 05:26 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: Then transition tag. The point is, the new guys were unknowns. They gambled and lost big time.

Yeah.....I was just adding to your post....franchise tag, transition whatever.  My point was, it was an even bigger failure to not use the transition than the franchise tag.  It was the ultimate Bungal move.

[Bengalholic]

(12-04-2018, 05:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bengals offered $10 million (I guess we are taking that number as accurate).  He signed with Rams for $11.25 million per year.

The rest of the contract terms are only a big deal if Whit wanted to get paid for not playing or paid top money for not playing well.  And that is exactly what the Bengals were afraid of.  Mike Brown got burnt on the contracts he gave to both Levi Jones and Willie Anderson so he was a little gun shy about promising to pay  a lot of money to a guy for not playing.

Lots of other teams do the same thing with older players.  The only reason it was such a disaster here is because the replacements we had were total crap.  Nothing wrong with the Bengals plan.  It is exactly what the Patriots do.  We just failed horribly in the execution.

Only 15m of his Rams deal was guaranteed. Pretty low risk investment for a player of Whit's caliber at a premium position.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-04-2018, 05:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Only 15m of his Rams deal was guaranteed. Pretty low risk investment for a player of Whit's caliber at a premium position.

Not defending the Bengals by any means...but it's virtually unprecedented what Whitworth is doing at age 35 and beyond. Most tackles play falls off of a cliff at that point in their career.

[Bengalholic]

(12-04-2018, 05:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Not defending the Bengals by any means...but it's virtually unprecedented what Whitworth is doing at age 35 and beyond. Most tackles play falls off of a cliff at that point in their career.

Which is why I think the Rams were very smart with how they structured the deal. They minimized their own risk, and are now reaping the benefits. Apparently the other deals he was offered were very similar...except for the one from the Bengals.

[impactplaya]

not resigning Whit and drafting those 2 stiffs has set this franchise back

[*ochocincos*]

(12-04-2018, 04:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.

We all know the Bengals honor their contracts, especially for a guy like Whitworth, so essentially his whole contract would have been guaranteed.

[BengalsBong]

Whit was not worth the money he got the way he was playing for us here.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-04-2018, 07:13 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: Whit was not worth the money he got the way he was playing for us here.

2014: 2nd Team All-Pro
2015: 1st Team All-Pro, Pro Bowl
2016: Pro Bowl
--FA--


Yeah, what a schlub.

[dr tarzan]

All this is giving me the feeling of deja vue all over again. The lost decade was ushered in when MFB, who had taken over football operations the year before Paul died, when Mikie-boy decided to assume in 1990 that Max Montoya would give a home town discount and play for less since he was an aging vet with not alot of gas in the tank and not worth a multi-year deal. Max goes to the Raiders as a free agent and starts for 4 more years....and the lost decade is off and running. I think we are in for another lost decade, until soP finally dies or just retires from football operations.

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2018, 06:28 PM)impactplaya Wrote: not resigning Whit and drafting those 2 stiffs has set this franchise back

Agreed.

[masonbengals fan]

(12-04-2018, 07:13 PM)BengalsBong Wrote: Whit was not worth the money he got the way he was playing for us here.

Huh....