Is Shemar holding out?

[Essex Johnson]

(07-10-2025, 07:25 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: All true, doesn't change the fact that others that were picked right around Shemar with the same clauses have signed and were practicing
with their teams. He stands out in a bad way.

well the variable that is left out is the bengals are trying to add something not done with their 1st round pick and normally new draft picks players look at what the previous contract of the team that signed for in previous years so even if some teams have this clause that does not matter as much to the player since they don't want to give up something that like Mims just had

[Essex Johnson]

(07-11-2025, 01:15 PM)spidey Wrote: I guess I'm having trouble understanding this.  It's easy to point the finger at the FO and go they're screwing it up again.  But what are they screwing up.  From what I understand, the language is the same as what 20+ other teams have in their contracts concerning guaranteed money that basically says don't be a dumbass and get into trouble otherwise we can withhold the guaranteed money.  I do realize that the FO didn't put this in any other contracts before this year but so what.  The Raiders had to pay a guy who went to jail for killing someone.  If I was the person in charge, I would want assurances as well that I wasn't going to have to give a person millions of dollars if they did something stupid and was unavailable to perform.
My question is why is Stewart fighting so hard against this?

agree and it is working similar but opposite way with 2nd round picks , texans set a precedent with guarantee of their 2nd round pick contract, but majority of teams don;t want to follow that, hear the bengals are trying to do what a majority of teams are already doing.  A great compromise would be to extend void from the year one year to at 2  possible 3 years (depending on rolling over 5th year)  instead of full contract 

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 12:37 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Stewart has money from college. He was a 5 star recruit. Got paid a lot.

In theory, he could sit out all year.

I dont see the Bengals caving.

it is estimated about 1 million but that would be before taxes and he got that most of last year, forfeiting this year, being out of football for a year, probably falling out of 1st round.  think about if a team drafted him in 1st round  next year probably later in the round and already have this language in their contract, he would have the same contract as the bengals offered him but forfeited a whole years pay and signed a lower pay contract 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 10:30 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: the video below seems to explain the issue different than you are unless I am missing something, from the video it says they want change language of default from the year to committed it to the rest of the contract, which would be a first in a Bengals contract but other teams have this types of contracts, im not sure where their source is but they normally have a good sources

https://youtu.be/2Ins9ttnjJ8?si=-jCj-uXvEsmdCYuD

You're talking about the actual contract. We are talking about the Rookie Participation Waiver. Not the same thing.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 11:00 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: it is estimated about 1 million but that would be before taxes and he got that most of last year, forfeiting this year, being out of football for a year, probably falling out of 1st round.  think about if a team drafted him in 1st round  next year probably later in the round and already have this language in their contract, he would have the same contract as the bengals offered him but forfeited a whole years pay and signed a lower pay contract 

It would have a different payout structure. The teams who already do the waiver like this, have offset it by having a different payout structure so there's less available to potentially void in future guarantees because it's already been paid.

This has also been talked about, including by Stewart's agent who said if he was offered a bonus payout like other teams, the contract would have already been signed.

The problem is the Bengals want the clause some other teams have used, BUT they also want to keep paying their bonuses out in an extended manner like they used to. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

- - - - - - -

Plus then you'd be on a team that you would trust to actually pay you. 

Lets not pretend he (and the rest of College/NFL) doesn't see the Bengals being the only team forcing players to play under the franchise tag rather than using it as a negotiating tool to get first-year salary decided and give them more time to negotiate. (9 players got tagged last season, ONLY Tee ended up playing under the tag, the other 8 all got paid) Not to mention the Bengals have a 1st-Team All-Pro DE and won't give him the big payday he deserves.

So from Stewart's point of view, he got drafted by a team that's chosen him to be their test subject to immediately screw him in negotiations (they sure didn't try to pull that shit on Chase's contract this offseason), and who if he does turn out to be a great player doesn't seem particularly willing to pay top-of-the-line DE money so he'll just be stuck under team control for 7 years rather than ever getting a big payday.

[sandwedge]

(Yesterday, 12:37 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Stewart has money from college. He was a 5 star recruit. Got paid a lot.

In theory, he could sit out all year.

I dont see the Bengals caving.

Just read this morning that OSU lost out on the #1 LB in the 2026 class because he wanted to much NIL money.

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 12:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're talking about the actual contract. We are talking about the Rookie Participation Waiver. Not the same thing.

ok i thought he said he was not practicing till contract is complete so what would waiver matter anyway

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(Yesterday, 10:40 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote:

well the variable that is left out is the bengals are trying to add something not done with their 1st round pick and normally new draft picks players look at what the previous contract of the team that signed for in previous years so even if some teams have this clause that does not matter as much to the player since they don't want to give up something that like Mims just had

As TLL here says, the Bengals are trying to pull one over on Shemar. They didn't try to do this to Amarius. This is different.

The Bengals are in the wrong here and I was on their side until I heard the details that TLL brought to my attention.

(Yesterday, 12:44 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It would have a different payout structure. The teams who already do the waiver like this, have offset it by having a different payout structure so there's less available to potentially void in future guarantees because it's already been paid.

This has also been talked about, including by Stewart's agent who said if he was offered a bonus payout like other teams, the contract would have already been signed.

The problem is the Bengals want the clause some other teams have used, BUT they also want to keep paying their bonuses out in an extended manner like they used to. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

- - - - - - -

Plus then you'd be on a team that you would trust to actually pay you. 

Lets not pretend he (and the rest of College/NFL) doesn't see the Bengals being the only team forcing players to play under the franchise tag rather than using it as a negotiating tool to get first-year salary decided and give them more time to negotiate. (9 players got tagged last season, ONLY Tee ended up playing under the tag, the other 8 all got paid) Not to mention the Bengals have a 1st-Team All-Pro DE and won't give him the big payday he deserves.

So from Stewart's point of view, he got drafted by a team that's chosen him to be their test subject to immediately screw him in negotiations (they sure didn't try to pull that shit on Chase's contract this offseason), and who if he does turn out to be a great player doesn't seem particularly willing to pay top-of-the-line DE money so he'll just be stuck under team control for 7 years rather than ever getting a big payday.

Well said. I am usually a Bengals homer and more positive about them and how they handle their business, but not here.

[Destro]

(Yesterday, 12:44 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Plus then you'd be on a team that you would trust to actually pay you. 

Lets not pretend he (and the rest of College/NFL) doesn't see the Bengals being the only team forcing players to play under the franchise tag rather than using it as a negotiating tool to get first-year salary decided and give them more time to negotiate. (9 players got tagged last season, ONLY Tee ended up playing under the tag, the other 8 all got paid) Not to mention the Bengals have a 1st-Team All-Pro DE and won't give him the big payday he deserves.

So from Stewart's point of view, he got drafted by a team that's chosen him to be their test subject to immediately screw him in negotiations (they sure didn't try to pull that shit on Chase's contract this offseason), and who if he does turn out to be a great player doesn't seem particularly willing to pay top-of-the-line DE money so he'll just be stuck under team control for 7 years rather than ever getting a big payday.

Yeah I feel like this, at least in part, has something to do with the Bengals history. Tee didn't get the contract he wanted when he wanted it, and got tagged for his troubles. Chase didn't get the deal when he wanted it. ( Got paid later, but that is actually besides the point ). Now you got Trey, who Stewart would love to be a percentage of in talent, also cannot get his contract after a stellar year. People can defend the front office as much as they want, but Stewart is a player. He looks at it is a player does and I would think that does not bode well. He didn't seem very excited when drafted. Have to wonder if he already had some preconceived notions coming in. 

[t3r3e3]

(Yesterday, 12:44 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It would have a different payout structure. The teams who already do the waiver like this, have offset it by having a different payout structure so there's less available to potentially void in future guarantees because it's already been paid.

This has also been talked about, including by Stewart's agent who said if he was offered a bonus payout like other teams, the contract would have already been signed.

The problem is the Bengals want the clause some other teams have used, BUT they also want to keep paying their bonuses out in an extended manner like they used to. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

- - - - - - -

Plus then you'd be on a team that you would trust to actually pay you. 

Lets not pretend he (and the rest of College/NFL) doesn't see the Bengals being the only team forcing players to play under the franchise tag rather than using it as a negotiating tool to get first-year salary decided and give them more time to negotiate. (9 players got tagged last season, ONLY Tee ended up playing under the tag, the other 8 all got paid) Not to mention the Bengals have a 1st-Team All-Pro DE and won't give him the big payday he deserves.

So from Stewart's point of view, he got drafted by a team that's chosen him to be their test subject to immediately screw him in negotiations (they sure didn't try to pull that shit on Chase's contract this offseason), and who if he does turn out to be a great player doesn't seem particularly willing to pay top-of-the-line DE money so he'll just be stuck under team control for 7 years rather than ever getting a big payday.

This is an excellent summary. If the Bengals want those voids they need to structure the contract similarly to other orgs. Mike and Katie pinching pennies yet again, nothing has changed. Temu Front Office in Cincy.

[spidey]

(07-12-2025, 04:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No it doesn't.

No they didn't.

My question is why are you just putting lies out there?

Reading must be hard.  I didn't put lies out there.  I clearly put in "from my understanding"  and if I'm wrong, so be it.  Wouldn't be the first time but then there is this nugget from the bleacher report on 6/13.  

Shemar Stewart's Contract from Bengals Reportedly Has Same Language as Cards, Seahawks.   

The language is unprecedented for the Bengals, not for other teams.

[Essex Johnson]

(9 hours ago)spidey Wrote: Reading must be hard.  I didn't put lies out there.  I clearly put in "from my understanding"  and if I'm wrong, so be it.  Wouldn't be the first time but then there is this nugget from the bleacher report on 6/13.  

Shemar Stewart's Contract from Bengals Reportedly Has Same Language as Cards, Seahawks.   

The language is unprecedented for the Bengals, not for other teams.

Well that is from a month ago maybe more information has come out, be nice if LeonardLeap could link the article he is getting the change from, ive not found anything that discusses what he referenced, I have just found the same info you are finding

[spidey]

(9 hours ago)Essex Johnson Wrote: Well that is from a month ago maybe more information has come out, be nice if LeonardLeap could link the article he is getting the change from, ive not found anything that discusses what he referenced, I have just found the same info you are finding

Well that's what I heard/read.  Haven't seen anything different.   If there is new information, I'll be glad to be informed.  I just don't like being called a liar.

[Luvnit2]

(9 hours ago)spidey Wrote: Well that's what I heard/read.  Haven't seen anything different.   If there is new information, I'll be glad to be informed.  I just don't like being called a liar.

Your post was straight up and not a lie by any stretch. My personal belief is some just want to believe it is 100% the team's fault as they have a self fulfilling prophecy our FO sucks so need more fuel to throw on the fire.

To me these thigs are like a fight, chances are both sides are at fault and one is not innocent.

[Stewy]

(9 hours ago)spidey Wrote: Reading must be hard.  I didn't put lies out there.  I clearly put in "from my understanding"  and if I'm wrong, so be it.  Wouldn't be the first time but then there is this nugget from the bleacher report on 6/13.  

Shemar Stewart's Contract from Bengals Reportedly Has Same Language as Cards, Seahawks.   

The language is unprecedented for the Bengals, not for other teams.

That other teams use this language is truth (~20 others according to Joe Goodberry).
That it is new to the Bengals is truth.
Supposition is that the Bengals tried to use this language with their last two 1st rnd DPs, and the players negotiated it out.  Give a little get a little.
Supposition is that either Shemar's side isn't negotiating, not giving something up to get the language out OR the bengals are just finally putting their foot down.

I posted this probably 35+ pages ago, but Joe Goodberry actually spoke to Shemar's agent, and dug deep into the subject, so this is the best article I've seen on the matter - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcFoBSRGVKo&ab_channel=FirstStarMediaGroup and this is from a month ago.

[THE PISTONS]

(9 hours ago)spidey Wrote: Reading must be hard.  I didn't put lies out there.  I clearly put in "from my understanding"  and if I'm wrong, so be it.  Wouldn't be the first time but then there is this nugget from the bleacher report on 6/13.  

Shemar Stewart's Contract from Bengals Reportedly Has Same Language as Cards, Seahawks.   

The language is unprecedented for the Bengals, not for other teams.

Hard to know what to believe:

Shemar Stewart's Representation Denies Bengals Offering Same Language as Other Teams

I thought this quote was interesting:
“As in how far I'll take it, it just depends,” Stewart said. “I'm not asking for nothing y'all have never done before. But in y'all's case, y'all just want to win an argument instead of winning more games.”

[spidey]

By the way Leanord Leap called me a liar for the Ruggs contract comment.  Ruggs signed a 4 year deal worth $16.5 million (or close to it) and was paid $11 million of it before his reckless accident and his release.  He play 1.5 seasons for the Raiders and they paid him 67% of the contract so my comment on the Raiders paying him was false which I missed in his reply as I didn't see the bolded parts of my post.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(9 hours ago)spidey Wrote: Reading must be hard.  I didn't put lies out there.  I clearly put in "from my understanding"  and if I'm wrong, so be it.  Wouldn't be the first time but then there is this nugget from the bleacher report on 6/13.  

Shemar Stewart's Contract from Bengals Reportedly Has Same Language as Cards, Seahawks.   

The language is unprecedented for the Bengals, not for other teams.

You continuing to phrase it as a "don't be a dumbass" isn't true. It also includes the ability to void if you get punished for on-the-field actions. AKA, playing football. The Seahawks tried to do the same with Bobby Wagner years ago and he held off signing until it got removed. The Jets tried to do the same with Zach Wilson and he held off signing until it got removed.

You saying the Raiders had to pay a guy who went to jail for killing someone is also just not true. They voided the rest of his contract and cut him and he didn't get any future guaranteed money. 

The signing bonus ($9.7m) was already paid, but that's then a legal issue to get the prorated portion of it back, which I am sure they did. So in reality you're talking getting an extra $6m+ of that back as well (same situation happens when players retire and the team doesn't want to let them keep their full signing bonus, they get back the prorated amount). The contract clause in question would do nothing for because it's future guarantees, not taking back money you already paid.