Trey Hendrickson Update

[Luvnit2]

(7 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: He does have a vote. A team wishing to trade for him not only has to meet the teams wants, it has to have a deal in place with the player. All Trey has to do is turn down the offer.

No, this is not correct. The Bengals can tell the team where they are at with Trey (they have agreed on the money portion) so they know what it will take. Trey is under contract for 2025, that is what the team is buying knowing they will meet his demands.

The other team can't speak to Trey or his agent prior to the trade unless the Bengals allow it. I don't see the Bengals allowing it to happen because once they do, then their offer becomes public knowledge.

[Sled21]

(3 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: No, this is not correct. The Bengals can tell the team where they are at with Trey (they have agreed on the money portion) so they know what it will take. Trey is under contract for 2025, that is what the team is buying knowing they will meet his demands.

The other team can't speak to Trey or his agent prior to the trade unless the Bengals allow it. I don't see the Bengals allowing it to happen because once they do, then their offer becomes public knowledge.

Where they are at in negotiations with the Bengals is moot. The team that would trade for Trey inherits the rest of his contract, not the last offer. For Trey, that is one year at 16 million. He's obviously not going to play for that, so they need to have a deal with him or risk them trading a pick or player away for a guy who won't play for them. So yes, they have to have an agreement that Trey will sign. And the Bengals already gave Trey permission to seek a trade. 

[Luvnit2]

(3 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: Where they are at in negotiations with the Bengals is moot. The team that would trade for Trey inherits the rest of his contract, not the last offer. For Trey, that is one year at 16 million. He's obviously not going to play for that, so they need to have a deal with him or risk them trading a pick or player away for a guy who won't play for them. So yes, they have to have an agreement that Trey will sign. And the Bengals already gave Trey permission to seek a trade. 

If Try finds a trade partner, that may happen as you stated. But if Bengals find the trade partner, not they do not have to allow the partner to get a deal with Trey ahead of time. They know what the offer is because likely team would share it and what Trey is asking. So, in this scenario Bengals do not and would not have to get Trey's permission.

[XsandOs]

It seems that Bengals still want a 2025 first round pick equivalent for Trey. Which would be a first rounder in 2026 and a player that has a similar value to deliver a combined 2025 first round equivalent.

The issue is which player. Teams could offer a player to dump a salary on us - which would be counterproductive to what we want.

So the player component opens a whole new can of worms.

[THE PISTONS]

I suspect that if they partially guarantee some money in year 2, he signs. Like maybe half.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(3 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: You do love to argue. Simply, Bengals are not going to consult with Trey or his agent prior to having a trade deal being in place. They do the deal and then inform he is traded. If he decides to retire, that is his choice and the trade is nullified.

Yes it could happen, but drastic step for Trey to quit playing and leave 100 million on the table.

No, I am just pointing out you're wrong on this because that's absolutely not how that works when it's a high value trade and the player in question is in a holdout/holdin for contract reasons.

The team trading for him is going to want to know if they can get a deal done with Trey before they commit resources to trading for him. That requires his input before a deal is finalized. No team is going to give a 1st and a young defensive starter and not even know if the player they're trading for wants to play for them or is willing to negotiate an extension with them.

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago on Sept 1st, he then also signed a contract extension with Chicago on Sept 1st. They didn't just magically negotiate the deal in an hour. They had an agreement worked out with Mack/Mack's agent before they finalized the trade.

Davante Adams was traded to Oakland on March 17th, he then also signed a contract extension with Oakland on March 17th.

[Luvnit2]

(2 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No, I am just pointing out you're wrong on this because that's absolutely not how that works when it's a high value trade and the player in question is in a holdout/holdin for contract reasons.

The team trading for him is going to want to know if they can get a deal done with Trey before they commit resources to trading for him. That requires his input before a deal is finalized. No team is going to give a 1st and a young defensive starter and not even know if the player they're trading for wants to play for them or is willing to negotiate an extension with them.

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago on Sept 1st, he then also signed a contract extension with Chicago on Sept 1st. They didn't just magically negotiate the deal in an hour. They had an agreement worked out with Mack/Mack's agent before they finalized the trade.

Davante Adams was traded to Oakland on March 17th, he then also signed a contract extension with Oakland on March 17th.

Fair enough, it looks like it happens more often than not. 

[Essex Johnson]

(2 hours ago)THE PISTONS Wrote: I suspect that if they partially guarantee some money in year 2, he signs. Like maybe half.

I'm not sure, from all accounts I've read, Tre has been set in the sand  on 3 yrs

[WeezyBengal]

A trade isn't going to happen. No one is going to offer what they want.

Does he play week 1? At this point I'd say no. It feels different.

[THE PISTONS]

(1 hour ago)WeezyBengal Wrote: A trade isn't going to happen. No one is going to offer what they want.

Does he play week 1? At this point I'd say no. It feels different.

Trending that way.

[Nicomo Cosca]

Can’t imagine he actually sits out games at almost a million bucks a pop. He’ll play just like Bates, Chase, and Tee all did when they were having contract disputes.

[Sled21]

(15 minutes ago)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Can’t imagine he actually sits out games at almost a million bucks a pop. He’ll play just like Bates, Chase, and Tee all did when they were having contract disputes.

Nor do I. He might not play week one, but when he doesn't get his check that will be an eye opener just like the training camp fines were.