BREAKING: Bengals give Trey Hendrickson permission to be traded

[Luvnit2]

(03-26-2025, 02:16 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I might be in the minority, but I wouldn't be opposed to contracts being forced to stick to AAV for cap hits and removing things like Void Years.
It would help keep things simpler and allow more parity across the league because teams like the Chiefs, Eagles, and Steelers couldn't manipulate the heck out of the cap like they do today.

I'm sure though doing that would be a lose-lose for both the teams and players themselves.

AAV is not the answer in my opinion because AAV is based on contract's maximum value. A better option would get the cap hit be tied to guaranteed money at signing. I agree players would lose a lot if this happened in my opinion.

As for structure, Bengals know the rules and can do the same manipulation, all teams can do so for me not a good case for changing it because our team refuses to use these methods to lower cap hits.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-26-2025, 09:30 AM)CJD Wrote: Trey's agent must be his wife's brother or something, because his incompetence is actually astonishing.

This is what I was thinking, cannot fire the agent or something...

(03-26-2025, 09:59 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: It's been linked in the past, but here is his agent's page: very eyebrow-raising.

https://nsafootball.com/about/

Wild. 

(03-26-2025, 10:19 AM)CJD Wrote: The funniest part to me was at the bottom, it has three players' images and names. Those three players:
Trey Hendrickson
Marquez Valdez-Scantling
Derick Hall

I don't know who their other players are, but if those are their top 3 players in the entire agency, Trey should probably join a bigger agency.
Scrolling their twitter page, it seems like they represent mostly undrafted free agents and waiver guys.

Names that they have retweeted recently:
Isaiah Williams
Jalen Virgil
Shemar Jean-Charles
Josh Blackwell
Luis Perez
Willie Snead IV
Tre Herndon
Mike Barrett
Gunner Britton

These players deserve representation and an agent who works for them, but negotiating a contract to get a player signed to a league minimum or relatively small dollar contract at the bottom of a roster is fundamentally different than negotiating a contract for a star player.

Seeing this list of players, it does not surprise me that he thought a 1 year extension worth 21 million dollars was a good idea. That's probably the most a player he represented was ever offered for a single year.

Interesting to say the least.

[QueenCity]

A player of Trey Hendrickson caliber should not be working with an agent wannabe. The players they have signed are mostly roster fodder.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-26-2025, 02:33 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: AAV is not the answer in my opinion because AAV is based on contract's maxium value. A better option would ge the cap hit be tied to guaranteed money at signing. I agree players would lose a lot if this happened in my opinion.

As for structure, Bengals know the rules and can do the same manipulation, all teams can do so for me not a good case for changing it because our team refuses to use these methods to lower cap hits.

I wasn't proposing it to make it easier for Bengals.
I was proposing it because it makes it easier for people to understand when they see the average annual value and try to equate that to cap year-to-year.

I like your idea about tying to guaranteed money, but that would really incentivize the teams to have as little guaranteed as possible then but be the opposite of what a player would want, no?

what about just making entire contracts guaranteed like MLB does?
That way the cap is spread evenly and the players get the full $$.
Void years could still be added to spread it out like they have done for Bobby Bonilla and Ken Griffey Jr.

[007BengalsFan]

(03-26-2025, 02:43 PM)ochocincos Wrote: ....what about just making entire contracts guaranteed like MLB does?
That way the cap is spread evenly and the players get the full $$.
Void years could still be added to spread it out like they have done for Bobby Bonilla and Ken Griffey Jr.

Why would anyone want the NFL to turn into something like MLB?  Fully guaranteed contracts are a bad idea.  Look at Cleveland with Deshaun Watson.  Does anyone really want that for the entire NFL?  It's not good for the team.  Its not good for their fans.  It's not good for the NFL as a whole.  If players cant guarantee their same level of production why should their contracts be guaranteed.  In my job if I start sucking at what I do, I get let go.  

Being able to cut guys allows that extra money to go toward other guys that are playing better.  What if everyone in the NFL were on guaranteed contracts right now and the salary cap stays flat?  How would you pay all the rookies coming off their contracts?  and other players coming off their current contracts that deserve a raise.  You need to be able to cut players and give that money to other players that deserve a raise instead of those that are under-performing.

...and void years are bad too.  You are borrowing money from future years to pay current players.  Its like going to a check cashing place to borrow money on your future checks to pay a current debt.  Next month when you have to pay bills, you have less money to cover your expenses.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-26-2025, 02:16 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I might be in the minority, but I wouldn't be opposed to contracts being forced to stick to AAV for cap hits and removing things like Void Years.
It would help keep things simpler and allow more parity across the league because teams like the Chiefs, Eagles, and Steelers couldn't manipulate the heck out of the cap like they do today.

I'm sure though doing that would be a lose-lose for both the teams and players themselves.

I would also be fine if they stripped most of the cap manipulation abilities away and made teams play it more straight. I don't think I would tie it to AAV though... but I wouldn't hate getting rid of void years, post-June-1 cuts, and then do something like tying restructuring base salary as a signing bonus to requiring adding at least 1 more fully guaranteed year worth no less than the franchise tag in base salary to do so so you can't just float future cap hits to un-guaranteed years.

Until they do that, though (aka almost certainly never), the Bengals need to learn how to play the cap game if they want to be real contenders for any stretch of time more than just a lucky blue moon year here or there.

[Whatever]

(03-26-2025, 04:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I would also be fine if they stripped most of the cap manipulation abilities away and made teams play it more straight. I don't think I would tie it to AAV though... but I wouldn't hate getting rid of void years, post-June-1 cuts, and then do something like tying restructuring base salary as a signing bonus to requiring adding at least 1 more fully guaranteed year worth no less than the franchise tag in base salary to do so so you can't just float future cap hits to un-guaranteed years.

Until they do that, though (aka almost certainly never), the Bengals need to learn how to play the cap game if they want to be real contenders for any stretch of time more than just a lucky blue moon year here or there.

The player's union would never go for it, as void years is a big way teams squeeze more guaranteed money into their contracts.. 

More likely, the league and union could agree to do away with the escrow rule, as that was put in place when a number of the teams weren't stable financially and losing money.  That would enable the cash poor teams to manipulate the cap to the same extent as the ones with more liquid cash on hand.  

[NUGDUKWE]

(03-26-2025, 04:16 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Why would anyone want the NFL to turn into something like MLB?  Fully guaranteed contracts are a bad idea.  Look at Cleveland with Deshaun Watson.  Does anyone really want that for the entire NFL?  It's not good for the team.  Its not good for their fans.  It's not good for the NFL as a whole.  If players cant guarantee their same level of production why should their contracts be guaranteed.  In my job if I start sucking at what I do, I get let go.  

Being able to cut guys allows that extra money to go toward other guys that are playing better.  What if everyone in the NFL were on guaranteed contracts right now and the salary cap stays flat?  How would you pay all the rookies coming off their contracts?  and other players coming off their current contracts that deserve a raise.  You need to be able to cut players and give that money to other players that deserve a raise instead of those that are under-performing.

...and void years are bad too.  You are borrowing money from future years to pay current players.  Its like going to a check cashing place to borrow money on your future checks to pay a current debt.  Next month when you have to pay bills, you have less money to cover your expenses.

This is not the right way to look at void years. It's closer to interest free same as cash as there is no fee to spreading the money out over several years. In reality it's a way to increase the cap. The Bengals just don't want to do it because with more cap space the more expectation there is to spend more money. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-26-2025, 05:26 PM)Whatever Wrote: The player's union would never go for it, as void years is a big way teams squeeze more guaranteed money into their contracts.. 

More likely, the league and union could agree to do away with the escrow rule, as that was put in place when a number of the teams weren't stable financially and losing money.  That would enable the cash poor teams to manipulate the cap to the same extent as the ones with more liquid cash on hand.  

That's why I said "aka almost certainly never" as when they'd do that.

The escrow rule going away would mean the ones with more liquid cash would then just move to larger signing bonuses and down that road is eventually fully-guaranteed contracts, which does NOT benefit fans.

I just want the cap to be more of an actual hard cap like it used to be because right now with void years and the such it's acting a bit more like a soft cap... obviously not quite MLB soft cap, but even without going that far it still isn't good for league parity.

[Bengalbug]

(03-26-2025, 05:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's why I said "aka almost certainly never" as when they'd do that.

The escrow rule going away would mean the ones with more liquid cash would then just move to larger signing bonuses and down that road is eventually fully-guaranteed contracts, which does NOT benefit fans.

I just want the cap to be more of an actual hard cap like it used to be because right now with void years and the such it's acting a bit more like a soft cap... obviously not quite MLB soft cap, but even without going that far it still isn't good for league parity.

It’s like a home builder. When the home building business is good, you can take future home money to pay for current home. At some point the homes stop coming. It always catches up with you.

The saints are still paying for it.
The rams somehow figured it out.
The niners are going through it.
The cowboys are headed into it.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-26-2025, 04:16 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Why would anyone want the NFL to turn into something like MLB?  Fully guaranteed contracts are a bad idea.  Look at Cleveland with Deshaun Watson.  Does anyone really want that for the entire NFL?  It's not good for the team.  Its not good for their fans.  It's not good for the NFL as a whole.  If players cant guarantee their same level of production why should their contracts be guaranteed.  In my job if I start sucking at what I do, I get let go.  

Being able to cut guys allows that extra money to go toward other guys that are playing better.  What if everyone in the NFL were on guaranteed contracts right now and the salary cap stays flat?  How would you pay all the rookies coming off their contracts?  and other players coming off their current contracts that deserve a raise.  You need to be able to cut players and give that money to other players that deserve a raise instead of those that are under-performing.

...and void years are bad too.  You are borrowing money from future years to pay current players.  Its like going to a check cashing place to borrow money on your future checks to pay a current debt.  Next month when you have to pay bills, you have less money to cover your expenses.

Well part of the reason MLB can pull it off is because they don't have a salary cap.
But IMO a salary cap would help basically force good players to go elsewhere, resulting in more parity across the league.
I see your point about not being good for the team, but how is it not good for the fans?
I would think that since players are caring about guaranteed money more these days, they'd be willing to take a lower overall contract if it was fully guaranteed.
And it may result in teams offering smaller, shorter contracts overall to help them field as strong of a team as possible.

Now if you're saying having fully guaranteed contracts may make it hard for some teams like the Eagles be able to field such a good team and they may get worse, well that's kind of the whole point. It would force teams to change their approach to how they handle contracts and negotiate across the league.

[Luvnit2]

NFL injuries make it near impossible for owners to agree to give more guaranteed money. Huge difference of injuries in MLB and NFL in my opinion.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(03-27-2025, 11:36 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: NFL injuries make it near impossible for owners to agree to give more guaranteed money. Huge difference of injuries in MLB and NFL in my opinion.

That's exactly it.

Even the worst injuries like a torn UCL or Rotator Cuff, you'll be back in a year, good as new (though for the latter, it wasn't until recently that it was a sure thing: shoulders were always 50/50).

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-27-2025, 11:55 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: That's exactly it.

Even the worst injuries like a torn UCL or Rotator Cuff, you'll be back in a year, good as new (though for the latter, it wasn't until recently that it was a sure thing: shoulders were always 50/50).

Yeah, NFL football is another animal than MLB for sure.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-26-2025, 10:19 AM)CJD Wrote: I don't know who their other players are, but if those are their top 3 players in the entire agency, Trey should probably join a bigger agency.

(03-26-2025, 02:35 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: This is what I was thinking, cannot fire the agent or something...

(03-26-2025, 02:38 PM)QueenCity Wrote: A player of Trey Hendrickson caliber should not be working with an agent wannabe. The players they have signed are mostly roster fodder.

Funny part is if he had a big time agent (eg: Mulugheta) there'd still be people blaming his agent for the lack of extension and saying he needed to fire his agent so they could actually get a deal done.

[chrisball96]

(03-27-2025, 02:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Funny part is if he had a big time agent (eg: Mulugheta) there'd still be people blaming his agent for the lack of extension and saying he needed to fire his agent so they could actually get a deal done.

Bit time agent or not, it just seems like his actual agent has chosen some really weird PR strategies, like putting it out there that a guy as old as Hendrickson might sit out a year at that point in his career/contract situation. I'm not sure anyone honestly believed that was going to be a real option.

I think part of it too is that Trey is such a standup guy and doesn't really show the "me-first" attitude that a lot of players that get into these money debates end up doing, at least from a public perception standpoint. So I think that makes it look like the agent is driving this wedge between Hendrickson and the team. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-27-2025, 02:05 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Funny part is if he had a big time agent (eg: Mulugheta) there'd still be people blaming his agent for the lack of extension and saying he needed to fire his agent so they could actually get a deal done.

Well, Tee had to fire Mulugheta to get his extension here. Maybe we were right about both agents eh TLL?

Ja'Marr's agent seems pretty big time after getting both deals done to me, more so than the ones that couldn't get their clients their money.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-27-2025, 04:24 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Well, Tee had to fire Mulugheta to get his extension here. Maybe we were right about both agents eh TLL?

Ja'Marr's agent seems pretty big time after getting both deals done to me, more so than the ones that couldn't get their clients their money.

Lol, that doesn't mean the agent was the problem in that scenario, Nate. It just means Chase used his leverage (with the assistance of public pressure from Burrow, plus the media making fun of the Bengals as long as they didn't get the Chase deal done) to strongarm the Bengals FO into a both-or-neither deal (for better or worse, we'll see). He got deals done with plenty of other teams. When seemingly every other agent in existence  is "the problem" when it comes to dealing with the Bengals FO, perhaps, just maybe, it's the one consistent that's the problem.

[007BengalsFan]

(03-27-2025, 10:06 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I see your point about not being good for the team, but how is it not good for the fans?

The fans are the ones that financially support the teams and NFL.   Using Deshaun Watson as an example again, the Cleveland fans were stuck having to support that type of QB play year after year.    Imagine if it were the Bengals that gave Watson a huge guaranteed contract.  Would that be good for Bengals fans especially when their tax dollars pay for the stadium plus all the other money the NFL and the teams generate because of those very fans.  Fully guaranteed contracts like MLB are just a bad idea.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-27-2025, 06:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Lol, that doesn't mean the agent was the problem in that scenario, Nate. It just means Chase used his leverage (with the assistance of public pressure from Burrow, plus the media making fun of the Bengals as long as they didn't get the Chase deal done) to strongarm the Bengals FO into a both-or-neither deal (for better or worse, we'll see). He got deals done with plenty of other teams. When seemingly every other agent in existence  is "the problem" when it comes to dealing with the Bengals FO, perhaps, just maybe, it's the one consistent that's the problem.

I tried to get one over on yah brother. Was a good test. You passed, well done lol