Is Shemar holding out?

[Sled21]

(06-14-2025, 11:25 PM)Joelist Wrote: 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.

[Sled21]

(06-14-2025, 11:42 PM)sandwedge Wrote: So are you saying Stewart doesn't trust himself not to get in trouble for 4 years? 

That's what I think. I think he knows he's not going to stop smoking dope or doing roids and doesn't want to lose his guarantees over a suspension for a failed drug test.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 11:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.


No.

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

Roquan Smith had a clause in his contract that if he went helmet to helmet, he lost his guarantees. Marcus Mariota had a clause that he couldn't surf. Other's have had no motorcycle clauses. This is standard stuff. Shemar's being a richard.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 03:13 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Roquan Smith had a clause in his contract that if he went helmet to helmet, he lost his guarantees. Marcus Mariota had a clause that he couldn't surf. Other's have had no motorcycle clauses. This is standard stuff. Shemar's being a richard.

LOL, funny you mention him.... Roaquan Smith held out and was the last person in his 1st round draft class to sign because of that clause. He got that clause REMOVED before he signed.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 08:44 AM)Bronxbengal Wrote: 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!

How so, like everyone else has this clause in the rookie contracts? It's not just a Bengals thing...

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 11:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.


No.

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

Not saying you are wrong, because I don't 100% but I am more inclined to believe it is for Illegal stuff rather than fouls or normal everyday life stuff.

[Joelist]

There are sources (like Goodberry) that have the exact text and have commented on it. Stewart is in the wrong here and being egged on by his agent (who no one likes) and Dad to try to use the media to push the club to cave in.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 03:51 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Not saying you are wrong, because I don't 100% but I am more inclined to believe it is for Illegal stuff rather than fouls or normal everyday life stuff.

The Jags did it to Fournette by voiding both year 3 and 4 for him for a suspension that happened from playing football.

https://www.nfl.com/news/marrone-jags-voided-leonard-fournette-guarantees-0ap3000001006440

Quote:Jaguars coach Doug Marrone told reporters Monday that the Jaguars did in fact void the remaining guarantees from the running back's rookie contract.

The news came a day after The Associated Press reported that the Jaguars notified Fournette weeks ago that his suspension last month voided the remaining guarantees on his four-year contract. Fournette was suspended one game by the NFL for his involvement in a Week 13 skirmish with Buffalo Bills defensive end Shaq Lawson.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/jaguars-fight-to-void-leonard-fournettes-guarantees-still-isnt-resolved

- - - - -

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/teams-are-taking-unfair-advantage-of-the-concept-of-voided-guarantees

Roquan Smith had "helmet to helmet hit" included that he held off signing to get removed.
Sam Darnold had "fined" (ANY fine) included that he held off signing to get removed.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 04:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The Jags did it to Fournette by voiding both year 3 and 4 for him for a suspension that happened from playing football.

https://www.nfl.com/news/marrone-jags-voided-leonard-fournette-guarantees-0ap3000001006440

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/jaguars-fight-to-void-leonard-fournettes-guarantees-still-isnt-resolved

- - - - -

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/teams-are-taking-unfair-advantage-of-the-concept-of-voided-guarantees

Roquan Smith had "helmet to helmet hit" included that he held off signing to get removed.
Sam Darnold had "fined" (ANY fine) included that he held off signing to get removed.

Got it

[007BengalsFan]

Nobody is having their guaranteed contract voided for a helmet to helmet hit. Dont be ridiculous with these claims. It's no coincidence teams have now put these clauses in their rookie contracts after the last few years of having problems with drafted players like Henry Ruggs and Rashee Rice. If you engage in that type of behavior you deserve to be cut.

Seems like Shemar Stewart is more interested in winning an argument over the right to be a knucklehead than he is playing football.

[007BengalsFan]

(Yesterday, 04:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The Jags did it to Fournette by voiding both year 3 and 4 for him for a suspension that happened from playing football.

https://www.nfl.com/news/marrone-jags-voided-leonard-fournette-guarantees-0ap3000001006440

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/jaguars-fight-to-void-leonard-fournettes-guarantees-still-isnt-resolved

- - - - -

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/teams-are-taking-unfair-advantage-of-the-concept-of-voided-guarantees

Roquan Smith had "helmet to helmet hit" included that he held off signing to get removed.
Sam Darnold had "fined" (ANY fine) included that he held off signing to get removed.

Didnt Fournette win his grievance against the Jags?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 04:25 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Didnt Fournette win his grievance against the Jags?

He won a different smaller grievance against the Jags (there were a lot of players filing a lot of grievances with the Coughlin FO-era Jags, the NFLPA actually ended up actively warning FAs to avoid the Jags) I can't find anything that talks about the conclusion of the grievance over voiding his guarantees. Potentially means there was a settlement and part of the settlement was to keep it quiet?

[SouthernFan]

(06-14-2025, 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.)

In general, you have the right idea as to the time value of money and opportunity cost. However, the impact is far less than your calculations as in today’s environment a 7% guaranteed return is hardly conservative and inflation is down compared to 2023 to 2025. Also you completely ignore taxes which at this income level would exceed 40% in combined federal and states taxes. So, yes, it’s a lot more complicated than your premise suggests.

All of that said, I have not seen any details regarding the timing of contract payments. I have seen reports that the issue is not with the timing of payouts and is solely regarding the voiding of guarantees language that is common in current NFL contracts and was included in the contracts of the players picked immediately before and after Stewart. In addition he is reportedly the only draftee to not sign the injury waiver and refuse to practice during OTA’s and mini-camps.

Stewart and his camp are in the wrong here and the Bengals are being unfairly criticized.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(06-12-2025, 09:47 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I mean...look at most of the early round draft picks Bengals have made in the Taylor era...

Amarius Mims started only because of season-ending injury to Trent Brown. TB was the planned starter last year until he went down.
Jenkins was a rotational player.
Burton was basically useless and Jackson was a rotational player.

Year before that:
Murphy was a rotational player.
Battle only got 7 starts and under 50% of snaps, only becoming starter because Nick Scott was so terribad. Scott was the planned starting SS to begin the year.
Turner did get a lot of playing time but that was because Awuzie was recovering from injury and CTB got hurt. The planned starters were Awuzie and CTB outside with Hilton in the slot.

Year before that:
Dax Hill rode the bench for a year behind Bates, waiting for him to depart in FA.
Carter a minimal rotational player, playing only 38% of defensive snaps.
CTB started 9 games but again was mainly because of Awuzie injury. Planned starters that year were Awuzie and Apple outside with Hilton inside.

Year before that:
Chase - You obviously start a stud 5th overall pick.
Carman was a backup.
Ossai was a rotational player.

Year before that:
Burrow - Obviously going to start the 1st overall pick who was NFL ready.
Higgins - From what I recall, the planned starters that year were AJ Green, John Ross, and Boyd, but Ross went down in Game 2 with an injury and Higgins took over from there.
Wilson - Rotational LB his first year.

Year before that:
Jonah Williams was planned to start but started the season injured.
Sample was TE3 on the depth chart behind Eifert and Uzomah.
Pratt started the season as a rotational/backup behind Vigil and Preston Brown, filling in once Brown was waived midway through the season.

So yes, do I think Taylor is planning for all these draft picks this year to start? No.
I think he may hope they do sometime down the road, but he typically has not pushed them into starting duties as rookies unless an injury occurs.

This may be a more recent development (probably since paying Burrow) but there is a clear move towards drafting players to start. This is most noticeable with this year’s second round selection. Knight is clearly slated to start week 1. They’ve also said 3rd round pick Fairchild it’s his job to lose.

Last year they signed Trent Brown but I’d suggest he was insurance as he was signed for back-up not starter money. Mims was poised to start before he was injured during training camp. Jenkins was also expected to play a significant role but injury disrupted this.

There is also something of a discrepancy between O and D. Burrow, Chase, Higgins, Jonah, Mims all started early. Carman was supposed to. Volson actually did. There are far fewer examples on D.

Lou was sacked in part for his unwillingness to use young players. Al Golden was hired in part because of his willingness to use young players. The expectation is that Al will do a better job of giving the youngsters opportunities.

[Bengalitis]

(06-14-2025, 11:42 PM)sandwedge Wrote: So are you saying Stewart doesn't trust himself not to get in trouble for 4 years? 

Don't know what the clause stipulates, but if it is for getting in legal trouble, the % could be very high in college/nfl than other sports? A lot of brawn than brains as it should be. Does the clause prorate the $$$ he gets based on when he gets fired/terminated for bad behavior or terminated or still give him the entire amount? That would be crucial.

I suspect many players can't stay out of trouble, just this week pac man jones (arrested) and i believe the brown's ex WR is being sought by the police, even after retiring. Considering how many hits they take to the head.. I dont know if its fair to presume their erratic behavior was due to the nature of the NFL.

[Essex Johnson]

(06-14-2025, 08:32 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: 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. 

What mascot will  Salt lake city or San Antonio decide to call the relocated Bengals?  

[sandwedge]

(11 hours ago)Bengalitis Wrote: Don't know what the clause stipulates, but if it is for getting in legal trouble, the % could be very high in college/nfl than other sports? A lot of brawn than brains as it should be. Does the clause prorate the $$$ he gets based on when he gets fired/terminated for bad behavior or terminated or still give him the entire amount? That would be crucial.

I suspect many players can't stay out of trouble, just this week pac man jones (arrested) and i believe the brown's ex WR is being sought by the police, even after retiring. Considering how many hits they take to the head.. I dont know if its fair to presume their erratic behavior was due to the nature of the NFL.

It could be the hits to head, but I think the majority is ego and thinking they can pretty much do anything without recourse.

[Sled21]

(10 hours ago)Essex Johnson Wrote: What mascot will  Salt lake city or San Antonio decide to call the relocated Bengals?  

The San Antonio Defenders.