Clemons Gets $3.7 Million Extension

[HoosierCat]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=1840284

$1.3 million SB

Little bit of an "FU" to Gildon, too, maybe...?

I'm good with this, but he better improve vs. the run!

[schweinhart]

This is an excellent deal for all.

Clemons gets another $800k upfront to play this year.

But the 2004 cap hit drops by almost $900k for the Bengals because of the way the contract is structured.

As far as Gildon goes, there's that $900k more in cap space to sign him if ML wants.

[HoosierCat]

This is an excellent deal for all.

Clemons gets another $800k upfront to play this year.

But the 2004 cap hit drops by almost $900k for the Bengals because of the way the contract is structured.

As far as Gildon goes, there's that $900k more in cap space to sign him if ML wants.

I don't think we save anything. Clemons was scheduled to make $900k base this year. He got a $622,000 SB when he signed originally, so his cap number was around $1.2 million.

Under this deal, he has a $700k salary for 2004. The $1.3 million SB prorates out to about $430k a year, which puts his hit at about $1.1 million. Plus there's still the "old" SB to figure in. I don't know whether they have to take that all now or get to stretch that out through 2006 now, too. My bet is the latter, meaning you can tack another $100k onto the cap number for...$1.2 million.

Still, that means we got him through 2006 without an increase in the hit. I agree it's a good deal. Re Gildon, I was just referring to the timing. Gildon is out there doing his "I'm still taking to everyone" routine. The Bengals go and re-up the DE he'd most likely be put in for in those pass-rushing situations. I think it's a message to him that he can forget about any extra dough here.

[bengalsfan33]

I like this deal by the Bengals. I guess this means no Gildon, which I am absolutely fine with.

[HoosierCat]

Just a sal cap note: Royal We on bengals.com says the new deal increases Clemons' hit by about half a mil, so I guess they have to eat all the "old" SB at once this year. I think that pretty much puts the kibosh on Gildon (insert shrug here).

[schweinhart]

Duane will be glad to know how royally I f'd the numbers up. He won't have to pay $1 mill to play this year after all.

Somehow, I plugged in his old 2004 base plus the base raise of $900,000 he would have got if he had 12 sacks last year. Haste makes wrong numbers.

The right numbers still come up with $80k less of a cap hit from the extension with the SB pro-rated by year. So something had to get structured different to come up with $500k more of a cap hit.

Sorry for the misinfo.

[BadLuck]

Didn't he kinda... suck last year? I'm almost stumped why they did something like this.

[richmond_mat]

Didn't he kinda... suck last year? I'm almost stumped why they did something like this.

Nah. He's great bang for the buck!

A big fatty would help tremendously, but......

Lacking beef-

let's run them down and spank their heads into the turf!

[CTBengalsFan]

JT said that Clemons came into camp in great shape

[Barbarian]

Didn't he kinda... suck last year? I'm almost stumped why they did something like this.

Ya know, when I read this, I thought the very same thing. You reward people that did GOOD things last year--not mediocrity. That run defense sucked and Clemons was one of the many reasons why.

This has the stench of the Browns**t Family all over it. Maybe they rewarded this guy because he's sooooo damned loyal to the team.

Good job, Clemons--You honored your "Loyalty Clause". Here's your reward!!!

Pathetic.

[skyline]

he was the co-leader in sacks. say what you want, but that's production.

[Barbarian]

he was the co-leader in sacks. say what you want, but that's production.

With 6. Big whoop. He had 3 in one game to pad his stats. The pass rush has to get better as well--especially this year with the Defensive Backs being as green as they are.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Didn't he kinda... suck last year? I'm almost stumped why they did something like this.

Ya know, when I read this, I thought the very same thing. You reward people that did GOOD things last year--not mediocrity. That run defense sucked and Clemons was one of the many reasons why.

This has the stench of the Browns**t Family all over it. Maybe they rewarded this guy because he's sooooo damned loyal to the team.

Good job, Clemons--You honored your "Loyalty Clause". Here's your reward!!!

Pathetic.

I'm with Barb on this one. I don't think he's worth it. He got run over game after game last year. His play was spotty at best, and too few good spots to claim this sort of money.

[richmond_mat]

This isn't that much money.

It looks like back up dollars to me. I think having a solid veteran in the rotation to shore up the D for the next few seasons is a good idea. :player:

It's not like they layed 50 million on him.

[HoosierCat]

Duane will be glad to know how royally I f'd the numbers up. He won't have to pay $1 mill to play this year after all.

Well, there's apparently no shortage of people here who think he should have to pay to play!

On that subject: how soon we forget such wonders as Reinard Wilson. Clemons did fine last year, all things considered -- new team, new coach, new players, new defensive scheme. Can he improve? Heck yeah. But this deal is peanuts in terms of the cap and richmond is absolutely right: assuming Geathers works out, it secures us an experienced backup (and haven't I read lots of b*tching about out lack of depth?).

[skyline]

he was the co-leader in sacks.  say what you want, but that's production.

With 6. Big whoop. He had 3 in one game to pad his stats. The pass rush has to get better as well--especially this year with the Defensive Backs being as green as they are.

yeah. 6. like i said...most on the team. naturally we would rather have someone getting 12 sacks per year, but we're not paying this guy 10+ sacks per year money either. once others come in, he'll be an experienced backup that is being paid an appropriate amount of money.

[ArmyBengal]

I saw this when it was shown on ESPN and to tell you the truth, I'm not impressed either. This is NOT a help IMO. 6 sacks might have been tops last year, but hellooooooo, how well did our defense do last year ?? We still haven't addressed our DT problem. Until I see different, I still expect big runs through our middle and as much as I hope Webster will be everything everyone else is expecting, he has NO protection up front. Clemons just maintains, nothing more...

WHODEY !!!

[BadLuck]

It was Marv's call to do this, you can bet on it. Clemmons was a pretty decent guy when he played for the Chiefs'... I'm presuming somebody knows something we don't.

[BengalszoneBilly]

It was Marv's call to do this, you can bet on it. Clemmons was a pretty decent guy when he played for the Chiefs'... I'm presuming somebody knows something we don't.

Well I hope this "Something" that "Somebody" knows is that Clemons is going to improve from last year. It's not like there isn't an abundance of room for it!

[BadLuck]

True that.

[Vulture]

I think it (Clemons extension) is in response to Gildon playing the game of "how much money can I get from this team"...I think it is ironic that when we signed Clemons (I believe ML was getting tired of his antics and said screw him) he signs with Buffalo shortly there after.