February 14, 200818 yr This is Drew Rosenhaus... I don't think he much cares... Yeah that is true, the guy is a snake.
February 14, 200818 yr Do you have a link? It was on ESPN News crawl. This is the only link I could find. Chad
February 14, 200818 yr Go to Bengals.com and there is an interview segment from Coach Lewis's press conference from yesterday! It is under "Lewis Backs Chad Again". It is even stated in the segment that when it was being reported that Marvin had not spoken to Chad in the second half of the season that it was not true and they offered visual evidence that suggested it was not true!
February 14, 200818 yr How do you add a link to these threads? I thought I knew how, but it doesn't seem to be working!
February 14, 200818 yr How do you add a link to these threads? I thought I knew how, but it doesn't seem to be working! Copy and paste for starters.
February 14, 200818 yr How do you add a link to these threads? I thought I knew how, but it doesn't seem to be working! Are you using the "Earth link" button at the top of the "reply" box?
February 14, 200818 yr Quote from Lewis: "They can stop the presses, quit killing trees and move on to other things," Lewis said of the Johnson media orgy. "There is, at no point, anyone in the Bengals organization who has ever uttered anything about trading Chad Johnson. Nor will he be traded. Rest of the story
February 14, 200818 yr Maybe I don't either. The way I understand it if the Bengals deal Chad they lose 8 million out of their salary budget for 2008. It doesn't matter what the Bengals would get in return, they would still be restricted from spending it on player salary so it may be money in managements pocket for 2008 but it is not something that helps the team. The one adendum to this is if they trade him AFTER June 1st; then the cap hit could be spread over 2 years, 08 & 09; then it might be financially viable. I don't see it happening though.
February 14, 200818 yr Maybe I don't either. The way I understand it if the Bengals deal Chad they lose 8 million out of their salary budget for 2008. It doesn't matter what the Bengals would get in return, they would still be restricted from spending it on player salary so it may be money in managements pocket for 2008 but it is not something that helps the team. My point was that if the Bengals know they're going to lose a great player and take an $8M hit, they're going to have to get A LOT in return.
February 15, 200818 yr I got you now 81. He ain't holding out because if he did after awhile no one would pay him any attention. However, if you are the Bengals maybe you would like to do a new deal with zero up front money but a high yearly rate so that you can dump him in 2009 if need be.
February 15, 200818 yr I find it somewhat odd that the decision was made to front load his contract. Seems like most contracts are end loaded. Anybody know the reasoning?
February 15, 200818 yr The Bengals hands are almost tied. They keep him and deal with a problem child or they deal him which leads to losing one of the most productive WR's in the league+ 8 Million $$ cap hit! I'd try to deal him to Dallas getting a higher draft pick+Barber. I'd then swap Barber or Rudi to the Lions + my draft pick for R. Willimas and their draft pick. That would give me R. Williams and one of the top pass rushers in the draft. Willimas will not be in Det much longer IMO. I wouldn't be suprised to see him go to San Fran.
February 15, 200818 yr The Bengals hands are almost tied. They keep him and deal with a problem child or they deal him which leads to losing one of the most productive WR's in the league+ 8 Million $$ cap hit! I'd try to deal him to Dallas getting a higher draft pick+Barber. I'd then swap Barber or Rudi to the Lions + my draft pick for R. Willimas and their draft pick. That would give me R. Williams and one of the top pass rushers in the draft. Willimas will not be in Det much longer IMO. I wouldn't be suprised to see him go to San Fran. Would never work because I am sure there is also going to be a cap penalty associated with dealing Rudi or Barber.
February 15, 200818 yr I find it somewhat odd that the decision was made to front load his contract. Seems like most contracts are end loaded. Anybody know the reasoning? The players love the big signing bonuses; that way they get plenty of money to play with. With NFL contracts not being guaranteed, I can't blame them.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.