Explain to me the worst case scenario with trading Chad

[TJJackson]

Multiple sources quote the NFLPA saying a pre-June trade of Chad would cause a 8.03mil cap hit for the Bengals, meaning we'd have 8.03 million counting towards the cap (both cap and floor) for which we receive......nothing

I'm gonna go with the NFLPA's figures, OK?

That said, all this discussion has led me to change my position somewhat

Unchanged Items

1) This scenario is despicable, amounts to legal fraud on their part, and I hold anger for both the player and the agent equally.

2) I would lose no sleep if the Bengals went with the "Chad on the roster but suspended or inactive" deal. Yes, it might not make the most business sense, but by God, he has this coming after the fraud he has perpetrated here and the damage he has already done to this organization

Changed items

1) I understand the need to win and to rid ourselves of cancers. Chad is definitely now a cancer, as defined by one whose presence undermines a team more than his performance helps it.

2) I am open to a trade, as long as it is an early r2 pick or better. 8.03 is a big kick in the teeth, but at least it'd be over and done this year.

3) I'd like to see the trade include some cap relief, either by Camp Chad agreeing to renegotiate (I don't see this as likely, even though this is in line wit their STATED intent) or by it occurring after June 1

[TJJackson]

The folks on the boards in Dallas love this idea, btw......many of them talk about how TO and Chad are good friends and could therefore coexist nicely. Chad says he'd only need to decide which finger to wear the ring on if he were in Dallas.

The folks in Philly seem overall less interested due to the whole TO fiasco a few years back. They want an elite receiver o win NOW for their rapidly aging QB but don't want history repeating itself

Naturally, I'd rather see Chad rot in his hometown of Miami, for Miami's r2 pick. Go win there, you freakin crybaby!

[kingwilly]

jeez, TJ, this is like really effective therapy...I think we all feel better.

f**k Chad.

[HoosierCat]

I think the worst effect it might have, dollar-wise, is jamming up a TJ extension and extending Andrews, which means someone would need to get cut to get $$$ to give to TJ...Casualties could inlcude Jermi Johsnon, Bobbie Williams, Dexter Jackson, Big Willie....

Draft a couple DTs and give John Thorton his walking papers. There's $4+ million in cap space right there.

[TJJackson]

I'll grant you that, and JT is definitely on his last legs anyway, nice guy tho he may be

[HairOnFire]

To point out that Chad Johnson isn't blocking the door is ridiculous

No, it's just a fact.

It's ridiculous and pointless. You've claimed a trade is unrealistic yet you're attempting to blame Mike Brown for not immediately making one. And you claim the Bengals can gain cap space by cutting Chad outright, but that's obviously not an idea you support. You further claim Chad's behavior is irrelevant due to his incredible worth as a player, and then say he'd only bring a 3rd round pick in trade compensation.

All things considered I'm suprised someone who has as many facts to work with as you can't seem to make any sense at all.

[Spor_tees]

Maybe Chad should call Marques Colston of the Saints and ask why a guy with is numbers is going to be happy making less than a Million Dollars next year...and is not complaining about it.

Colston's first two years in the league he has 168 catches for 2240 yards and 19 TDs...yet he is not ready to sit out unless he gets a raise. The things Chad could learn from a grown up individual...

[HoosierCat]

You've claimed

What I've claimed isn't the point. Remember, you are the one who blasted Chad for poor performance. All I wanted to know is why you then give Mikey a pass for retaining a player you claim singlehandedly cost us three games and possibly the playoffs? Especially when there have been multiple reports, ranging from nfl.com's Schefter to today's PFW item, that more than one team is interested and comp could be as high as a first round pick.

[HairOnFire]

I agree r1 + r3 is what I'd be pitching. I think his value goes down only as time pases, a la Moss. His value will never be hgher than it is now, whatever that value turn out to be.

His value only goes down if he stays, plays, and tanks it. And I'd say the odds of that are uncomfortably high. After all, he melted down during the playoff game in 2005, all but disappeared during the stretch drive in 2006, and geeked and yipped his way through the must-win portion of the 2007 season. And that was before he openly quit on the team, right?

Follow-on ? is are there any suitors?

I'm not convinced the Dallas rumors are anything more than a douchbagged fabrication, but if there's any interest I'd start the bidding at two 1st round picks plus a sweetner. And no, I'm not joking. I'd also let it be known to all interested teams that those demands could be met by splitting the trade return over two years.

Last point. Add the Redskins to your wish list as their front office confirmed they were in engaged in talks with Rosenhaus prior to Marvin's last insistence that Chad wouldn't be traded.

[HairOnFire]

What I've claimed isn't the point.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what I respond to. I determine that. To be fair you've said some remarkably ridiculous things in the last few days and I have no doubt you'd like to let them stand unchallenged, but that's not the way things work around here.

Remember, you are the one who blasted Chad for poor performance.

If you disagree then tell me where I'm off base. But remember, I've never suggested that Chad be traded soley because of his poor performances. I'm the guy suggesting that Chad's behavior is the reason he either be traded or publically punched in the head until sanity returns. You're the guy claiming his behavior is irrelevant. Furthermore, I'm the guy suggesting his performance simply isn't good enough to justify the team accepting his current behavior unchallenged. You're the guy claiming he's too good a player to trade and as a cancer simply isn't threatening enough to treat.

All I wanted to know is why you then give Mikey a pass for retaining a player you claim singlehandedly cost us three games and possibly the playoffs?

Because I'm not willing to blame others for the actions of Chad Johnson. I'm not willing to blame the press for his reputation, I'm not willing to blame his head coach for handling his halftime meltdown in the only way possible under the circumstances, and I'm not willing to blame Mike Brown for trying to salvage whatever he can from a situation he doesn't control.

Especially when there have been multiple reports, ranging from nfl.com's Schefter to today's PFW item, that more than one team is interested and comp could be as high as a first round pick.

Simply put, if I'm Mike Brown I want more than that.

[HoosierCat]

I'm not willing to blame Mike Brown for trying to salvage whatever he can from a situation he doesn't control.

But that's just it -- this is a situation he does control, and he isn't trying to salvage anything from it.

[HairOnFire]

I'm not willing to blame Mike Brown for trying to salvage whatever he can from a situation he doesn't control.

But that's just it -- this is a situation he does control, and he isn't trying to salvage anything from it.

No, all he can control is the manner his team is damaged. For example, you've just pimped a scenario where current players are cut and draft picks are selected based soley on the need to lessen the damge being caused by a player who is highly paid and under long-term contract. In short, you've got Brown reacting in ways he doesn't want to because of Chad's predictably unpredictable behavior. (Behavior you claim is irrelevant.)

And if he's reacting to the actions of others he's not in control, is he?

[HoosierCat]

No, all he can control is the manner his team is damaged.

His team is only damaged if he does nothing. Which is, in fact, what he appears to be doing. OTOH, he can get off his duff and work out a deal for a 31-year-old WR, which would likely include a draft pick higher than the one they used on him years ago, and simultaneously ease his HCs job, improve his locker room, and improve his team.

[CarsonDaMan]

The smartest move here would be to just cut bait with doucho cinco. You can make the argument that ownership shouldn't back down to a player under these circumstances and I hear that. But on the other side of the coin ownership should have never invested it's money in such a sorry individual to begin with. His meltdown during the playoff game was well publicized but yet they still chose to give him a big pay raise a year after that had happened.

If the Bengals or any team want to avoid these types of problem then quite simply avoid guys with questionable background and character to begin with. For the Bengals it all goes back to scouting and drafting. Anybody with any clue on guys like Odell Thurman and Chris Henry knew they were very high risk problems but the team gambled on them anyway. If they want professional individuals in the locker room then avoid wasting draft picks and big contracts on individuals with questionable character. It bit them in the past with Carl Pickens and Corey Dillon and it will continue to bite them.

If they still choose to bring in these types of players then at least have some strong veteran leadership in place before hand. This team has pretty much none of that. Randy Moss wasn't going to get out of line with the Patriots but if he was on a team like the Bengals all hell would be breaking loose.

Trade Chad. Suck up the cap hit. Use the draft picks on players with talent AND character and move on. Addition by subtraction can be a good thing.

[HairOnFire]

His team is only damaged if he does nothing. Which is, in fact, what he appears to be doing.

You've written for months that a trade was unrealistic due to the cap hit. What happened that changed your mind? It can't be anything Chad has done because you've repeatedly claimed his actions are irrelevant. So what prompted you to suddenly jump on the trade bandwagon?

OTOH, he can get off his duff and work out a deal for a 31-year-old WR, which would likely include a draft pick higher than the one they used on him years ago, and simultaneously ease his HCs job, improve his locker room, and improve his team.

Whether the Bengals can come out on the other side with a better team has yet to be determined, but I've got no problem with the idea. As I recall I was the first poster on this board to suggest trading Chad, several months ago, and I didn't get much support back then....especially from you. In fact, you've not only claimed a trade can't be done, but shouldn't be done. You've also downplayed the impact Chad's recent actions are having on team chemsitry and within the lockerroom. So why the change in heart? Why start beating the drum for a trade you don't think the Bengals can make?

[HoosierCat]

You've written for months that a trade was unrealistic due to the cap hit.

No, I wrote for months that a trade was unrealistic because we had no one to replace his production. With a first round pick in sight, that's no longer the case. The issue with the cap was never that the team couldn't absorb the hit, it was that it wouldn't because of the FO's longstanding philosophical opposition to dead money.

It can't be anything Chad has done because you've repeatedly claimed his actions are irrelevant.

No, I claimed his actions were irrelevant if, as you said, his performance was so bad he cost us wins, which in and of itself is cause for dismissal, irrespective of anything he's done since.

[TJJackson]

See, now I am starting to think Hair is married to HOOSIER instead of me

...and should I be jealous, then?

[BengalszoneBilly]

See, now I am starting to think Hair is married to HOOSIER instead of me

...and should I be jealous, then?

Strange bedfellows indeed.

[HoosierCat]

See, now I am starting to think Hair is married to HOOSIER instead of me

Naw, he's just cheating on you...

[HairOnFire]

See, now I am starting to think Hair is married to HOOSIER instead of me

Naw, he's just cheating on you...

Yup, I'm a man and you know I'm gonna cheat, but it's got nothing to do with how I feel about you.

And just because I'm with someone else now and then, well....it ain't personal.

I got needs.

smokes cigarette/walks away without looking back

[HairOnFire]

No, I wrote for months that a trade was unrealistic because we had no one to replace his production.

You're forcing me to call BS. You've argued for months that any trade talk was unrealistic because of the cap hit the Bengals would have to absorb. Now, almost overnight, you've changed your tune, and I think we all know why. You now realize how ludicrous it is to claim Chad Johnson would bring no more than a 3rd or 4th round pick in trade compensation. (Peter King)

The issue with the cap was never that the team couldn't absorb the hit, it was that it wouldn't because of the FO's longstanding philosophical opposition to dead money.

It goes deeper than that. Trading Chad is something the Bengals may be forced to do, but doing so dictates they abandon their long-term plans for this offseason and beyond. That may be unavoidable, but the only reason this team can't count on having an elite WR under contract for the next 4 seasons is due soley to the almost unheard of unprofessionalism of Chad Johnson. So they're forced to scramble or gamble on a return of some form of normalcy. Regardless, even under the scenario you supported the Bengals are cutting players they don't seem to have any desire to lose and draft different players than they might prefer. So it's not just dead money. There plans to upgrade the defensive line might be impacted as well as there plan to address the running game.

No, I claimed his actions were irrelevant if, as you said, his performance was so bad he cost us wins, which in and of itself is cause for dismissal, irrespective of anything he's done since.

No, for the umpteenth time, Chad Johnson's behavior is the reason this team is forced to consider a trade, and the fact that his play has cost this teams victories is simply one more straw added to the camel's back. That's all I've ever said, and you can continue to claim otherwise over and over again but that's on you, not me.

[BengalszoneBilly]

It goes deeper than that.

I'm sure it does, but time will tell whether the Bengals will trade Chad. My conception of how Mike Brown does business suggests Chad WILL be wearing stripes in 2008.

[HoosierCat]

You're forcing me to call BS. You've argued for months that any trade talk was unrealistic because of the cap hit the Bengals would have to absorb. Now, almost overnight, you've changed your tune, and I think we all know why. You now realize how ludicrous it is to claim Chad Johnson would bring no more than a 3rd or 4th round pick in trade compensation. (Peter King)

Well, you're free to believe that, even though it's not true. But go back and look. You won't find me arguing about the cap hit. You will find me pointing out we have no replacement for him and even telling you I wouldn't object to a trade. But your memory has always been selective.

It goes deeper than that. Trading Chad is something the Bengals may be forced to do, but doing so dictates they abandon their long-term plans for this offseason and beyond.

So let's not trade him. Oh, wait, you want him out ASAP, right? Make up your mind.

No, for the umpteenth time, Chad Johnson's behavior is the reason this team is forced to consider a trade, and the fact that his play has cost this teams victories is simply one more straw added to the camel's back. That's all I've ever said, and you can continue to claim otherwise over and over again but that's on you, not me.

No, you claimed that "during a stretch of three or four games, each considered must win games, Chad Johnson dropped more yardage than he caught...including several passes that should have resulted in TD's," and predicted more poor play to come: "Why anyone would expect anything else from that guy this season is just pie-in-the-sky wishing and hoping."

That isn't a straw that breaks the camel's back, that's the camel.

[HairOnFire]

But your memory has always been selective.

Pot, meet kettle? I'd say your memory has been more selective than mine as you now seem intent on claiming only portions of the things you've written for months. How else can you go from calling the idea of trading Chad a "folly" that could only be considered by posters who are "naive".....to fresh claims about it being the fault of front office for not having dealt Chad already because the salary cap consequences are modest.

So let's not trade him. Oh, wait, you want him out ASAP, right? Make up your mind.

I have made up my mind. Simply put, I want this team to trade Chad Johnson the moment it's prudent to do so. That's what I meant by ASAP. I want them to weigh all of the issues in regards to salary cap implications, adding talent at other positions, finding a suitable replacement for Chad, and a host of other factors. If that means he can't be dealt until next season then I accept that. And if it means he's dealt prior to the coming draft then so much the better if the trade compensation is adequate and the cap space can be created without causing too much damage to the Bengals immediate and long-term plans.

No, you claimed that "during a stretch of three or four games, each considered must win games, Chad Johnson dropped more yardage than he caught...including several passes that should have resulted in TD's," and predicted more poor play to come: "Why anyone would expect anything else from that guy this season is just pie-in-the-sky wishing and hoping."

That isn't a straw that breaks the camel's back, that's the camel.

More word games? The worst part of you adding your own interpretation to the things I've said is the straw man argument that always results. In short, I say something reasonable and factual, you distort it beyond recognition and then attack the distortion. Regardless, I'll stand by the things I've said because I believe them to be true. Chad melted down during the playoff game in 2005, all but disappeared during the final 6 games of 2006 season, and emotionally melted down during the most critical stretch of the 2007 season. In each of these examples it's undeniable that Chad Johnson either emotionally meltsdown or grossly underperforms during the most critical portions of three straight seasons. Now you may want to argue that opinion, but it's fair to say you haven't bothered yet. All you've done is drop cold the rant you had made for months in favor of a straw man argument that once again attempts to absolve Chad Johnson from any blame.

How odd that you're now blaming the front office for failing to make a trade you've claimed for months shouldn't AND couldn't be realistically considered?