It's time to sign DP and OT

[HoosierCat]

well, so much for that...

VIKES HAVE NO DEAL WITH JAMES, YET

Oops.  Our bad.

As it turns out, the Vikes have yet to reach an agreement with first-round defensive end Erasmus James.

Published reports indicate that a deal is close, but a league source with knowledge of the status of the negotiations tells us that the two sides haven't spoken since Saturday, and that a deal is not imminent.

[HairOnFire]

Translation: Johnson's deal was richer than the Bengals' wanted to see, so now they're going to stall until James signs to see if they can squeeze the deal back down a few hundred tho. Meanwhile, Pollack loses practice time...

I doubt that's the case. Most Bengal holdouts aren't due to dollars linked to the slotting system, but due to the way they structure incentive packages. The Bengals have a habit of linking incentive triggers to team performance rankings and number of snaps played. Agents counter that individual players can't control these things....which is true to a point, but in my opinion it's still BS. Players drafted in the first two rounds are usually counted on to provide a real impact. That impact should be felt across the board, not just in the form of individual stats. And of critical importance in the Pollack example, the number of snaps played would be a far better indicator of how well he's made the change in position than a stat showing how many sacks he produced.

[Kazkal]

1. San Francisco Alex Smith QB Utah

(Signed - 6 years, $49.5 million)

2. Miami Ronnie Brown RB Auburn

(Unsigned)

3. Cleveland Braylon Edwards WR Michigan

(Unsigned)

4. Chicago Cedric Benson RB Texas

(Unsigned)

5. Tampa Bay Carnell Williams RB Auburn

(Signed)

6. Tennessee Adam Jones CB West Virginia

(Unsigned)

7. Minnesota Troy Williamson WR South Carolina

(Unsigned)

8. Arizona Antrel Rolle CB Miami

(Unsigned)

9. Washington Carlos Rogers CB Auburn

(Unsigned)

10. Detroit Mike Williams WR Southern California

(Unsigned)

11. Dallas Demarcus Ware LB Troy

(Signed)

12. San Diego Shawne Merriman LB Maryland

(Unsigned)

13. New Orleans Jammal Brown T Oklahoma

(Signed - five years)

14. Carolina Thomas Davis LB Georgia

(signed)

15. Kansas City Derrick Johnson LB Texas

(Signed - five years)

16. Houston Travis Johnson DT Florida St

(Unsigned)

17. Cincinnati David Pollack LB Georgia

(Unsigned)

18. Minnesota Erasmus James DE Wisconsin

(Unsigned)

almost there >_<

[HoosierCat]

I doubt that's the case. Most Bengal holdouts aren't due to dollars linked to the slotting system, but due to the way they structure incentive packages. The Bengals have a habit of linking incentive triggers to team performance rankings and number of snaps played. Agents counter that individual players can't control these things....which is true to a point, but in my opinion it's still BS. Players drafted in the first two rounds are usually counted on to provide a real impact. That impact should be felt across the board, not just in the form of individual stats. And of critical importance in the Pollack example, the number of snaps played would be a far better indicator of how well he's made the change in position than a stat showing how many sacks he produced.

Yup. They could just as easily be hung up on incentives and escalators as anything else. The only thing that leads me to doubt that's the problem -- or at least, the core of the problem -- is precisely the reason you cite: top round choices are expected to be impact players, and moreover Pollack has all but been handed the starting SSLB position already. So unless the requirements to trigger the extra money are absolutely ludicrious, I dont see that as a big stumbling block. What might cause trouble is if the Bengals want to put more into all those incentives and less into salary and, especially, guaranteed coin. Which certainly would be consistent with past contracts, but could cause problems if the contracts in front of Pollack's have significantly larger guaranteed money and/or salary.

[Whur CHad At?]

Kazkal Posted on Aug 1 2005, 12:47 PM

  1. San Francisco Alex Smith QB Utah

(Signed - 6 years, $49.5 million)

2. Miami Ronnie Brown RB Auburn

(Unsigned)

3. Cleveland Braylon Edwards WR Michigan

(Unsigned)

4. Chicago Cedric Benson RB Texas

(Unsigned)

5. Tampa Bay Carnell Williams RB Auburn

(Signed)

6. Tennessee Adam Jones CB West Virginia

(Unsigned)

7. Minnesota Troy Williamson WR South Carolina

(Unsigned)

8. Arizona Antrel Rolle CB Miami

(Unsigned)

9. Washington Carlos Rogers CB Auburn

(Unsigned)

10. Detroit Mike Williams WR Southern California

(Unsigned)

11. Dallas Demarcus Ware LB Troy

(Signed)

12. San Diego Shawne Merriman LB Maryland

(Unsigned)

13. New Orleans Jammal Brown T Oklahoma

(Signed - five years)

14. Carolina Thomas Davis LB Georgia

(signed)

15. Kansas City Derrick Johnson LB Texas

(Signed - five years)

16. Houston Travis Johnson DT Florida St

(Unsigned)

17. Cincinnati David Pollack LB Georgia

(Unsigned)

18. Minnesota Erasmus James DE Wisconsin

(Unsigned)

Travis Johnson and Mike Williams have both signed

[HairOnFire]

So unless the requirements to trigger the extra money are absolutely ludicrious, I dont see that as a big stumbling block. What might cause trouble is if the Bengals want to put more into all those incentives and less into salary and, especially, guaranteed coin.

Yeah, but what's ludicrious? I can recall Akili's agent digging in over incentive triggers linked to team goals, like the playoffs and the Super Bowl, as well as triggers based upon individual play. After weeks of negotiating at the bargaining table the triggers linked to the Bengals won/loss record were said to have been dropped in favor of slightly harder to reach triggers based upon individual player production. At the time those considerations were largely discounted because they still seemed almost impossible not to be reached. And yet they weren't, and the impact was fairly dramatic.

Example 1: Jeff Blakes early season injury during Akili's rookie season almost handed Smith a substantial bonus based upon snaps played. Only a late season turf toe injury prevented the Bengals from paying Smith far more money than they did. In addition, it's all that kept Smith from having the final year of his contract voided...a result that would have hurt the Bengals ability to spread his signing bonus out. So again, we're talking about a fight over incentive triggers that seemed like much ado about nothing at the time the contract was signed and hardly worth the rancor that resulted. But in the end the Bengals were greatly rewarded for taking a hard line stance in regards to playing time triggers.

Example 2: Akili would have earned a HUGE bonus had he managed to average just 160 yards passing per game in either of his first two seasons. Keep in mind by the Bengals own standards a competent QB should be able to average 220 yards passing per game. So the performance trigger in Smith's contract was considered almost impossible for Akili to fall short of, and the Bengals were criticized for playing hardball on what seemed to be a minor point. But it wasn't. Akili came fairly close to reaching the trigger point in his 2nd year, falling about 25 ypg short if my memory hasn't failed me. So it's very possible that the only thing that prevented the Bengals from paying a huge performance bonus to a miserable QB was their hardline stance on a contract point that most people felt was insignificant.

Last, in regards to salary and signing bonus money paid there's very little wiggle room for either side allowed by the slotting system. That's why the holdout appears to be over a matter of a relatively small amount of money. But that's misleading. Just think how important the issue of percentage of snaps played is going to be when determining how successful the change in position has gone for Pollack.

[HoosierCat]

Yeah, but what's ludicrious?

You do a perfectly serviceable job of making the distinction. Winning the Super Bowl? Yeah, that's a bit crazy. Hitting perfectly doable playing time and yardage incentives? Fine. But in any case I wouldn't expect the Bengals to be trying to tie things like playoff appearances to Pollack's deal. For a QB? Yeah, but for a LB? No. I still think that if incentives are the issue, it's not the nature of the incentives, but the way the total cash is divvied up between them, salary, and guaranteed money.

Last, in regards to salary and signing bonus money paid there's very little wiggle room for either side allowed by the slotting system.

Not sure what you mean by little wiggle room. Travis Johnson's deal, for instance, is very heavy on guaranteed coin: $7.8 million of the $10.2 million total, if I read the reports right. I can certainly see the Bengals balking at a deal where the guaranteed money is pushing 80% of the total contract (esp. when Andrews' deal at No. 16 last year only guaranteed about 65-70%). The Bengals may have budgeted for, say, a kick to 72% guaranteed and the market is saying 76% or 78%. That, IMHO, is why the holdout looks like it's over a small amount of money. It isn't the amount, its what column, guaranteed or other, it's in.

[membengal]

Not much to add to the discussion in terms of who is holding out for exactly what, but do note that Lance McAlister led off his show this pm on 1360 saying that the murmuring (he was at the morning practice) was that the Pollack and Thurman negotiations could be long and ugly.

Fair enough. I will now put them on my don't-count-them-until-they-are-in-camp list. Landon Johnson's presence relaxes me about the middle of the D. No real suitable replacement for Pollack, but I am guessing they will make do for now.

[HairOnFire]

You do a perfectly serviceable job of making the distinction. Winning the Super Bowl? Yeah, that's a bit crazy. Hitting perfectly doable playing time and yardage incentives? Fine. But in any case I wouldn't expect the Bengals to be trying to tie things like playoff appearances to Pollack's deal. For a QB? Yeah, but for a LB? No.

The key point is that it was a bargaining issue whose elimination meant the other side had to give something else up in return. In Akili's example it was said that by dropping the playoff and Super Bowl triggers from their proposal the Bengals gained higher standards of individual player production needed to trigger bonuses. While it hardly mattered if Akili averaged 140 or 160 yards passing per game, he'd be considered a huge bust either way, it mattered quite a bit when it came to Akili being able to max out all of the "potentially earned" money included in the contract.

Think of it this way. The Bengals may have been fools to draft Akili in the first place, but how much would it irk us as fans if we would have watched Akili bank a huge bonus based upon...((gulp))...the quality of his play?

In Pollack's example, I think many people will be tempted to judge his impact based upon the number of sacks he produces, but he's all but guaranteed the designated pass rush role regardless of whether he can cover receivers or stuff the run. So again, I think a better way to judge his value is in percentage of snaps played. And on that count, why not attempt to use as a trigger team performance indicators like defensive rankings against the run, pass, or both? Pollack was drafted to improve those things, right? And why is it unthinkable that Pollack's contract shouldn't use the playoffs as a performance standard? He's joining an 8-8 team that's flat out stacked with young talent on the offensive side of the ball that also features excellent special teams play.

Last, if his agent balks at the idea of using anything but individual stats as triggers then bargain away the team based incentive triggers by agreeing to raise the bar on the production his client has to reach before both sides agree he's worth additional money.

[HairOnFire]

That, IMHO, is why the holdout looks like it's over a small amount of money. It isn't the amount, its what column, guaranteed or other, it's in.

That's what I was getting at when I mentioned how little wiggle room their was because the amount of money being kicked around in terms of total salary and signing bonus paid isn't hard to predict. The remaining questions all have to do with how the contract is structured...including the amount of potential monies earned in the future.

[HoosierCat]

The key point is that it was a bargaining issue whose elimination meant the other side had to give something else up in return.

Well, that's litle more than the definition of "negotiation." But the bottom line, for me anyhow, is that I'm really not interested in what might or might not be a legit incentive for Pollack, simply because I haven't seen any evidence that it's the nature of said incentives that's at issue. It may be, you are right that it has been in the past. But at this point the best guess -- and note it's Hobson's, not mine -- is that it's about the guaranteed money (from his latest email answer column):

There are no indications they’re looking to do anything radical with Pollack (unless they don’t want to match the hike in guaranteed money)

[HoosierCat]

Not much to add to the discussion in terms of who is holding out for exactly what, but do note that Lance McAlister led off his show this pm on 1360 saying that the murmuring (he was at the morning practice) was that the Pollack and Thurman negotiations could be long and ugly.

Damn. That would suck.

But it would be all too familiar...

[HoosierCat]

Just another note on the guaranteed coin front: profotballtalk.com says that the Chargers signed Merriman (pick #12) -- expected to be a holdout forever -- to a deal which is a tad over $11 million, $9 million of which is guaranteed. That works out to about 79-80% guaranteed money.

Given Mikey's love for incentive-based deals (which Hair has provided ample examples of in this thread) anyone else see a trend that might make the old man's head explode...?

NFL's gonna be MLB soon...gawd help us all...

[membengal]

Well, one down, one to go.

And I would guess McAlister's overheard idle chatter was just that, idle chatter.

The agent for Pollack and the Bengals have been so quiet that I hope they are closer than many of us can guess at. That's my hope anyway.

Nice to get Thurman in.

[HairOnFire]

Not much to add to the discussion in terms of who is holding out for exactly what, but do note that Lance McAlister led off his show this pm on 1360 saying that the murmuring (he was at the morning practice) was that the Pollack and Thurman negotiations could be long and ugly.

Damn. That would suck.

But it would be all too familiar...

Nice. First we get Lance McAlister claiming in the morning that we could be in for a long and ugly holdout.

Then we learn before night has fallen that the team has one of the players signed.

[HoosierCat]

Not much to add to the discussion in terms of who is holding out for exactly what, but do note that Lance McAlister led off his show this pm on 1360 saying that the murmuring (he was at the morning practice) was that the Pollack and Thurman negotiations could be long and ugly.

Damn. That would suck.

But it would be all too familiar...

Nice. First we get Lance McAlister claiming in the morning that we could be in for a long and ugly holdout.

Then we learn before night has fallen that the team has one of the players signed.

Here's hoping Lance is just as wrong on Pollack!

[HairOnFire]

The agent for Pollack and the Bengals have been so quiet that I hope they are closer than many of us can guess at. That's my hope anyway.

Mine too. I almost swallowed my gum when I learned that Merriman had signed before Pollack. I would have sworn that San Diego and Merriman were headed for a death struggle and had comforted myself with the knowledge that at least the Bengals and Pollack's agent had kept talking during the stalemate.

I'm not worried though.

I say they'll get it done tomorrow. Or the next day. Or maybe...