Chad 24/7

[BengalszoneBilly]

Because it makes for a more evocative read for it to be written that way. Truth be damned

Thanks for pouring dime store novel piss all over my statement here T.J.

[GregCook]

...question:

Why does the ESPN article read as if ML had no idea about the DC offer until "AFTER" he read about it? Is he not involved in these types of discussions or is the situation such that noone is really thinking a trade for CJ is even possible and the FO just flatly says "No" to save everyone the hassle?

Most likely because he's smart and experienced with negotiations. He learned the first rule, never let your opponent know what you know until you have to and even then, lie.

I think the Bengals are open for business concerning 85 and possible other players. They have planted a For Sale Sign by Chad's locker and have a asking price in mind. I think the only line being drawn in the sand is Chad is for sale. Come and get him.

[Pidge]

Two firsts this year or one this year and one next year will be fine by me. Or let him s**t away his career by making him sit out.

Whatever helps the Bengals/f**ks Chad over more.

[membengal]

Hair: I was wrong, back in the day, on what CJ's trade value might be.

Point for you.

[agreen_112]

Can we please stop the idiocy? You guys just don't get it. It's barely possible to trade Chad - if it's even possible at all. That's if we traded him for absolutely nothing. Forget about getting anything in return for him. Not only do we have to absorb the massive salary cap hit from trading chad, but then we have to take an extra hit for whatever player, or whatever 1st round picks we get in return. So, the only way a trade is even possible is if we trade him for like a 7th round draft pick. And even that may not be possible.

I love all th bozos who suggest trades like chad for Jared Allen. So, we take like an $8 million hit for chad or whatever it is, then another $9 million for Allen's franchis tag. Give me a break. Then we have to get rid of numerous other top players just to get under the cap, and we are still without a WR. Then maybe we have to trade away our 1st round pick for a 6th or 7th rounder simply becasue we can no longer afford to sign a 1st rounder. Great way to improve the team.

I agree. Few here (at the zone) and around Cincy seem to actually understand what Marvin Lewis has said, REPEATEDLY! Chad isn't going anywhere. PERIOD.

Either play or don't play Chad, your under contract.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Well, one things clear at this point: either the Bengals are handling this negotiation like shrewd poker players, or they're complete idiots. There's really no middle ground. Guess we'll know in 3 days.

I'm optimistic, but let's just say that based on past performance I'd invite Mike Brown to my poker game any night.

[agreen_112]

...question:

Why does the ESPN article read as if ML had no idea about the DC offer until "AFTER" he read about it? Is he not involved in these types of discussions or is the situation such that noone is really thinking a trade for CJ is even possible and the FO just flatly says "No" to save everyone the hassle?

Makes sense. How many times does Marvin have to say that Chad isn't available?

I'm sure Rosens**t is shopping his player to other teams even though the Bengals have stated they are not trading CJ. Is this legal? Tampering?

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Makes sense. How many times does Marvin have to say that Chad isn't available?

I'm sure Rosens**t is shopping his player to other teams even though the Bengals have stated they are not trading CJ. Is this legal? Tampering?

It's tampering...if you can prove it. This is one of PFT's favorite issues, he mentioned it I think yesterday regarding Chad's scenario. If any team talks to Rosenwhore, it's tampering. I'll go out on a limb and guess the Redskins have.

[duus]

With this year's draft quality, and the incentive-based element of the 2009 pick as part of it, I do not necessarily think this was a no-brainer. Close, but not a slam dunk ... especially knowing other teams have interest as well. If ... IF ... the Bengals are just playing their hand and do intend to move Chad Johnson, then I think letting this ride a bit longer was the correct move. I smell a trade happening in the next few days ... especially if they are somehow able to be permitted to do either of the following: 1) rework his deal temporarily for a better cap hit, or 2) allow the trade to not officially take place until after the June 1 date. Honestly ... I have no idea if either or both of these are 'legal' in the NFL sense.

[COB]

Makes sense. How many times does Marvin have to say that Chad isn't available?

I'm trying to interpret Marvin's cryptic baloney. Yesterday he did not come out and say, "Chad's not available at any price. Quit coming to us with offers."

Instead he said Chad has stated he'd sit out, so he should keep his word and sit out. When I first read it, I felt he was backing off the flat out "no trade" statements, and instead putting the focus on Chad. I felt that if there was true resolve to not trade under any circumstances, he'd put the focus on the other teams and their tampering. He didn't discourage it at all.

Now, as opposed to yesterday, I'm getting a sinking feeling that the scenario will play out as follows:

We won't get a better offer for him. He won't show up for anything. Third week of August, we'll trade him for a 2nd round pick and just a guy.

I had hopes that Mike Brown had learned and evolved. To me this is the acid test. Win the contract law contest, or win the "build a winning football team" contest.

Face, consider yourself soon to be spited.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Being principled and "making a point" doesn't win football games. But apparently that's more important to Mike Brown.

There's no shrewd negotiating going on here, we have a fool for an owner when it comes to building good football teams and establishing a consistent winner.

It's also obvious Marvin has less control over personnel decisions than people think.

SOS in my opinion, I'll detract that if they do otherwise and get rid of the huge distraction, headache and morale killer that is CJ, for something of value versus making a point.

[kingwilly]

Win the contract law contest, or win the "build a winning football team" contest.

pretty much sums it up.

[Clackwoods]

I wonder if the Bengals have gone from "no trade, no way" to "no trade, unless you blow me away" ? I find it interesting that just before the draft a firm, credible offer is thrown out there and of course its leaked. Would a first and 2ed do it? Or are the Bengals holding out for 2 first rounders? I'm guessing that now, its the Bengals seeing who will pay up. If they don't get the deal they want, its status quo.

That's it in a nutshell.

I disagree. I don't think the organization is holding out for a goddam thing. I think they're sending a message here, and that will be heard loud and clear. If they wanted a good deal, they could have had it with Washington's offer, but they declined.

Wish all you want, but Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis are wielding the hammer. There will be no deals. They will make Chad honor his word or sit out.

We as people are born into this world with few thing we can give. Love is one, respect is another, and our word is the last. If you cannot stand by these three principals, what can you stand by?

Semper Fi......That was motivating.

[HoosierCat]

Win the contract law contest, or win the "build a winning football team" contest.

Just checking: "building a winning football team" means trading your best wideout with no prospect of replacing him with equal talent before the season?

[HairOnFire]

With this year's draft quality, and the incentive-based element of the 2009 pick as part of it, I do not necessarily think this was a no-brainer. Close, but not a slam dunk ... especially knowing other teams have interest as well.

The Redskins offer of a conditional pick is obviously a very big deal. What those qualifiers are is anyones guess but I found the following posted on the GoBengals message board.

"I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I heard Mortenson on the radio this morning and he said the escalators in the Redskins offer were that if Chad had 80 receptions, next year's pick would become a 2nd rounder, and if he caught 95, it would become a first rounder." --- ChicagoBengal

Before anyone suggests the qualifiers are easily met keep in mind the Redskins leading receiver last season was a TE who caught 66 passes.

[COB]

Win the contract law contest, or win the "build a winning football team" contest.

Just checking: "building a winning football team" means trading your best wideout with no prospect of replacing him with equal talent before the season?

I disagree with your premise that Chad is our best wideout.

He's talented. But his me-first attitude, and the way the Bengals have catered to him, have led to this team being called the most immature in football. His selfish tantrum at halftime of our playoff game, in my opinion, played a significant part in our losing that game in the second half. He quits on plays, won't block, and disappears in big games.

You're right, those picks hold no promise of replacing him with equal talent before the season. But at this point, the negative intangibles Chad so heartily brings to the table outweigh his stats.

Fantasy football - Chad is a big yes.

Real football - Chad is a big no.

I've read your posts, and I really hope you're right, that the Bengals are holding out for a better offer. And I agree that Mike knows how to negotiate. What I can't figure out is why you or anyone believes a better offer might be forthcoming.

I believe the Redskins made a great, even a windfall offer. And I've read nothing anywhere that makes me believe anyone would be willing to part with two firsts for him. Not that they'd come out and announce it in advance, but two firsts on a guy with maybe 4 years left?

We should have taken that offer.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

With this year's draft quality, and the incentive-based element of the 2009 pick as part of it, I do not necessarily think this was a no-brainer. Close, but not a slam dunk ... especially knowing other teams have interest as well.

The Redskins offer of a conditional pick is obviously a very big deal. What those qualifiers are is anyones guess but I found the following posted on the GoBengals message board.

"I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I heard Mortenson on the radio this morning and he said the escalators in the Redskins offer were that if Chad had 80 receptions, next year's pick would become a 2nd rounder, and if he caught 95, it would become a first rounder." --- ChicagoBengal

Before anyone suggests the qualifiers are easily met keep in mind the Redskins leading receiver last season was a TE who caught 66 passes.

Do recall that's an *opening* and unsolicited offer, as you yourself have pointed out.

I do agree with you, I would want to reduce those catch totals considerably, if for no other reason than the fact that his most attractive feature is yards. Chad's not a possession receiver; 95 catches would mean something like 1500 yards, and if he did that I'd want more than two 1sts. That would be a career best year from Chad.

Also, those totals are too high because Jason Campbell couldn't hit a bear in the ass from 10 yards.

If I knocked it down to, say, 800 yards for a 2nd rounder and 1000 yards for a 1st, I'd do it. Even 900 and 1100 would be reasonable.

[cincy9275]

the bengals have a chance to get 2 potential first rnd picks, they would have 5 picks in the first 3 rnds of this years draft. or you keep chad and have to deal with all the bs that he is going to bring. i would take the picks. the bengals could fill a lot of holes with those picks. then still have maybe 2 first rnd picks next year at worse a extra 3rd. i think it's time for the bengals and chad to end this, to just agree that this is over and it's time to move on.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Win the contract law contest, or win the "build a winning football team" contest.

Just checking: "building a winning football team" means trading your best wideout with no prospect of replacing him with equal talent before the season?

Or Keep your best WR, get nothing for him, and let him sit all year and pout, and still not have him any ways? Again what is the point of doing that?

[ShulaSteakhouse]

With this year's draft quality, and the incentive-based element of the 2009 pick as part of it, I do not necessarily think this was a no-brainer. Close, but not a slam dunk ... especially knowing other teams have interest as well.

The Redskins offer of a conditional pick is obviously a very big deal. What those qualifiers are is anyones guess but I found the following posted on the GoBengals message board.

"I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I heard Mortenson on the radio this morning and he said the escalators in the Redskins offer were that if Chad had 80 receptions, next year's pick would become a 2nd rounder, and if he caught 95, it would become a first rounder." --- ChicagoBengal

Before anyone suggests the qualifiers are easily met keep in mind the Redskins leading receiver last season was a TE who caught 66 passes.

Yep. But I would be fine with a 1st this year and a 3rd next, you don't get that kind of offer for one overrated, aging, disgruntled player very often, if ever.

Get a 1st round WR talent in return this year and Palmer will see to it those guys get similar #'s. And if they don't, as long as they win games, who cares?

[HoosierCat]

I disagree with your premise that Chad is our best wideout.

And I disagree with your premise that "the negative intangibles Chad so heartily brings to the table outweigh his stats." This team has had disgruntled players before, and in the end they always show up and produce. Even if all we get is the same kind of disinterested play we got from him last year, that's still better than half the No. 1 wideouts in the league do when they're trying.

Or Keep your best WR, get nothing for him, and let him sit all year and pout, and still not have him any ways? Again what is the point of doing that?

He's not going to sit. Write it down. If he isn't dealt, he isn't going to sit out, and the Bengals aren't going to keep him on the sidelines.

[BengalByTheBay]

Or Keep your best WR, get nothing for him, and let him sit all year and pout, and still not have him any ways? Again what is the point of doing that?

He's not going to sit. Write it down. If he isn't dealt, he isn't going to sit out, and the Bengals aren't going to keep him on the sidelines.

I agree with this proposition. I just can't see Chad Johnson holding out more than a week. When he sees that the media focuses on players who are actually doing something, his overwhelming desire to be observed will take over. What I just don't see, however, is how it would work to have him playing but all pissy all the time. Maybe it wouldn't be that much different than last year and 1300 yard seasons are nothing to sneeze at.

[sparky151]

I'm leaning toward supporting a trade if we get a good offer. It's possible other disgruntled vet receivers like Boldin or Roy Williams are on the market. If the market consists only of Chad, we should be able to get two firsts for him if one of them is next year.

I'd sort of like to trade him to Washington since they have a good chance of a last place finish, we play them this year, and their 09 first rounder might be a top 10 pick. On the other hand, they've obviously tampered, which you don't want to reward, so we might get something from them anyway without trading Chad.

If we get pick 19, 21, or 22, we could think about players like Merling, Hardy, Mayo, Stewart, or maybe trade down. It would also let us afford to give up a 2nd or 3 rounder to trade up for Ellis.

[JoePong]

the bengals have a chance to get 2 potential first rnd picks, they would have 5 picks in the first 3 rnds of this years draft.

No you wouldn't. You would have to forfeit all your top draft picks because you won't have salary cap room to sign them. In addition to not being able to add talent through the draft, you would have to cut numerous starters currently on the team, all withou any hope of filling all the holes. It would be a disastrous decision and would set this franchise back years and end any hope you ever have of winning a championship with Carson Palmer.

If you don't want chad on the team because you think he would be a detriment, the best option is to keep him and hope he sits out. Then we can at least keep the rest of the team intact without having to decimate the roster. We will have a better chance to compete with chad sitting out than we would if we actually traded him.

[HairOnFire]

What I can't figure out is why you or anyone believes a better offer might be forthcoming.

A better offer might be forthcoming for very simple reasons. The Redskins interest in making a trade is now a given, and their level of interest can accurately be described as serious. Plus, the triggers related to the conditional pick are easily manipulated or dropped entirely. Last, their opening bid was rejected...putting them in the same position as when they started. That being, weighing the wisdom of increasing their offer for a proven wideout or taking their chances on whatever unproven draft pick is still available when they're on the clock.

And I've read nothing anywhere that makes me believe anyone would be willing to part with two firsts for him.

Yeah, you have. The Redskin offer wasn't a firm bid of two 1st round picks, but it's potentially that. Simply drop or reduce the qualifiers and you're there.

We should have taken that offer.

Why? To my knowledge the deal isn't off the table. So there's no motivation to take a deal now that could be improved by the team doing the current bidding or another team altogether. In addition, there's a possibility a trade could still be completed on draft day if a player the Bengals truly covet is still available when the Redskins are on the clock at #21.