Is Shemar holding out?

[*rfaulk34*]

(05-29-2025, 12:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: They've been saying it's the language of the contract, and we all kind of assumed that it was just the FO screwing things up like usual, but more details about the specific language that is the problem came out today, and I actually side with the team on this.

The wording is apparently just the team protecting itself from Stewart acting a fool and being a problem, which, being an adult that's going to make millions of dollars, why shouldn't he be held to standards that common people making minimum wage are held to?

This doesn't sound like something that would stop me from signing a multi-million dollar contract:


Just don't do steroids or drugs, ok.

Don't break the law and be a decent human being, ok.

Follow the rules of the game, ok.

And let's be honest, they're not going to void any years or risk pissing him off and losing him as a player for anything minor like a personal foul or getting arrested for jay walking. They're talking about no arrests for drugs, violence, DUIs, or anything like that.

This is the organization finally saying "we (and the league) have a standard that you must abide by to play on this team, so just be a decent human being and we'll make you a rich man."

I honestly gained a little bit more respect for the organization for taking this stance and Stewart needs to grow up and start acting like an adult. He needs to realize that this is a business.

The Brown family loves fans like you. 

So, just as an aside, what has Stewart ever done that would cause him to need to "grow up and start acting like an adult"?

[Sled21]

(05-29-2025, 03:45 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The Brown family loves fans like you. 

So, just as an aside, what has Stewart ever done that would cause him to need to "grow up and start acting like an adult"?

Well, for one, he could throw that green silk oufit he wore at the draft in the trash....

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-29-2025, 03:36 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: I just want to see what SS can do.

Lets... not make that shortening of his name our go-to.

[t3r3e3]

(05-28-2025, 03:47 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's becoming a yearly thing where there's some contract drama with at least one player.
For the past few years, it's been, "What's going to happen with Hendrickson, Higgins, and Chase?"
And while the question still is out there for Hendrickson, we're getting into rookie contract drama now.

For once, I'd love to see contracts hashed out early and everyone on the field for offseason/preseason getting as many possible reps in as they all can.

That’s hard to do with the league’s smallest front office

[Joelist]

What the Bengals want in this language should already be mandatory by the league. It just says that if the player defaults future guarantees become voidable. We've already seen a couple of cases in recent seasons where teams got burned by rookies signing their deal then turning into jackalopes and leaving the club on the hook for the guarantees.

[BFritz21]

(05-29-2025, 01:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's a truly terrible take, Brad.

Look at the list of potential defaults... "discipline issue", "being fined"... so being 15 minutes late for a single meeting (once any time over a 4 year span) is a "discipline issue" and would then void $15m guaranteed. Putting your weight on a QB when sacking them or accidentally getting some facemask with your hand is a fineable penalty, voiding $15m guaranteed. Hell, "morals clause" is just a loose and nonsensically wide criteria that a tweet or instagram post can be used if you're legally enjoying the offseason with some alcohol and unmarried women in bikinis.

"Lets be honest"... if they weren't wanting the ability to take away guaranteed money off ticky-tack BS, they wouldn't include ticky-tack BS as a trigger. Why the hell would you give a billionaire the ability to snatch away all of your guaranteed money with only a "trust us bro" as the only thing keeping them from doing it?

He IS acting like an adult and knows it's a business. That's why you don't willingly give away all power and leverage over your money to someone else who would love nothing more than to find a reason to not have to pay you. It's a business, so get your money guaranteed and don't give anyone an opening to take it from you.

I'm sure the disciplinary, moral, and being fined clauses aren't all as ticky-tack as facemask penalties or being late for team meetings, and they're not going to void his contract over that if he's playing and producing.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-29-2025, 09:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm sure the disciplinary, moral, and being fined clauses aren't all as ticky-tack as facemask penalties or being late for team meetings, and they're not going to void his contract over that if he's playing and producing.

And right there you yourself just pointed out the issue. IF.

If you have to rely on an "if", then it's NOT A GUARANTEE, it's at the whim of your employer. So why would you ever sign away your guaranteed money?

You say he needs to "act like an adult" and it's a business. "Trust me bro" clauses is not what an adult businessperson accepts in a contract on if they're going to get paid or not, even more so when your coworkers didn't have to.

[*Synric*]

So they are trying to put in a "Jermaine Burton Clause". Can't really blame the Bengals for that doesn't change the fact Shemar Stewart needs to sign thr waiver so he can participate in the installs just like Demetrius Knight who also isn't signed along with most of the 2nd round.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-29-2025, 10:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And right there you yourself just pointed out the issue. IF.

If you have to rely on an "if", then it's NOT A GUARANTEE, it's at the whim of your employer. So why would you ever sign away your guaranteed money?

You say he needs to "act like an adult" and it's a business. "Trust me bro" clauses is not what an adult businessperson accepts in a contract on if they're going to get paid or not, even more so when your coworkers didn't have to.

If the Bengals want to protect themselves from another situation similar to how Burton behaved and carried himself last year, then they need to be very clear in what the definition of "default" is intended to mean. Stewart would be silly to sign a deal with simply the term "default" ambiguously thrown in there.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 07:55 AM)Synric Wrote: So they are trying to put in a "Jermaine Burton Clause". Can't really blame the Bengals for that doesn't change the fact Shemar Stewart needs to sign thr waiver so he can participate in the installs just like Demetrius Knight who also isn't signed along with most of the 2nd round.

Which, if you read the articles, second round picks now want to be treated the same as first round picks. It's really getting ridiculous. At some point the clubs have to say enough and put their collective feet down.

[samhain]

(Yesterday, 08:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If the Bengals want to protect themselves from another situation similar to how Burton behaved and carried himself last year, then they need to be very clear in what the definition of "default" is intended to mean. Stewart would be silly to sign a deal with simply the term "default" ambiguously thrown in there.

If the Bengals want to protect themselves from Jermaine Burton situations, they need to not draft obvious turds like Burton.  They seemed to have figured that out under Zac's direction, but relapsed big time there.  That's way more on the team than Burton himself.  The warning signs were multiple and flashing bright red.

Agree about Stewart.  No agent worth his ass would let his client sign that deal.  

I gave the team a lot of credit for changing their ways in the early Burrow era, but it seems like the good old Brown family way is coming out of them again lately.

[samhain]

(Yesterday, 07:55 AM)Synric Wrote: So they are trying to put in a "Jermaine Burton Clause". Can't really blame the Bengals for that doesn't change the fact Shemar Stewart needs to sign thr waiver so he can participate in the installs just like Demetrius Knight who also isn't signed along with most of the 2nd round.

I absolutely blame the Bengals for that.  Burton is an outlier of a case by a lot.  The great majority of NFL draftees have a level of maturity above that of a 5th grader.  Burton did not.  Any marginal amount of scouting should have prevented them from taking him.  Most rookies have understood what's at stake in terms of their livelihoods since high school. He didn't.

Blaming the Burton scenario for putting the screws to all future picks doesn't make sense.  It's like putting your hand on a hot burner and then saying you're going to punish someone who's not even in your kitchen the next time you decide to do it.  

[c766]

(Yesterday, 10:38 AM)samhain Wrote: I absolutely blame the Bengals for that.  Burton is an outlier of a case by a lot.  The great majority of NFL draftees have a level of maturity above that of a 5th grader.  Burton did not.  Any marginal amount of scouting should have prevented them from taking him.  Most rookies have understood what's at stake in terms of their livelihoods since high school he didn't.

Blaming the Burton scenario for putting the screws to all future picks doesn't make sense.  It's like putting your hand on a hot burner and then saying you're going to punish someone who's not even in your kitchen the next time you decide to do it.  

EXATCLY

Why did they draft him so high if they have these grave character concerns?

The Bengals are a D- Organization; and have been for over 3 decades.  It is a consatnt 

[Sled21]

You all act like Jermaine Burton is the only rookie to screw up. There are a whole lot of rookies who mess up. The Raiders had a clause in Henry Ruggs' contract that voided his contract guarantees. What's the difference?

[c766]

(Yesterday, 11:31 AM)Sled21 Wrote: You all act like Jermaine Burton is the only rookie to screw up. There are a whole lot of rookies who mess up. The Raiders had a clause in Henry Ruggs' contract that voided his contract guarantees. What's the difference?

You have named 2 in the last 7 years.   Nice work, Sherlock.  And only one was a 1st round pick. 

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 12:05 PM)c766 Wrote: You have named 2 in the last 7 years.   Nice work, Sherlock.  And only one was a 1st round pick. 

How many did you want me to type, I don't have all day to type names. The NFL teams have been getting bit by guarantees contracts since Albert Haynesworth.

[c766]

(Yesterday, 12:43 PM)Sled21 Wrote: How many did you want me to type, I don't have all day to type names. The NFL teams have been getting bit by guarantees contracts since Albert Haynesworth.

Not for rookie deals; I have to put you on ignore...it is evident you possess zero football acumen 

[BFritz21]

(05-29-2025, 10:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And right there you yourself just pointed out the issue. IF.

If you have to rely on an "if", then it's NOT A GUARANTEE, it's at the whim of your employer. So why would you ever sign away your guaranteed money?

You say he needs to "act like an adult" and it's a business. "Trust me bro" clauses is not what an adult businessperson accepts in a contract on if they're going to get paid or not, even more so when your coworkers didn't have to.

So you think that the team should guarantee to pay him if he's doing things that any normal citizen is expected to refrain from doing, all while they're making a fraction of the money that he would be getting paid?

Everyone is saying that this is a business, and in every other business, you're expected to act a certain way and not jeopardize the organization's investment in you.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 12:47 PM)c766 Wrote: Not for rookie deals; I have to put you on ignore...it is evident you possess zero football acumen 

Wow, coming from you, what a compliment.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 01:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you think that the team should guarantee to pay him if he's doing things that any normal citizen is expected to refrain from doing, all while they're making a fraction of the money that he would be getting paid?

Everyone is saying that this is a business, and in every other business, you're expected to act a certain way and not jeopardize the organization's investment in you.

I think he'd be foolish to sign away his guarantees which would turn them into non-guarantees at the whim of someone who would love nothing more than to not pay you. I also think pretending he's a normal citizen instead of someone who got picked 17th out of a pool of ~30m people in this country age 20-26 is equally foolish. If the Bengals didn't want to pay his guarantees, they shouldn't have drafted him.

In "every other business" Joe Burrow being the best potential employee to hire wouldn't have had his industry employment rights monopolized by the previous year's worst company in the industry, and then play for a pre-determined salary for multiple years on a contract without any open market competition. He would have gone to one of the best companies (teams) after a huge round of increasing bidding for his services by the other companies instead of getting less than 50% of what Sam Bradford signed for a decade earlier.

You don't want to start trying to apply that "every other business" criteria unless you're ready to get rid of revenue sharing, guaranteed profits, the draft, the salary cap, and rookie wage scales.