Is Shemar holding out?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 05:13 PM)Sled21 Wrote: You can think what you want. I just think MB watches what goes on up North and sees Cleveland paying a QB huge money to not play because he can't keep his hands to himself, and the Raiders paying a WR to sit in jail, and does not want to be in that position.

Nice attempt, Cleveland gave him that money already knowing about it. They went into that situation fully knowing who they were paying and what he did. They even formatted the contract so that while he was suspended the first year of it he'd lose less money.

So yes, if Mike Brown is seeing a team give a contract to a guy who ends up sucking and thinks "I want to get out of paying a guy his guaranteed money if I don't want to" then it goes exactly back to the point of... why is a player guilty of something for not wanting to give away his guarantees to the whims of someone who doesn't want to pay him?

Was it you who claimed this before or was it someone else? Because it's just as much of a lie now as it was earlier. The Raiders aren't paying a WR to sit in jail.

[Bengalitis]

(Yesterday, 09:26 AM)George Cantstandya Wrote: If I understand the CBA correctly if the Bengals retract their offer Stewart would become an undrafted rookie and can sign with another team. I think he would still be subject to waivers though??  





In the above case I think he would lose his 1st round pick guaranteed salary if signed with another team.

Stewart could enter the draft again next year if he refuses to sign and does not sign a contract with another professional football league, like CFL.  In the later case the Bengals would retain his rights for 3 years.  If for some reason he was permitted to play in college again this year and does so the Bengals would still have his right next year. 


EDIT:  I was looking at the wrong section of the CBA in the quote above.  See my other post below for more info.

If this is true, the Players Association is weak. wow!

[SunsetBengal]

(Yesterday, 06:00 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: If this is true, the Players Association is weak. wow!

How so? The league has a process of holding a draft as their way of teams selecting the best talent available from the year's current talent pool. If a player wants to play in the league, it is customary to honor those traditional conventions and make a deal with the team whom they were selected by. (yes, spare me the "exceptions" arguments, as Shamar Stewart is no can't-miss prospect by any stretch) So, unless some team reaches out to the Bengals with a favorable trade offer for the rights to negotiate with Shemar Stewart, he risks losing those 1st round pick guarantees, entirely.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 06:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How so? The league has a process of holding a draft as their way of teams selecting the best talent available from the year's current talent pool. If a player wants to play in the league, it is customary to honor those traditional conventions and make a deal with the team whom they were selected by. (yes, spare me the "exceptions" arguments, as Shamar Stewart is no can't-miss prospect by any stretch) So, unless some team reaches out to the Bengals with a favorable trade offer for the rights to negotiate with Shemar Stewart, he risks losing those 1st round pick guarantees, entirely.

If a team pulling their offer to a player means they can't play at all that year rather than becoming a free agent, it's admittedly a pretty lame loophole that the NFLPA left open.

If we are sitting there with Joe Burrow already on our team, we have the 1st overall pick, the Steelers have the 2nd overall pick and nobody is willing to trade up with us? We should just take the QB and later withdrawal the offer. We then don't have to pay ~$48m guaranteed to a backup QB, and the Steelers don't get a franchise QB with their one rare shot with a high pick..... But then the best QB in the draft is forced to sit out a year and not play football.

[Bengalitis]

(Yesterday, 06:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How so? The league has a process of holding a draft as their way of teams selecting the best talent available from the year's current talent pool. If a player wants to play in the league, it is customary to honor those traditional conventions and make a deal with the team whom they were selected by. (yes, spare me the "exceptions" arguments, as Shamar Stewart is no can't-miss prospect by any stretch) So, unless some team reaches out to the Bengals with a favorable trade offer for the rights to negotiate with Shemar Stewart, he risks losing those 1st round pick guarantees, entirely.

The bengals get exclusivity for 3 yrs for him not signing him? that seems like too long.. also if he plays in Canadian football... hmm..  injuries alone are his enemy, then putting an exclusivity clause when there was not contract.. This year unable to play I get it, after that he should be allowed to do as he pleases. Its not like he's getting compensated...

[SunsetBengal]

(Yesterday, 06:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If a team pulling their offer to a player means they can't play at all that year rather than becoming a free agent, it's admittedly a pretty lame loophole that the NFLPA left open.

If we are sitting there with Joe Burrow already on our team, we have the 1st overall pick, the Steelers have the 2nd overall pick and nobody is willing to trade up with us? We should just take the QB and later withdrawal the offer. We then don't have to pay ~$48m guaranteed to a backup QB, and the Steelers don't get a franchise QB with their one rare shot with a high pick..... But then the best QB in the draft is forced to sit out a year and not play football.

Hmm, that may be a poor example of an analogy for the situation. We're not talking John Elway, Bo Jackson or even the other Manning, we're talking about a crap shoot on a middle of the round guy named Shemar Stewart. Many fans of this team actively wished against him even being selected by the Bengals, well before the draft. 

I don't care how good he looked at Senior Bowl Week, or measured out at the underwear Olympics, when the bullets were live his stats were pitiful on a stacked DL no less...

He needs to have a talk with his agent, humble up and sign his dang contract.

[Bengalion]

Such a sad situation. If I'm not mistaken lot of fans were disappointed when Goodell announced the pick. Now with all this stuff going on, I feel like they’re going to hate it even more. Honestly I’ve got no idea who’s really at fault here, so I’ll keep my judgment to myself for now.

[Essex Johnson]

Kudos to Mims for reaching out to Stewart, i really think Mims is going to be solid player and leader soon for this team

[Destro]

(Yesterday, 02:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As Ocho said, if that was their only concern, they could have easily made the language very specific to cover it. Instead it covers everything, including tickytack BS. Which is the Bengals MO, as the originators of the Pickens Clause.

I admit I am not sure what the current language is and what each side wants, but if it was a thing where he worries they will enforce minor things, and they don't plan to, could specific clauses happen? Like, indicted on a class 2 misdemeanor or greater? They won't "pay a guy in jail" and he won't have to worry about losing money for smaller perceived violations. 

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 02:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Congrats, you fell for the entire reason Mike Brown spoke to the media and ONLY mentioned domestic violence and jail... rather than things like "conduct detrimental" can also mean the team didn't like a tweet you sent out.

As Ocho said, if that was their only concern, they could have easily made the language very specific to cover it. Instead it covers everything, including tickytack BS. Which is the Bengals MO, as the originators of the Pickens Clause.

Since you what the contract language is, can you paste it for us to read 

[125250]

(Yesterday, 11:19 PM)Destro Wrote: I admit I am not sure what the current language is and what each side wants, but if it was a thing where he worries they will enforce minor things, and they don't plan to, could specific clauses happen? Like, indicted on a class 2 misdemeanor or greater? They won't "pay a guy in jail" and he won't have to worry about losing money for smaller perceived violations. 

Is he planning on committing crimes? Why would you even want a guy that’s worried about this? 

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(Yesterday, 12:41 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I don't think the Bengals are thinking about on field altercations or even smoking weed. MB is talking about not wanting to pay a guy who is sitting in jail. So to me that means they are worried more about Domestic Violence or a Henry Ruggs scenario

We don’t know that. The proposed language is wider than that and they may be using a more extreme example to push through the wider language.

However Shemar’s beef isn’t with the breadth of the clause but the principle of the clause being different to what was previously offered. We know this as he specifically said this. However the language is used elsewhere in the League (and I understand on R2 pick Knight’s contract too).

As someone who was once an inexperienced contract negotiator I recognize the agent clinging to last year’s language and not wanting to shift from that precedent. But as you gain experience you gain a greater appreciation of what matters and of each side’s bargaining power. Ultimately this isn’t a battle he’s going to win as he has no leverage and his client needs this deal more than the Bengals do. He’s doing his client no favors either by holding him out from training camp reps nor by taking cheap shots at Tobin.

The Bengals could invariably have handled this better but I think we’re looking at least a 80:20 blame on the Agent.

What the Bengals have done a good job on is framing it as an issue on the Agent rather than the player. That’s important for the long term relationship. I actually think it does reflect on Shemar’s lack of maturity and I think privately they may have concerns on that but they are wise not to voice those.

[Destro]

(Today, 06:48 AM)125250 Wrote: Is he planning on committing crimes? Why would you even want a guy that’s worried about this? 

How does him "planning on committing crimes" apply to anything I said?
 
From what I hear, it isn't about specifically committing crimes, but language that may include simple violations.

Why would we want an organization who will strip the pay for a guy who gets in trouble for smaller things, like caught on video doing reckless driving? Didn't Tee and Chase do that? Still want those guys on the team, right?

If the organization has zero plans to take money for him getting a roughing the passer calls against the Steelers or other things that no one should be concerned about, why can't they install a red line violation in the contract? Be specific and not vague. 

We still drafted that guy. From what I have seen, his production was a question, not criminal actions. Burton got drafted and he didn't have the language in the contract. 

[*pally*]

As I see it this clause had nothing to do with Shemar as a person. They would have inserted that language regardless of who pick 17 was. As guaranteed salaries get higher and affect more players, this is the Bengals accepting that fact but protecting themselves the best they can.

I have a feeling the Bengals are done talking with him and his wannabe super agent. The final contract is on the table…take it or leave it.

He will never see first round money like this again in his life. He would still be young if he sits out season needed to escape the Bengals but no way would he drafted in the first round again. He was lucky to be drafted 17th this year.

It sucks but he has zero leverage. He’s the wrong player with the wrong agent to make this stand against the only team in the NFL who won’t blink

[Stewy]

(Yesterday, 05:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Nice attempt, Cleveland gave him that money already knowing about it. They went into that situation fully knowing who they were paying and what he did. They even formatted the contract so that while he was suspended the first year of it he'd lose less money.

So yes, if Mike Brown is seeing a team give a contract to a guy who ends up sucking and thinks "I want to get out of paying a guy his guaranteed money if I don't want to" then it goes exactly back to the point of... why is a player guilty of something for not wanting to give away his guarantees to the whims of someone who doesn't want to pay him?

Was it you who claimed this before or was it someone else? Because it's just as much of a lie now as it was earlier. The Raiders aren't paying a WR to sit in jail.

Honest questions because I'm not scrolling back through 50 pages of redundant spam to see if it was asked.....

So the Raiders have a guy in jail?  

Did the contract language protect the Raiders?  

Do we know specifically if that contract language was specific to felonious crime or broad brush?  

Do we know for a fact the language that the Bengals are trying to use is different from the 20+ others teams (according to Joe Goodberry) that use similar language?

[TecmoBengals]

(11 hours ago)pally Wrote: As I see it this clause had nothing to do with Shemar as a person.  They would have inserted that language regardless of who pick 17 was.

Agreed, and I wager next year's first round pick is also going to see the same language in the contract. It appears as if Shemar, his agent, and his father have decided to take it personal.

It's still disappointing though that of course it has to be the Bengals going through this as pick 17 could have helped improved the roster. 

[Nepa]

(Today, 07:00 AM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: *** Ultimately this isn’t a battle he’s going to win as he has no leverage and his client needs this deal more than the Bengals do. He’s doing his client no favors either by holding him out from training camp reps nor by taking cheap shots at Tobin.

****

Agreed. Normally a 17th pick would have more leverage for a contending team like the Bengals--especially with the position he plays--but he wasn't a popular pick with the fans (many of whom were saying on draft day that his was the name they least wanted to hear). He is a high-ceiling pick, but also with a low floor, who most felt was not a sure thing and needed some coaching up. Missing OTAs and now training camp, with the first preseason game two weeks from today, he is becoming less a need day by day.

(11 hours ago)pally Wrote: As I see it this clause had nothing to do with Shemar as a person.  They would have inserted that language regardless of who pick 17 was.  As guaranteed salaries get higher and affect more players, this is the Bengals accepting that fact but protecting themselves the best they can.

I have a feeling the Bengals are done talking with him and his wannabe super agent.  The final contract is on the table…take it or leave it.  

He will never see first round money like this again in his life.  He would still be young if he sits out season needed to escape the Bengals but no way would he drafted in the first round again.  He was lucky to be drafted 17th this year.

It sucks but he has zero leverage.  He’s the wrong player with the wrong agent to make this stand against the only team in the NFL who won’t blink

Couldn't say it better. or even that well as you did. 

(11 hours ago)TecmoBengals Wrote: Agreed, and I wager next year's first round pick is also going to see the same language in the contract. It appears as if Shemar, his agent, and his father have decided to take it personal.

***

Agreed. If he wants to reenter next year, odds are he will end up with the same language. But for much less money, as odds are very strong he would be drafted lower.

[kalibengal]

(Yesterday, 10:47 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Kudos to Mims for reaching out to Stewart, i really think Mims is going to be solid player and leader soon for this team

I didnt hear this....hopefully he smacks some sense into him and then gets to smack him around in practice later this week

[higgy100]

(Today, 06:48 AM)125250 Wrote: Is he planning on committing crimes? Why would you even want a guy that’s worried about this? 

Anything can happen. What if some guy committs road rage on him and SS refrains as much as he possibly can until the guy takes a bat to his car and then SS says "enough is enough" and picks the guy up and tosses him 20 feet and then jumps on top of him?

Sure, it seems like self-defense because how much can one take but how does that sit with Mike Brown and his family?

[NotBigzo]

(Yesterday, 10:47 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Kudos to Mims for reaching out to Stewart, i really think Mims is going to be solid player and leader soon for this team

Ehh, I wasn't a fan.
 
"We need you" came off as guilt-tripping him for wanting a better deal.