Carson Palmer Thread

[HoosierCat]

Actually, there's a 3rd option.

Accept the fact that Carson Palmer is solely responsible for his own actions and consider him to be happily retired.

I'd be happy to. Unfortunately, the Bengals aren't.

Perhaps you should pay closer attention. There are two new QB's on the roster.

Yup. And one old one named Carson Palmer. And the Bengals have been perfectly clear that despite the new QBs, his old job is his again for the asking.

[cincy9275]

f**k carson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ArmyBengal]

And that points out where we disagree. You believe the story starts after Palmer forces the issue. I say the story started the moment Palmer took the first steps that put things in motion. As a result I find myself unable to forget what Palmer has done and refuse to reward him. You on the other hand no longer give Palmer's actions any further consideration beyond admitting his obvious douchbaggery. For you the story starts after the douchebaggery and you insist Palmer's actions be ignored, as if he shares no responsibility for his fate and the fate of the team he quit on.

I refuse to ignore the douchebaggery.

Furthermore, by pointing out how Palmer is in a position of power that few players enjoy you admit his situation is different from Kevin Kolb's, thereby making that comparison meaningless. Palmer's so-called power stems directly from the way the Bengals had made him a central figure to build around, thereby making his position with the team different than any other player on the Bengals roster. And yeah, part of the reason he was so highly compensated is because he was a core figure in regards to the teams long-term planning. None of these things are true of Kevin Kolb. In fact, Kolb wasn't even considered a starter by the team who traded him.

It started long before that when the team failed to build a better team around Carson. That's not forgiving him of his current stupidity, but it's not like that really happened. They may have tried, but the people responsible failed miserably.

I'm not saying his situation is the same as Kolb's and never have, I am however saying had the Bengals looked into what could have been had for Carson, which I don't think they did, they might have found themselves in a situation to improve the team THIS YEAR. Do you think the Cardinals wouldn't have dangled Rodgers-Cromartie in the same manner ?? If they did, would you have declined the offer knowing how things were going with the CB position ?? I'm saying there was value to be had, not the situation being the same.

Exactly. So why not sit back on your hands and watch as Carson Palmer solves the Carson Palmer problem for you? Why not sit back and let Palmer serve as a handy example of how quitters will be dealt with? Why not show how easily this team can ignore the threats of players who attempt to talk or douche their way off of the team?

I guess I will have to find peace in watching that happen, but acknowledging how Palmer in not in the same position as other players, given his ability to actually make things difficult on a team, it's not serving an example to anyone. Then again, maybe we can trade him later for less than what could be had now ?? No, i'm not of the mindset that thinks Palmer's value increases as he sits doing nothing.

You seem to be worrying an awful lot about what message is being sent to a rookie player who isn't ready to start regardless of whether Palmer was on the roster. Shouldn't you spend more time asking what message is being sent to the 52 other players on the roster when they look up and see a rookie QB being handed the position without competition?

Shouldn't we all be concerned about the message being sent to the guy being viewed as the future QB of the team ??

There isn't another player, of the 52 you mention, that is impacted more than Dalton. The threat of him being demoted due to the fact the organization views a quitter as a better option isn't a ringing endorsement. Handed the position without competition ?? Aren't you the one who is trying to remind everyone about the other QB's being brought in ?? I think Gradkowski, while not a great option, could surely challenge Dalton for the starters spot.

I simply think you and Mike Brown are more concerned with making sure Palmer doesn't get his way and while I despise what Palmer has done, what good is done by not taking the opportunity to improve the team now ?? Hell, Wilcots was on NFL Network just a while ago saying how he thinks the Bengals could still move Palmer this season prior to the trade deadline. It was coupled with the thought of, that would be Mike Brown's way of really sticking it to Carson. Move him to another team and not give them the chance to really work well immediately. Thank God he's able to keep getting the last shot and really stick it to him though huh ??

Rodgers-Cromartie would have been nice in stripes.

[jjakq27]

Bengals roster moves

The Bengals today have made the following roster moves (further moves may be announced after 6 p.m.):

* Released DE Antwan Odom in the Terminated/Non-Football Injury category.

* Waived OT Andrew Mitchell in the Waived/Non-Football Injury category.

* Placed QB Carson Palmer on the Reserve/Did Not Report list.

* Waived CB Morgan Trent.

* Signed two draft choices, G Clint Boling of Georgia (fourth round) and HB Jay Finley of Baylor (seventh round).

* Signed one college free agent, C-G Ryan McKnight of South Dakota State.

* Placed CB Adam Jones and DT Pat Sims on the Active/Physically Unable to Perform list. Active/PUP designates players who are unable to practice as camp begins, due to injury, who may be activated as soon as they are medically cleared.

* Placed LB Keith Rivers on the Active/Non-Football Injury list. Active/NFL designates players who are unable to practice as camp begins, due to injury, who may be activated as soon as they are medically cleared.

[HairOnFire]

:frustrated:

It started long before that when the team failed to build a better team around Carson.

Define what you mean by a better team? Because even this teams harshest critics admit there's far more talent on this teams roster than it showed on the field.

I'm not saying his situation is the same as Kolb's and never have.....

So why do you keep bringing it up?

I am however saying had the Bengals looked into what could have been had for Carson, which I don't think they did, they might have found themselves in a situation to improve the team THIS YEAR.

But there's no reason to look into what could be had from trading Palmer if rewarding his douchebaggery is a non-starter, which it most certainly should be.

....i'm not of the mindset that thinks Palmer's value increases as he sits doing nothing.

Fair enough, but we've already had this debate and if I recall correctly none of you managed to come up with a single valid reason why Palmer's trade value would be less a year later.

The threat of him [Dalton] being demoted due to the fact the organization views a quitter as a better option isn't a ringing endorsement.

Reality bites. The sad truth of the matter is Andy Dalton isn't CURRENTLY capable of beating out the likes of Bruce Gradkowski, and if Palmer did return tommorrow Andy Dalton would rapidly fall to 3rd QB. Shouldn't we acknowledge that?

Hell, Wilcots was on NFL Network just a while ago saying how he thinks the Bengals could still move Palmer this season prior to the trade deadline. It was coupled with the thought of, that would be Mike Brown's way of really sticking it to Carson. Move him to another team and not give them the chance to really work well immediately.

Let me get this straight. Solomon Wilcots thinks Mike Brown will continue to stick it to Carson Palmer by doing absolutely nothing to him.

That's perfect.

Rodgers-Cromartie would have been nice in stripes.

Well played, good sir. Specifically, I like the way you brought up Kevin Kolb again without really bringing up Kevin Kolb. And even better, after acknowledging the two situations aren't comparable you still find yourself munching on the peanut you wanted most.

[ArmyBengal]

I simply disagree Hair.

I bring up Kolb to show what the Bengals "could have had" should they have desired to go looking, which I don't think they did.

I don't see it as rewarding his douchebaggery, I see it as the team moving forward not giving a f*ck what he gets afterward if it improves the team.

Why his value would be less a year later ?? I guess aging and not playing football are real attractive and what teams look for in franchise QB's huh ??

And if Palmer comes back and is named starter, as Brown stated, it would be the single worse message this team has ever sent the entire team, because nothing would be rewarding than to name Palmer the starter after not only quitting, but having the majority of players saying they don't want him back. That would be a "reward" that would actually have something to do with THIS team, as opposed to worrying about how his reward effects other teams he should be traded to.

Call it a peanut all you like, but having a quality starting CB to replace the one who left would be kind of nice at this point. Oh wait, a 32 year old Clements covers that base right ??

People are to caught up in seeing Palmer be punished, i'm in favor of not worrying what the hell he does in his post-Bengals career.

If the thought is to not just give him away, fine, but there's no indication they even tried.

[membengal]

Army, I don't get what you mean by "punished". He literally chose retirement. The Bengals wished him well.

[ArmyBengal]

If someone does something you don't like and you don't want to "reward" him, how are your actions likely to be viewed ??

Most likely, as punishing him. Those weren't my words either, only something I agree with.

Reason for agreeing ?? Everyone, inlcuding Hair, that think Mike Brown is "mad as hell" about this.

As I said in the other thread, Palmer's situation will work it's way out, I just don't agree with the current stance.

[membengal]

Why does being mad equate to "punishment"? Bottom line, we are here because carson chose it. That brown might be mad or frustrated with carson's choice doesn't mean granting him that choice means its punishment.

[ArmyBengal]

I'm not saying Palmer isn't responsible. The actions of Mike Brown are just viewed differently here.

No, not granting Palmer his wish doesn't mean he's punishing him in the grand scheme of things.

However, it doesn't mean he's not and with what i've seen and heard, I believe he is.

Again, just me and how I view this particular situation.

It's something I could absolutely envision Mike Brown doing.

[membengal]

Would you still want palmer accommodated if he had pulled a vincent jackson? Said pay me more or I am not showing up?

[HairOnFire]

I'm not saying Palmer isn't responsible.

I get that. What I don't get is how someone can conclude Palmer is responsible but ultimately, due to other considerations...should be rewarded. Simply put, the other considerations are meaningless.

Furthermore, regardless of how angry Mike Brown might be the actions he's taken are no different than we'd see from other GM's.

What did the Patriots tell Logan Mankins last year when he held out? What did the Chargers tell Vincent Jackson when he held out? What did the Giants tell Osi this season when he held out? In each example, the GM involved steadfastly refused to even consider the players demands until that player got his well paid ass off the couch and reported. Until that happens...nothing happens.

Why is this any different?

[membengal]

Thats the point I was about to make, hair.

What hair said.

[HoosierCat]

Why is this any different?

In a word: money.

Carson's got $30-50 million in the bank, depending on who's doing the telling. He could probably burn through a million bucks a year for the rest of his life and still be buried in a coffin full of loot.

So with nothing to force him back to work except his own desire to play -- and he's made it clear he has no desire to play in Cincy -- the possibility exists that we never get anything for him.

While you may be fine with that, others, including me, aren't.

[cincyhokie]

There's a theory in the psychology world called "locus of control". External locus of control vs. internal locus of control. Those that focus their energies externally tend to be more passive, believe in luck, bad fortune, and blame other individuals or outside occurences for a primary influence of their situation. Those with internal locus of control tend to focus their energies on what they can influence. They do not blame another person or situation but rather look at what they can do to influence the situation that coincides with their long term or short term goals, for example.

To simplify, those who are focused internally tend to move on easier in terms of a hardship, while those who focus externally tend to hold on to resentments and continually point to others or outside influences for the current situation they are in.

Change isn't something that happens, it's something you do. You can't wait for others to do what they "should do" or what they "must do" or what is the "right thing". Worry about what you can do.

[redsbengalsbucks]

There's a theory in the psychology world called "locus of control". External locus of control vs. internal locus of control. Those that focus their energies externally tend to be more passive, believe in luck, bad fortune, and blame other individuals or outside occurences for a primary influence of their situation. Those with internal locus of control tend to focus their energies on what they can influence. They do not blame another person or situation but rather look at what they can do to influence the situation that coincides with their long term or short term goals, for example.

To simplify, those who are focused internally tend to move on easier in terms of a hardship, while those who focus externally tend to hold on to resentments and continually point to others or outside influences for the current situation they are in.

Change isn't something that happens, it's something you do. You can't wait for others to do what they "should do" or what they "must do" or what is the "right thing". Worry about what you can do.

Sounds like a lot of hokum, you make yourself what you are! ** Written as I knock on wood and throw some salt over my shoulder.**

[HairOnFire]

Why is this any different?

In a word: money.

True, but not for the reasons you gave.

Simply put, Carson Palmer was paid tens of millions of dollars to be the Bengals starting QB AND was also paid tens of millions of dollars on top of that to be a team leader and a core building block. By accepting the money, but none of the responsibility, Palmer has broken the terms and spirit of the contract he signed and as a result deserves absolutely no future considerations from the Bengals.

So with nothing to force him back to work except his own desire to play -- and he's made it clear he has no desire to play in Cincy -- the possibility exists that we never get anything for him.

While you may be fine with that, others, including me, aren't.

Exactly. So which of us is really acting like a jilted girlfriend who can't move on? Isn't it those of you who demand Palmer be rewarded simply because Mike Brown could have a tasty peanut if he'd bend over and reach for it?

[cincyhokie]

There's a theory in the psychology world called "locus of control". External locus of control vs. internal locus of control. Those that focus their energies externally tend to be more passive, believe in luck, bad fortune, and blame other individuals or outside occurences for a primary influence of their situation. Those with internal locus of control tend to focus their energies on what they can influence. They do not blame another person or situation but rather look at what they can do to influence the situation that coincides with their long term or short term goals, for example.

To simplify, those who are focused internally tend to move on easier in terms of a hardship, while those who focus externally tend to hold on to resentments and continually point to others or outside influences for the current situation they are in.

Change isn't something that happens, it's something you do. You can't wait for others to do what they "should do" or what they "must do" or what is the "right thing". Worry about what you can do.

Sounds like a lot of hokum, you make yourself what you are! ** Written as I knock on wood and throw some salt over my shoulder.**

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it!

[HoosierCat]

Exactly. So which of us is really acting like a jilted girlfriend who can't move on? Isn't it those of you who demand Palmer be rewarded simply because Mike Brown could have a tasty peanut if he'd bend over and reach for it?

Nope. No peanuts involved here. Out in the real world, as opposed to bullsh*t Seahwaks message boards, a QB with seven career starts drew the equivalent of a 1 and a 2. We had multiple teams interested. Could have had a nice bounty of picks.

[HairOnFire]

No peanuts involved here. Out in the real world, as opposed to bullsh*t Seahwaks message boards, a QB with seven career starts drew the equivalent of a 1 and a 2. We had multiple teams interested. Could have had a nice bounty of picks.

I'm suddenly reminded of the joke about the guy who offers a woman he just met a million dollars for sex.

When she agrees he immediately lowers they amount he'll pay her to just 5 dollars.

"That's outrageous. Do you think I'm a whore?" she asks.

"Madame, we've already determined what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."

[HairOnFire]

Out in the real world, as opposed to bullsh*t Seahwaks message boards, a QB with seven career starts drew the equivalent of a 1 and a 2.

Really? So should I ask if the QB in question was a known quitter who had bailed on his team with four years remaining on his contract? Or are you going to pretend yet again that those types of things don't matter?

We had multiple teams interested. Could have had a nice bounty of picks.

Oh, I see. Now it's a bounty of picks that could have been had.

Well, how big of a bounty was it?

Seriously, how much fictional trade compensation are you going to pull directly out of your ass now that you've grown bored with the word...."peanut".

[HoosierCat]

Hey, believe message board rumors if you want, all I know is that Miami had confirmed interest in Palmer and multiple teams were interested in trading for various QBs around the league. The market was there. As for Carson quitting on the Bengals, there's no pretending about it. What player who has quit on or badmouthed or crapped on the Bengals has ever been hurt by it in terms of finding a new home? Wanting out of Siberia is seen as a feature, not a bug.

And that's the NFL. You can talk about breaking commitments and not rewarding players all day long, but the fact is that the NFL is built on broken commitments and undeserved rewards. I was listening to espn radio the other day and Mark Schelreth had a great story. Friday before the first weekend of the season, a team exec comes by his locker and says, you're taking a pay cut. here's your new contract. Sign it or we cut you on Monday.

That's commitment in the NFL. And rewards? Hey, where were the Bengals back in '06 when TJ had outplayed his contract and wanted a new deal? The Bengals wouldn't do it -- they had a bargain. And that was the root of his discontent. If the Bengals reward his performance, Coles and Bryant never happen and we might have gone who knows how far in 2009.

But it's all too late now. Now, we have to live with this mess dragging after us, like chains behind Marley's Ghost, until at least next year. Hopefully, we can get something for Carson then, assuming he hasn't discovered that he actually likes golfing September through January versus getting his ass kicked by LBs and DEs and says, no thanks, I really am retired.

[kingwilly]

I'm not saying Palmer isn't responsible.

I get that. What I don't get is how someone can conclude Palmer is responsible but ultimately, due to other considerations...should be rewarded. Simply put, the other considerations are meaningless.

Furthermore, regardless of how angry Mike Brown might be the actions he's taken are no different than we'd see from other GM's.

What did the Patriots tell Logan Mankins last year when he held out? What did the Chargers tell Vincent Jackson when he held out? What did the Giants tell Osi this season when he held out? In each example, the GM involved steadfastly refused to even consider the players demands until that player got his well paid ass off the couch and reported. Until that happens...nothing happens.

Why is this any different?

Taking a punitive stance towards Carson's quitting, at the expense of improving the composition of the team, is a management error.

When an NFL team cuts a player as the backloaded portion of their contract approaches is often viewed as smart business. Holding Carson to his contract, and inflicting lost opportunity on an already insufferable team roster, is pure bad management.

Rewarding Carson?

No, it is in punishing Carson, who is a sniveling quitter, that inflicts the harm on the teaming the form of lost opportunity to gain value, in whatever form.

Mike Brown should reward the team by moving Carson and getting maximum value for him to enhanve the teams ability to compete. Reward the team, not Carson. Punish Carson, Punish the team.

[HairOnFire]

Hey, believe message board rumors if you want, all I know is that Miami had confirmed interest in Palmer and multiple teams were interested in trading for various QBs around the league. The market was there.

Well, I don't have a single doubt about the market being there next year as well. I'm just not very interested in exploring what that market might be.

And that's the NFL. You can talk about breaking commitments and not rewarding players all day long, but the fact is that the NFL is built on broken commitments and undeserved rewards. I was listening to espn radio the other day and Mark Schelreth had a great story. Friday before the first weekend of the season, a team exec comes by his locker and says, you're taking a pay cut. here's your new contract. Sign it or we cut you on Monday.

A touching story.

First question. Had the Stink already pocketed a signing bonus from the contract that was being torn up? Because if he did he should realize that signing bonuses were first included in player contracts specifically as a way to address the players concerns about being released before their contracts had ended.

For example, Chad once went on a multi-monthlong douche-fest claiming his contract made him one of the poorest paid starting WR's in the NFL. This was a lie, of course. Chad had deliberately ignored the money he was paid in signing bonuses as if it didn't exist. As if it weren't the bulk of how he would be paid. But more specifically, that signing bonus was a prepayment for services he would be expected to make in the contracts final years.

Hey, where were the Bengals back in '06 when TJ had outplayed his contract and wanted a new deal?

My guess? Sitting in their offices pointing out how they had drafted TJ when nobody else had, and had signed him to a 2nd contract bigger than you thought prudent at the time. (I remember how you once complained the Bengals had overpaid.) Or maybe the Bengals spent their time explaining to TJ that his success was mostly due to the system he played in, that his value was greater with them than with someone else, and that if and when he left his career would quickly bottom out, his lack of skills would be exposed, and he'd end up bouncing from team to team like a gypsy.

But it's all too late now. Now, we have to live with this mess dragging after us, like chains behind Marley's Ghost, until at least next year.

Really? Marley's ghost?

Perhaps you took my remarks about intellectual laziness too seriously.

[HairOnFire]

Taking a punitive stance towards Carson's quitting, at the expense of improving the composition of the team, is a management error.

But it most definately isn't punitive. For that to be true Mike Brown would have to be directly involved in the decision that brings harm OR be guilty of targeting Palmer for punishment. Brown isn't doing any of these things.

It's NOT punitive. In fact, what Brown is doing doesn't even meet the definition of punishment.