Trey Hendrickson Update

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 05:04 PM)NotBigzo Wrote: They should've had the foresight to see this impasse and trade the guy.

That this has dragged so long is ***** malpractice.

Is it a disgrace in Pittsburgh that they have not reached a deal with Twatt yet?

[Bengalitis]

(5 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Is it a disgrace in Pittsburgh that they have not reached a deal with Twatt yet?

just prepare yourself for all the hoopla with Rogers over there now and start winning a few... they are gonna relish on the squeelers 24/7. gad help us.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 09:37 PM)Joelist Wrote: Good point. Trey's drama kinda debunks the whole idea of signing players early to get better deals - if they're just going to push for new deals early then when the market moves what is the point?

Spot on

Bengals in the minds of some suck if they sign a fair market value contract at the time and are asking the player honor it or accept a raise of $12 million or if they wait a year and pay Chase a fair market value costing the team more money.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 10:17 PM)J24 Wrote: You do realize that when a player hits the open market their price goes up right? 

True, you do realize the Bengals dtermine if or when Trey can hit the open market. They could force him to honor the existig contract, then franchise him for 25 million or less in 2026m then di it again for 30 million in 2027.

Simply as I keep saying, Bengals FO has 100% control of Trey's future, but Trey appears to be negotiating like he is holding a/a in a hand of holdem going all in when he really has 2/7 and hopes the Bengals fold because if they don't , he is likely screwed.

I want it resolved as I have said, but Trey needs to be realistic in his demands, if not, it is his fault as team never had to offer to renogotiate, hey could have simply said no, we have no interest.

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

(Yesterday, 05:54 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: It would appear that the majority of NFL teams did not feel that trey was worth the asking price..and frankly aside from 5-6 games when he accumulates all his sacks..he dissapears..

I think you are flat out drawing the wrong conclusions here. 

The Bengals set a price that they knew no team would meet for a player his age. The whole "free to seek a trade" thing had zero to do with wanting to make a trade, and everything to do with attempting to make signing Trey easier by showing him what is true value (trade/$$$) actually is. 

Clearly, the Bengals were correct on the 1st round pick park, but wrong on the $$ part. It seems teams were willing to pay Trey more than we are offering (so far), but not willing to pay him AND give up a first. And since we are post-draft and mostly done with FA, the trade ship has sailed. 

Now, you seem to be thinking that because no one coughed up a 1st, Trey is somehow not a great player and not worth the money. And hence, the FO is right to play hardball? Now, to my eye test, and every pass rush metric I know of over the last couple years, that is Looney Toons. But, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

What clearly is NOT Looney Tunes is the fact there were some games he did not dominate, true enough. But the same is true for any great player (Burrow & Chase as well), especially defensive guys. I think that is the wrong standard to use, no one is gonna dominate every game. And you can scheme guys out and the other guys get paid, too. 

But if you are gonna let other teams set the value, you are ignoring the fact that there were other teams willing to pay him the $$. Just not the $$ and the pick. His value on the open market is $35 mil, minimum. Hunter money. 

[Isaac Curtis: The Real #85]

(4 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: True, you do realize the Bengals dtermine if or when Trey can hit the open market. They could force him to honor the existig contract, then franchise him for 25 million or less in 2026m then di it again for 30 million in 2027.

Simply as I keep saying, Bengals FO has 100% control of Trey's future, but Trey appears to be negotiating like he is holding a/a in a hand of holdem going all in when he really has 2/7 and hopes the Bengals fold because if they don't , he is likely screwed.

I want it resolved as I have said, but Trey needs to be realistic in his demands, if not, it is his fault as team never had to offer to renogotiate, hey could have simply said no, we have no interest.

You are not wrong on the leverage part. 

[ERIC1]

(Yesterday, 06:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Those don't count, none were completed in 2025. 

They do count and the nonsense that the bengals are cheap..is just that...nonsense

[ERIC1]

(2 hours ago)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I think you are flat out drawing the wrong conclusions here. 

The Bengals set a price that they knew no team would meet for a player his age. The whole "free to seek a trade" thing had zero to do with wanting to make a trade, and everything to do with attempting to make signing Trey easier by showing him what is true value (trade/$$$) actually is. 

Clearly, the Bengals were correct on the 1st round pick park, but wrong on the $$ part. It seems teams were willing to pay Trey more than we are offering (so far), but not willing to pay him AND give up a first. And since we are post-draft and mostly done with FA, the trade ship has sailed. 

Now, you seem to be thinking that because no one coughed up a 1st, Trey is somehow not a great player and not worth the money. And hence, the FO is right to play hardball? Now, to my eye test, and every pass rush metric I know of over the last couple years, that is Looney Toons. But, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

What clearly is NOT Looney Tunes is the fact there were some games he did not dominate, true enough. But the same is true for any great player (Burrow & Chase as well), especially defensive guys. I think that is the wrong standard to use, no one is gonna dominate every game. And you can scheme guys out and the other guys get paid, too. 

But if you are gonna let other teams set the value, you are ignoring the fact that there were other teams willing to pay him the $$. Just not the $$ and the pick. His value on the open market is $35 mil, minimum. Hunter money. 

Obviously the coaches and management do not agree with your assessment of hendrickson..nothing more to be said..and thise great pass rushers you speak to...even when they are not getting their sacks..they are disruptive...trey is not

[NUGDUKWE]

(4 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: True, you do realize the Bengals dtermine if or when Trey can hit the open market. They could force him to honor the existig contract, then franchise him for 25 million or less in 2026m then di it again for 30 million in 2027.

Simply as I keep saying, Bengals FO has 100% control of Trey's future, but Trey appears to be negotiating like he is holding a/a in a hand of holdem going all in when he really has 2/7 and hopes the Bengals fold because if they don't , he is likely screwed.

I want it resolved as I have said, but Trey needs to be realistic in his demands, if not, it is his fault as team never had to offer to renogotiate, hey could have simply said no, we have no interest.

Only the Bengals would operate this way out of the entire league. Do you think that's a good sign? We are the number 1 FO in the league? How many other teams have theyre 1st rd pick taking shots at the team in the media? 

[NUGDUKWE]

(1 hour ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Obviously the coaches and management do not agree with your assessment of hendrickson..nothing mote to be said..and thise great pass rushers you speak to...even when they are not getting their sacks..they are disruptive...trey is not

Not only did he have the most sacks he was responsible for creating the most sacks for his team. Yes hes disruptive. 

[Soonerpeace]

(2 hours ago)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I think you are flat out drawing the wrong conclusions here. 

The Bengals set a price that they knew no team would meet for a player his age. The whole "free to seek a trade" thing had zero to do with wanting to make a trade, and everything to do with attempting to make signing Trey easier by showing him what is true value (trade/$$$) actually is. 

Clearly, the Bengals were correct on the 1st round pick park, but wrong on the $$ part. It seems teams were willing to pay Trey more than we are offering (so far), but not willing to pay him AND give up a first. And since we are post-draft and mostly done with FA, the trade ship has sailed. 

Now, you seem to be thinking that because no one coughed up a 1st, Trey is somehow not a great player and not worth the money. And hence, the FO is right to play hardball? Now, to my eye test, and every pass rush metric I know of over the last couple years, that is Looney Toons. But, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

What clearly is NOT Looney Tunes is the fact there were some games he did not dominate, true enough. But the same is true for any great player (Burrow & Chase as well), especially defensive guys. I think that is the wrong standard to use, no one is gonna dominate every game. And you can scheme guys out and the other guys get paid, too. 

But if you are gonna let other teams set the value, you are ignoring the fact that there were other teams willing to pay him the $$. Just not the $$ and the pick. His value on the open market is $35 mil, minimum. Hunter money. 

Part of the trade snafu was Trey’s insistence on a long term deal. But a lot you were right on.

[ERIC1]

(38 minutes ago)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Not only did he have the most sacks he was responsible for creating the most sacks for his team. Yes hes disruptive. 

Trey was a good player on a very bad defense...if they can keep him great..yet..unless they correct a multitude of defeciencies ..it wont matter