The Rodgers Trade is off

[bengalsfansince68]

I been thinking all night that everyone should calm down until we know what happened.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Hilarious stuff from our beloved clowns at PBS.

[HoosierCat]

I don't think it had anything to do with comp picks -- they haven't even been given out yet.

What this smells like is that the Bengals and Lions had a deal, then Cleveland came in with an offer Detroit liked better. So they (the Lions and the Browns) ganged up on the league FO to nix the original deal on some trumped-up technicality. The whole "violates the cap" excuse makes no sense at all, except as part of a scramble for an excuse.

Maybe some more plausible explanation will appear tomorrow but right now, from my chair, it looks like the Bengals got hosed.

[sparky151]

We really need the Cincinnati media to insist on specifics as to why the deal collapsed. This is no time to accept "no comment". Someone screwed up bigtime and we need to know where the fault lies.

[DuffMan]

I heard that it was b/c we didn't have the cap room from LAST year to fit him in, but that doesn't make sense to me since the FA period started already... and are you telling me that a team could sign J. Smith tonight but we have to account for him from last season? this makes no sense and there needs to be a big ass lawsuit against the league. I also don't think that if there is a vague discrepancy between two teams you can just swoop in and steal the player.

[Stripes]

I can't speak at all for the validity of this claim, but I'll pass it on regardless. Someone on another board suggested that the "language issue" was that the Bengals 3rd round pick for trade was to be the compensatory pick that they had not yet received. Given such, the league didn't allow it to be used as a trade item. Whether that was a rule already in place or a decision made for this incident I cannot say.

Edit -- ah, didn't see Bengals1's thread.

[bengalsfansince68]

Not a single word on Lions.com about the whole damned mess.

Am I in the middle of a really long nightmare, tonight?

[Pidge]

FFS!

[Kazkal]

I can't speak at all for the validity of this claim, but I'll pass it on regardless. Someone on another board suggested that the "language issue" was that the Bengals 3rd round pick for trade was to be the compensatory pick that they had not yet received. Given such, the league didn't allow it to be used as a trade item. Whether that was a rule already in place or a decision made for this incident I cannot say.

Edit -- ah, didn't see Bengals1's thread.

So let them trade the other pick and call it good

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

We have to be the only team in NFL history that this has happend to twice. Remember Sapp? How does this happen?

I don't want to go overboard with conjecture, but it could have something to do with the fact that we don't have any competent, experienced football executives in the front office. We have Browns.

If the Bengals did get hoodwinked again, we need a GM. Now.

[Larry]

I don't think it had anything to do with comp picks -- they haven't even been given out yet.

What this smells like is that the Bengals and Lions had a deal, then Cleveland came in with an offer Detroit liked better. So they (the Lions and the Browns) ganged up on the league FO to nix the original deal on some trumped-up technicality. The whole "violates the cap" excuse makes no sense at all, except as part of a scramble for an excuse.

Maybe some more plausible explanation will appear tomorrow but right now, from my chair, it looks like the Bengals got hosed.

From what I read, the browns will only give up thier third, so why would Detroit like it better? Isn't our third higher in the round than the browns?

[Larry]

I don't think it had anything to do with comp picks -- they haven't even been given out yet.

What this smells like is that the Bengals and Lions had a deal, then Cleveland came in with an offer Detroit liked better. So they (the Lions and the Browns) ganged up on the league FO to nix the original deal on some trumped-up technicality. The whole "violates the cap" excuse makes no sense at all, except as part of a scramble for an excuse.

Maybe some more plausible explanation will appear tomorrow but right now, from my chair, it looks like the Bengals got hosed.

From what I read, the browns will only give up thier third, so why would Detroit like it better? Isn't our third higher in the round than the browns?

I just saw they gave up Leigh Bodden too... Still, I would not think that is still that much better for Detroit. I hear the Detroit news confirms the deal, but so did the Enquirer for us.... I didn't hear about this until this morning. I slept through the night dreaming of how maybe the front office finally understood something.... Is it too early to have a beer...

[Pidge]

I don't think it had anything to do with comp picks -- they haven't even been given out yet.

What this smells like is that the Bengals and Lions had a deal, then Cleveland came in with an offer Detroit liked better. So they (the Lions and the Browns) ganged up on the league FO to nix the original deal on some trumped-up technicality. The whole "violates the cap" excuse makes no sense at all, except as part of a scramble for an excuse.

Maybe some more plausible explanation will appear tomorrow but right now, from my chair, it looks like the Bengals got hosed.

From what I read, the browns will only give up thier third, so why would Detroit like it better? Isn't our third higher in the round than the browns?

I just saw they gave up Leigh Bodden too... Still, I would not think that is still that much better for Detroit. I hear the Detroit news confirms the deal, but so did the Enquirer for us.... I didn't hear about this until this morning. I slept through the night dreaming of how maybe the front office finally understood something.... Is it too early to have a beer...

It's never too early for beer.

[membengal]

No way the Bengals were offering a comp pick they didn't have, so stop leaping straight to front office blaming, bengals1. And I echo '74, everytime you say "Bungles" in here, I discount pretty much everything you have to say. Trollish.

Hoosier is right. "Salary cap", as I was attacking as an excuse last night, makes ZERO sense. Something went afoul here that is beyond shenanigans, I think the Bengals got majorly hosed, and I think they should sue.

Again, if Randy Moss could move from Oakland to NE last off-season for just a fourth, and salary cap was NOT an issue then, I cannot imagine how it would be an issue now.

[membengal]

Hilarious stuff from our beloved clowns at PBS.

With no due respect, I hope your testicles are shorn off when you fall onto a rusty chainsaw. Seriously, go find a s**tfilled hole and lie in it, you consummate dick.

[membengal]

Yeah. Nice and slow. As if to a particularly dumb child. That's what I will need the NFL to do in terms of explaining how salary cap rules f**ked up the Bengals sending a 3rd and 5th to the Lions but somehow salary cap was perfectly fine with a 3rd and return salary in the form of Bodden.

Again, salary cap shouldn't have been an issue from Cincy, right? We have ample room under the cap, no?

What am I missing here?

Nothing. We got hosed by GOD-el. Salary cap? What? How? Where? (Yes, I feel like Vinny Barbaraino...)

I have never seriously wished death on anyone and still don't, but if GOD-el's balls were to spontaneously rot and fall off I would throw a party.

So...still no reasonable explanation then?

[Pidge]

Well yes, I'm sure a system is in place but you need a guy who can delegate properly and is anal retentive when it comes to dotting i's and crossing t's. This may have still happened with a "real GM" but it's highly unlikely. Of course, I'm not sure the Bengals can do anything because Goodell is complete vagina.

I wonder what "hitch" there will be with the next signing? He'll probably take our first round pick from us for bringing the game into disrepute. Hardy f**king har har.

[membengal]

cuz its the bengals

Something is not right with this whole situation. We got raped by the league, and I want to know EXACTLY why.

This is the correct hypothesis and question.

Stop blaming Bengals front office, people, until we get a hint that is the issue. Right now, all the chattering class is pointing at the league office. Let's focus there, shall we?

[Pidge]

Yeah. Nice and slow. As if to a particularly dumb child. That's what I will need the NFL to do in terms of explaining how salary cap rules f**ked up the Bengals sending a 3rd and 5th to the Lions but somehow salary cap was perfectly fine with a 3rd and return salary in the form of Bodden.

Again, salary cap shouldn't have been an issue from Cincy, right? We have ample room under the cap, no?

What am I missing here?

Nothing. We got hosed by GOD-el. Salary cap? What? How? Where? (Yes, I feel like Vinny Barbaraino...)

I have never seriously wished death on anyone and still don't, but if GOD-el's balls were to spontaneously rot and fall off I would throw a party.

So...still no reasonable explanation then?

Ahem - "language issues". His royal highness Roger has spoken and that's all you need to know. Now go away and don't forget your place again!

[membengal]

Potential reasons the league could have nixed the trade:

1. Character reasons

2. Didn't think it was fair

3. Some bulls**t technicality involving the salary cap.

Given that it is the Bengals, I find possibility number highly improbable. As we all know, the Bengals NEVER do anything creative with the cap.

That would leave possibilities one or two.

IF the league office blew it up for one of those reasons? Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. And then for good measure, sue.

Bumping my post from last night.

If the league is claiming it is number three, there had best be a powerpoint explanation that makes it make sense.

If it is 3? I now think the Bengals should sue for that too. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue.

It may be the only way to back Goodell off.

[Pidge]

Potential reasons the league could have nixed the trade:

1. Character reasons

2. Didn't think it was fair

3. Some bulls**t technicality involving the salary cap.

Given that it is the Bengals, I find possibility number highly improbable. As we all know, the Bengals NEVER do anything creative with the cap.

That would leave possibilities one or two.

IF the league office blew it up for one of those reasons? Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. And then for good measure, sue.

Bumping my post from last night.

If the league is claiming it is number three, there had best be a powerpoint explanation that makes it make sense.

It is 3? I now think the Bengals should sue for that too. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue.

It may be the only way to back Goodell off.

I'm not sure the threat of legal action will do anything. Goodell has shown that he'll do whatever the hell he wants. Apart from an inconvenient trip to see Mr. Specter sweet FA has been done about one of the biggest scandals, if not the biggest, in NFL history.

The NFL smells rotten right now.

[membengal]

Can shed light on a cesspool. How else can the Bengals do it? Sue him in a local Hamilton county court, get a temporary injunction that prohibits the Lions/Browns deal from going through (which will almost certainly be granted from a local judge) and make Goodell and his lawyers come explain this.

I am with Hoosier, sounds like Detroit realized they could get a better deal AFTER agreeing to the Bengals deal, and asked the league to find a way to nix the Bengals deal. If so, THAT is absolutely beyond fair play, and collusive. And worth sueing over.

[Defender]

Potential reasons the league could have nixed the trade:

1. Character reasons

2. Didn't think it was fair

3. Some bulls**t technicality involving the salary cap.

Given that it is the Bengals, I find possibility number highly improbable. As we all know, the Bengals NEVER do anything creative with the cap.

That would leave possibilities one or two.

IF the league office blew it up for one of those reasons? Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. And then for good measure, sue.

Bumping my post from last night.

If the league is claiming it is number three, there had best be a powerpoint explanation that makes it make sense.

If it is 3? I now think the Bengals should sue for that too. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue. Sue.

It may be the only way to back Goodell off.

If the bengals wanted to get Pacman Jones when his suspension was up, there's no way the league can step in and say "No" because of character concerns because there's no way to quantify "character concerns". (Definitely not saying it should happen, by the way.) Plus, the other teams who led the league in arrests this year (Jags, Dolphins) have been active in FA and the NFL hasn't nixed any of their deals.

Secondly, if a team is willing to trade it's ENTIRE draft for one unproven college player and the league let's that pass (New Orleans for Ricky Williams), then you should throw out the "It's unfair to trade a ProBowl player for a 3 and a 5" argument.

[Jet23]

Hilarious stuff from our beloved clowns at PBS.

With no due respect, I hope your testicles are shorn off when you fall onto a rusty chainsaw. Seriously, go find a s**tfilled hole and lie in it, you consummate dick.

Come on, everyone on this board is thinking the same thing. The way they do business is like me sending my flipping a/p clerk to negotiate contracts. Other franchises put a lot of resources into making such deals. Mike Brown calls Katie & Lippy into the conference room and tries to pound it out. This may not turn out to be the fault of the FO, but things like this happen when you half-ass your business.

[Pidge]

I am with Hoosier, sounds like Detroit realized they could get a better deal AFTER agreeing to the Bengals deal, and asked the league to find a way to nix the Bengals deal. If so, THAT is absolutely beyond fair play, and collusive. And worth sueing over.

Oh I agree, make a stink about it, just in principle. As we all know the chances of anything getting resolved by it are low as Goodell is a grade A, Free Range, Organic ****. Thankfully the language filter will prevent those with a weak heart from seeing the last word.