Carson Palmer Thread

[HairOnFire]

Sweeet jeebus, I actually agree with Gregg Doyle. This really is a f**ked up situation. Because what Doyle wrote is my take.

It's crazy, right?

IMHO Gregg Doyle is a straight-up cockbag and a miserable freaking writer, but he actually crushed that one. It's borderline brilliant.

[HoosierCat]

[You claim you don't care what Palmer might say because you're not the spurned girlfriend type.

How convenient.

Hey, I'm not the one who authored an ode comparing him to Greek god. Nor am I the one now crying and banging his spoon for Prometheus to say something...anything. Nor am I the one who wrote a self-refuting rant that demands a player who can't play anywhere else publicly bear his soul so he can play somewhere else (what, if he talks tomorrow will Mikey feel sorry for him and trade him?). Nor am I the guy who can't seem to write a single solitary post in any thread without mentioning my screen name.

Spurned girlfriend? Check the mirror, bud.

[membengal]

Sweeet jeebus, I actually agree with Gregg Doyle. This really is a f**ked up situation. Because what Doyle wrote is my take.

It's crazy, right?

IMHO Gregg Doyle is a straight-up cockbag and a miserable freaking writer, but he actually crushed that one. It's borderline brilliant.

Yup. He's both those things times 1000. And he's dead-on in this case. It might have even crossed over to pure brilliant.

[HairOnFire]

Hey, I'm not the one who authored an ode comparing him to Greek god.

That's true, but you are the one who keeps dusting off a ridiculous old post about a three-headed hydra running the Bengals front office. So really, are we so very different?

Nor am I the one who wrote a self-refuting rant that demands a player who can't play anywhere else publicly bear his soul so he can play somewhere else.

I'm not demanding Carson Palmer do anything. Rather, I'm stating flatly that if he expects to resume his NFL career somewhere else he'll have to address what happened here. Furthermore, due to the damage that his actions will do to his reputation and legacy, and you can see it starting already, Palmer will have to defend his play. And he'll have to respond to accusations that he's a quitter. But not to you of course, because you're no spurned girlfriend type.

Nor am I the guy who can't seem to write a single solitary post in any thread without mentioning my screen name.

Hardly. I think if you check closely you'll see that I just called Gregg Doyle a straight-up cockbag and a miserable writer. And while I can see now how this might have confused you I'm pleased to report your name wasn't mentioned at all despite the obvious similarities.

[cincyhokie]

How's Chad been working out with us?

My business model is to maintain a staff that is assembled and motivated to meet my organization's goals, mission, and vision.

When I was a company commander, you're damn straight when the guys that wanted out or switched to a new unit I did that immediately. If you don't want to be here, you don't meet my mission. Soldiers that did not want to be in my unit made work that much more difficult. They affected the other's concentration and focus.

Is this what you are talking about?

I'm not saying I wouldn't have traded Chad for a 1st and a 3rd. But I'm also well aware of how the Bengals were routinely set back by trading away their talented players. (btw, have you ever looked at how that trade likely would gave played out? '08 was a rough draft year).

Regardless, I'm not suggesting I want guys on the team that don't want to be there. But if you trade every player that makes the demand, it creates a culture where leaving is an option. If MB makes players honor their contracts, at least there is a chance that players will actually want to be successful in Cincy instead of looking for an opportunity to bolt.

I'm sorry but how "set back" can you be when you are the worst team in the NFL for a 15 year stretch? Talented players? Sure. What's the value in that when you don't want to play for the team?

The remainder I agreed. However, answer me this...

If 90-95%, or maybe even all of the other 31 teams would get compensation to the highest bidder for Palmer, would they be setting a precedent where virtually a "flood" of players would leave if they demanded a trade? Has this ever happened? Players here and there are going to pop up for every team wanting to be traded. What has happened with the Chargers since Jackson left? What about the Broncos when Marshall left? Where is the "flood" of disgruntled players?

Are all of the good Bengals players just all of the sudden going to leave if they think they can get a trade? Maybe a better question is do you want players on your team that don't want to be there anyway? Or what if 15 players all of the sudden wanted a trade from the Bengals? Wouldn't the question be "What the f**k is wrong with the Bengals?" Not "look at all the talent that is leaving".

To me this vendetta against Palmer is a personal issue. People feel slighted and insulted. I get that.

I'm sorry but nobody is going to convince me that not getting 1st round compensation for a 31 year old QB that doesn't want to be here is better than getting some high draft picks. That's just dumb.

You want to keep players here? Take care of them. Provide a culture of consistency, purpose, and winning.

[cincyhokie]

How's Chad been working out with us?

My business model is to maintain a staff that is assembled and motivated to meet my organization's goals, mission, and vision.

When I was a company commander, you're damn straight when the guys that wanted out or switched to a new unit I did that immediately. If you don't want to be here, you don't meet my mission. Soldiers that did not want to be in my unit made work that much more difficult. They affected the other's concentration and focus.

Is this what you are talking about?

I'm not saying I wouldn't have traded Chad for a 1st and a 3rd. But I'm also well aware of how the Bengals were routinely set back by trading away their talented players. (btw, have you ever looked at how that trade likely would gave played out? '08 was a rough draft year).

Regardless, I'm not suggesting I want guys on the team that don't want to be there. But if you trade every player that makes the demand, it creates a culture where leaving is an option. If MB makes players honor their contracts, at least there is a chance that players will actually want to be successful in Cincy instead of looking for an opportunity to bolt.

So any time a team gives way to a player's trade demands it opens a culture of quitting? I don't buy that. There's plenty of teams in the NFL that have done this and been fine. Why? Because they are built around a system and a plan. Players respect that.

Mike Brown has done nothing to make players WANT to come here in free agency. This is the place alot of players refer to as "Siberia". How do you think they're viewing Cincinnati now with the starting QB willing to retire? Are you kidding me? Why would players think that because Mike Brown is not respecting Palmer's wishes that they can be successful here? Most players view this place as a train wreck right now run by a nutcase.

You want to show players a sense of respect, purpose, and potential success? Show them you can adjust by getting rid of the players that don't want to play with them. Don't tolerate players not online with a team mentality. Mike Brown can do this right now and get trade compensation from the highest bidder.

[cincyhokie]

When going gets tough, Palmer takes his ball and goes home

By Gregg Doyel

CBSSports.com National Columnist

March 3, 2011

Jim Brown was the best player in football in 1965, but he wanted to do movies. So he retired. He was 30.

Barry Sanders was the best running back in football in 1998, but he wanted to be done. One season away from becoming the NFL's all-time leading rusher, he retired. He was 30.

Doak Walker retired after the 1955 Pro Bowl. Robert Smith ran for 1,521 yards, then retired after the 2000 Pro Bowl. Both were 28.

All four of those guys retired with dignity, so it can happen. A player can bail out on his career, his team, his teammates, and he can do it with dignity.

Or he can do it like Carson Palmer.

Since 2004 Palmer has been the quarterback of the Cincinnati Bengals, but if you believe him -- and I do -- he's now their former quarterback. Because he says he will retire before playing another game for Cincinnati. He's 31.

Unlike those who came before him, Palmer isn't retiring for noble reasons. He doesn't have another career to pursue and he hasn't exhausted the competitive drive that resides in all professional athletes. He hasn't hit the wall that Brown, Sanders, Walker and Smith hit.

Palmer doesn't even want to retire.

He just doesn't want to play for Cincinnati. He's pointing his soft, little finger at the Bengals and saying, This is their fault. I'm not leaving because of me. I'm leaving because of them.

Well, technically, Palmer isn't saying anything. He's letting everyone else talk for him: An anonymous source here, a confidant there, even the Realtor who announced that Palmer was so serious about leaving the Bengals that he had put his house up for sale. Typical Palmer. Silent, right to the end.

Giving the Bengals an ultimatum -- trade me or I retire -- is Palmer's right, but it will destroy his legacy. He'll always be one of the guys who won a Heisman at Southern California, but he'll also be the baby who took his NFL football and went home.

By telling the Bengals he'll retire before playing another game in their uniform, he has done something I didn't think possible: He has made me root for Mike Brown, one of the silliest owners in sports. Brown isn't a bad guy, just a cheap one. And he's not a soft guy, just a naïve one. Brown welcomes problem players from other teams, possibly because he believes in second chances, but also because it's the only way he can get that kind of talent onto his roster.

Unless they draft a game-changing athlete like Pacman Jones or a Hall of Fame receiver like Terrell Owens or even a run-clogging defensive tackle like Tank Johnson, the Bengals would never get those guys. Because those guys, when they behave, cost too much. But let a guy like Pacman or Tank or T.O. become available on the cheap, whether it's because of a rap sheet or a bad attitude, and Mike Brown jumps at them.

Mike Brown is not someone to like, not as a fan of the NFL or as a resident of Cincinnati. I'm both, and Mike Brown makes my skin crawl. But I'll tell you what: I want him to beat Carson Palmer, even if winning this battle means losing the larger war.

Calling Palmer's bluff and letting him retire is not in Brown's best interests in the short term. Palmer has trade value. Not as much as he should, given his recent mediocre numbers and his soft mental makeup, but he has value to the 2011 Bengals as a trade asset. He has no value as a retired player, although Brown would be doing himself a service in the long run by standing up to Palmer. Not every player would follow through on such a bluff -- Chad Ochocinco cried "wolf" so many times, the Bengals tuned him out -- but by standing up to a franchise quarterback, Brown would demonstrate to future disgruntled Bengals the futility of playing hardball.

But that's not my concern. I don't want Mike Brown to be firm now so the Bengals win in the long run. I want him to be firm so Palmer loses right now. Loses everything -- his career, his reputation, his legacy.

Again, don't compare Palmer to men like Brown and Sanders, Walker and Smith. Palmer isn't retiring from football so much as he's giving up on the Bengals. There's a difference, and it's not subtle. It's not semantics. Palmer was the Bengals' quarterback, their leader -- he had the power to reign in the malcontents in his huddle, idiots like Ochocinco and T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Owens -- but he passed the buck. Palmer pretended he was just one cog in the machine instead of acknowledging that his position and salary made him as powerful as anyone in the building, including coach Marvin Lewis.

Nope, Palmer let it go. He let Houshmandzadeh and Ochocinco pout, whine and scream. He forced the ball to Owens all last season, even as Owens repeatedly quit on throws that would have required tough or painful catches, simply because forcing the ball to Owens beat the alternative -- having T.O. savage him in the press.

The Bengals' passing game didn't hit its stride until the final two games of the season -- Palmer threw for 574 yards, five touchdowns, two interceptions and completed 73 percent of his passes -- and those were the only two games the team played without Ochocinco and Owens. Coincidence? Of course not. Those guys dragged down the team, and Palmer let it happen.

And now he's standing up for himself? Now? That's not leadership or even independence. It's passive-aggression, and it's pathetic, and it cannot be allowed to succeed. Palmer can be finished playing, but let's be clear on our terms.

He's not retiring.

He's quitting.

/>http://www.cbssports...l-and-goes-home

I can somewhat agree that he is "qutting". Making this personal to make him retire is absolutely the stupidist thing I have heard in awhile. Palmer is ok with retiring! He doesn't care if you think Mike Brown is sticking it to him. Get some compensation!

This is like listening to conservatives wish Obama would fail despite the fact it would be hurting the country. My god, get over it. Our quitting QB is gone, let's get some draft picks and start filling in our many holes.

[HairOnFire]

Does anyone know how to get a penis pump to work because no matter how hard i pump i can't seem to generate any suction. Do they make pumps with smaller tubes? This one seems huge and sometimes I can't ebven tell when I'm in it. haHa!

Try shaving your junk. Doing so may allow for a much closer seal and promote better suction.

Hope this helps.

[HoosierCat]

[Rather, I'm stating flatly that if he expects to resume his NFL career somewhere else he'll have to address what happened here.

And I think it will be a nonissue because the "here" in question is Siberia. Time will tell.

[derekshank]

I'm sorry but how "set back" can you be when you are the worst team in the NFL for a 15 year stretch? Talented players? Sure. What's the value in that when you don't want to play for the team?

I've already established that draft picks aren't good enough compensation for proven stars. So allow me to illustrate the value that may have been gained if MB had treated Pickens, Dillon, and Boomer the same way he is now treating Chad and Palmer.

Players currently on the Bengals know that asking for a trade is a fool's errand, so why bother? If you want to quit, quit. If you want more money, sign an extension. If you want to play elsewhere, play out your contract. Had MB made a consistent example of previous players the way he is now, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. But hey, you've gotta start somewhere.

If 90-95%, or maybe even all of the other 31 teams would get compensation to the highest bidder for Palmer, would they be setting a precedent where virtually a "flood" of players would leave if they demanded a trade? Has this ever happened? Players here and there are going to pop up for every team wanting to be traded. What has happened with the Chargers since Jackson left? What about the Broncos when Marshall left? Where is the "flood" of disgruntled players?

Are all of the good Bengals players just all of the sudden going to leave if they think they can get a trade? Maybe a better question is do you want players on your team that don't want to be there anyway? Or what if 15 players all of the sudden wanted a trade from the Bengals? Wouldn't the question be "What the f**k is wrong with the Bengals?" Not "look at all the talent that is leaving".

I'm not a fan of straw men. I never suggested any of what you just wrote. I merely pointed out that many teams have the same problem the Bengals currently have. Each team has chosen to handle those problems in their own way.

My suggestion is, dig your heels in. Players will learn that they are Bengals until their contract is up, rather than wonder if they might be able to force a trade.

To me this vendetta against Palmer is a personal issue. People feel slighted and insulted. I get that.

I'm sorry but nobody is going to convince me that not getting 1st round compensation for a 31 year old QB that doesn't want to be here is better than getting some high draft picks. That's just dumb.

No vendetta here. In fact, if you read over my posts in this thread and others, you'll see that I've been quite defensive of Palmer. But that doesn't mean that I think MB should be bullied into trading him.

As for draft picks... Palmer is a known commodity, and college QBs have a tremendously high bust rate. Otherwise, no one would be willing to give up those draft picks for that 31 year old QB. All I'm saying is, only make the trade if it makes sense. And in my mind, it only makes sense if you would have made the trade even without the demand.

You want to keep players here? Take care of them. Provide a culture of consistency, purpose, and winning.

I agree. But you know what didn't accomplish that? Giving in to trade demands that forced the Bengals into perpetual rebuilding mode.

[cincyhokie]

You want to keep players here? Take care of them. Provide a culture of consistency, purpose, and winning.

I agree. But you know what didn't accomplish that? Giving in to trade demands that forced the Bengals into perpetual rebuilding mode.

I think you have the cause and effect backwards here. If I'm Mike Brown and I tell my players... "I want to make sure the guys playing beside you have your back and want to win with you and if you don't want to be here we'll take care of that." ...you'd better believe they respect that and buy into the system. Once a culture and system is established then more players want to be here, including FA's.

For the record, I don't think the Bengals should just trade Palmer for anything as soon as the first offer comes out. However, with the NFCW shaping up the way it is with a need for QB's this is the year to deal him.

[HairOnFire]

[Rather, I'm stating flatly that if he expects to resume his NFL career somewhere else he'll have to address what happened here.

And I think it will be a nonissue because the "here" in question is Siberia. Time will tell.

Opinion noted. Let the permanent record now show that the poster known as Hoosier thinks the actual reasons behind Carson Palmer's decision to quit are a nonissue, and unworthy of conversation by anyone.

We move on.

[derekshank]

You want to keep players here? Take care of them. Provide a culture of consistency, purpose, and winning.

I agree. But you know what didn't accomplish that? Giving in to trade demands that forced the Bengals into perpetual rebuilding mode.

I think you have the cause and effect backwards here. If I'm Mike Brown and I tell my players... "I want to make sure the guys playing beside you have your back and want to win with you and if you don't want to be here we'll take care of that." ...you'd better believe they respect that and buy into the system. Once a culture and system is established then more players want to be here, including FA's.

For the record, I don't think the Bengals should just trade Palmer for anything as soon as the first offer comes out. However, with the NFCW shaping up the way it is with a need for QB's this is the year to deal him.

That's your opinion I guess. But it's pretty damn hard to build a "culture of consistency" when you allow the players to call the shots. And it's hard to build a "culture of winning" without the valuable pieces necessary to do so, simply because they said they would rather play elsewhere.

If the player making the demands has the balls to actually quit, effectively ending their NFL careers... well you cross that bridge when you get there. History has proven that the vast majority of these guys are all talk.

But that's not really the point. he first step in the process is letting players know that they aren't in charge. You can't create the "culture of consistency, purpose, and winning" when you are simultaneously reinforcing the idea that if you go to the media and demand a trade, you'll get your wish.

[cincyhokie]

You want to keep players here? Take care of them. Provide a culture of consistency, purpose, and winning.

I agree. But you know what didn't accomplish that? Giving in to trade demands that forced the Bengals into perpetual rebuilding mode.

I think you have the cause and effect backwards here. If I'm Mike Brown and I tell my players... "I want to make sure the guys playing beside you have your back and want to win with you and if you don't want to be here we'll take care of that." ...you'd better believe they respect that and buy into the system. Once a culture and system is established then more players want to be here, including FA's.

For the record, I don't think the Bengals should just trade Palmer for anything as soon as the first offer comes out. However, with the NFCW shaping up the way it is with a need for QB's this is the year to deal him.

That's your opinion I guess. But it's pretty damn hard to build a "culture of consistency" when you allow the players to call the shots. And it's hard to build a "culture of winning" without the valuable pieces necessary to do so, simply because they said they would rather play elsewhere.

If the player making the demands has the balls to actually quit, effectively ending their NFL careers... well you cross that bridge when you get there. History has proven that the vast majority of these guys are all talk.

But that's not really the point. he first step in the process is letting players know that they aren't in charge. You can't create the "culture of consistency, purpose, and winning" when you are simultaneously reinforcing the idea that if you go to the media and demand a trade, you'll get your wish.

That's where our opinions differ I suppose. I don't look at the situation as "letting players run the show". I look at it as addition by subtraction. You don't want to be here? We'll get rid of you and move on. This is what other teams seem to do and have done with success.

To me there is more damage with keeping recent offenders like Chad Johnson stay and be disgruntled. That, in my opinion, creates a negative impact on the players who see the bigger picture and care. This isn't about player discipline it's about team purpose.

There is no evidence that teams that give into disgruntled player demands have problems with players "running wild". The only exception is the Bengals and that's because of their player selection in the first place.

[HairOnFire]

Draft picks in exchange for a franchise QB? I hate to break it to you... but that's peanuts.

Draft picks are an unknown quantity... that's why the Bears gave up a serviceable Orton AND two 1st round picks for Cutler. What did Denver end up with? Orton, Robert Ayers, and Tim Tebow.

Of all of the things said during yesterdays exchange of posts it was the above that popped into mind this morning.

I say that because I find myself between two extreme positions. Somewhere between the no-trades considered stance of Memphis and Shank and the must-trade immediately views of Hokie. From my chair I find myself willing to trade Palmer if the trade return is great enough but I'd also let him rot until next year or the year after before settling for less. And there's the rub because when I consider what I'd be happy with in exchange for letting Palmer go I quickly find I would happily settle for LESS then the Bronco's got for Cutler. Much less.

But in the end the Bronco's settled for crap, didn't they?

So how do I square this troubling fact with my own broader more inclusive stance?

I now ask myself, could allowing a player to rot for 2 years actually be insufficient?

Do I need to take a more extreme position?

strokes beard/bong

[cincyhokie]

Draft picks in exchange for a franchise QB? I hate to break it to you... but that's peanuts.

Draft picks are an unknown quantity... that's why the Bears gave up a serviceable Orton AND two 1st round picks for Cutler. What did Denver end up with? Orton, Robert Ayers, and Tim Tebow.

Of all of the things said during yesterdays exchange of posts it was the above that popped into mind this morning.

I say that because I find myself between two extreme positions. Somewhere between the no-trades considered stance of Memphis and Shank and the must-trade immediately views of Hokie. From my chair I find myself willing to trade Palmer if the trade return is great enough but I'd also let him rot until next year or the year after before settling for less. And there's the rub because when I consider what I'd be happy with in exchange for letting Palmer go I quickly find I would happily settle for LESS then the Bronco's got for Cutler. Much less.

But in the end the Bronco's settled for crap, didn't they?

So how do I square this troubling fact with my own broader more inclusive stance?

I now ask myself, could allowing a player to rot for 2 years actually be insufficient?

Do I need to take a more extreme position?

strokes beard/bong

For the record...(ahem)...I'm not for them trading Palmer immediately, necessarily. I'm for them getting the highest offer before this season starts, because that's ultimately what I think gets the highest return for him, i.e. needed QB's in the NFCW. You can't beat that.

It's not so much what I am for, but what I am against. What I am against is not trading him at all or letting him "rot" out of spite.

[HairOnFire]

Where Carson could land

8:24AM ET

Carson Palmer | Bengals

This week, as the situation between the Cincinnati Bengals and quarterback Carson Palmer seemed to intensify, including reports that Palmer is sticking by his retirement threat, we also took a deeper look at one possible destination: the Tennessee Titans.

But the Titans aren't the only team with a need at QB this offseason. In fact, some of the strongest speculation we've heard has sent Palmer out West, either to the Seattle Seahawks or San Francisco 49ers. Other teams possibly in the mix could include the Arizona Cardinals and Minnesota Vikings. The box at right displays adjusted Super Bowl odds for teams following an acquisition of Palmer, courtesy of ESPN's Chris Sprow and AccuScore.

The price tag for Palmer has also been a subject of much debate, and the fact that there may not be a new CBA before the draft complicates things. But, going on the hypothetical that there is a CBA prior to the draft, we heard this week from ESPN AFC North blogger James Walker that a trade package similar to the one the Philadelphia Eagles received for Donovan McNabb may work. In a recent article for NFL.com, Solomon Wilcotts wrote that a late first-rounder would be the price (with Palmer headed to Seattle in that scenario).

But, moving the chains ahead several more yards within that same hypothetical, the Bengals could also make another trade for a QB if they find a suitor for Palmer quickly. Their targets would include the usual suspects: Kevin Kolb, Kyle Orton, Matt Flynn, etc.

Obviously, that's a huge jump. Given some of the doomsday predictions from a number of internal and external reporters, if the NFL and NFLPA don't come to an agreement in the very near future, we could be waiting for quite a while until the new CBA would allow trades and free agency. If that's the case, it changes the landscape for a Palmer trade both in price and potential destination.

Super Bowl-bound?

Cardinals: Without Palmer 150-1, with Palmer 30-1.

49ers: Without Palmer 50-1, with Palmer 22-1.

Titans: Without Palmer 75-1, with Palmer 30-1.

Seahawks: Without Palmer 65-1, with Palmer 30-1.

Vikings: Without Palmer 70-1, with Palmer 28-1.Source: Chris Sprow, ESPN.com

/>http://insider.espn....features/rumors

[cincyhokie]

Where Carson could land

8:24AM ET

Carson Palmer | Bengals

This week, as the situation between the Cincinnati Bengals and quarterback Carson Palmer seemed to intensify, including reports that Palmer is sticking by his retirement threat, we also took a deeper look at one possible destination: the Tennessee Titans.

But the Titans aren't the only team with a need at QB this offseason. In fact, some of the strongest speculation we've heard has sent Palmer out West, either to the Seattle Seahawks or San Francisco 49ers. Other teams possibly in the mix could include the Arizona Cardinals and Minnesota Vikings. The box at right displays adjusted Super Bowl odds for teams following an acquisition of Palmer, courtesy of ESPN's Chris Sprow and AccuScore.

The price tag for Palmer has also been a subject of much debate, and the fact that there may not be a new CBA before the draft complicates things. But, going on the hypothetical that there is a CBA prior to the draft, we heard this week from ESPN AFC North blogger James Walker that a trade package similar to the one the Philadelphia Eagles received for Donovan McNabb may work. In a recent article for NFL.com, Solomon Wilcotts wrote that a late first-rounder would be the price (with Palmer headed to Seattle in that scenario).

But, moving the chains ahead several more yards within that same hypothetical, the Bengals could also make another trade for a QB if they find a suitor for Palmer quickly. Their targets would include the usual suspects: Kevin Kolb, Kyle Orton, Matt Flynn, etc.

Obviously, that's a huge jump. Given some of the doomsday predictions from a number of internal and external reporters, if the NFL and NFLPA don't come to an agreement in the very near future, we could be waiting for quite a while until the new CBA would allow trades and free agency. If that's the case, it changes the landscape for a Palmer trade both in price and potential destination.

Super Bowl-bound?

Cardinals: Without Palmer 150-1, with Palmer 30-1.

49ers: Without Palmer 50-1, with Palmer 22-1.

Titans: Without Palmer 75-1, with Palmer 30-1.

Seahawks: Without Palmer 65-1, with Palmer 30-1.

Vikings: Without Palmer 70-1, with Palmer 28-1.Source: Chris Sprow, ESPN.com

/>http://insider.espn....features/rumors

ching

Also...if you trade Palmer you've also eliminated a competitor from drafting the QB you wanted ahead of you. Win-win.

[COB]

strokes beard/bong

Am I to understand that you have a beard/bong? By that I mean, have you actually woven a bong into your giant biker slash keep on truckin' beard?

Because if you have, that's frickin' awesome.

[derekshank]

When I consider what I'd be happy with in exchange for letting Palmer go I quickly find I would happily settle for LESS then the Bronco's got for Cutler. Much less.

But in the end the Bronco's settled for crap, didn't they?

So how do I square this troubling fact with my own broader more inclusive stance?

I now ask myself, could allowing a player to rot for 2 years actually be insufficient?

Do I need to take a more extreme position?

I'd like to clarify that the compensation the Bengals receive for Palmer is an afterthought for me. My aim in pointing out what the Broncos received for Cutler is merely an example of how badly it can go when you allow a player to demand a trade.

If the Bengals trade Palmer, it may go much better in the short term... but I'm much more concerned about the longer term message it sends to the Cincy lockerroom.

My problem is allowing a player to put the team in that position in first place. There's an inherent risk the Bengals must take by trading a known commodity for an unknown one. The Bengals wouldn't do it if they didn't have to, and there will be teams lining up to outbid one-another if they do. Because that risk isn't one worth taking in an unforced scenario.

But as I said before. That's actually more of an afterthought in my mind. I think my stance is quite a bit softer than Mem's. I have no problem with the Bengals actually trading Palmer for whatever they feel is adequate compensation. I have no desire to see Palmer rot. In fact, I'd like to see him back in stripes.

But mostly, I don't want him to be traded on his own terms. If he's traded, I want it done on the Bengals terms. And I think to get most people to see the difference, it will require an understanding that for the time being, Palmer quiting the Bengals and Palmer quiting football are mutually inclusive.

[HairOnFire]

Am I to understand that you have a beard/bong? By that I mean, have you actually woven a bong into your giant biker slash keep on truckin' beard?

I fear your mental picture of me is inaccurate. Because while I have occasionally allowed my facial hair to grow to ridiculous lengths...(Even once in the style later made famous by the boys on CMT's "Trick My Truck")...the current status of my face fuzz is far different. Specifically, a slacker style chin beard w/matching soul patch, closely cropped.

I wear the mark of the Kaepernick.

[cincyhokie]

You would have to figure that any 39 page thread would include comments of penis pumps and bongs.

[Passepartout]

Well indeed once a player demands a trade. You begin to lose interest. Even though we don't know what is all going on. As that really should be between the player and the team alone. Still, it does bring negative publicity. But hope all works out well.

I look at it like once you have a contract, unless you are cut. You need to honor that deal and play through it. Even though the contract isn't guaranteed.

[COB]

I look at it like once you have a contract, unless you are cut. You need to honor that deal and play through it. Even though the contract isn't guaranteed.

Whitworth was on Sirius NFL today. He's the player rep, and he assured everyone that the player's stance has nothing to do with money.

Then they asked him about Carson. He said Carson is a very quiet guy and wouldn't say anything if he wasn't really feeling it. Then he said he hoped Carson would be back. Then said a bunch of stuff that I found hilarious, like, "I'm a competitor, I do my best no matter what, I'd never quit. I'm a comptitor, so I'd never walk away or retire in the middle of a contract." The negative inference? Clearly, that Carson is not, in Whit's eyes, a competitor.

Also, Whit is very well-spoken, obviously very bright, and should be offered the Bengals PR job on a part-time basis. He'll do better than the ink-stained wretch they've got in there now.

[HairOnFire]

I'd like to clarify that the compensation the Bengals receive for Palmer is an afterthought for me. My aim in pointing out what the Broncos received for Cutler is merely an example of how badly it can go when you allow a player to demand a trade.

Fair enough, but the Bronco example points out how badly things can go even when your trade return is about as good as realistically possible.

For example, the "serviceable" veteran QB the Broncos recived in trade, Kyle Orton, is probably as good as any stopgap option the Bengals are likely to find, yet Orton proved all his type is capable of is managing the rapid decline of the offense. And with the Broncos still in need of a "QB of the future" they quickly compounded their error by grossly overdrafting Tim Tebow in the 1st round. Further compounding their errors with the other 1st round pick the Bronco's received, an additional pick the Bengals almost assuredly won't get, the Broncos draft Robert Ayers, who instantly busts. Plus, the owners decision to support his head coach by trading away his teams most important player wasn't nearly enough to save the head coaches job. And if all of that isn't enough the new replacement braintrust apparently doesn't like Tebow.

And if the Bengals really do settle for less when trading Palmer isn't it likely that any trade compensation received won't actually be used to fill hole(s) as so many claim, but rather....to offset the loss of Palmer?

Bottom Line: It really is peanuts, isn't it?