Warrick faced with pay cut or being cut

[gobengals19]

I think if the Bengals cut him, he would hit the waiver wire first and could be claimed by any team.  San Fran would get first dibs and Philly would be able to claim him only if the 30 teams in front of them (using 05 drafting order) passed.

but if they claim him, dont they have to accept the terms of his original contract which in this case would be $2.2M salary? I dont think anytime would be able to swallow that for a guy who hasnt really played in approx. 18months.

I could be wrong but I thought that was how waivers work. If he clears waivers then he can sign with any team, basically a FA.

****

I am right with respect to the waivers but Cat is right in that PDub would be an UFA is he gets cut. Interesting scenario here. The Bengals hold all the leverage because they can hold off on clearing him until later in camp when others team have filled their roster spots. Maybe they are trying to trade him, who knows.

[KiLBurn]

Even throwing out last year, Warrick has 4 seasons under his belt. If he's cut he's a UFA.

If he is cut and clears waivers, then he would become an UFA.

but if they claim him, dont they have to accept the terms of his original contract which in this case would be $2.2M salary? I dont think anytime would be able to swallow that for a guy who hasnt really played in approx. 18months.

I could be wrong but I thought that was how waivers work. If he clears waivers then he can sign with any team, basically a FA.

Does Philly want to take a chance that someone in front of them decides to give it a whirl?

Depends on how badly someone needs a receiver. Hell, T.O. is/was earning $7m a year and it appears he isn't going to help them very much either.

[Sox]

Heh heh heh.....guess who Peter Warricks agent is?

[kingwilly]

does it rhyem with "Brew Tosenmouse"?

[Sox]

does it rhyem with "Brew Tosenmouse"?

Ding!!!

Guess what football team just fired a big FU at him?

Bwahahahaha!!!

[kingwilly]

does it rhyme with the "Beagles"?

[Sox]

does it rhyme with the "Beagles"?

Ding!

He shouldn't have brought up that teams can ask to have contracts restructered...

LOL.

I bet Rosenhaus is stewing right now.

[HairOnFire]

Even throwing out last year, Warrick has 4 seasons under his belt. If he's cut he's a UFA.

Fair enough. I thought he had to clear waivers before becoming an UFA. Which brings me to an interesting question.

Why isn't there a red-faced smilie for occasions like these?

[HoosierCat]

Even throwing out last year, Warrick has 4 seasons under his belt. If he's cut he's a UFA.

Fair enough. I thought he had to clear waivers before becoming an UFA. Which brings me to an interesting question.

Why isn't there a red-faced smilie for occasions like these?

Don't sweat it. I was actually wrong -- and right.

I was wrong in that to avoid the waiver wire a player needs five, not four, accrued seasons.

However, last year counts for Warrick, since all you need for an accrued season is 6 week on the 53 man roster or IR for a team; heck, last year Warrick had both.

So he has his five years in. If cut, he'll immediately become a UFA, no clearing of waivers applicable.

[Ickey44]

Isn't Rosenhaus Nate Webster's agent, too? I'm pretty sure he renegotiated Webster's pay cut.

[andybren]

Marvin, or Brown, or Blackburn, or someone, needs to get behind the podium and at least clear some of this up -- at least a direction. We deserve, as customers, that much.

I'd say Peter Warrick deserves that much.

If Len is correct and Marvin is holding PDub's feet to the fire, refusing him access to the field until he re-negotiates, then I am very, very disappointed. Essentially it means they're threatening to cut him from the team as damaged goods, hurting his chances to make a smooth transition to another team.

If they're not happy with his contract, or anything else about him, the very least they could do is let him prove himself on the field. I recall situations in the past where a player being cut (either early in training camp, or after an opportunity to play pre-season) was timed to best enhance the player's chances elsewhere. I would think PDub has done enough for the team to deserve the benefit of that doubt.

But this is exactly the type of scenario that Rosenhaus was talking about -- that the Bengals can force a renegotiation on Nate Webster, but then cry foul when somebody like Chad Johnson wants to force a renegotiation on them. If this PDub situation proves out, I'd say the Bengals are making his point for them.

But hopefully, Marvin is just being very, very cautious. There's no other legitimate reason to keep a healty player off the field.

[walshfan]

Now does anyone wonder why Pollack wants that guaranteed money? He gets injured anytime soon and ole Mikey will have his ass outta Cincy in a flash...

Everything we've read about Pollack is that he puts 110% into it...

Well he's doinig the same thing with his contract.. He's not going to wind up like Warrick is.....$500000 is alot of money no matter how you slice it.. He's going to hardball Mikey until its included......then he'll give 110% to playing football..

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

Now does anyone wonder why Pollack wants that guaranteed money? He gets injured anytime soon and ole Mikey will have his ass outta Cincy in a flash...

WAKE UP ASSHAT!

Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis don't send everyone who is injured out of town in a flash.

They let TJ sit on injured reserve a full year and made him a starter when Pdub went down and then gave him a huge contract for getting healthy and now he's wealthy.

Dennis Weathersby never played for the team. He wasn't injured in a football game, but by non-football injuries. He stayed on the roster, on IR and got a paycheck for almost 2 years.

Peter Warrick might not make the team, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS INJURED. It's because he isn't as good as the guys ahead of him. He's not in football shape, he is in his last year of his contract for 2 mill, and TJ Houshmanzedah has a better chemistry with Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson. He has had ONE good season since he was drafted in the first round, with the FOURTH overall pick. He's a BUST, and that is why he is going to be cut, not just because he was injured.

[slf]

Red-hot Bengals - Full text ...

He (Warrick) has apparently been approached with the concept of a reduced rate because the Bengals medical people aren’t confident about the condition of his knee. A possible package could include incentives that would bring him to his original $2.2 million salary. If the Bengals clear him to practice with the existing contract and he can’t stay healthy, they are liable for all of the $2.2 million.

...

What do you want to bet that kind of restructure is the best offer he recieves? share the risk. Any team would do the same.

[HoosierCat]

WAKE UP ASSHAT!

Yes, I would suggest you do so.

Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis don't send everyone who is injured out of town in a flash. 

They let TJ sit on injured reserve a full year and made him a starter when Pdub went down and then gave him a huge contract for getting healthy and now he's wealthy.

Dennis Weathersby never played for the team.  He wasn't injured in a football game, but by non-football injuries.  He stayed on the roster, on IR and got a paycheck for almost 2 years.

TJ and Weathersby were both bargain-price players, respectively 7th and 4th round selections. Should Pollack be injured, that isn't the class of player he'll find himself in. No, he will be in the same boat as guys like Warrick and Webster: high-cost players whose deals are ripe for attack by management.

Walshfan is exactly right: since team management isn't bound by anything in the contracts they sign except for any guarantees they grant the player, Pollack is absolutely right to push for as much guaranteed coin as he can get.

[walshfan]

I suspect the sticking point is whether the guaranteed money is front or backloaded now....

[HoosierCat]

I suspect the sticking point is whether the guaranteed money is front or backloaded now....

For pollack? According to Hobson's most recent report, the money issues appear to have (finally) been worked out. Now they've moved on to another perennial Bengals bugaboo, namely the performance levels required to trigger bonuses and escalators.

Lots of teams routinely settle for very soft targets; the Bengals front office has always insisted on goals that are actually a challenge to reach. Philosophically, I agree with Mikey here. Unfortunately, the reality of the NFL is that soft goals are pretty routine -- so you end up with another case of the Bengals not wanting to do business the way the rest of the NFL does.

If history is any guide they will eventually haggle their way to a compromise. But whether that happens today, tomorrow, next week, September...who knows?

[HairOnFire]

So what's the popular response to Marvin's remarks that the agents have won and the Bengals are doing nothing but giving in on issue after issue?

[HoosierCat]

So what's the popular response to Marvin's remarks that the agents have won and the Bengals are doing nothing but giving in on issue after issue?

Well, my first thought was, "so what else is new?" I mean, how many times have we watched this same production play out in the past? In August, player asks for X; Bengals counter with Y. The two sides squabble until September, when the Bengals finally agree to X, leaving us to fume over why he wasn't in camp a month ago.

My second thought was, "well, given that it appears that the Bengals' brain trust of Blackburn & Blackburn misjudged the slot -- budgeting $9.5 million for a slot that turned out to be worth $10 million -- some 'giving' on the Bengals' part was kind of inevitable, wasn't it?"

My third thought was. "Marvin is getting annoyed at the haggling over escalators now that the money side has been decided." And on that point I think i agree. Especially if he's gotten the guaranteed coin he wanted. It's time to sign the paper and get on the practice field.

[HairOnFire]

So what's the popular response to Marvin's remarks that the agents have won and the Bengals are doing nothing but giving in on issue after issue?

Well, my first thought was, "so what else is new?" I mean, how many times have we watched this same production play out in the past? In August, player asks for X; Bengals counter with Y. The two sides squabble until September, when the Bengals finally agree to X, leaving us to fume over why he wasn't in camp a month ago.

My second thought was, "well, given that it appears that the Bengals' brain trust of Blackburn & Blackburn misjudged the slot -- budgeting $9.5 million for a slot that turned out to be worth $10 million -- some 'giving' on the Bengals' part was kind of inevitable, wasn't it?"

My third thought was. "Marvin is getting annoyed at the haggling over escalators now that the money side has been decided." And on that point I think i agree. Especially if he's gotten the guaranteed coin he wanted. It's time to sign the paper and get on the practice field.

My first thoughts in response to your first thoughts...

Didn't both sides misjudge the slot? Weren't there reports of an earlier agreement on contract size with the holdup being limited to how the deal was structured? The fact that the Bengals later had to adjust their offer due to deals signed by other teams was always a risk they faced. But what risk did the agent assume by waiting? None, right?

In regards to the algebra mentioned, why pound the Bengals for playing a version of hardball that includes compromise when it's becoming more and more clear that the agent was completely unwilling to compromise on any of the minor issues that resulted in a long holdout? If Marvin's remarks are accurate then the Bengals are making concessions to get a contract agreement. What concessions are being made by the other side to get the player in camp? None that we know of, right? In fact, the only risk the agent faced was the possibility that the Bengals would begin to reduce their offer in reaction to the length of the holdout. But they've never done that, have they?

Last, I'm sure Marvin is getting annoyed and the source of his frustration doesn't seem limited to contract issues. It seems clear that he's annoyed with an agent who repeatedly uses the Bengals past reputation as a wedge he can use to inflame fans and increase pressure upon the Bengals front office. Considering how hard Marvin has worked to change the Bengals reputation I'm sure it annoys him a great deal to see an agent exploit fan resentment for what seems to be very minor financial gain.

[HoosierCat]

Didn't both sides misjudge the slot? Weren't there reports of an earlier agreement on contract size with the holdup being limited to how the deal was structured?

As far as I can tell, Pollack & Co. were much closer than the Bengals' front office. As evidenced by his comments at the Reds' game, Pollack and his side were good with a deal around $9.5 million total; the holdup was the guaranteed money. Hobson says the bengals wanted something a little under $7 million guaranteed, while Pollack's agents were asking for a little bit over $7 million. (Chick up at the DDN quotes Troy Blackburn as saying this initial request was at $7.3 million.) In the end, it appears that the guaranteed money slot is at least $7.1 million, and possibly more depending on which numbers you use when you talk about the Johnson and James deals.

The fact that the Bengals later had to adjust their offer due to deals signed by other teams was always a risk they faced. But what risk did the agent assume by waiting? None, right?

Wrong. The agents took the same risk. The slot could have come in lower. Granted, that was less likely -- but only because the Bengals' initial offer (that $9.5 million, with about $6.8m or $6.9m guaranteed) was barely larger than the deal Spears signed in the 20 spot.

In regards to the algebra mentioned, why pound the Bengals for playing a version of hardball that includes compromise when it's becoming more and more clear that the agent was completely unwilling to compromise on any of the minor issues that resulted in a long holdout?

Why should Kremer and Condon rush to compromise when the Bengals' initial position is so low it's inevitable that events (namely the Barron and James signings) are practically assured to do the job for you? It's precisely that standard-brand Bengals version of hard(low)ball that created the standoff in the first place. What Marvin is painting as "giving" is simply the Bengals coming up to the number the slot dictates.

What concessions are being made by the other side to get the player in camp? None that we know of, right?

Let's see...did I not say in my previous post that they (Pollack) ought to not to fight over escalators now that the money is finalized and get the deal done? Yeah, I did. So you complaint here is...?

It seems clear that he's annoyed with an agent who repeatedly uses the Bengals past reputation as a wedge he can use to inflame fans and increase pressure upon the Bengals front office

Huh???? First off, when the heck has the Bengals front office ever responded to fan pressure? Second, what have Kremer and Condon done except sit in their offices, refuse to take phone calls from the press, and wait for the James and Barron signings to hoist the bengals' front office on its own petard?

[HairOnFire]

As far as I can tell, Pollack & Co. were much closer than the Bengals' front office. As evidenced by his comments at the Reds' game, Pollack and his side were good with a deal around $9.5 million total; the holdup was the guaranteed money.

And how do you get the Bengals to increase the amount of money paid in the form of a signing bonus? You agree to compromise on one of their other demands, right?

That said, if an agent refuses to compromise on any issues you're guaranteed a longer holdout...a move that always put more pressure on the Bengals than on the agent. Not surprisingly the point of no return has been passed and Bengals are now said to be giving in on contract issues precisely because they're trying to limit the damage done to the players rookie season. So what concession is the agent said to be making to reduce the damage done to his clients rookie season? (None.)

Sorry, the longer this thing goes the more it appears that the agent was always willing to engage in a long holdout over minor contract issues. More importantly, he still refuses to compromise. And that should surprise nobody who knows the agents reputation.

But we don't care about the agents reputation, right?

[HairOnFire]

Wrong. The agents took the same risk. The slot could have come in lower. Granted, that was less likely -- but only because the Bengals' initial offer (that $9.5 million, with about $6.8m or $6.9m guaranteed) was barely larger than the deal Spears signed in the 20 spot.

Well what is it? Did the agent really assume the same risk or was it in reality far less likely that Camp Pollack would be hurt by waiting? It's the latter, right? In fact, an agent's position is almost always rewarded by waiting for other teams to crumble in the face of their own player holdouts. So in reality the agent risks very little from a long holdout....if he's willing to ignore his clients best interests.

[HairOnFire]

Why should Kremer and Condon rush to compromise when the Bengals' initial position is so low it's inevitable that events (namely the Barron and James signings) are practically assured to do the job for you?

The Bengals position was so low that the agents nearly agreed to the lower figure, right? The holdup was based upon structure and so little is known about those issues that I'd argue it's impossible to say if the Bengals demands were out of line or not.

As for why the agents should have compromised when they had every reason to believe that holding out would serve them well? You compromise to prevent a holdout that will marginally help your client financially but ultimately harm your clients chances of having early success on the field. Sadly, too often there is only one party at the bargaining table that is concerned with that....and that party is at a disadvantage precisely because they place more value on a players level of success.

[HoosierCat]

Wrong. The agents took the same risk. The slot could have come in lower. Granted, that was less likely -- but only because the Bengals' initial offer (that $9.5 million, with about $6.8m or $6.9m guaranteed) was barely larger than the deal Spears signed in the 20 spot.

Well what is it? Did the agent really assume the same risk or was it in reality far less likely that Camp Pollack would be hurt by waiting? It's the latter, right? In fact, an agent's position is almost always rewarded by waiting for other teams to crumble in the face of their own player holdouts. So in reality the agent risks very little from a long holdout....if he's willing to ignore his clients best interests.

So you maintain it is in an agent's interest --or the player's for that matter -- to get his client less money than his slot calls for?

This has nothing to do with whether Pollack agent's thought they might benefit by waiting; they knew with absolute certainty that they would because the Bengals began by offering a deal commensurate with the 19th pick. Here's how it stood:

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, unsigned

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

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

So now where do reports put Pollack's initial demands? $9.5 million total, $7.3 million guaranteed. Gee, that's less overall and right in line with the slot on guaranteed coin! I expect Kremer was leaving himself some wiggle room to come up on total value in return for accepting the team's notoriously difficult to hit incentive clauses.

Now, where did the Bengals want him? $9.5 million and about $6.9 million guaranteed, i.e. Alex Barron's slot. That's nothing more than an invitation to Kremer and Condon to wait for James or Barron to come in; it's not even in the ballpark for the No. 17 pick.

The Bengals front office has no one to blame for this but themselves.