Any chance Andre Smith is signed...ever?

[HairOnFire]

Why should Smith be "instantly disgruntled" simply because there's been no contract agreement?

I didn't say he would be.

Actually, you did. Or did you not just write...."Mikey is working his damndest to create an instantly disgruntled player, thus guaranteeing that the Bengals don't get Smith's best effort, whether it's on the field, watching his weight, or growing up."

Again, I have a hard time finding a great deal of fault with Keels and Smith, but it seems to me any talk of Smith failing to perform in the future due to him becoming "instantly disgruntled" is something that speaks directly to matters like passion, motivation, maturity, and physical conditioning. Or if you prefer, the very things scouts and GM's were wondering about long before Smith was drafted.

That was in response to TJ's solution in which Smith eventually signs a deal he's not happy with and looks to leave at first opportunity.

So, when is the first opportunity to leave in a huff likely to be? At least four years from now, right? So, knowing that, exactly when do you think Mike Brown will begin worrying about Smith's supposedly hurt feelings?

[HoosierCat]

Again, I have a hard time finding a great deal of fault with Keels and Smith, but it seems to me any talk of Smith failing to perform in the future due to him becoming "instantly disgruntled" is something that speaks directly to matters like passion, motivation, maturity, and physical conditioning. Or if you prefer, the very things scouts and GM's were wondering about long before Smith was drafted.

That's my point: if he comes in after signing a deal he feels isn't fair, how much passion, motivation, maturity and attention to physical conditioning is he likely to give? You're a business owner, or at least claim to be one. Tell me, is forcing people to work for what they consider below-market wages the best way to ensure top job performance?

[BengalPimp]

I'm not a fan of this side of the game.. I don't know anything about the salary cap or anything related to signing rookies or free agents. I just don't get into it. I don't care enough about it to understand it. But this is frusterating.

So, can someone, in short form, please explain to me what both sides argument is? What's the deal with this "slotting" thing?

So there are 32 picks in the first round, right? Generally, you'd expect to make a bit less than the guy picked before you, and a little more than the pick after you. One thing that causes signings to drag on is because it's easier to figure out what you're worth when both the guy in front of you and behind you are signed. That's called "slotted" - you're in a slot between two contracts. Some teams and most agents want to wait until their pick is slotted (though obviously, not everybody can).

Once a guy is slotted, it *should* be easy to figure out what a guy's worth - roughly split the difference between the guy in front and behind you. In this case, split the #5 and #7 contracts to get Andre signed at #6.

Couple problems with that - the #5 pick was a New York quarterback, and the #7 was given a big contract by a senile owner (Raiders). So the Bengals really, really don't like their slot. That would be understandable to an extent, but they're taking it beyond that - they're offering Andre about the same as last year's #6 pick, when the average pick is seeing about a 20% increase this year (meaning this year's #10 pick is getting about 20% more than last year's #10 pick). So Andre should figure on about 20% more than last year's #6. In this case, the Bengals are offering (supposedly) about the same as last year's #6. Some have claimed they're even offering less than this year's #8 pick.

People are frustrated with the Bengals because, as much as agents and owners haggle over money, both sides generally respect the slotting process, meaning that they fight a little for better incentives and try to push *within* the slot, but nobody in the business tries to offer less or demand more than the pick next to them (unless there's a QB involved, they generally get better deals). That's why it's a big deal that Mike Brown is "busting" the slotting process. On the other side, Michael Crabtree is demanding *more* money than the #7 pick, claiming that he's top-5 talent. People are frustrated with him too.

Without some sort of system, deals won't get done, because no agent wants to be the one who didn't get everything he could for his client. That's why this is such an important issue - the slotting system, even though it's not official, is the only thing that allows deals to get done. Count on next year being a total clusterfudge thanks to Mike Brown and Michael Crabtree.

Problem is.....The Bengals knew they were up against a QB at #5, and the idiotic Al Davis at #7.....YET, they still chose to roll the dice, and wait for those teams to sign their players to contracts FIRST, then they dont like the contracts that were signed around their slot.....HEY MIKEY...Next time dont wait...had you offered Smith say 5%--maybe 10% above last years #6, you most likely would have had a deal. Sanchez didnt screw things up that much, since QB's contracts are a totally different animal, but they now have to pay for letting the Raiders sign Heyward-Bey first.

Keep on Procrastinating Mikey.....A great way to do business....Dumba$$ !!!!!!!!!

[Kazkal]

Breaking: Bengals bump off to Smith by $500 worth of Ohio lottery tickets.

watched it twice failed see bengals part?

[HoosierCat]

Breaking: Bengals bump off to Smith by $500 worth of Ohio lottery tickets.

watched it twice failed see bengals part?

Watch the crawl.

[HairOnFire]

You're a business owner, or at least claim to be one. Tell me, is forcing people to work for what they consider below-market wages the best way to ensure top job performance?

Well, it occurs to me I'm in no position to force anyone to work for me under any conditions. Furthermore, in the example being discussed the Bengals would, at worst, be quilty of paying Smith somewhere in the vicinity of 30 million bucks....an amount that would sufficiently motivate all but a few of us.

But you asked, so here I go.

From experience I've learned if I want to motivate a good employee I can sometimes get the job done by agreeing to pay them more money. However, I actually get far better results by giving employees more responsibilty. Because as corny as it might sound that's what they value most.

As for motivating poorer employees, I should confess I stopped giving raises in an attempt to motivate those types many many years ago, not because I'm unwilling to pay, but because I've tried that trick and it doesn't work. In fact, in my experience an unmotivated employee will simply pocket the raise without ever questioning why it was given OR whether or not it had been earned. As a result, their attitudes don't change a bit, and all I've done is waste money on someone who has already made a mental break for the back door.

[HoosierCat]

Well, it occurs to me I'm in no position to force anyone to work for me under any conditions. Furthermore, in the example being discussed the Bengals would, at worst, be quilty of paying Smith somewhere in the vicinity of 30 million bucks....an amount that would sufficiently motivate all but a few of us.

You would think. But the fact is, I don't compare my salary to the guy working the 7-11 down the street, I compare it to my peers in the same industry. And for better or worse, in today's NFL $33 million/5 years is a bargain price for a top tackle. Which is what, in theory, Smith ought to be.

But you asked, so here I go.

From experience I've learned if I want to motivate a good employee I can sometimes get the job done by agreeing to pay them more money. However, I actually get far better results by giving employees more responsibilty. Because as corny as it might sound that's what they value most.

Quite true. It's a form of employee recognition, though generally speaking increased responsibility comes with increased salary, or at least the promise of such should some test period work out successfully. Giving people more work up front only goes so far before you match it with increased compensation.

As for motivating poorer employees, I should confess I stopped giving raises in an attempt to motivate those types many many years ago, not because I'm unwilling to pay, but because I've tried that trick and it doesn't work. In fact, in my experience an unmotivated employee will simply pocket the raise without ever questioning why it was given OR whether or not it had been earned. As a result, their attitudes don't change a bit, and all I've done is waste money on someone who has already made a mental break for the back door.

Again, quite true. But in that case, assuming our boy Smith is such an employee, then the real answer is not to sign him in the first place.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

From experience I've learned if I want to motivate a good employee I can sometimes get the job done by agreeing to pay them more money. However, I actually get far better results by giving employees more responsibilty. Because as corny as it might sound that's what they value most.

One key difference is that, in a free market, you're never actually in the position of having an employee hostage like the Bengals do Andre. You're forced to pay market rates. The Bengals are trying to use the NFL's effective monopoly to get him at reduced rates. And feeling taking advantage of can definitely demotivate an employee who would otherwise be a good performer.

The question is, does Andre being pissed off outweigh his instincts to be a good teammate? There have been many instances of holdouts who don't get a deal re-done, but who come back and play hard. So once he gets in, I do believe he'll probably bond with his teammates and end up working hard.

So in the end, maybe Mikey's way ahead of us - completely screw your pick, he'll come around eventually. If you're going to have a holdout anyway, don't quibble over $50k within the slot - screw him for millions! And if he doesn't take it, hey, you just pocketed a lot of money!

By the way, in the real world, I agree with you - good employees are motivated by the work, but you pay them well to keep them from leaving.

[Kazkal]

Andre In Atalanta still working with Tony Jones,also supposed to be doing alot cardio to continue to get his weight down.

[agreen_112]

I'm not a fan of this side of the game.. I don't know anything about the salary cap or anything related to signing rookies or free agents. I just don't get into it. I don't care enough about it to understand it. But this is frusterating.

So, can someone, in short form, please explain to me what both sides argument is? What's the deal with this "slotting" thing?

So there are 32 picks in the first round, right? Generally, you'd expect to make a bit less than the guy picked before you, and a little more than the pick after you. One thing that causes signings to drag on is because it's easier to figure out what you're worth when both the guy in front of you and behind you are signed. That's called "slotted" - you're in a slot between two contracts. Some teams and most agents want to wait until their pick is slotted (though obviously, not everybody can).

Once a guy is slotted, it *should* be easy to figure out what a guy's worth - roughly split the difference between the guy in front and behind you. In this case, split the #5 and #7 contracts to get Andre signed at #6.

Couple problems with that - the #5 pick was a New York quarterback, and the #7 was given a big contract by a senile owner (Raiders). So the Bengals really, really don't like their slot. That would be understandable to an extent, but they're taking it beyond that - they're offering Andre about the same as last year's #6 pick, when the average pick is seeing about a 20% increase this year (meaning this year's #10 pick is getting about 20% more than last year's #10 pick). So Andre should figure on about 20% more than last year's #6. In this case, the Bengals are offering (supposedly) about the same as last year's #6. Some have claimed they're even offering less than this year's #8 pick.

People are frustrated with the Bengals because, as much as agents and owners haggle over money, both sides generally respect the slotting process, meaning that they fight a little for better incentives and try to push *within* the slot, but nobody in the business tries to offer less or demand more than the pick next to them (unless there's a QB involved, they generally get better deals). That's why it's a big deal that Mike Brown is "busting" the slotting process. On the other side, Michael Crabtree is demanding *more* money than the #7 pick, claiming that he's top-5 talent. People are frustrated with him too.

Without some sort of system, deals won't get done, because no agent wants to be the one who didn't get everything he could for his client. That's why this is such an important issue - the slotting system, even though it's not official, is the only thing that allows deals to get done. Count on next year being a total clusterfudge thanks to Mike Brown and Michael Crabtree.

Problem is.....The Bengals knew they were up against a QB at #5, and the idiotic Al Davis at #7.....YET, they still chose to roll the dice, and wait for those teams to sign their players to contracts FIRST, then they dont like the contracts that were signed around their slot.....HEY MIKEY...Next time dont wait...had you offered Smith say 5%--maybe 10% above last years #6, you most likely would have had a deal. Sanchez didnt screw things up that much, since QB's contracts are a totally different animal, but they now have to pay for letting the Raiders sign Heyward-Bey first.

Keep on Procrastinating Mikey.....A great way to do business....Dumba$$ !!!!!!!!!

Thanks DC and Pimp

[HairOnFire]

But the fact is, I don't compare my salary to the guy working the 7-11 down the street, I compare it to my peers in the same industry. And for better or worse, in today's NFL $33 million/5 years is a bargain price for a top tackle. Which is what, in theory, Smith ought to be.

Fair enough. Now, just for the sake of argument, ask yourself who Smith's real peers are. I ask because it seems to me Smith's peers aren't the top OT's in the NFL, as implied in your example....because Smith hasn't played a down yet. In fact, I'd have to say the only peers worth mentioning right now are a rookie QB and a rookie WR, and neither of them have proven much of anything.

....generally speaking increased responsibility comes with increased salary, or at least the promise of such should some test period work out successfully. Giving people more work up front only goes so far before you match it with increased compensation.

But that's a tradeoff that I actually look forward to. Because I most certainly do want to pay people more IF they've proven themselves capable of handling more. But there's our newest rub, because not only is Smith as unproven as his fellow peers....he's got baggage they don't have. And let's not forget, even for a second, how Smith and his hand picked agent are directly responsible for that baggage, not the Bengals.

[HairOnFire]

The Bengals are trying to use the NFL's effective monopoly to get him at reduced rates.

Agreed, but only to a point. My only quibble is over the matter of "reduced rates". Because there's no hard and fast figure dictating what Andre Smith is worth. In fact, as others have pointed out, the Bengals could sign Smith for millions less than DHB pocketed and still find themselves on the short end of a very bad bargain should Smith bust.

The question is, does Andre being pissed off outweigh his instincts to be a good teammate?

It may be a silly question, but what makes anyone think Andre Smith is pissed off?

[Bearcat1975]

Mike Brown doesn't want Smith signed. But he can't make that sentiment too obvious. So he makes an offer that no agent could ever accept if that agent wants to continue being an agent.

That ensures Smith never being signed, and that ensures that Mike Brown pockets the unused cap money from it.

That part is bad enough, but when jackasses like HOF come online and actually defend Mike Brown's scam, I have to laugh.

[Bearcat1975]

Esiason on the Bengals:

“It’ll be interesting to see how much more Carson Palmer can take if the Bengals have another bad year. Sooner or later, he’s got to take stock of his career and wonder whether he can have the career he envisioned when he got to Cincinnati. They still haven’t signed their No. 1 draft pick (Andre Smith), an offensive lineman who’s a loop job anyway, and they’ll expect him to start when he comes in. It just all works against having success at the highest level of the NFL. I lived it, I know. He’s a great talent who is going through the Cincinnati Bengals’ car wash, and there’s no wax.”

[HairOnFire]

That ensures Smith never being signed, and that ensures that Mike Brown pockets the unused cap money from it.

Is that another prediction OR just another example of weak watery s**t leaking from the corners of your mouth?

That part is bad enough, but when jackasses like HOF come online and actually defend Mike Brown's scam, I have to laugh.

I'm suddenly reminded how stupid people often laugh inappropriately or for no reason whatsoever.

[TJJackson]

blah blah

blah blah

blah blah

blah blah

blah blah

Why dont you two get a room already and work out those evident sexual frustrations? Sheesh. :-)

[HairOnFire]

It just all works against having success at the highest level of the NFL. I lived it, I know.

Here's what Boomer Esiason knows. In the biggest game of his life he couldn't find his own a**h*** with a roadmap.

[HairOnFire]

Why dont you two get a room already and work out those evident sexual frustrations? Sheesh. :-)

This from a clown who calls other men "sweetie" and often writes openly about his manlove for a guy named...Bernard.

[membengal]

Mike Brown doesn't want Smith signed. But he can't make that sentiment too obvious. So he makes an offer that no agent could ever accept if that agent wants to continue being an agent.

That ensures Smith never being signed, and that ensures that Mike Brown pockets the unused cap money from it.

That part is bad enough, but when jackasses like HOF come online and actually defend Mike Brown's scam, I have to laugh.

Now that's just stupid. Don't over-reach.

[Bearcat1975]

Mike Brown doesn't want Smith signed. But he can't make that sentiment too obvious. So he makes an offer that no agent could ever accept if that agent wants to continue being an agent.

That ensures Smith never being signed, and that ensures that Mike Brown pockets the unused cap money from it.

That part is bad enough, but when jackasses like HOF come online and actually defend Mike Brown's scam, I have to laugh.

Now that's just stupid. Don't over-reach.

Well as far as this year's portion of his salary is concerned, they are arguing over cap money that Mike Brown won't end up spending at this point anyway. Mike Brown wants that unused portion of the cap to deposit into his grandchildren's savings accounts. THAT is top priority, even if it means Smith never gets signed.

Mike Brown might want Smith signed, but only at the lowball price that will allow him to pocket the excess cap money from it. Same thing he did last year when he released Willie, Deltha, and Rudi at the last minute. He was good about it for a few years though I will give him that. Making sure to spend up to or right at the cap. But now he has reverted to his 1990s cap-shaving ways.

To the detriment of the Bengals talent pool of course.

[Ickey44]

Mike Brown doesn't want Smith signed. But he can't make that sentiment too obvious. So he makes an offer that no agent could ever accept if that agent wants to continue being an agent.

That ensures Smith never being signed, and that ensures that Mike Brown pockets the unused cap money from it.

That part is bad enough, but when jackasses like HOF come online and actually defend Mike Brown's scam, I have to laugh.

Now that's just stupid. Don't over-reach.

Well as far as this year's portion of his salary is concerned, they are arguing over cap money that Mike Brown won't end up spending at this point anyway. Mike Brown wants that unused portion of the cap to deposit into his grandchildren's savings accounts. THAT is top priority, even if it means Smith never gets signed.

Mike Brown might want Smith signed, but only at the lowball price that will allow him to pocket the excess cap money from it. Same thing he did last year when he released Willie, Deltha, and Rudi at the last minute. He was good about it for a few years though I will give him that. Making sure to spend up to or right at the cap. But now he has reverted to his 1990s cap-shaving ways.

To the detriment of the Bengals talent pool of course.

What makes you know the first thing about how Mike Brown operates? All you have are a bunch of uneducated guesses formed from the fubar logic that runs your pea-sized, little mind.

I'll agree all day that Mike Brown is as misguided as he can be while running this team, but if he were as cheap as you say he is Carson and Chad would not have the fat contracts they have. He would NOT have paid Odom $30 million last year. He would not have give Willie, Levi, Dillon, etc. the big money contracts they got when they were free agents. Mike Brown pays players that have performed well. He does not pay players who haven't. Smith is one of those players, and I can hardly fault him for that after getting burned by the likes of Klingler, Carter, Akili Smith, Peter Warrick, etc.

Nobody should be so eager to throw millions at an unproven player. And quit bringing up the cuts from last year, that doesn't prove any points around here. Each one of those players cut last year sucked and it turned out that those were good cuts.

[Sea Ray]

Mike Brown doesn't want Smith signed. But he can't make that sentiment too obvious. So he makes an offer that no agent could ever accept if that agent wants to continue being an agent.

That ensures Smith never being signed, and that ensures that Mike Brown pockets the unused cap money from it.

That part is bad enough, but when jackasses like HOF come online and actually defend Mike Brown's scam, I have to laugh.

Are you predicting Smith won't be signed? That's some headline. When's the last time a top ten pick didn't sign?

[HairOnFire]

Are you predicting Smith won't be signed? That's some headline. When's the last time a top ten pick didn't sign?

He's talking to hear himself talk.

[Clackwoods]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9980810/Last-two-draft-holdouts-far,-far-away-from-signing

[HAPPYJAQ]

He won't be signed before the first cuts on 1 SEP, which means that he'll only be able to contribute in specialy packages immediately, assuming he's even in football shape.

That said, he'll break in as a run-blocking TE in short-yardage sets before taking over for AC by the Week 8 bye. I'm hoping Whit can handle the James Harrisons of the world, but something tells me we'll see a lineup that includes Whit, AC and Andre by minicamp next year (if not sooner), with Whit at G. Another consideration is that Bobbie Williams is a UFA after the season.