Is Shemar holding out?

[*jason*]

(Yesterday, 07:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Odds are adding Shemur and Trey won't either.

But hey, keep beating the same sign Trey to 35 million drum. There is a slim chance with Trey we get to an win a Super bowl.

https://www.foxsports.com/articles/nfl/2025-26-cincinnati-bengals-odds-odds-to-win-super-bowl-nfl-playoffs-division

Bengals Super Bowl Odds Insights

The Bengals rank seventh-best in the NFL in terms of Super Bowl odds (+2000). However, our computer rankings are much less optimistic, ranking them 17th, a difference of 10 spots.

The Bengals sport a 4.8% chance of winning the Super Bowl, based on their most recent odds (+2000).

Can we stop the BS that Trey makes us Super Bowl locks? 

Last I checked 4.8% odds sucks.

Yeah Trey doesn't really move the needle on Super Bowl odds, but he's the difference between them being a bad defense with him to being a putrid defense without him.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 07:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Can we stop the BS that Trey makes us Super Bowl locks?

I'm pretty sure you, just right now, are the first and only person on here to have ever said that BS.

I can't recall a single other person on here who has said that Trey makes up Super Bowl locks. Just plenty of people who said that without him our chances of even making the playoffs are much worse.

[*bengalfan74*]

(Yesterday, 07:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm pretty sure you, just right now, are the first and only person on here to have ever said that BS.

I can't recall a single other person on here who has said that Trey makes up Super Bowl locks. Just plenty of people who said that without him our chances of even making the playoffs are much worse.

Right

Any way you chop it up our defense was just plain bad last season, with Trey. I can't even imagine how bad it will be without him? 

[Bilbo Saggins]

I hope that he goes back to college, the Bengals lose a first round draft pick, and the Blackburns sell the team. Best of all outcomes for everybody. 

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 08:03 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Right

Any way you chop it up our defense was just plain bad last season, with Trey. I can't even imagine how bad it will be without him? 

There's also no guarantee this won't be the year age catches up to him and he is nowhere near as effective, which is likely why he's panicked about getting a new deal. 

[BFritz21]

(Yesterday, 08:03 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Right

Any way you chop it up our defense was just plain bad last season, with Trey. I can't even imagine how bad it will be without him? 

Al Golden is focusing on fundamentals and tackling and the players seem to be responding. 

Maybe a new coordinator will make all the difference. 

Hopefully Trey and Shemar will get in soon but we just need to hope that Golden can work his magic.

Trey's losing a hundred grand per week missed, which, even for a millionaire, is a lot of money.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 08:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Al Golden is focusing on fundamentals and tackling and the players seem to be responding. 

Maybe a new coordinator will make all the difference. 

Hopefully Trey and Shemar will get in soon but we just need to hope that Golden can work his magic.

Trey's losing a hundred grand per week missed, which, even for a millionaire, is a lot of money.

Yeah, I think so many people are underestimating the coaching changes. Sure, the players we added in FA don't jump out like big grabs, but if 
we even have moderate improvements coaching up the youth this team should be really good this year and a definite contender. Last year was
really frustrating for me especially watching Lou's Defense that was just terrible at tackling and giving up big plays.

If we can just tackle better and play more disciplined under Golden we are gold IMO. 

[007BengalsFan]

We should have drafted Harmon instead. I would have also been fine with Campbell or Pearce at #17.

[*rfaulk34*]

(Yesterday, 07:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Can we stop the BS that Trey makes us Super Bowl locks? 

Name one single person that has made this statement.

[Bengalitis]

I read an article on USA Today saying that the beef with Shemar's contract is the blub that the organization can void his guarantees...and wants his contract to be like previous that do not include that.

glad he has an agent & lawyers to go over that contract. if true, I don't blame him.

[Joelist]

(Yesterday, 09:44 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: I read an article on USA Today saying that the beef with Shemar's contract is the blub that the organization can void his guarantees...and wants his contract to be like previous that do not include that.

glad he has an agent & lawyers to go over that contract. if true, I don't blame him.

We have the actual analysis from real source right in this thread. The clause Stewart is holding out over is already used by many teams in their rookie deals; the Bengals started this year and Stewart is letting his goofball agent and loudmouth father play the media thinking the Bengals will fold. Stewart is in the wrong, his father needs to shut up and the agent needs to be fired.

[*Nately120*]

(Yesterday, 05:00 PM)sandwedge Wrote: So you are saying it couldn't happen?

Only if we can imagine the Bengals narrowly beating the Sheduerurrrr Sanders-led Browns in the AFC Championship game 77 to 73.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 09:44 PM)Bengalitis Wrote: I read an article on USA Today saying that the beef with Shemar's contract is the blub that the organization can void his guarantees...and wants his contract to be like previous that do not include that.

glad he has an agent & lawyers to go over that contract. if true, I don't blame him.

So are you saying Stewart doesn't trust himself not to get in trouble for 4 years? 

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 05:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: $18m now is $3m more than $15 now. That's a big difference.

That's $3m that YOU get to make money off of through investments for 2 years instead of the team making money off of it before you get it. Say you make a conservative 7% off of it in year 1 and then 7% more in year 2.

You just turned that $3,000,000 into $3,434,700. So you get +$434,700.

Meanwhile say you DON'T get that $3m now and instead you get it two years from now... inflation is a thing and that $3m will be worth less than it was two years ago. $3m in 2023 is now equal to $3,165,043 in 2025. So not only are you losing the opportunity to make money on your money, you're also having your eventual payout be worth less.

- - - - - - - -
So between the two, it is a ~$599,743 difference on if you get that $3m today or if you get it 2 years from now.

(Obviously this is a little simplified and there's a lot more things involved in it, but the premise is the same.)

Thanks, I was kind of thinking that might be the case.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 05:36 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Not if they void the contract due to language.  Guys with the clause in their contracts have been getting paid more upfront.  The Bengals aren’t doing that, but still want the clause.  Typical Family penny pinching…

My understanding is it is voided if you do something stupid like, runover somebody with your car while drunk and racing. Or get busted ..
I don't think that would be hard for anyone with that much money on the line.

[Destro]

(11 hours ago)sandwedge Wrote: So are you saying Stewart doesn't trust himself not to get in trouble for 4 years? 

Maybe just doesn't trust the Bengals to have that much ability to take back money. And if he does commit some horrible act, there's no gameday check in jail. He doesn't seem like a guy with criminal issues, but if he did, he should not have been on our draft board to begin with. guess they could know what they were dealing with in his pre-draft interview  

[Bronxbengal]

(11 hours ago)sandwedge Wrote: So are you saying Stewart doesn't trust himself not to get in trouble for 4 years? 

LOL….if the Blackburns/ Browns were so fearful of Stewart getting into trouble it shows how horrible the front office is in selecting talent.  This ploy by the FO highlights how incompetent they are.  They lose on both sides of the argument.  They are fearful of bad behavior so they want to void the guarantee money but if his character is so bad maybe they should have never drafted him.  Circular reasoning by Katie which just proves Stewart’s point even more…they rather win an argument and not football games.  What a shit show and Katie is the ring master and all you who blindly support the Brown family are the clowns getting out of the car…..you can’t make this stuff up!

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 07:55 PM)jason Wrote: Yeah Trey doesn't really move the needle on Super Bowl odds, but he's the difference between them being a bad defense with him to being a putrid defense without him.

Yes and a different narrative of them being worse than in 2024 without him.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 07:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm pretty sure you, just right now, are the first and only person on here to have ever said that BS.

I can't recall a single other person on here who has said that Trey makes up Super Bowl locks. Just plenty of people who said that without him our chances of even making the playoffs are much worse.

Tell us then what are odds are right now and then define number of much worse both playoffs and Super Bowl.

We know the are around 5% to win Super Bowl right now. What is it with him? 

How about playoffs, offs with and then without him?

My point is simple, the odds don't make some drastic change with Trey as is being suggested. It is a fase talking point to say otherwise.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11 hours ago)sandwedge Wrote: So are you saying Stewart doesn't trust himself not to get in trouble for 4 years? 

(11 hours ago)sandwedge Wrote: My understanding is it is voided if you do something stupid like, runover somebody with your car while drunk and racing. Or get busted ..
I don't think that would be hard for anyone with that much money on the line.

(3 hours ago)Destro Wrote: Maybe just doesn't trust the Bengals to have that much ability to take back money. And if he does commit some horrible act, there's no gameday check in jail. He doesn't seem like a guy with criminal issues, but if he did, he should not have been on our draft board to begin with. guess they could know what they were dealing with in his pre-draft interview  

This is the problem with calling it the "knucklehead clause" as some people have. It makes it seem like he'd have to go out of his way to do something illegal off the field for it to actually kick in. It's not just off the field stuff, or criminality that can cause a void.

Getting getting suspended for an on-the-field football play can also allow the Bengals to void all of his entire contract's guarantees. He goes to tackle a RB who is catching a screen, he aims at the waist for a legal hit but the RB ducks last second to brace for contact. Bam, helmet-to-helmet flag. Now the Bengals have the power to remove millions and millions of dollars in guarantees from his contract. Same if he "puts hit weight on" a QB while sacking them a few times throughout the season instead of gently lowering them down and tucking them in.

Or if he plays a simple casual pickup game of basketball with his family ("prohibited offseason activities") it goes from only voiding that current year's guarantees to voiding his entire contract's guarantees. Same with going skiing, snowboarding, riding a motorcycle/ATV/jet ski, etc... the new wording changes it from a ~$4m forfeiture of that year to an $18m one.

(57 minutes ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: Tell us then 

My point is simple

No.

I'm still waiting for your original point of everyone here who has been saying the Trey makes us SB locks BS.