Explain to me the worst case scenario with trading Chad

[bryce40]

The worst case scenario is that we don't get even close to market value for him because everyone knows he's unhappy+ he gets his way=That would suck! I like the fact the Bengals have said they aren't trading him because that makes teams that come calling know if they are truly interested they're going to have to give something to get him.

[HairOnFire]

If Chad Johnson deserves to be shown the door for performance reasons, then his "trade me" act is irrelevant. And if he deserves to be shown the door for performance reasons, the guy blocking the exit isn't Ocho Cinqo. It's Mike Brown.

The above rant shouldn't suprise anyone since you've been trying to portray Chad's "trade me" act as irrelevant since it began.

Perhaps you and Agreen should compare notes.

[Horsemen]

No, his suggestion actually makes a little sense. Trading Chad Johnson for Terry Glenn makes absolutely zero sense, . Terry Glenn?

I know my writing is a little bad, but damn homie, yours is brutal.

Whatever. Dude it went over your head time after time after time. The fact is he sandbagged it last season. Chads good but when a Randy Moss goes for a 4th rounder gimme a break. But hey keep believing he's gonna get a Hershal Walker type tradeoff if that comforts you.

[agreen_112]

No, his suggestion actually makes a little sense. Trading Chad Johnson for Terry Glenn makes absolutely zero sense, . Terry Glenn?

I know my writing is a little bad, but damn homie, yours is brutal.

Whatever. Dude it went over your head time after time after time. The fact is he sandbagged it last season. Chads good but when a Randy Moss goes for a 4th rounder gimme a break. But hey keep believing he's gonna get a Hershal Walker type tradeoff if that comforts you.

You just keep diggin deeper and deeper... Comparing Chad's value, who was in the Pro Bowl in '07, to Randy Moss's value (1-2 TD's that season) leaving Oakland... Its completely different! Your talking about trading an All Pro, league leading WR for the last several years, for TERRY GLENN? Then you back it up with the stupid reference to Randy Moss being traded for a 4th rd pick? Would Randy today be traded for a 4th rd pick?

Dallas can give us R. Williams/Ware/Hamlin and one of their first Rd. picks for Chad Johnson or there is NO DEAL. Or they can give us one of the mentioned def. players with both 1st rd picks and we'll give them Chad and our 1st rd pick. That way they can grap Kenny Phillips/Connor/ Rivers/McFadden... Terry Glenn?

[membengal]

Hoosier, I am confused. For me, Chad's act has grown tired on a number of levels:

1. The constant "look at me"

2. The disappearing in big games thing

3. The uneven lack of effort

4. This off-season campaign to bleed money from the team (which just gave him a rich contract early a few years back) or force a trade with his petulance

It's all bad. In a perfect world, he would be gone. But I don't blame Mike Brown that he is not. The salary cap hit, as I understand it, would be ridiculous. That being the case, why should the Bengals wound their team to accomodate a dickhead on a classic tantrum? Fine, let him stomp his feet and hold his breath. Doesn't bother me. I would guess it doesn't really bother Mike Brown. It shouldn't. You can't give in to this kind of behavior. What should they do? What I have been advocating for months now. Ignore him. At some point, when toddlers are having tantrums and are ignored, they wear themselves out from the screaming and crying and you can actually deal with them again. I am guessing for CJ, that will come sometime around five days before week 1 of the season.

In the meantime? The Bengals need to move on as if he won't be here (even though he likely will), prepare for the season, probably need to go ahead and draft a WR high up, and wait for the screaming and crying to stop.

Remember: don't give the child having a tantrum the attention he/she seeks. Rule 1 of parenting.

[HoosierCat]

If Chad Johnson deserves to be shown the door for performance reasons, then his "trade me" act is irrelevant. And if he deserves to be shown the door for performance reasons, the guy blocking the exit isn't Ocho Cinqo. It's Mike Brown.

The above rant shouldn't suprise anyone since you've been trying to portray Chad's "trade me" act as irrelevant since it began.

I didn't bring the issue of Chad's performance up -- you did.

And, if you believe that performance no longer merits a roster spot, then his offseason behavior is irrelevant. It's just as irrelevant as Brian Simmons' good character was last offseason. And in that case there's only one guy who can punch his ticket out of town.

Hoosier, I am confused. For me, Chad's act has grown tired on a number of levels:

Great. But we aren't talking about a "variety of levels" here, or even "Chad's act." We are talking about the specific charge of poor performance -- performance so poor it allegedly cost us three wins and thus a 10-6 record and a possible playoff berth -- raised by yourself and Hair.

If that is indeed the case, then Chad should already be gone, shouldn't he? Irrespective of how he acts off of it, he's a liability on the field. I don't agree, but OK, if that's your position, the problem isn't Chad, it's Mikey.

[membengal]

No, the problem is Chad.

His uneven performance, for whatever reason, is but a piece of his larger problem right now. But, given the salary cap issues, there is no way you can blame this on Mike Brown, the unwillingness to wound the team to deal away a toddler having a tantrum.

Actually, the only blame that should be assigned to Brown, were one so inclined, would have been for extending him early like he did a few years back. Minus that extension, the salary cap issues would not be a problem, and he could be dealt easily now. But I sure didn't raise that as an issue back then (I don't know that anyone on this board was critical of that contract re-do), and won't begin to second guess it now.

No, the problem here is Chad Johnson. His lack of professionalism. His lack of character. His lack of credibility. His lack of maturity. All of which, I suspect, is tied to his attempt to extort another new contract out of this organization. And that's where Mike Brown quite rightly draws the line and tells him, in effect, to f**k himself. And waits out the tantrum. Because there is NO way that the team should be forced to accept the cap hit that I am led to understand it must if he were dealt now, simply because he is a colossal douchebag. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[cincy9275]

Hoosier, I am confused. For me, Chad's act has grown tired on a number of levels:

1. The constant "look at me"

2. The disappearing in big games thing

3. The uneven lack of effort

4. This off-season campaign to bleed money from the team (which just gave him a rich contract early a few years back) or force a trade with his petulance

It's all bad. In a perfect world, he would be gone. But I don't blame Mike Brown that he is not. The salary cap hit, as I understand it, would be ridiculous. That being the case, why should the Bengals wound their team to accomodate a dickhead on a classic tantrum? Fine, let him stomp his feet and hold his breath. Doesn't bother me. I would guess it doesn't really bother Mike Brown. It shouldn't. You can't give in to this kind of behavior. What should they do? What I have been advocating for months now. Ignore him. At some point, when toddlers are having tantrums and are ignored, they wear themselves out from the screaming and crying and you can actually deal with them again. I am guessing for CJ, that will come sometime around five days before week 1 of the season.

In the meantime? The Bengals need to move on as if he won't be here (even though he likely will), prepare for the season, probably need to go ahead and draft a WR high up, and wait for the screaming and crying to stop.

Remember: don't give the child having a tantrum the attention he/she seeks. Rule 1 of parenting.

after thinking about it for a couple days, i agree.

[HoosierCat]

His uneven performance, for whatever reason, is but a piece of his larger problem right now. But, given the salary cap issues, there is no way you can blame this on Mike Brown, the unwillingness to wound the team to deal away a toddler having a tantrum.

First off, there are no salary cap issues. Chad counts $6 million against the cap if he stays, $8 million if he goes. Net cap hit is $2 million, an amount that could be recouped immediately simply by getting a long-term deal with Andrews done.

(If they just cut him outright, the Bengals could actually gain $2 million in cap space, if they designated it a post-June 1 cut.)

Second, "wound the team"? How does it wound the team to dump a guy whose performance cost us 3 games last season?

Third, when did character enter the discussion about what to do with high-paid vets whose performance has declined? Did good character save Brian Simmons last offseason? If you believe that Chad's performance has declined to the point where he is actually costing us games, then he ought to be gone, irrespective of whether he's throwing a tantrum or not. And there's only one guy who can make that happen -- and his name isn't Chad.

[damiancasey]

Just got back from Dallas and heard a lot of interesting buzz on local sports talk radio about the Cowboys acquiring Chad from us. The consensus of the Dallas callers was pretty much as follows:

Can Chad get along with TO on the same team?

Only if the Cowboys are winning...if things start going south we're looking at a mini-chernobyl.

Why does Chad want t trade?

Bottom line is he looked at his contract and realized he could get a lot more. All his other whining is just a smoke screen.

Is Chad really that good?

Not sure it actually looks like TJ might be the better reciever.

Does Cincy really want to get rid of Chad?

After all of the arrests, bad behaviour, excuses, and poor performance that Cincy has endured over the past year there is no appetite whatsoever for a show-boating cry baby like Chad. Other cities may have a little more tolerance for his BS but not Cincy.

Interesting to here what other folks think.

[TJJackson]

First off, there are no salary cap issues. Chad counts $6 million against the cap if he stays, $8 million if he goes. Net cap hit is $2 million, an amount that could be recouped immediately simply by getting a long-term deal with Andrews done.

(If they just cut him outright, the Bengals could actually gain $2 million in cap space, if they designated it a post-June 1 cut.)

Your math leaves out the part where they ALSO pay the guy who replaces him....

[HoosierCat]

First off, there are no salary cap issues. Chad counts $6 million against the cap if he stays, $8 million if he goes. Net cap hit is $2 million, an amount that could be recouped immediately simply by getting a long-term deal with Andrews done.

(If they just cut him outright, the Bengals could actually gain $2 million in cap space, if they designated it a post-June 1 cut.)

Your math leaves out the part where they ALSO pay the guy who replaces him....

Almost certainly a draft pick, right? That's already accounted for in the rookie pool.

[Horsemen]

You just keep diggin deeper and deeper...

Not really but keep running your faggot ass mouth if that's what it takes. Moss sandbagged that season. Everyone knew it. They knew outside of Oakland he would be vintage Randy. A guy your little boyfriend couldn't compete against on his best day. Moss gets 4th. But keep tugging your dick over Chads stats bitchboy it seems it's all you got aside from talking s**t towards me. With that said you don't like what I have to say green? Go f*ck yourself.

[BlainThePain]

Worst case scenario:

Chad leaves and teams focus all of their attention on TJ. Carson has to hold onto the ball even longer and during a Bengals/Steelers game, James Harrison mistakes Carson for his girlfriend and kills him. With Carson dead, the Bengals have no shot at winning a Superbowl. Because of this, a diehard Bengals fan that is studying chemistry in graduate school that would have eventually came up with a renewable fuel source that would have changed the world, kills himself. Eventually China and the U.S. go to war to fight over the last of the world's oil and a full scale nuclear war ensues. China and the U.S. take each other out and Russia takes over the world and enslaves everybody.

[kingwilly]

His uneven performance, for whatever reason, is but a piece of his larger problem right now. But, given the salary cap issues, there is no way you can blame this on Mike Brown, the unwillingness to wound the team to deal away a toddler having a tantrum.

First off, there are no salary cap issues. Chad counts $6 million against the cap if he stays, $8 million if he goes. Net cap hit is $2 million, an amount that could be recouped immediately simply by getting a long-term deal with Andrews done.

(If they just cut him outright, the Bengals could actually gain $2 million in cap space, if they designated it a post-June 1 cut.)

Second, "wound the team"? How does it wound the team to dump a guy whose performance cost us 3 games last season?

Third, when did character enter the discussion about what to do with high-paid vets whose performance has declined? Did good character save Brian Simmons last offseason? If you believe that Chad's performance has declined to the point where he is actually costing us games, then he ought to be gone, irrespective of whether he's throwing a tantrum or not. And there's only one guy who can make that happen -- and his name isn't Chad.

I agree with Hoosier.

If it was performance, then he should be in jeopardy. I feel he had a down year and it (like the D) was probably more systemic than it was directly CJ. Maybe 60-40.Apart from the mental issues, would he rebound? probably. Does this indicate the beginning of CJ's slow fall back to earth? hmmm...probably not, he is still pretty young and never takes a hit, so I think it is more about attitude and maturity.

The cap issue will be the convenient excuse for the Bengals, when all said and done, whihc will be the smoke-screen to hide SoP's pridefull way of operating. I doubt he gives in and trades/moves/cuts CJ.

THey MAY have enough ballz to sit him down, a la TO or Keyshawn but it will take more than the current whining and media-pattycake to provoke such a response.

End of the day, we will all be subject to further CJ douchebaggery, the media will eat it up, and the team will claim its not a distraction but it will be the single-most damaging back-story for the whole season, dragging down the guarded hope that might be there.

[GregCook]

Worst case in cutting Chad? Their will be nothing offensive about the 2008 Carson Palmer.

He might get real pissed and start demanding his own trade.

No rookie can replace Chad's production. Chad is the only 6 point threat each time the ball is in the air heading his way. Henry could be his replacement, but who can say?

Bengals have serious deficiencies on defense that this draft can repair, but not if we have to replace Chad in 2008.

Having said that, the Bengals can't control everything. IF Chad wants to leave the team, he has the agent to make it happen. Under any scenario the Bengals come out losers this year. My own preference is telling Chad he's under contract this season and he's not going anywhere. But next season, he won't be a Cincy Bengal, and me, Mike Brown, will be happy to move him to teams of his choice as long as he has good trade value.

[HairOnFire]

I didn't bring the issue of Chad's performance up -- you did.

Yeah, I did. So would you care to weigh in on that issue...or are you simply going to blame someone else for Chad's case of the yips last season. Probably the latter, right? Because for reasons only you can explain you don't seem willing to hold Chad Johnson accountable for anything. Not his level of performance, his lack of professionalism, the impact his actions might have, or even his own image.

And, if you believe that performance no longer merits a roster spot, then his offseason behavior is irrelevant.

Congrats. Claiming Chad Johnson's behavior is irrelevant might be the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said on these boards.

It's just as irrelevant as Brian Simmons' good character was last offseason. And in that case there's only one guy who can punch his ticket out of town.

Huge difference as Simmons couldn't play at a high level anymore. Chad still can. Plus, Simmons replacement was already on the roster. Chad's isn't. And there's also this. Simmons wasn't cut until the impact of dumping him was small or nonexistent. By comparison, you've argued for months the idea of trading Chad is pure folly soley because of an 8 million dollar cap hit. But to be fair you also claim the net cap hit is almost nothing and cap room could be added if he were cut.

So I guess I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. Something along the lines of trading him is a silly idea because it can't be done, but cutting him outright somehow makes sense. Oh, and I'm supposed to blame Mike Brown for everything, including not getting anything in return for a valuable player, because Chad's behavior is irrelevant.

But we aren't talking about a "variety of levels" here, or even "Chad's act." We are talking about the specific charge of poor performance -- performance so poor it allegedly cost us three wins and thus a 10-6 record and a possible playoff berth -- raised by yourself and Hair.

Well, now we're talking about the unique experience that is Chad Johnson. Because I'm more than willing to overlook or forgive a temporary drop in performance if I feel the player has steadfastly given his all and faced the adversity and criticism that is sure to follow in a professional manner. For example, many of have noted the slip in Carson Palmer's play last season, something he just acknowledged, but I haven't heard anyone suggest the continued presence of Carson Palmer is anything but a huge asset and something that can be built upon going forward.

Can you say the same things of Chad Johnson?

[kingwilly]

It's all doom and gloom because Chad's pissed off about the media and some jackass fans turning on him after he has worked his ass off for this team for the last few years.

Actually Pong-boy, your quote reveals your inability to understand what CJ is really upset about. Are you even paying attention?

I get no indication that CJ is mad at the media. If anything, they are his friend...giving him the stage to cry and whine and carry on like my 3 year old.

I also have never made the connection that CJ is mad about the fans...how do you? In fact, I think CJ could give a rats azz about what the fans think...maybe deep, deep down but if he really cared, how does this jive with his current behavior which is sure to make fans consider him an immature malcontent? Surely not a man who CAREs about what the fans think.

If you had been paying attention or had the capacity to comprehend what this matter is about, you'd see that CJ claims he is upset over one thing: Losing, followed closely by him being stifled and not being allowed to be himself.

Desire to win (or be the best), in itself, is the primary driver for all highly-competitive people and athletes. No one likes to lose. CJ's behavior shows that he has no confidence in the Bengals organization relative to their commitment to winning. Again, a story we've all heard over the years from talented guys who become poisoned in what, for a very long time, were a shabby team and organization. CJ's slow poisoning causes lots of problems, from what I see, disconnect with Carson, a slow decline in overall effort, all the way to the bottom where we see him basically pleading to get a "new start" in the media.

CJ has basically given up and is taking the public stance that this team is not about winning and won't win anytime soon and since this is the case, he wants out. Claims about the money are just additional fuel for his own self-rationalization of his behavior.

[HairOnFire]

If it was performance, then he should be in jeopardy. I feel he had a down year and it (like the D) was probably more systemic than it was directly CJ. Maybe 60-40.

The system didn't cause Chad to drop as many passes as he caught in a must win game against the Steelers. And the sytem didn't cause him to drop a sure TD pass in a must win game against the Bills. And in yet another must win game against the Cardinals the system didn't cause him to fumble away yet another chance to score. Nor did the system dictate that he make no effort to retrieve the fumble that he had simply dropped. No, the system didn't force Chad Johnson to meltdown, pout, or suffer the most obvious case of the yips that any fan will ever witness. He did all of that on his own, and it happened because he's mentally weak.

Apart from the mental issues, would he rebound? probably.

Well, apart from the mental issues nobody would scoff when Chad puts on a fake HOF jacket. But there's the rub because it's the mental issues, the selfish play, the sideline and lockerroom meltdowns, and remarkable unprofessionalism that's increasingly going to define Chad's career....especially if he remains a Bengal.

[HoosierCat]

I didn't bring the issue of Chad's performance up -- you did.

Yeah, I did. So would you care to weigh in on that issue

I already did. I said I didn't agree with your and mem's assesment that he singlehandedly cost us three games last season. And I don't agree that his performance on the field is sufficiently poor to warrant his trade or release.

Because for reasons only you can explain you don't seem willing to hold Chad Johnson accountable for anything. Not his level of performance, his lack of professionalism, the impact his actions might have, or even his own image.

You're changing the subject. The issue at hand is none of those things. The issue is, if his performance is as poor as you say it was, why is Chad still here? He can't trade or release himself. Only Mikey can do that. You said you wanted Chad off the team ASAP? Only Mikey can make that happen.

Huge difference as Simmons couldn't play at a high level anymore. Chad still can.

Well, which is it? Did he cost us three games and the playoffs last season, or can he still play at a high level?

By comparison, you've argued for months the idea of trading Chad is pure folly soley because of an 8 million dollar cap hit.

No, I've argued that trading him is folly because of his exceptional talent. But you claim that's no longer an issue, that in fact Chad cost us win after win after win and the playoffs last season. In which case I have to ask, why aren't you upset with Mikey for not moving him? Reports today suggest there's a first-round pick waiting for us in Dallas.

[TJJackson]

Worst case scenario:

......and Russia takes over the world and enslaves everybody.

Funniest thing I have read in a while....thanks :-)

[kingwilly]

If it was performance, then he should be in jeopardy. I feel he had a down year and it (like the D) was probably more systemic than it was directly CJ. Maybe 60-40.

The system didn't cause Chad to drop as many passes as he caught in a must win game against the Steelers. And the sytem didn't cause him to drop a sure TD pass in a must win game against the Bills. And in yet another must win game against the Cardinals the system didn't cause him to fumble away yet another chance to score. Nor did the system dictate that he make no effort to retrieve the fumble that he had simply dropped. No, the system didn't force Chad Johnson to meltdown, pout, or suffer the most obvious case of the yips that any fan will ever witness. He did all of that on his own, and it happened because he's mentally weak.

I agree that those drastic failures contributed, but to solely place the blame at this feet ignores the other issues like Defense, playcalling, poor execution and Carson's direct mistakes. CJ's are just the most glaring, in that had he not made them, the outcomes probably would be different. I liken it to blaming a loss on the kicker...he did not "lose" the game, he just did not "win" it.

Please don't mistake this as an exoneration for CJ's pathetic beahvior, which is the reason for his "failure" to execute in those ciritcal times. I agree with you, but we can't ignore the other systemic issues just ot hammer CJ.

Apart from the mental issues, would he rebound? probably.

Well, apart from the mental issues nobody would scoff when Chad puts on a fake HOF jacket. But there's the rub because it's the mental issues, the selfish play, the sideline and lockerroom meltdowns, and remarkable unprofessionalism that's increasingly going to define Chad's career....especially if he remains a Bengal.

What I am saying is that there is no physical limitation that is preventing him from producing at the level we've come to expect. If the guy could get his head straight (never going to happen in cincy) there is nothing limiting him from what he has the ability to do, unless we get into the other systemic issues.

Look, I want him gone but am trying to be clear about what I see and think are the issues, though it really does not matter since I think he is past any reconciliation with the rest of his teammates.

[HairOnFire]

You're changing the subject. The issue at hand is none of those things.

I'm not changing the subject. The problem with your silly rant is that it acknowledges only one factor and ignores everything else. In fact, how else could you conclude that Chad's behavior is irrelevant unless you needlessly compartmentalize all of the relevant factors? Why would anyone bother doing that?

No, I've argued that trading him is folly because of his exceptional talent.

Bulls**te. On more occasions than I'd care to count you've claimed the idea is pure folly due to the cap hit. You've mocked the idea over and over again and claimed that anyone who considers the idea after learning what the cap implications are is simply being naive. End of discussion....end of story, right?. But because the story doesn't end we keep talking about it and eventually the question of who replaces Chad is asked. And on that point everyone agrees that it won't be easy precisely because of how good he can be. But it's also fair game to consider how good he hasn't been, and the reasons why.

I said I didn't agree with your and mem's assesment that he singlehandedly cost us three games last season. And I don't agree that his performance on the field is sufficiently poor to warrant his trade or release.

Chad has admitted he played poorly last season. Would you care to guess what he meant by that? And again, you can claim that his performance on the field doesn't warrant his trade or release but that completely ignores the other considerations like his behavior on and off the field, the impact his actions will have on team chemistry, the way his actions undermine team leadership, etc.

[HoosierCat]

And again, you can claim that his performance on the field doesn't warrant his trade or release but that completely ignores the other considerations like his behavior on and off the field, the impact his actions will have on team chemistry, the way his actions undermine team leadership, etc.

All right, bring those considerations in.

They only serve to provide more reason that Chad should be traded or released, right?

And the reason Chad hasn't been cut or shipped out certainly isn't Chad, is it? I would say he's doing his part on that front.

So who's blocking the door?

[TJJackson]

Even in a down year, Chad's overall numbers are very, very good when considered against other number 1 receivers around the league. Those numbers will be hard to replace, indeed, and probably won't be replaced. The overall offense probably loses some power with Chad out of the lineup

On the other hand, one cannot seperate the 30 year old infant from the pro bowl wide receiver. You get one, then you get the other too. For myself, I'm grateful we didn't see much of the infant til this year, as he truly has had an outstanding career here prior to now. Yes, I acknowlege we saw the infant clearly at halftime in the 2005 playoff game - but that (mostly) blew over. This latest run of behavior is not one I expect to end until he and Rosenhaus get their way.....or Chad somehow has a miraculous change of mind.

I'll emphasize here that it is in my mind VITAL they not win, or it will open the floodgates for any star player to pout his way out of Cincinnati....or any lesser market team as it is. We have a hard enough time retaining quality players.

I really do think he needs to sit....ie be on the roster, get paid til it makes fiscal sense to no longer retain him, but otherwise be seperated from the rest of the team in every sense that the team is allowed under the CBA. Releasing or trading him outright is a win for Chad and Rosenhaus, and even though they still have to pay him a salary you and I only dream about to keep him sitting, that's what they need to do for the long term benefit of the team.

I think you still sit Chad if he does indeed have the miraculous change of mind, You cannot have it be OK for a player to trash your organization every day of the offseason right up until the day before game 1. Not if you want a successful team. It has to be discouraged.....actively.

Chad wants three things: a new location, more money, and a starters playing time. He must be denied all three OR more players will copy this exact pattern of behavior....perhaps not for the same reasons, but with the same cancerous effect.

So finally, to answer the overall question: I think the overall effect on the field (not counting salary cap) is now zero. I think what you lose with Chad in as a receiver is offset by the damage to the overall team he now also brings. I think you have to draft a receiver high and plan for the season as if he were not here - though by my suggested plan, he (technically) still is. The only way I give him playtime is if I run into the injury bug at the WR position.