Carson Palmer Thread

[HairOnFire]

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

No thanks are required.

[derekshank]

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

You don't need to spend time convincing me. I'm the one who Initially pointed out what you just reinforced better than I ever would have taken the time to do.

I'm merely making the point that the compensation the Bengals might receive for Palmer places a distant "second place" in my mind when I think about why this situation is so f**ked up.

[BengalszoneBilly]

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

No thanks are required.

Bongs I can handle. Penis pumps seem kinda creepy.

[Kazkal]

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.

Who else has demanded they want out of Denver though? Champ Baily resigned with them where i'm sure he could have went to a contender had he wanted too.

[derekshank]

Who else has demanded they want out of Denver though?

How's the name Brandon Marshall strike you?

And while we're on the topic... what did they get for him? A couple 2nd round picks - and they were virtually forced to overdraft a 1st round WR to replace him. Nice.

Champ Baily resigned with them where i'm sure he could have went to a contender had he wanted too.

What's your point? No one is suggesting that if you allow players to demand trades that you will never re-sign another player ever again. I'm just saying that history is showing that it's a bad precedent to set. I simply don't want the players who fantasize about greener pastures to think that all it might take is a "demand" to get their wish.

Players should know that at the very least: "If I want out of Cincy, I have to play out my contract, or retire. There's no third option."

[cincyhokie]

Who else has demanded they want out of Denver though?

How's the name Brandon Marshall strike you?

And while we're on the topic... what did they get for him? A couple 2nd round picks - and they were virtually forced to overdraft a 1st round WR to replace him. Nice.

Champ Baily resigned with them where i'm sure he could have went to a contender had he wanted too.

What's your point? No one is suggesting that if you allow players to demand trades that you will never re-sign another player ever again. I'm just saying that history is showing that it's a bad precedent to set. I simply don't want the players who fantasize about greener pastures to think that all it might take is a "demand" to get their wish.

Players should know that at the very least: "If I want out of Cincy, I have to play out my contract, or retire. There's no third option."

"If I want out of Cincy, I have to play out my contract, or retire. There's no third option."

I agree with this but for it to have a positive effect this mentality has to be NFL wide. Why? First off, to a current NFL player this does nothing to motivate me to win or be loyal to the team. Yeah, that'd be the "right" thing to do and it'd great if people in general all felt like that. Second, how does this help free agents come to Cincinnati or get players to re-sign?

You could set a precedent with Carson and I still don't think it's going to stop other Bengals players from becoming vocally disguntled. How do you fix it now? Hmmmmm....I wonder how teams such as the Steelers don't have this happening to them every 2-3 years?

[cincyhokie]

Who else has demanded they want out of Denver though?

How's the name Brandon Marshall strike you?

And while we're on the topic... what did they get for him? A couple 2nd round picks - and they were virtually forced to overdraft a 1st round WR to replace him. Nice.

Champ Baily resigned with them where i'm sure he could have went to a contender had he wanted too.

What's your point? No one is suggesting that if you allow players to demand trades that you will never re-sign another player ever again. I'm just saying that history is showing that it's a bad precedent to set. I simply don't want the players who fantasize about greener pastures to think that all it might take is a "demand" to get their wish.

Players should know that at the very least: "If I want out of Cincy, I have to play out my contract, or retire. There's no third option."

I would have to wonder how many Broncos fans and players are glad Cutler and Marshall are gone. Cutler is an ass and Marshall is very much like Chad. You could point to their recent bad seasons but their recent record has more to do with coaching mistakes and bad defense.

I guess my point is that very rarely do I think there are players who I'd want on my team asking to get out. Carson is a rare exception.

I think this stance is great. I really do, it's very idealistic and value filled. How does it help my team WIN?

I think the answer here points to bigger questions. So really, in my opinion, were talking about the color of the paint on the house when we should be looking at the foundation.

[cincyhokie]

Company and employer loyalty doesn't really exist anymore in our country. Does it?

Look at how the teams treat the players with contracts. Owners can cut players when they are hurt or decline and not fufill the remainder of the contract. I'm not saying this is right but how can we expect the players to buy into this ideal of loyalty when the current way of business from the teams says otherwise?

Teams can say "You will play your contract out here or retire" and take a hard stance but things have changed in the workplace throughout the country and the NFL the past 3 decades.

Players are more empowered than ever before, owners have more money at stake than ever before. This culture of "no bending, no exceptions" will not work in the current NFL structure. I think you can implement it but it won't do anything. It certainly won't help teams win any more than by not having it.

Employees want more, they want to excel. People aren't stuck to the same job for 20 years anymore. People are quitting their jobs, going back to school, switching careers. People want to work and be happy. You don't actually HAVE to hate your job anymore.

I see signs of this in Carson Palmer's case. He's simply giving Mike Brown and option. No hard feelings to him, the team, or the fans. This is business. The man's not happy here. Ok. I'm not forcing you to trade me but I'm letting you know it's an option because I will not play for the Bengals anymore.

[derekshank]

Please. No one is talking about team loyalty here. If player's want to leave... they can. When their contracts are up.

If I sign a business contract, the only way out of it is to either satisfy it's terms, or quit. The NFL is a business, you're right. And that's how business works.

As for the policy Mike Brown is currently instituting... I have no idea why it would need to be NFL wide for it to be effective. Just because the Broncos gave in doesn't mean San Diego will. Ask Vincent Jackson. In fact, ask any player in the Charger's locker room what they think will happen if they cross AJ Smith.

As to trying to help the team win... I've already established that trading Palmer isn't likely to accomplish that in a real way. So why not send a message?

And for the record... I have no real problem with a player requesting a trade. I have a problem with a player offering the team an ultimatum as if he has the power in the situation.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

So why not send a message?

The problem is, the only message that's sent is "don't sign with the Bengals". Same message as the last 20 years.

[cincyhokie]

Please. No one is talking about team loyalty here. If player's want to leave... they can. When their contracts are up.

If I sign a business contract, the only way out of it is to either satisfy it's terms, or quit. The NFL is a business, you're right. And that's how business works.

As for the policy Mike Brown is currently instituting... I have no idea why it would need to be NFL wide for it to be effective. Just because the Broncos gave in doesn't mean San Diego will. Ask Vincent Jackson. In fact, ask any player in the Charger's locker room what they think will happen if they cross AJ Smith.

As to trying to help the team win... I've already established that trading Palmer isn't likely to accomplish that in a real way. So why not send a message?

And for the record... I have no real problem with a player requesting a trade. I have a problem with a player offering the team an ultimatum as if he has the power in the situation.

I don't think it's an ultimatum as much as he's giving the Bengals an option.

And this is where we differ. The "message", in my opinion, does not bear weight nor is it likely to affect any change towards more consistent winning. I mean, you can do it and I agree with the principles of it. But in the long run I think it's benefit for this team is WAY less than the benefit of compensation from the highest bidder.

Mike Brown's stance to me is a statement, it's an idealogy, it's a nice idea. It'd be cool if we could transport ourselves back to the 1960's when football was more "pure" and player's played for the "love of the game". It's not going to make one bit of a difference. None. Players have way too much empowerment in the NFL.

To me Mike's Brown's stance will have as much influence on players as fans wanting Mike Brown to hire a GM. Sure it'd be nice...but...

[cincyhokie]

So why not send a message?

The problem is, the only message that's sent is "don't sign with the Bengals". Same message as the last 20 years.

Exactly.

[membengal]

No. The message you guys are buying into is, sign with the Bengals, take the phat signing bonus, then when it gets hard, quit and go home if not traded away. Not a big fan of that message either.

[HoosierCat]

Man, the melodrama is getting thick in here. All the talk of messages and precedents is way overblown. If threatening to retire were a viable strategy for any but the extreme-money elite, we would have seen 20 guys doing it a year for the last 20 years.

Move Palmer and move on. The one thing that the Bengals have proven time and time again is that clinging to guys who don't want to be here doesn't get you wins.

[BengalszoneBilly]

The one thing that the Bengals have proven time and time again is that clinging to guys who don't want to be here doesn't get you wins.

Can't argue with that.

[ArmyBengal]

I'm in the camp that thinks none of it really matters in the grand scheme when considering this organization.

You can't paint all players with the same brush because they aren't all in the same boat. Meaning, not every player and I'd say not many are in a situation where they not only have enough money, but are smart enough to invest it wisely enough to allow them to just walk away.

If you are making the coin these guys do and are living the lifestyle they do with the homes, cars, and whatnot and then all of a sidden walk away from making that kind of coin, your lifestyle has to take a hit unless you've made a ton or invested wisely. Not all of these guys are in Palmer's boat.

I don't think much of matters that much at all and for as much as I still wouldn't mind seeing Carson come back to the team, I don't really think he should. I would love to see him in a new offense that's wants to run the ball more, be rid of the diva's, and give him another weapon like AJ Green.

[derekshank]

So why not send a message?

The problem is, the only message that's sent is "don't sign with the Bengals". Same message as the last 20 years.

Yep. Because the willingness to trade Boomer, Pickens, and Dillon really had FAs knocking down Mike Brown's door. Let's just be honest and realize that this policy has no bearing on whether FAs want to play for Cincy or not. That's a different discussion, and you know it.

The one thing that the Bengals have proven time and time again is that clinging to guys who don't want to be here doesn't get you wins.

They've proven the inverse equally "trading players that don't want to be here doesn't get you wins."

Call it old fashioned or out of date. Call it whatever you want... but requiring a player to do what he said he would do when he agreed to all of those millions is not unreasonable.

[HoosierCat]

They've proven the inverse equally "trading players that don't want to be here doesn't get you wins."

Equally? Not at all. You've cited three players over two decades -- and all of them were ones that got kept against their will for a period before getting dealt, with the possible exception of Pickens. But there have been dozens more players who clearly wanted out but just hung around for a paycheck, or left at first opportunity.

[derekshank]

They've proven the inverse equally "trading players that don't want to be here doesn't get you wins."

Equally? Not at all. You've cited three players over two decades -- and all of them were ones that got kept against their will for a period before getting dealt, with the possible exception of Pickens. But there have been dozens more players who clearly wanted out but just hung around for a paycheck, or left at first opportunity.

Well, didn't Dillon willingly sign a new contract with Cincy? Perhaps we shouldn't blame the Bengals for "clinging" to players who are more than willing to actually stay in Cincy.

And instead of demanding a list of these "dozens" of players you cite (although it's at best hyperbole), I'll simply request your solution to the problem. Is your suggestion to trade every player who doesnt love the fact that they play for the Bengals? To get draft picks in exchange for any player who isn't thrilled about signing an extension, or plans to test FA when their contract is up?

Seems to me that running a team like that effectively makes you a AAA squad. It's certainly not a blueprint for success.

[HoosierCat]

I'll simply request your solution to the problem. Is your suggestion to trade every player who doesnt love the fact that they play for the Bengals?

Yes. Seems to work for Pittsburgh.

AAA squad? Hey, what exactly have we watched for the last 20 years?

[derekshank]

I'll simply request your solution to the problem. Is your suggestion to trade every player who doesnt love the fact that they play for the Bengals?

Yes. Seems to work for Pittsburgh.

AAA squad? Hey, what exactly have we watched for the last 20 years?

That's my argument, and you can't have it unless you establish that "clinging" to disgruntled players is something Bengals have done with any type of regularity.

Boomer asked for a trade. They said "OK Boomer. Give us one year to prepare." That's hardly clinging.

Dillon openly spoke poorly of the Bengals, but continued to sign contracts with them. The closest thing to "clinging" was franchising him in 2001... but he seemed happy enough to sign a 5 year extension. Once he started campaigning to be traded in the middle of a potential playoff run in '03, MB traded him. (In other words, perhaps MB shouldn't have offered Dillon contracts, but if Dillon hated the Bengals as much as he claimed, he wouldn't have signed them. That's not "clinging").

Dan Wilkinson was upset that the Bengals didn't franchise him and began speaking of his desire to play elsewhere. MB traded him immediately.

I don't think MB has demonstrated a tendency toward "clinging" to a player any more than the Eagles did with T.O. (They put up with some bulls**t for half a season, and then sent him on his way).

[cincyhokie]

No. The message you guys are buying into is, sign with the Bengals, take the phat signing bonus, then when it gets hard, quit and go home if not traded away. Not a big fan of that message either.

That's the thing. I would argue that the Bengals have a hard time keeping players not because they can't handle "hard times". It's because they don't foster a good winning environment.

I'll quote Artrell Hawkins when asked "What was the biggest difference in playing for the Patriots as opposed to the Bengals?"

Artrell: "For the first time in my NFL career, I knew what it was like to play with professionals and be a professional."

[membengal]

I've always been bothered by that quote from Artrell. Why wasn't he said pro to light the way with the Bengals? I get tired of hearing the inmates run the asylum. Perhaps if the inmates, like Carson, were not giant pu**ies, some leadership might hold forth.

Again, I fail to see what allowing the players to have their way, every single time they get tired of playing in Cincy, has ever done to foster a winning enviroment in Cincy? Derek has covered it, what you all are wanting the Bengals to do is what the Bengals have always done, which is give in to said request. And that sure as s**t has not worked. Empirically. Time tested, doesn't work.

[cincyhokie]

They've proven the inverse equally "trading players that don't want to be here doesn't get you wins."

So none of the other 31 NFL teams that would absolutely trade Palmer or that have traded away disgruntled players...none of those teams have won after the fact?

What happened in 2003-2004 after the Bengals traded Dillon and Spikes left? Seemed to me they improved considerably.

And for the record, I don't think that trading away or not trading away players equals or doesn't equal winning necessarily. But I am of the opinion that aquiring draft picks helps your team win more than getting nothing.

[cincyhokie]

I get tired of hearing the inmates run the asylum. Perhaps if the inmates, like Carson, were not giant pu**ies, some leadership might hold forth.

I am too. Why didn't we trade Chad for those draft picks again?

Perhaps if the inmates had a solid team culture and identity to hold onto and the team drafted the right players...more leadership would develop.

I'd be all for cleaning house and getting the RIGHT players in here. Ok. How do we do that?