Is Shemar holding out?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would they do it with Burton? The only thing guaranteed in his contract is the signing bonus. 

Shemur's contract will be 100% guaranteed. I see nothing wrong with getting a little "good conduct" assurance. 

But as I've said, folk's minds are made up on this already.

I included Burton in there as a guy who was on video hitting a woman before the Bengals chose to draft him. (He was later accused again, but no charges pressed.) So to frame it as being really concerned about having to pay a person who does violence against women comes off hollow.

The signing bonus is given out on the understanding that you'll play the amount of years in the contract, so if you get the final 3 years voided, you can get a large chunk of the signing bonus forced to be returned. Not sure if it's exactly a 25%/year return, but it's some. It's the same as a player who retires while there's still prorated signing bonus left. Sometimes the team lets the player keep it (the Colts and Luck) and sometimes the team claws it back the unearned portion (the Lions and Calvin Johnson).

I find it odd that people have decided that this is all about Stewart wanting to do crime and still get paid. Instead of wanting a contract just as good as the last guy here got, or at least getting something back in compromise for accepting a worse contract. Nobody was ever saying Mims or Dax just wanted to do crime and get paid, but if you asked them now to put all their guarantees into the Brown/Blackburn's hands/whims in exchange for nothing in return I am sure they'll decline.

[*bfine32*]

(Yesterday, 06:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I included Burton in there as a guy who was on video hitting a woman before the Bengals chose to draft him. (He was later accused again, but no charges pressed.) So to frame it as being really concerned about having to pay a person who does violence against women comes off hollow.

The signing bonus is given out on the understanding that you'll play the amount of years in the contract, so if you get the final 3 years voided, you can get a large chunk of the signing bonus forced to be returned. Not sure if it's exactly a 25%/year return, but it's some. It's the same as a player who retires while there's still prorated signing bonus left. Sometimes the team lets the player keep it (the Colts and Luck) and sometimes the team claws it back the unearned portion (the Lions and Calvin Johnson).

I find it odd that people have decided that this is all about Stewart wanting to do crime and still get paid. Instead of wanting a contract just as good as the last guy here got, or at least getting something back in compromise for accepting a worse contract. Nobody was ever saying Mims or Dax just wanted to do crime and get paid, but if you asked them now to put all their guarantees into the Brown/Blackburn's hands/whims in exchange for nothing in return I am sure they'll decline.

And I find it odd that people don't want Bengals to insert language to protect themselves against a 100% guaranteed contract like many other franchises do. 

At the end of the day, the employer makes the rules, and if they are not violating the CBA, there's nothing Shemur or his agent can do other than not receive any payment. 

[Bilbo Saggins]

(Yesterday, 06:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I included Burton in there as a guy who was on video hitting a woman before the Bengals chose to draft him. (He was later accused again, but no charges pressed.) So to frame it as being really concerned about having to pay a person who does violence against women comes off hollow.

The signing bonus is given out on the understanding that you'll play the amount of years in the contract, so if you get the final 3 years voided, you can get a large chunk of the signing bonus forced to be returned. Not sure if it's exactly a 25%/year return, but it's some. It's the same as a player who retires while there's still prorated signing bonus left. Sometimes the team lets the player keep it (the Colts and Luck) and sometimes the team claws it back the unearned portion (the Lions and Calvin Johnson).

I find it odd that people have decided that this is all about Stewart wanting to do crime and still get paid. Instead of wanting a contract just as good as the last guy here got, or at least getting something back in compromise for accepting a worse contract. Nobody was ever saying Mims or Dax just wanted to do crime and get paid, but if you asked them now to put all their guarantees into the Brown/Blackburn's hands/whims in exchange for nothing in return I am sure they'll decline.

So you're saying that the Bengals are NOT offering compensation that is bang smack in the middle of what the 16th and 18th picks signed for due to signing bonus structure. If that's the case, they are being unreasonable. They should keep the clause if the picks immediately prior and after Stewart signed with it, but I wouldn't blame Stewart's camp for asking for fair market value with fair market payout structure. To me that's the average of what the 16th and 18th picks this year received. Average out the signing bonus percentages of those two contracts. Even Steven.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 06:35 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: So you're saying that the Bengals are NOT offering compensation that is bang smack in the middle of what the 16th and 18th picks signed for due to signing bonus structure. If that's the case, they are being unreasonable. They should keep the clause if the picks immediately prior and after Stewart signed with it, but I wouldn't blame Stewart's camp for asking for fair market value with fair market payout structure. To me that's the average of what the 16th and 18th picks this year received. Average out the signing bonus percentages of those two contracts. Even Steven.

It's not even just about %, but about WHEN that money comes to them.

So just using numbers picked for ease of conversation... even if pick 16, 17, and 18 all have 70% of their contract as a signing bonus... if 16 and 18 get 4/5 of that 70% within 3 days of signing and then the other 1/5 Week 1 of the regular season, they are getting more money/a better deal than if 17 gets 1/2 of that 70% within 3 days of signing and then the other 1/2 on December 31st.

[BobJones4980]

(Yesterday, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I find it odd that people don't want Bengals to insert language to protect themselves against a 100% guaranteed contract like many other franchises do. 

At the end of the day, the employer makes the rules, and if they are not violating the CBA, there's nothing Shemur or his agent can do other than not receive any payment. 

Because people (including Bengals fans) love to shit on the Bengals.

If this was the 90% of the teams in the NFL in this situation it would hardly be talked about and when it was it would be the player that's the bad guy for not accepting language that every other team has in contracts while refusing to sign a waiver and practice with the team.

The Bengals finally catching up with the rest of the NFL and putting this language in a contract should be a non issue but because its the Bengals it must be the terrible ownership that's at fault!

After hearing comments from Stewart and His agent this just feels like an ego play. 

Quote:"Duke Tobin has had no involvement in this negotiation," Hiller told Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. "It seems to be above his pay grade."

We all have our issues with Brown/Katie but this petty behavior from his agent over standard language in nearly every teams contracts shows who is holding up the contract talks.

[Joelist]

This is pretty clear by now. Stewart needs to follow Zay Flowers example and fire Miller and hire a legit sports agent. I expect if he did that a deal gets done right quick.

[Bronxbengal]

I gave Shemar the benefit since I am not part of the negotiations. However, he is now bust before he played a single down for us. This is totally ridiculous. He and his family can’t be that smart letting millions sit while negotiating over minutia. All he needs is stay out of trouble. How difficult is that? He must be doing something

[Soonerpeace]

I find it highly unlikely that the Bengals are going rogue on Stewart’s contract. It may be different than Mims. Don’t know if we ever find out. But his agent is not helping himself.

[BengalsBong]

Stand your ground Bengals it is not like we expect a lot out of our 1st round picks the first year.

Either he signs or gets lost I care less at this point this guy is already turning into a diva and I hate divas.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 06:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's not even just about %, but about WHEN that money comes to them.

So just using numbers picked for ease of conversation... even if pick 16, 17, and 18 all have 70% of their contract as a signing bonus... if 16 and 18 get 4/5 of that 70% within 3 days of signing and then the other 1/5 Week 1 of the regular season, they are getting more money/a better deal than if 17 gets 1/2 of that 70% within 3 days of signing and then the other 1/2 on December 31st.

Have you seen the contract offered to Stewart?

[Soonerpeace]

(Yesterday, 06:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's not even just about %, but about WHEN that money comes to them.

So just using numbers picked for ease of conversation... even if pick 16, 17, and 18 all have 70% of their contract as a signing bonus... if 16 and 18 get 4/5 of that 70% within 3 days of signing and then the other 1/5 Week 1 of the regular season, they are getting more money/a better deal than if 17 gets 1/2 of that 70% within 3 days of signing and then the other 1/2 on December 31st.

Hard to know the real truth on the contract. This time I tend to side with Management. I don’t think they dig in like this if they were different than the other teams. I hear it is indeed over a character clause.

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 06:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I included Burton in there as a guy who was on video hitting a woman before the Bengals chose to draft him. (He was later accused again, but no charges pressed.) So to frame it as being really concerned about having to pay a person who does violence against women comes off hollow.

The signing bonus is given out on the understanding that you'll play the amount of years in the contract, so if you get the final 3 years voided, you can get a large chunk of the signing bonus forced to be returned. Not sure if it's exactly a 25%/year return, but it's some. It's the same as a player who retires while there's still prorated signing bonus left. Sometimes the team lets the player keep it (the Colts and Luck) and sometimes the team claws it back the unearned portion (the Lions and Calvin Johnson).

I find it odd that people have decided that this is all about Stewart wanting to do crime and still get paid. Instead of wanting a contract just as good as the last guy here got, or at least getting something back in compromise for accepting a worse contract. Nobody was ever saying Mims or Dax just wanted to do crime and get paid, but if you asked them now to put all their guarantees into the Brown/Blackburn's hands/whims in exchange for nothing in return I am sure they'll decline.

I find it odd that you connect a player drafted later the does not really apply to a 1st round pick contract,  bottom line if Mike is be honest and open which he normally is, this sound more like agent issue not language  issue 

[jj22]

One things seems sure… He won’t be a Bengals after his rookie deal. Unless he changes agents. It doesn’t seem like the agent and Katie are a good match for deal making.

[007BengalsFan]

(Yesterday, 06:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Has been brought up many times already. The teams that have these clauses, have a more front-loaded payout of the signing bonuses. If it's front-loaded, you get it sooner and it can't be as much voided at the whim of your boss.

The problem with the Bengals is that they are trying to adopt the clause, but ALSO want to keep their original signing bonus payout plan that is more spread out and disadvantageous to the player.

How do you know all the other NFL teams pay their players the full amount of money upfront?  That claim sounds highly unlikely to me that the Bengals would be the only team in the NFL to spread the payments out while every other team pays the money upfront.  

(Yesterday, 06:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Ray Rice was under his second contract. It wasn't his rookie deal. 

So that makes it ok?  My point wasnt what year contract he was on.  My point is was if you knock out your girlfriend, teams shouldnt be forced to keep those players signed to guaranteed contracts regardless.  In Stewart's case we are talking about someone who would be on his rookie contract which is common to have these type conduct clauses.

[WeezyBengal]

(Yesterday, 07:52 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I find it highly unlikely that the Bengals are going rogue on Stewart’s contract. It may be different than Mims. Don’t know if we ever find out. But his agent is not helping himself.

It is different than Mims'. There is language in there that they are trying to make standard on all rookie contracts that wasn't in Mims' contract. 

Regardless, it's not "new" when it comes to other teams. It's just new to the Bengals. Sehmar and his agent are just being ridiculous about it. 

[Timanky12]

It’s time for the Bengals to move on from Shemar. I would not sign him, and trade him late in the season, so he loses out on 1st round money, screw him, I’m done.

[J24]

(Yesterday, 10:39 PM)jj22 Wrote: One things seems sure… He won’t be a Bengals after his rookie deal. Unless he changes agents. It doesn’t seem like the agent and Katie are a good match for deal making.

Katie not getting along with agents seems  to be a common theme!

[*ochocincos*]

(Yesterday, 06:55 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Because people (including Bengals fans) love to shit on the Bengals.

If this was the 90% of the teams in the NFL in this situation it would hardly be talked about and when it was it would be the player that's the bad guy for not accepting language that every other team has in contracts while refusing to sign a waiver and practice with the team.

The Bengals finally catching up with the rest of the NFL and putting this language in a contract should be a non issue but because its the Bengals it must be the terrible ownership that's at fault!

After hearing comments from Stewart and His agent this just feels like an ego play. 


We all have our issues with Brown/Katie but this petty behavior from his agent over standard language in nearly every teams contracts shows who is holding up the contract talks.

I'm curious how Hiller/Stewart would even know this language hasn't been used with other players on the Bengals before anyway?
Is all of that completely public or at least available to other agents and players?
I would have figured that's a private thing.

[Timanky12]

(8 hours ago)J24 Wrote: Katie not getting along with agents seems  to be a common theme!

They can’t negotiate with anyone. Look how long the stadium lease dragged on.  

[TecmoBengals]

This whole situation between the Bengals and Shemar just easily lends itself to conclude two outcomes:

- Brown family doing their usual thing as owenrs
- Privileged athletes make dumb choices to pass on millions that us plebians would love to have

Professional sports sure are f'ed up. I'll keep watching though.