Is Shemar holding out?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 11:54 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Yes. Bengals can trade his rights, but it would be a damaged goods trade. No other Team would give a a return commensurate with the 17th pick of 2025. 

The alternative is to retract the offer and Shemar can enter the draft next year. Or Shemar can refuse to sign the offer and do the same.

My view is that if Shemar doesn't sign the offer and misses camp, and decides to sign the week before season opener, he is of minimal value this year for us. 

I think he might just become a 2025 free agent then. If you retract the offer, you're giving up rights to him. I don't believe a team can sit on a drafted player's rights while refusing to offer him at least the bare minimum of the rookie contract slotted for his pick.

[XsandOs]

(Today, 01:29 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think he might just become a 2025 free agent then. If you retract the offer, you're giving up rights to him. I don't believe a team can sit on a drafted player's rights while refusing to offer him at least the bare minimum of the rookie contract slotted for his pick.

Based on what I have read, retracting an offer forfeits the Team's rights to the player. The said player can re-enter the draft in the following year.

In this case, Bengals can justify the retraction as refusal to sign the offered contract.

It is an extreme case and both parties will suffer.

My point was if Shemar misses camp and pre-season and decides he will sign the contract the week of season opener, what value will he deliver to us this year? How many weeks will it take for him to learn Golden's system? How many weeks will it take for him to adjust to NFL speed and physicality? Will he pout and throw temper tantrums, if he feels he should be playing, while Golden doesn't think he is ready? 

Should the Bengals pay him $9M this year to play half the season? 

[TecmoBengals]

(Yesterday, 04:14 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Jokes on you! Got some vintage Little Kings on ice, dude. 

[George Cantstandya]

(Today, 01:29 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think he might just become a 2025 free agent then. If you retract the offer, you're giving up rights to him. I don't believe a team can sit on a drafted player's rights while refusing to offer him at least the bare minimum of the rookie contract slotted for his pick.

(Today, 08:46 AM)XsandOs Wrote: Based on what I have read, retracting an offer forfeits the Team's rights to the player. The said player can re-enter the draft in the following year.

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??  

Quote:If the Club does not make or withdraws the Required Tender, the player immediately becomes an Undrafted Rookie, with the right to negotiate and sign a Player Contract with any Club, subject to the applicable provisions of Article 7, and any Club is then free to negotiate for and sign a Player Contract with such player, without any Draft Choice Compensation between Clubs or First Refusal Rights of any kind, or any signing period. 

Quote:For a player to whom the drafting Club retains the exclusive NFL rights pursuant to Section 4(a) above, the Club must tender a four-year NFL Player Contract for the Minimum Active/Inactive List Salary for such League Years, within the thirty-day period specified in Subsection (a) above. If the player is released through waivers, the player immediately becomes an Undrafted Rookie, with the right to sign an NFL Player Contract with any Club, subject to the provisions of Article 7, and any Club is then free to negotiate for and sign a Player Contract with such player, without any Draft Choice Compensation between Clubs or First Refusal Rights of any kind, or any signing period. 

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.

[TecmoBengals]

I thought this was interesting: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2025/07/22/longest-nfl-rookie-holdouts-shemar-stewarts-bengals/85328799007/?tbref=hp

Joey Bosa is the longest NFL rookie holdout at 31 days under the current structure. He signed before the last preseason game.

Michael Crabtree, WR had a 72-day holdout with the 49'ers in 2009.

The article also mentions how Bo Jackson never played for Tampa Bay during the '86 season.

So, will Shemar pass Bosa's 31-day holdout?

[*ochocincos*]

(Yesterday, 11:54 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Yes. Bengals can trade his rights, but it would be a damaged goods trade. No other Team would give a a return commensurate with the 17th pick of 2025. 

The alternative is to retract the offer and Shemar can enter the draft next year. Or Shemar can refuse to sign the offer and do the same.

My view is that if Shemar doesn't sign the offer and misses camp, and decides to sign the week before season opener, he is of minimal value this year for us. 

Unfortunately, not signing Stewart and letting him reenter the draft doesn't return anything to the Bengals in terms of draft pick, just saved $$, which they already have plenty of.
But honestly, if that saved $$ from Stewart would end up helping extend Hendrickson for another 2-3 years, I'm actually for it.
I really don't wanna see a proven sack leader walk out the door in favor of pure potential in hopes that dude becomes something in 3-4 years.

[XsandOs]

(Today, 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. 

This is a topic that needs clarity, and I would be interested in input such as yours.

I was under the impression initially that if we retract the offer, he can sign with anyone. But as I searched it further, that does not seem to be the case.

As I understand it, if the Bengals retract the offer indicating refusal to sign, he has to wait one year to re-enter the draft.

The CBA doesn't address this area specifically: https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/6

[XsandOs]

(Today, 10:04 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Unfortunately, not signing Stewart and letting him reenter the draft doesn't return anything to the Bengals in terms of draft pick, just saved $$, which they already have plenty of.
But honestly, if that saved $$ from Stewart would end up helping extend Hendrickson for another 2-3 years, I'm actually for it.
I really don't wanna see a proven sack leader walk out the door in favor of pure potential in hopes that dude becomes something in 3-4 years.

I agree with you on all accounts.  

Ideally, having Shemar signed and training with the Team would be the best option. But he has until the Tuesday after week 10 of the season to sign his offer. 

Losing Trey would be disastrous. 

[SunsetBengal]

(Today, 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. 

I think that you are correct. I also read it as he would pretty much be the same as a UDFA.

[Nepa]

Shemar didn't practice at the OTAs. He isn't at the training camp. It seems he is becoming less and less valuable for the season as this drags on, particularly given the transition to the pros and his lack of sack production in college. It was already uncertain how much he could contribute this year.

At this point, the Bengals Front Office might as well give their final offer, indicate negotiations on a better offer are ending, and just focus on getting Trey signed. The money they save from Shemar's non-show could be used to entice Trey to sign. He's the proven player that they need.

[George Cantstandya]

(Today, 10:19 AM)XsandOs Wrote: This is a topic that needs clarity, and I would be interested in input such as yours.

I was under the impression initially that if we retract the offer, he can sign with anyone. But as I searched it further, that does not seem to be the case.

As I understand it, if the Bengals retract the offer indicating refusal to sign, he has to wait one year to re-enter the draft.

The CBA doesn't address this area specifically: https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/6

I apologize, I was looking at the wrong section of the CBA I quoted above.  That is the section that covers what happens if a drafted player does not sign and plays for another professional league during that time.  That is the part of the CBA that states the team maintains the players rights for 3 years in that case.  

Article 6 Section 4 (a) states this:

Quote:(a) A drafted player may accept the Required Tender at any time up to and including the Tuesday following the tenth week of the regular season immediately following the Draft, at 4:00pm New York time. In the event the exclusive negotiating rights to the drafted player are assigned to another Club through the NFL waiver system, the acquiring Club shall be deemed to have automatically extended the Required Tender immediately upon the assignment. If released through waivers, the player shall be treated as an Undrafted Rookie, with the right to sign an NFL Player Contract with any Club,subject to the provisions of Article 7.

Which I don't fully understand.  It seems to indicate that a team can acquire the negotiating rights to an unsigned rookie through the waiver process.  To me that would indicate the original team somehow cutting or relinquishing the rights to said player.  Perhaps someone else can clear that up for me.

It seems that the NFLPA would want some protections for the rookie player in the event the team refuses to offer the required tender.  Protections that would then allow the player to sign with another team.  Otherwise the player to some degree would be punished by the team refusing to offer the required tender.  The player then unable to play for the season would indeed enter next years draft but would 1) lose a year of pay 2) likely be drafted in a later round the next year.  So the same as if the player refused to sign but instead of the player inflicting the loss of pay on himself the team would do it.

That just seems like something the NFLPA would want to protect against. 

[*ochocincos*]

(Today, 10:32 AM)XsandOs Wrote: I agree with you on all accounts.  

Ideally, having Shemar signed and training with the Team would be the best option. But he has until the Tuesday after week 10 of the season to sign his offer. 

Losing Trey would be disastrous. 

If he does sign after the season starts, those games missed likely means reduced payments, I would think, right?
Unless they somehow negotiate where Stewart would be willing to sign with that clause in there that the Bengals want, provided they pay him the cost of the games he missed up to that point (thereby potentially helping offset any voided guarantees down the road).

Frankly, I would likely to hear what the specific concerns are with the language in the contract, as they seem to be overly worried of Stewart doing something that would be considered detrimental to the team where the Bengals would actually void some guarantees.
Is it worry about saying something on Twitter/to the media that he may get docked for, smoking marijuana, getting into an altercation with another player on the field, what?

[XsandOs]

(11 hours ago)George Cantstandya Wrote: I apologize, I was looking at the wrong section of the CBA I quoted above.  That is the section that covers what happens if a drafted player does not sign and plays for another professional league during that time.  That is the part of the CBA that states the team maintains the players rights for 3 years.  

Article 6 Section 4 (a) states this:


Which I don't fully understand.  It seems to indicate that a team can acquire the negotiating rights to an unsigned rookie through the waiver process.  To me that would indicate the original team somehow cutting or relinquishing the rights to said player.  Perhaps someone else can clear that up for me.

It seems that the NFLPA would want some protections for the rookie player in the event the team refuses to offer the required tender.  Protections that would then allow the player to sign with another team.  Otherwise the player to some degree would be punished by the team refusing to offer the required tender.  The player then unable to play for the season would indeed enter next years draft but would 1) lose a year of pay 2) likely be drafted in a later round the next year.  So the same as if the player refused to sign but instead of the player inflicting the loss of pay on himself the team would do it.

That just seems like something the NFLPA would want to protect against. 

No apology needed my friend. We are trying to figure this out together.


I read the language as well and it was not clear. Specifically; how/when/why would NFL assigns the rights of a draftee to another club?

I feel that players are protected because Teams are required to offer the "Required Tender".

Conversely; Team are not protected if a player refuses to sign a contract and can potentially sign it until after Week 10. So, the required tender would be paid the same as a player who has worked through camp, preseason and 10 season games? I don't think a non-contracted player can be fined for missing any of these?
EDIT: Question marks.

So, if Bengals do retract their Required Tender with refusal to sign as justification, shouldn't the refusal to sign parameters apply? 

[Sled21]

(11 hours ago)ochocincos Wrote: If he does sign after the season starts, those games missed likely means reduced payments, I would think, right?
Unless they somehow negotiate where Stewart would be willing to sign with that clause in there that the Bengals want, provided they pay him the cost of the games he missed up to that point (thereby potentially helping offset any voided guarantees down the road).

Frankly, I would likely to hear what the specific concerns are with the language in the contract, as they seem to be overly worried of Stewart doing something that would be considered detrimental to the team where the Bengals would actually void some guarantees.
Is it worry about saying something on Twitter/to the media that he may get docked for, smoking marijuana, getting into an altercation with another player on the field, what?

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

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 07:19 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Frank approved.

Nate approved as well. Heineken!!!?

(Yesterday, 07:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Possibly, or he may have zero confidence in his abilities to merit a second NFL contract, and he just wants to make sure that he gets every possible dollar that he can. See, this is why I hate selecting guys off of "athletic potential" and "measurables". Just stick to guys who were sound performers facing tough competition and you'll have a solid roster of guys that not only can play, but are battle tested and have stable minds and personalities. (for the most part)

When I watched his film I saw tons of confidence in Shemar, especially at the Senior Bowl where he dominated.

I don't think confidence is his problem as much as stupidity lol

(Yesterday, 08:11 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Nate, if you recall, Burton's struggles started with him not studying his playbook. Even Burrow called him out on it. If you don't know the play, where to line-up, which route to run - you are a liability.

My concern is that Shemar may pose the same risk. A DE's playbook is not as complex as a QB, WR or a S, but you still have to know each play called, where to line up (4i, 5, 7), which play is a stunt, when to drop-back, etc. 

And the sad part is that we will never know how much his lack of on field participation has hurt his development. If he gets 6 sacks this year, some will say that is a good output. But will we ever know how many sacks and pressures he would have if he was involved with the Team early to learn the system and work on a counter to his speed and long arm power?

Given that NFL is not a clinical trial, where you have a comparator arm so you can ascertain a difference between the two interventions - there is no parallel universe where Shemar is fully invested in the Team after draft. 
  

Agreed. And these guys who are drafted based on potential only, are the ones who really need development to reach that potential. 

I know I am stating the obvious, but when I read some posted comments stating that he will be signed and be here at some point and all will be well - I get frustrated. 

Yeah, Shemar has everything you cannot teach, the problem is it sounds like he is a dumbass and the coaches won't be able to coach him up.

[*ochocincos*]

(10 hours ago)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

If that's really what it is, I think it makes sense to specify those types of things in the contract language. And from what we have heard reports of, it seems more vague than that and could potentially be used for ticky tack, non-severe kinds of things.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10 hours ago)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

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.

[Sled21]

(8 hours ago)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.

You have to really hate the front office to think they are going to punish a player for something minor and piss off the entire locker room. There's a problem with this guy, they found out about it, and are protecting themselves. You don't live in Cleveland, you live in Cincinnati.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(6 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You have to really hate the front office to think they are going to punish a player for something minor and piss off the entire locker room. There's a problem with this guy, they found out about it, and are protecting themselves. You don't live in Cleveland, you live in Cincinnati.

If you're willing to give up a 1st round pick because you're unwilling to give up the power to punish a player for something minor, I have to assume you want that power to use it.


Your second sentence is using the "if you're not guilty, why can't we do a full search of your house?" logic. Just because he doesn't want to turn his guaranteed money into you-get-it-so-long-as-we-want-to-give-it money in exchange for nothing in return doesn't mean he's done anything wrong. 

[Sled21]

(6 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you're willing to give up a 1st round pick because you're unwilling to give up the power to punish a player for something minor, I have to assume you want that power to use it.


Your second sentence is using the "if you're not guilty, why can't we do a full search of your house?" logic. Just because he doesn't want to turn his guaranteed money into you-get-it-so-long-as-we-want-to-give-it money in exchange for nothing in return doesn't mean he's done anything wrong. 

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.