Explain to me the worst case scenario with trading Chad

[kingwilly]

So who's blocking the door?

One person and one reason:

Mr. Mike Brown

Mr. Mike Browns' Pride

[TJJackson]

I hope he continues to block that door

I hope he and Marvin do not forget February and March when it comes time to alocate practice reps and 45 man roster activations.

If indeed Mike is the one blocking this, then I am perhaps in that rare (for me) position of being in absolute 100% agreement with him.

A shocker!

Mike has 100% of my support in expecting a highly compensated professional to live up to a contract he signed, and making things as difficult for that professional as he can within the limits of the rules if he does not. I would argue that even if the CBA permits this kind of behavior, actions like this are against the spirit of the contract, which at it's core says "Here's some money, in exchange - act in a manner that helps our team win".

[HoosierCat]

So who's blocking the door?

One person and one reason:

Mr. Mike Brown

Mr. Mike Browns' Pride

Survey says: Ding!

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 your strategy strikes me as a huge loss for the Bengals.

If you keep Chad, he plays, and you live with all the baggage he brings.

If you aren't willing to do that, you trade him for what you can get and move on.

I think your idea just buys the Bengals the worst of both worlds.

[kingwilly]

I hope he continues to block that door

I hope he and Marvin do not forget February and March when it comes time to alocate practice reps and 45 man roster activations.

If indeed Mike is the one blocking this, then I am perhaps in that rare (for me) position of being in absolute 100% agreement with him.

A shocker!

Mike has 100% of my support in expecting a highly compensated professional to live up to a contract he signed, and making things as difficult for that professional as he can within the limits of the rules if he does not. I would argue that even if the CBA permits this kind of behavior, actions like this are against the spirit of the contract, which at it's core says "Here's some money, in exchange - help our team win".

Philosophically, you are right. Force the expectation on the other contracting party to uphold their end of the deal. MAKE him accountable.

The issue becomes "at what cost"? Yes, they can block the door and force accountability. CJ can then turn on the cancer afterburners and make the team suffer from increasingly detrimental behavior. At that point, with the door still blocked, make him sit, send him home, force accountability. Act like a child, get treated like a child.

So, the door stays blocked, the philosophically correct treatment is applied, CJ sits and rots but what becomes of the team?

This team like it or not, needs to win. If CJ and Mike Brown are going to play a game of career chicken, then the team and, by proxy, fans suffer until he is moved and the team can add another player who wants to help them win.

Like it or not, I see this as the road we are on. The question then becomes is it worth unblocking the door and bending philosophically for the betterment of the team?

I think the answer is yes in a practical sense, no matter how satisfying it would be to deprive CJ of the stage in games and the media. Fine him, sit him, and drive his value down, out of sight out of mind. The downside is the Bengals get less and less value for him once they do decide to move him....

Move him now, get equitable value and the team can get past this in the quickest possible way and back on the path to winning, at least in attitude.

[TJJackson]

Do you fully understand the long term implications of Drew Rosenhaus winning this particular game?

In particular, do you understand the long-term implications for this small market team?

As far as I am concerned, Chad has already damaged this team and his own value in a trade, and the cap hit of 8 million dollars is a done deal. I think we get more value long term out of Chad sitting and paying a steep price for this choice than the value of the late round pick we'd get for him at this point

Rosenhaus, other agents, and other players are watching this closely. If Chad can get away with this, why can't they? We'll be losing FUTURE players of quality faster than we can replace them, as one after another they all mysteriously become crying babies who just "need a change of scenery".

I value preventing that sort of thing in the future over getting a late round pick for Chad. By a lot.

---(*)---

..and as far as needing Chad to win this year? I think at this point, Chad's mere presence has damaged and will continue to damage the team (you know, the other 52 guys, plus the coaches and other staff?) more than his presence on the field will help them win. It's now a overall wash, imho

[HoosierCat]

Do you fully understand the long term implications of Drew Rosenhaus winning this particular game?

There's nothing new about this "game." It's been played for years. Guys talk their way off teams all the time. DeAngelo Hall just did it in Atlanta. Dillon, Pickens and Spikes all did it here. TO did it in Philly. Etcetera etcetera. No new precedents will be set here.

[kingwilly]

Do you fully understand the long term implications of Drew Rosenhaus winning this particular game?

In particular, do you understand the long-term implications for this small market team?

Directed at me?

The long-term impliation is that Drew and his ilk get positive re-inforcement that they can leverage their player anywhere anytime into a new scenario simply by putting on this brand of show. So, yes, I get it.

As it relates to a small-market team, it really isn't any different than any other market. The issue is a push as long as the teams in both instances handle the situation the same way. If you are a player considering the Bengals vs the Giants, and you know in both places you could force an exit with bad behavior then I don't see a difference.

For the Bengals, they've already done this. They fined and then got rid of Pickens, they traded Corey, and probably other lesser valued players over the years.

Are you suggesting now they stop and waste a chance to get value for CJ? Consider what THAT says about the team...."Boy, they sure do have principles but they don't win for s**t..." or "Nobody puts Baby in a corner..."

[TJJackson]

You're OK with this, then - player who does not want to live up to his contact simply has to become a crying infant and he gets traded for whatever we can get, even though the player owes us (ala prepaid cash for performance in the form of a signing bonus)

If this were all salary, ie you play a year, you get paid for a year, i'd have far fewer problems with this - but it's largely prepaid. He OWES us performance. I don't care that it is called a signing bonus - the act of putting a pen to a paper is symbolic, ie you aren't actually getting paid millions on the spot for the act of moving the pen around on the paper. You're being paid for a promise to perform.

[kingwilly]

You're OK with this, then - player who does not want to live up to his contact simply has to become a crying infant and he gets traded for whatever we can get, even though the player owes us (ala prepaid cash for performance in the form of a signing bonus)

If this were all salary, ie you play a year, you get paid for a year, i'd have far fewer problems with this - but it's largely prepaid. He OWES us performance. I don't care that it is called a signing bonus - the act of putting a pen to a paper is symbolic, ie you aren't actually getting paid millions onthe spot for the act of moving the pen aound on the paper. You're being paid for a promise to perform.

No it is not OK. In fact it is robbery...but trying to understand the lesser of two evils here, I'd rather get something now, given the timing of the draft and move on.

It would be very satisfying to think of CJ, sitting at home, bitching up a storm, getting nor respect, wating away a whole year of his career, with Drew holding his hand and so forth. but WHAT good does that do this team? none, it damages it further, in that CJ has value, with which this team can add a quality prospect that just might solve another issue and bring this team closer to winning.

This is not just some business dispute, it is a sport where winning is everything.

Mr. Brown sees it as a business and that is what provokes these problems, and is this that what will probably drag this out, on and on, until he screws the team out of getting equal value for the current cancer, CJ. all for his business principals. damn the team, I am right.

right and wrong don't really factor in this pseudo-business scenario. addition by subtraction. bite the bullet. etc., etc., etc.

[TJJackson]

Since you folks want to argue the merits of trading him for whatever you can get, I suggest you consider the value ot trading him right at the trade deadline, when some team has found that they need a top flight receiver to make the playoffs....in my scenario, you have suspended him for as many games as you can (reducing his 2008 cap hit) and now you're been deactivating him every week, so he is plenty fresh and not in the weekly game plan.....this would be the time to get the maximum value for him

[HoosierCat]

If this were all salary, ie you play a year, you get paid for a year, i'd have far fewer problems with this - but it's largely prepaid. He OWES us performance. I don't care that it is called a signing bonus - the act of putting a pen to a paper is symbolic, ie you aren't actually getting paid millions on the spot for the act of moving the pen around on the paper. You're being paid for a promise to perform.

Well, that's certainly Mike Brown's position, the one he fought with Pickens over and won, that a signing bonus isn't really a bonus, but an advance on future salary. OTOH, the Bengals didn't really "pay" Chad anything. All the money paid to players represents their share of league revenues as mandated by the CBA. A players' pay never really belongs to a team, all they get to decide is how they dole out the money.

[TJJackson]

the Bengals didn't really "pay" Chad anything. All the money paid to players represents their share of league revenues as mandated by the CBA. A players' pay never really belongs to a team, all they get to decide is how they dole out the money.

That's untrue.

The salary cap is a limit, not an absolute.

While a team that wants to succeed should probably spend right to the limit - and do so in a carefully considered fashion - there is no hardset requirement that they spend dollars equal to the cap

So no - the contract Chad signed is with the Bengals, and the Bengals pay him to act in a manner best suited to help this team win

[kingwilly]

Since you folks want to argue the merits of trading him for whatever you can get, I suggest you consider the value ot trading him right at the trade deadline, when some team has found that they need a top flight receiver to make the playoffs....in my scenario, you have suspended him for as many games as you can (reducing his 2008 cap hit) and now you're been deactivating him every week, so he is plenty fresh and not in the weekly game plan.....this would be the time to get the maximum value for him

that is a good way to go. Serves a few purposes and does not lose sight of gettng value.

I'd prefer it be quick and surgical. Give the team as much time in advance of the season to get over the distraction and move on. Plus, they gain value for THIS draft, or gain a traded player who will be here for as much time as possible in advance of the season to get integrated with schemes and teammates.

[HoosierCat]

the Bengals didn't really "pay" Chad anything. All the money paid to players represents their share of league revenues as mandated by the CBA. A players' pay never really belongs to a team, all they get to decide is how they dole out the money.

That's untrue.

The salary cap is a limit, not an absolute.

While a team that wants to succeed should probably spend right to the limit - and do so in a carefully considered fashion - there is no hardset requirement that they spend dollars equal to the cap

But there is a hardset requirement they spend to the salary floor, which is just a tad over $100 million per team this year, i.e. $3.2 billion. That's where the vast majority of all salary and bonus dollars come from. And it isn't money the owners have any option to keep. They have to spend it on players. That's the biggest reason for the increasing disconnect between pay and performance in the league.

I'd prefer it be quick and surgical. Give the team as much time in advance of the season to get over the distraction and move on. Plus, they gain value for THIS draft, or gain a traded player who will be here for as much time as possible in advance of the season to get integrated with schemes and teammates.

I agree. IF you are going to trade Chad, better now than later.

[TJJackson]

I'd prefer it be quick and surgical. Give the team as much time in advance of the season to get over the distraction and move on. Plus, they gain value for THIS draft

If they do it before or during the draft, it's an 8 million dollar cap hit. I don't believe (even ignoring the hobsonized version of the cap status) we can take that hit without releasing even more players. I know you can release a player (or two) before June and specially designate him a June cut, but I don't think that'd work in a trade scenario. The other team would get an elite receiver (yeah, the blubbering would stop) for salary only

If the Chad camp comes forward and offers to minimize the hit by renegotiating - then we might have something a bit more palatable. I don't see this happening, though.

I get the idea ya'all think you can get a first day pick for Chad right now. Do you really honestly believe that, or are you saying something more along the lines of "we expect a 6th round pick, which is better than nada"

[HoosierCat]

If they do it before or during the draft, it's an 8 million dollar cap hit.

$2 million. Chad already counts $6 million vs. the cap this year.

I get the idea ya'all think you can get a first day pick for Chad right now. Do you really honestly believe that, or are you saying something more along the lines of "we expect a 6th round pick, which is better than nada"

According to Pro Football Weekly today, the Cowboys would be willing to part with one of their firsts for a Chad/Boldin/Roy Williams type wideout. That would certainly be far more value than I expected. I was figuring a third at best, which didn't seem worth the price of losing Chad's abilities.

[TJJackson]

If they do it before or during the draft, it's an 8 million dollar cap hit.

$2 million. Chad already counts $6 million vs. the cap this year.

It's 8. We have to take the remaining guarenteed money in the contract and apply it to 2008.

The fact that we are already 6 million into him counts in my book -- it's dead dollars -- even if it does not count in yours.

And in addition to that, we have to pay the replacement player too. You say it comes from the rookie pool, I say rookie pool dollars are still part of the overall cap - and further, it's still additional dollars that in a sane-and-professional-Chad world we would not be on the hook for.

According to Pro Football Weekly today, the Cowboys would be willing to part with one of their firsts for a Chad/Boldin/Roy Williams type wideout. That would certainly be far more value than I expected. I was figuring a third at best, which didn't seem worth the price of losing Chad's abilities.

Now that'd be something. There are a number of good wideouts likely to be had in the final 10 picks of round 1. Again, this'd be easier if the infant camp would offer some cap relief to go with it - and since this is what they say they want, they should be willing. Naturally, since they are hiding the fact that they also want more money, it won't happen that way.

[HairOnFire]

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?

Absolutely. Now the question becomes one of trade or release, and on that point you've spent several months claiming Chad can't be traded this season because of salary cap impications. Has that suddenly changed? If it hasn't then we're closer to having an answer of when Chad can be cast off of this team ASAP. It's next season, at best....unless you're in favor of an outright release.

Frankly, I've never suggested that and I'm fairly certain you aren't either. In fact, the whole idea is little more than a straw man argument.

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?

The person blocking the door is the person in charge of building the team...someone who has made hundreds of decisions impacting every other member of the team based upon the belief that Chad Johnson was under contract long-term for an agreed upon amount of money and would in exchange for that money meet at the very least the minimum professional standards of conduct. That person, and the other 52 players on the Bengal roster, are now being cheated and betrayed by Chad Johnson's behavior. (Something you claim is irrelevant.)

To point out that Chad Johnson isn't blocking the door is ridiculous....just as the idea the door shouldn't be blocked as long as needed or possible as the team attempts to salvage some of the value that Chad Johnson's contract represents.

[HoosierCat]

It's 8. We have to take the remaining guarenteed money in the contract and apply it to 2008.

The fact that we are already 6 million into him counts in my book -- it's dead dollars -- even if it does not count in yours.

And in addition to that, we have to pay the replacement player too. You say it comes from the rookie pool, I say rookie pool dollars are still part of the overall cap - and further, it's still additional dollars that in a sane-and-professional-Chad world we would not be on the hook for.

No, no and no.

Chad Johnson is scheduled to count $6.3 million against the cap in 2008. That's about half salary and half amortized bonus money. There is another $5.8 million in bonus amortization coming in 2009 and 2010 combined (if he stays).

If we trade Chad, yes, all the bonus accelerates into this year for an $8.8 million hit. However, we do not pay Chad his $3 million salary, obviously.

If we keep Chad, he counts $6.3 million against the cap. Trade him and it's $8.8 million. Net cap hit of trading Chad: $2.5 million.

As for rookie pool dollars, yes they are part of the overall cap, of course. But the Bengals will spend that regardless of whether Chad is on the team or not.

[Spor_tees]

It's 8. We have to take the remaining guarenteed money in the contract and apply it to 2008.

The fact that we are already 6 million into him counts in my book -- it's dead dollars -- even if it does not count in yours.

And in addition to that, we have to pay the replacement player too. You say it comes from the rookie pool, I say rookie pool dollars are still part of the overall cap - and further, it's still additional dollars that in a sane-and-professional-Chad world we would not be on the hook for.

No, no and no.

Chad Johnson is scheduled to count $6.3 million against the cap in 2008. That's about half salary and half amortized bonus money. There is another $5.8 million in bonus amortization coming in 2009 and 2010 combined (if he stays).

If we trade Chad, yes, all the bonus accelerates into this year for an $8.8 million hit. However, we do not pay Chad his $3 million salary, obviously.

If we keep Chad, he counts $6.3 million against the cap. Trade him and it's $8.8 million. Net cap hit of trading Chad: $2.5 million.

As for rookie pool dollars, yes they are part of the overall cap, of course. But the Bengals will spend that regardless of whether Chad is on the team or not.

BUT you have to take into account the money you would then have to pay another player to play in his place...so that takes up even more cap space.

[HairOnFire]

According to Pro Football Weekly today, the Cowboys would be willing to part with one of their firsts for a Chad/Boldin/Roy Williams type wideout. That would certainly be far more value than I expected. I was figuring a third at best, which didn't seem worth the price of losing Chad's abilities.

I've consistently claimed Chad's trade value would be a 1st and a 3rd round draft pick, maybe more, and that hasn't changed. In short, Chad's douchebag act negatively impacts his value to the Bengals in a very big way, but won't impact his overall value to other teams. And that's true because, just as we see on this board, there'll be plenty of owners willing to believe that he's misunderstood, he cares about winning TOO much, and all he needs is a change of scenery and the fresh start that he would get somewhere else.

[HoosierCat]

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

No, it's just a fact.

You want Chad gone.

Chad wants Chad gone.

The reason Chad isn't gone is Mike Brown.

BUT you have to take into account the money you would then have to pay another player to play in his place...so that takes up even more cap space.

Not if you draft a WR to replace him. The Bengals have already subtracted the rookie pool out of their numbers, just like they do every year.

[TJJackson]

The rookie pool changes when you add picks, but the rookie pool still comes from the overall cap

So

You add a r1 pick in the hypothetical trade for Chad, your rookie cap swells by that dollar amount, eating a larger piece of the overall cap pie

More money is more money......

[kingwilly]

According to Pro Football Weekly today, the Cowboys would be willing to part with one of their firsts for a Chad/Boldin/Roy Williams type wideout. That would certainly be far more value than I expected. I was figuring a third at best, which didn't seem worth the price of losing Chad's abilities.

I've consistently claimed Chad's trade value would be a 1st and a 3rd round draft pick, maybe more, and that hasn't changed. In short, Chad's douchebag act negatively impacts his value to the Bengals in a very big way, but won't impact his overall value to other teams. And that's true because, just as we see on this board, there'll be plenty of owners willing to believe that he's misunderstood, he cares about winning TOO much, and all he needs is a change of scenery and the fresh start that he would get somewhere else.

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.

Follow-on ? is are there any suitors?

Based on need, plus I'd like a cap report from our capologists, suitors could include Dallas, Philly, SD, Chicago, STL, NYG, CAR, ATL...geez, who would not want/could not use Chad (the f**ker)?

[kingwilly]

The rookie pool changes when you add picks, but the rookie pool still comes from the overall cap

So

You add a r1 pick in the hypothetical trade for Chad, your rookie cap swells by that dollar amount, eating a larger piece of the overall cap pie

More money is more money......

yes, more is more, but what I'm getting is that net/net/net for trade/cut/sit, it is doable. 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....