Trey Hendrickson Update

[XsandOs]

(06-08-2025, 07:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: There'd be no reason for him to sign that then. 

Signing a deal with only $15m guaranteed would put him at 61st in total guaranteed money and 48th in guaranteed at signing money among EDGE players in 2025.

In your suggestion 2026 and 2027 only exist to underpay him (compared to the market) if he does well, and let him easily get cut if he underperforms.

- - - - - -

Chase Young who has never had a 8.0 sack season, this offseason got a $17m signing bonus, $27.2m guaranteed at signing, and $33m total guaranteed.

A guy with back-to-back 17.5 sack seasons coming off a 1st Team All-Pro season is not going to sign for $15m guaranteed.

Given that he is in a contractual bind, there has to be a give somewhere. If the Bengals double his salary, Trey's concession would be to take a one year deal.

My suggestion is essentially a one year deal, where Trey gets his free agency afterwards. 

Young signed a three year $51M deal, with AAV of $17M. He is 26yo, and his deal ends at 28. 

If possible, please read the entire article:
https://charlieschalkboard.substack.com/p/what-trey-hendrickson-is-and-what

[Soonerpeace]

VP JD Vance wants the Cincinnati Bengals to pay Trey Hendrickson:

“He’s a generational talent.” pic.twitter.com/cnne4mmzCz

— Deadspin (@Deadspin) June 8, 2025

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-07-2025, 04:28 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: But even if it was 4yrs at 35 they aren't gonna guarantee that much. So the risk isn't that bad because you could release him in the later years. 

I agree but I don't know if the Bengals do.

(06-08-2025, 09:10 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Yes 

That is a bit steep. I can understand the Bengals then. Trey is getting up there in age. 3 years at most is what I would give him.

(06-08-2025, 03:56 PM)XsandOs Wrote: I would suggest a 2-year extension at $70M. No guarantees beyond the signing bonus.

$15M signing bonus - bringing his total 2025 payout of $31M.

$30M 2026.

$25M 2027.

The signing bonus prorated over the three years would mean $5M dead cap in 2026 and 2027 if he is released next year.

I like it, but I don't think Trey would. Sounds like he wants a 3 year deal minimum.

[BFritz21]

(06-09-2025, 01:24 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I like it, but I don't think Trey would. Sounds like he wants a 3 year deal minimum.

I'm wondering if we're waiting for TJ Watt to sign because he's holding out too, 

Watt's the more complete player and has more career sacks and only a Trey only has a few more over his past two big years, so it would be dumb on Trey's side, IMCO.

TJ's a few months older than Trey, so I think it's still stupid on both of them.

If Trey doesn't sign for this much and then bombs this year, his career's over and he'll never sniff that kind of money again, so I think he just needs to quit being greedy.

[007BengalsFan]

(06-08-2025, 10:15 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: But they like front loading because it limits the contracts they can fit into the cap.

If you front load the contract that gives you more cap space and flexibility in later years.

[THE PISTONS]

(06-09-2025, 03:17 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: If you front load the contract that gives you more cap space and flexibility in later years.

So...the problem with frontloading the contract is that when that frontloaded part is done...he might want more money saying he's underpaid again. He's shown he'll do that.

The Bengals seem willing to pay him around $28 million a year. That's the issue. He wants more.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-09-2025, 02:07 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm wondering if we're waiting for TJ Watt to sign because he's holding out too, 

Watt's the more complete player and has more career sacks and only a Trey only has a few more over his past two big years, so it would be dumb on Trey's side, IMCO.

TJ's a few month solder than Watt, so I think it's still stupid on both of them.

If Trey doesn't sign for this much and then bombs this year, his career's over and he'll never sniff that kind of money again, so I think he just needs to quit being greedy.

Yeah, the more this goes on the more I think it a mixture of Trey and his agent thinking they are worth more than they are. Trey gets a lot of sacks
as we know, but he will be 31 years old soon. You have to take this into account, everyone should including Trey and his agent. If he gets a fair offer
with a couple years of guarantees on a 3 or 4 year contract it would be better for him to take it IMO.

It is only hurting him holding out, he will just get fined and he is under contract anyways.

[Luvnit2]

(06-09-2025, 03:46 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah, the more this goes on the more I think it a mixture of Trey and his agent thinking they are worth more than they are. Trey gets a lot of sacks
as we know, but he will be 31 years old soon. You have to take this into account, everyone should including Trey and his agent. If he gets a fair offer
with a couple years of guarantees on a 3 or 4 year contract it would be better for him to take it IMO.

It is only hurting him holding out, he will just get fined and he is under contract anyways.

That is my point as well. His hold out could reduce his salary in 2025 substantially if the Bengals refuse to extend him. He is almost 31, it is not the time to be remving money from the table, he does that if he holds out.

Yes, Bengals may suffer defensively if he holds out, but even as great as Trey was, we sucked defensively with him so will we really be a lot worse if he holds out. Maybe, but one thing is certain, he holds out and he definitely gets fined and those fines will add up quickly once the July TC begins. Bengals can'r waive the fines even if they wanted to waive them. Chris Jones missed TC and 1 game and his fines totaled over 2 million dollars. That would be around 15% of Trey's 2025 income f he sat out only 1 game. In case you are wondering, they get 17 game checks, so one game check is almost 1 million lost in income.

[BFritz21]

(06-09-2025, 03:46 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah, the more this goes on the more I think it a mixture of Trey and his agent thinking they are worth more than they are. Trey gets a lot of sacks
as we know, but he will be 31 years old soon. You have to take this into account, everyone should including Trey and his agent. If he gets a fair offer
with a couple years of guarantees on a 3 or 4 year contract it would be better for him to take it IMO.

It is only hurting him holding out, he will just get fined and he is under contract anyways.

Few typos in my post (fixed now), but I agree. 

This is the ugly part because we could give him a contract with incentives, but otherwise, I say we play hard ball and say "ok, play this year and see if another team gives you anywhere near that kind of money."

The only problem with that is it could alienate Trey and impact the season, but it's the only way that I can see us not losing in this situation if Trey and his agent are seriously this locked in.

[007BengalsFan]

(06-09-2025, 03:44 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So...the problem with frontloading the contract is that when that frontloaded part is done...he might want more money saying he's underpaid again.

That's how it seems to work with some of these guys.  Get paid a bunch of money upfront then turn around and complain you are only making 15.8 when you signed a 21 million dollar contract including an 8 million dollar signing bonus upfront.

[THE PISTONS]

(06-09-2025, 03:54 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: That is my point as well. His hold out could reduce his salary in 2025 substantially if the Bengals refuse to extend him. He is almost 31, it is not the time to be remving money from the table, he does that if he holds out.

Yes, Bengals may suffer defensively if he holds out, but even as great as Trey was, we sucked defensively with him so will we really be a lot worse if he holds out. Maybe, but one thing is certain, he holds out and he definitely gets fined and those fines will add up quickly once the July TC begins. Bengals can'r waive the fines even if they wanted to waive them. Chris Jones missed TC and 1 game and his fines totaled over 2 million dollars. That would be around 15% of Trey's 2025 income f he sat out only 1 game. In case you are wondering, they get 17 game checks, so one game check is almost 1 million lost in income.

Thus...it may make sense for him to take $28 million a year. I just don't know that he will.

Say he sits out and loses half his salary this year. The Bengals can just franchise tag him next year. It's not like he gets to just leave. The threat of franchise tagging him next year is the Bengals best weapon.

[XenoMorph]

Man that D line inspiring confidence right now.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 11:47 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Thus...it may make sense for him to take $28 million a year. I just don't know that he will.

Say he sits out and loses half his salary this year. The Bengals can just franchise tag him next year. It's not like he gets to just leave. The threat of franchise tagging him next year is the Bengals best weapon.

So true Pistons. I was watching Good Morning Football this morning and Hatcher the old Vikings WR was saying that Trey is going to bounce.

I was like, what the heck are you even talking about? He is under contract with the Bengals already this year and the Bengals can just tag him 
next year if they want. Trey ought to sign the increase in pay and be happy about it. He has hardly any leverage except to hurt himself along 
with the Bengals pass rush by sitting out, hurts them both, not smart.

[J24]

(Yesterday, 04:34 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: So true Pistons. I was watching Good Morning Football this morning and Hatcher the old Vikings WR was saying that Trey is going to bounce.

I was like, what the heck are you even talking about? He is under contract with the Bengals already this year and the Bengals can just tag him 
next year if they want. Trey ought to sign the increase in pay and be happy about it. He has hardly any leverage except to hurt himself along 
with the Bengals pass rush by sitting out, hurts them both, not smart.

It depends on what the tag is to Trey + do we really want to through this again next off-season?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 10:57 PM)J24 Wrote: It depends on what the tag is to Trey + do we really want to through this again next off-season?

Nah, definitely don't want to go through this again next offseason. Just saying Trey doesn't have much leverage here and should take the pay increase
rather than hurting himself and his team that has the leverage. 35+ mil per year is a little extravagant for his age, I like your thought of maybe that for 
a couple of years and than outs in the 3rd and 4th years since he evidently wants at least 3 years on his deal.

[Essex Johnson]

(06-09-2025, 03:54 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: That is my point as well. His hold out could reduce his salary in 2025 substantially if the Bengals refuse to extend him. He is almost 31, it is not the time to be remving money from the table, he does that if he holds out.

Yes, Bengals may suffer defensively if he holds out, but even as great as Trey was, we sucked defensively with him so will we really be a lot worse if he holds out. Maybe, but one thing is certain, he holds out and he definitely gets fined and those fines will add up quickly once the July TC begins. Bengals can'r waive the fines even if they wanted to waive them. Chris Jones missed TC and 1 game and his fines totaled over 2 million dollars. That would be around 15% of Trey's 2025 income f he sat out only 1 game. In case you are wondering, they get 17 game checks, so one game check is almost 1 million lost in income.

I understand the Bengals not wanting to meet his price but that idea that oh we sucked with him on defense so what does it matter, my counter would be why resign Tee, we have not made the playoffs with him last two years and he has missed way too many games, so move on, i assume you agree with that with your thinking on Tre correct ?

[QueenCity]

I know it's rare for player to player trades to happen but I think it's worth pursuing.

Bengals cannot punt on this year gotta have an impact player if it isn't going to be Trey.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 11:32 PM)QueenCity Wrote: I know it's rare for player to player trades to happen but I think it's worth pursuing.

Bengals cannot punt on this year gotta have an impact player if it isn't going to be Trey.

I just don't want it to be Ramsey if we do trade Trey. No need for another head case.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 11:10 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I understand the Bengals not wanting to meet his price but that idea that oh we sucked with him on defense so what does it matter, my counter would be why resign Tee, we have not made the playoffs with him last two years and he has missed way too many games, so move on, i assume you agree with that with your thinking on Tre correct ?

I can't say I agree. The D was bad last year and, in my opinion, cost us a few games. The offense wasn't the problem, the D was.

[SunsetBengal]

(Yesterday, 11:02 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Nah, definitely don't want to go through this again next offseason. Just saying Trey doesn't have much leverage here and should take the pay increase
rather than hurting himself and his team that has the leverage. 35+ mil per year is a little extravagant for his age, I like your thought of maybe that for 
a couple of years and than outs in the 3rd and 4th years since he evidently wants at least 3 years on his deal.

Idk, Hendrickson and Garrett are only 1 year (almost exactly) apart in age, and nobody is blinking over Garrett getting $40M/per.