Pollack slotted

[BengalByTheBay]

How is he being penalized?  He's making MILLIONS.

Next time you ask for a raise, haggle a price down, or do something to get the price of something you are buying down, just think, theres probly someone in a 3rd world country thinking. "Why does he care about a couple dollars, hes making THOUSANDS!"

Sorry, gotta go with DPM on this one. You could just as easily say "why should the Bengals begrudge him a few hundred thousand when they're making MILLIONS selling his uniform." It's his name on the back after all, right. I continue to be impressed at how willing people are to side with the team owners on these issues. Yes, the players make a lot of money compared to you and me. The owners make one hell of a lot more money compared to you and me though. Why shouldn't the players get every cent they can when they're in a position of negotiating strength?

[Sox]

I'm not taking sides on this one...I think both sides share in the blame.

[jjakq27]

I have a hard time comprehending a "pay cut" that is three to four times what I make in a year.  Therefore don't expect the rest of us Average Joes to feel sorry for the guy.

With all due respect, jj, what would Pollack have gotten had he bowed to the "average Joes" and signed the Bengals' offer?

Ripped off, that's what.

No problemo Joisey. I blame the Bengals for not getting it done right away. However, it is hard to be sympathetic to someone that is in-line for that kind of payday. I think many of us expected that Pollack's enthusiasm would make him give in first. Like they say, Money talks....

Here is Curnutte's take on the situation from the morning Enquirer.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...SPT02/508090370

And for the Marvin-bashers, I don't see how you can put Pollack as the No. 1 LB when as of Monday he hasn't practiced one time in training camp. He is as much the starting LB as I am at this point. Technically he isn't even on the team. So for some it may appear to be a negotiating ploy but I believe it is just stating facts which he was required to do for the press release for Friday's game.

Hopefully he will get in here this week and be able to play at Washington next week.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

How is he being penalized?  He's making MILLIONS.

Next time you ask for a raise, haggle a price down, or do something to get the price of something you are buying down, just think, theres probly someone in a 3rd world country thinking. "Why does he care about a couple dollars, hes making THOUSANDS!"

Sorry, gotta go with DPM on this one. You could just as easily say "why should the Bengals begrudge him a few hundred thousand when they're making MILLIONS selling his uniform." It's his name on the back after all, right. I continue to be impressed at how willing people are to side with the team owners on these issues. Yes, the players make a lot of money compared to you and me. The owners make one hell of a lot more money compared to you and me though. Why shouldn't the players get every cent they can when they're in a position of negotiating strength?

If they are in a position of strength, they SHOULD get every penny. Having never played in an NFL game, being a rookie first round pick is NOT A POSITION OF STRENGTH. Renogotiating your contract when you become a free agent and have a choice of where to play is a position of strength. Being OWNED by the folks that drafted you is a position of weakness. Losing his job should show David he isn't in a position of strength.

I'm not saying David is wrong, but I'm not going to let the entire blame be put on ownership either.

As for the money made off Pollack's jersey, it just doesn't matter. There is a set cap that we have to work with. It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

[HoosierCat]

It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

Yup. But the people who effed up in budgeting aren't Pollack & his agent (in fact, if reports about what they were asking for are accurate, they had the slot pretty much nailed a week ago) but Troy & Katie & Co.

Again, why is it Pollack's responsibility to sign a below-market deal just because our front office can't add?

[HairOnFire]

How did everyone else manage to give a 15% raise and stay within the bounds of the rookie pool --  except us?

Thurman's five-year deal and the higher signing bonus that came with it?

There were other 5-year deals in the second round.

But even if that's the case, why should Pollack be financially penalized because the Blackburns gave Thurman too much?

I'm not suggesting that he be penalized. If the Bengals total offer is below market value then I'm betting they'll have to improve it before getting Pollack signed. What I'm suggesting, without any proof whatsoever I might add, is that by being the last player to dip from the rookie pool that his contract will have to be structured differently than what his agent might consider ideal.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

Yup. But the people who effed up in budgeting aren't Pollack & his agent (in fact, if reports about what they were asking for are accurate, they had the slot pretty much nailed a week ago) but Troy & Katie & Co.

Again, why is it Pollack's responsibility to sign a below-market deal just because our front office can't add?

Why should they be forced to pay him what his agent wants?

When I came to work, I asked what my salary was, and that's about what I get paid. I did talk them up a bit, but I didn't HOLD OUT!

[HoosierCat]

What I'm suggesting, without any proof whatsoever I might add, is that by being the last player to dip from the rookie pool that his contract will have to be structured differently than what his agent might consider ideal.

On that front, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's the case. I'm sure that some flexibility will be necessary on Pollack's part in terms of structure, if indeed the Bengals have miscalculated to the tune of half a million or so dollars.

[BengalByTheBay]

It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

Yup. But the people who effed up in budgeting aren't Pollack & his agent (in fact, if reports about what they were asking for are accurate, they had the slot pretty much nailed a week ago) but Troy & Katie & Co.

Again, why is it Pollack's responsibility to sign a below-market deal just because our front office can't add?

Why should they be forced to pay him what his agent wants?

When I came to work, I asked what my salary was, and that's about what I get paid. I did talk them up a bit, but I didn't HOLD OUT!

You didn't hold out because (1) you don't have any leverage and (2) you're not a one of only a few hundred people in the world that can do your job (see 1 above). And if you don't think a first round draft pick has any leverage talk to the 49'ers or the Vikings (or the Bengals for that matter). That's just not reality. Can we please stop comparing ourselves to professional football players.

[HoosierCat]

Why should they be forced to pay him what his agent wants?

This doesn't have anything to do with what his agent wants. It has to do with what the slot is. Here is how it shapes up (I added James):

14. Thomas Davis, FS, Carolina, 5 years, $10.6 million ($7.97 million)

15. Derrick Johnson, LB, Kansas City, 5 years, $10.5 million ($7.8 million)

16. Travis Johnson, DT, Houston, 5 years, $10.2 million ($7.5 million)

17. David Pollack, DE/LB, Cincinnati, unsigned

18. Erasmus James, DE, Vikings, 7 (voids to 5) years, $9.8 million ($7.37 million)

19. Alex Barron, OT, St. Louis, unsigned

20. Marcus Spears, DE, Dallas, 5 years, $9.3 million ($6.7 million)

21. Matt Jones, WR, Jacksonville, 5 years, $8.45 million ($6.3 million)

(from http://www.startribune.com/stories/510/5539981.html )

Thus, Pollack's deal ought to be $10 million, with $7.4 million or so guaranteed. That's the way the slotting system works.

[BengalByTheBay]

As for the money made off Pollack's jersey, it just doesn't matter. There is a set cap that we have to work with. It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

Actually, it matters at least as much as any discussion about what fans would do in the player's same position. My point is there's no good guy and bad guy -- it's just business. Players get what they can and owners pay the least that they can. It's certainly not the case that the players screw-over the owners (although I think it can happen the other way around) because the owners are always going to make their coin through ticket sales, player promotion, merchandising, etc.

Also, teams full of KK's do not make the playoffs -- I think we've shown ample evidence of that.

[derekshank]

It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

Yup. But the people who effed up in budgeting aren't Pollack & his agent (in fact, if reports about what they were asking for are accurate, they had the slot pretty much nailed a week ago) but Troy & Katie & Co.

Again, why is it Pollack's responsibility to sign a below-market deal just because our front office can't add?

Why should they be forced to pay him what his agent wants?

When I came to work, I asked what my salary was, and that's about what I get paid. I did talk them up a bit, but I didn't HOLD OUT!

You didn't hold out because (1) you don't have any leverage and (2) you're not a one of only a few hundred people in the world that can do your job (see 1 above). And if you don't think a first round draft pick has any leverage talk to the 49'ers or the Vikings (or the Bengals for that matter). That's just not reality. Can we please stop comparing ourselves to professional football players.

Seriously. I'm so tired of people complaining about athletes because they don't work 9-5 jobs and yet get paid well. They get paid well because they are the very best in the world at what they do.

I've never once heard anyone complain about how much Tom Cruise makes for doing a movie. He has a flat (and outrageous) rate that he demands before he does a movie. He has that leverage, and uses it. Why the double-standard? Why let good actors use their leverage for outrageous amounts of money, and be okay with it, but athletes... they should stop being so greedy!

The only reason is that you don't have a personal and emotional attachment to a movie before and after Tom Cruise agrees or doesn't agree to do that movie, so you don't care. We all have an emotional attachment to the Bengals, so we desire to see him "take one for the team", and we want the Bengals to do well... so Pollack getting in early for less money would accomplish that.

I wouldn't expect Stephen King to publish his next book for less money simply because he want's to be true to his publishing company. Why should Pollack be willing to take less than he deserves at his slot simply because it was the Bengals who drafted him at #17?

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

As for the money made off Pollack's jersey, it just doesn't matter.  There is a set cap that we have to work with.  It's called BUDGETING, and that few hundred thousand can pay a guy like Kevin Kaesvaharn for the year.

Actually, it matters at least as much as any discussion about what fans would do in the player's same position. My point is there's no good guy and bad guy -- it's just business. Players get what they can and owners pay the least that they can. It's certainly not the case that the players screw-over the owners (although I think it can happen the other way around) because the owners are always going to make their coin through ticket sales, player promotion, merchandising, etc.

Also, teams full of KK's do not make the playoffs -- I think we've shown ample evidence of that.

What the fans do because Pollack holds out actually REDUCES the number of his jerseys that sell.

And a team WITHOUT Kevin Kaevaharns fails too. It's the no name mid level draft pick to undrafted guys who make the biggest differences in the team, not the first round picks.

You can't blame the player for trying to let his agent get him the most he can, and you can't blame the owner for trying to pay the least he can. You can, however, blame the agent for not realizing when it's time to throw in the towel so that you don't hurt your clients career over a minor thing in his first ever professional contract. Let him prove his worth on the field and he'll get a raise.

[BengalByTheBay]

It's the no name mid level draft pick to undrafted guys who make the biggest differences in the team, not the first round picks.

***

You can, however, blame the agent for not realizing when it's time to throw in the towel so that you don't hurt your clients career over a minor thing in his first ever professional contract.  Let him prove his worth on the field and he'll get a raise.

I'm not really sure what you're basing that comment on ... the Pats perhaps? You could have some support for that, but for every one of those is the Miami Dolphins of last year who lost their blue chipper & went straight into the toilet. I actually think we have some common ground here, but my comments are mainly directed to the idea that if a guy holds out he's the devil. In a perfect world the first FA contract would be the place to get the big payday. But there are hundreds of examples of guys who either couldn't hack it or got hurt and never really got to the big payday. More to the point, this dispute seems to center on "guaranteed" money. The overall amount (or at least very close to it) has been a known quantity for some time. The blame for not closing the gap on whatever other terms were holding up the contract should be spread equally. The player is not without blame and the team is not without blame. If DP's hold out is threatening the team's success then, it would seem to me, that the team is the one that should be most motivated to give up when it comes to the "little" things that are keeping a deal apart. Where does the morality issue of all this come in? While I can show you many examples of players (Dennis Weathersby?) who sure don't feel like they're set for life, I bet you can't show me a single NFL team that will lose money, or even might lose money, this season.

So, yeah, I actually do blame the agent (which is another way of blaming the player because it's really his responsibility), but I sure don't let the team owner skate free like he's doing somebody a favor.

PS -- Tom Cruise sucks!

[shworge]

I have a hard time comprehending a "pay cut" that is three to four times what I make in a year.  Therefore don't expect the rest of us Average Joes to feel sorry for the guy.

With all due respect, jj, what would Pollack have gotten had he bowed to the "average Joes" and signed the Bengals' offer?

Ripped off, that's what.

The numbers have come in on the James deal. Per Hobson, the overall figure is $9.8 million, several hundred grand higher than the Bengals' reported $9.5 million (and putting Pollack's slot's total at about $10 million, where it seemed it ought to have been in the first place).

Guaranteed money is $7.37 million per Hobson, who adds that he believes that Pollack was seeking a bit over $7 million guaranteed while the Bengals were looking to guarantee less than $7 million.

Maybe, just maybe...everybody ought to get off the kid's back. From what we have heard about Pollack's deal, and what we've now heard of James' deal, it looks very much like your typical Bengals lowball offer.

Actually James got more than Johnson got at #16 so you can blame the Bengals for offering less than what James got. Also James is a 7 year deal that can void to 5 years depending on performance, so that is part of the reason there is more guaranteed.

[derekshank]

PS -- Tom Cruise sucks!

Hey... at least you're being consistent. You are the one person who lacks a double standard!

[BengalByTheBay]

PS -- Tom Cruise sucks!

Hey... at least you're being consistent. You are the one person who lacks a double standard!

If you are being serious, you are clearly an intelligent and perceptive individual. Good for you!

If, on the other hand, you are being sarcastic, what are you talking about?

[HoosierCat]

Actually James got more than Johnson got at #16 so you can blame the Bengals for offering less than what James got. Also James is a 7 year deal that can void to 5 years depending on performance, so that is part of the reason there is more guaranteed.

Whether James got more than Johnson, in terms of guaranteed coin, is not clear. Travis Johnson's guaranteed money has been reported at widely varying amounts.

Right after his signing, Lenny over at espn pegged Johnson's guaranteed money at $7.77 million.

According to the data compiled by the Minny Star-Tribune (see post earlier in this thread), the guaranteed number is $7.5 million.

The figure being bandied about Hobson is $7.2 million.

And finally, the figure reported by Curnutte and Ludwig a couple days ago was $5.92 million guaranteed.

That latter figure came from Johnson's contact breakdowns, which came out not long after his signing. Per them, his $10.2 million breaks down like this:

-- $5.92 million in (unspecified) guaranteed bonus money

-- A $1.06 million roster bonus payable a week after he came to camp this month

-- A one-time $525k performance bonus based on playing time

-- and the balance in salary over 5 years.

The guaranteed money plus the roster bonus plus the playing time bonus get to the $7.5 million figure; I'm betting that's where that comes from. If you add his first year salary I'll bet you get close to Lenny's $7.77 million figure; if you just count the guaranteed coin, roster bonus and first year salary, then you probably have something like the Bengals' $7.2 million. At least that's the only way I can make any sense out of it.

[HairOnFire]

PS -- Tom Cruise sucks!

Yes, I believe that is the foundation of most rumors involving Tom Cruise.

BTW, I don't think I've ever bothered discussing what Tom Cruise makes, but on more than one occasion I've mentioned the fact that John Travolta reportedly owns and maintains 5 airliners...including at least one 747...as well as 13 other aircraft, as proof that society may have it's priorities out of whack. But as someone else pointed out I have no emotional tie to John Travolta. So while I don't begrudge him the wealth he's earned....it does seem odd.

Meanwhile, I think it's fair to say that our emotional ties to David Pollack were firmly established the moment the Bengals drafted him, and that has resulted in many of us demanding he take one in the wallet for the good of the team, while others demand loudly that Mike Brown spend his money in any way we see fit.

[BengalByTheBay]

Meanwhile, I think it's fair to say that our emotional ties to David Pollack were firmly established the moment the Bengals drafted him, and that has resulted in many of us demanding he take one in the wallet for the good of the team, while others demand loudly that Mike Brown spend his money in any way we see fit.

It seems so simple and obvious when you put it that way. Maybe Tom Cruise or John Travolta will pick up the extra $200,000. Perhaps, they could use it as a charitable deduction -- if they hadn't already donated an obscene amount of their wealth to another cult.

[HoosierCat]

Update from Curnette, via podcast:

No progress. Discussions are ongoing, but no progress is being made.

Mark offers up some new guaranteed numbers for Johnson and James: $7.24 for Travis, $7.03 for Erasmus.

FWIW. Probably nothing.

[Kazkal]

>_<

[Spain]

All I can say this guys is wining over the fans isnt he?

[schweinhart]

Update from Curnette, via podcast:

No progress. Discussions are ongoing, but no progress is being made.

Mark offers up some new guaranteed numbers for Johnson and James: $7.24 for Travis, $7.03 for Erasmus.

FWIW. Probably nothing.

Oh, it's probably nothing all right

Now that however many people read that Pollack was holding out for more guaranteed money than the pick ahead of him.

That $5.92 mill figure earlier for T. Johnson sure made Pollack seem either greedy or weakminded at the total disposal of demonic agents, eh?

At least Hobson has the # over $7 mill. Gotta wonder why $5.92 mill came up three times -- both Cincy papers and Dayton.

Pollack seems like he wears his heart on his sleeve when he plays. I gotta think there's been some damage done through "public relations".

[bengalboomer7]

I don't know if I'd go that far yet. Nothing is even being mentioned in the national media and other then Bengalszone it hasn't adressed too much anywhere else. I thought Hobson gave more coverage to thurman not being in camp. I wouldn't be suprised if the James deal throws a big s**t wrench in the Bengals negotiations. And I know they won't do a deal like that with voidable years. I've never been real worried about this, but I think this is bad news. The Vikings just pretty much wiped out the Bengals "slotted" offer from #16 Johnson and last year's deal for D.J Williams and I wouldn't be suprised if Pollacks demands more more "gauranteed money" go up (and by the way, I don't blame the guy so let's net even start that)

Also, I like Hobson's take on it in his latest Mailbag questions