Bengals1181 Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 JohnThornton @JohnThornton Bengals short changed him big time on rookie deal, will have to overpay now - “@CNos19: would you give Andre 9mil over 4-6 or let him walk?” JT does have a point, but I still think you have to pay him what the market is for a RT now (unless they are entertaining him at LT in the future), and NOT what he may have been shorted in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Unfortunately, if someone is willing to pay him 9, and from what I'm seeing the consensus seems to be that someone will, then that is his value. It's a lot, maybe it sucks for the team, but that's the nature of free agency. The only condition to me would be making the difference based on performance and other incentives, like if he starts at LT etc. If he's willing to sign that deal, that's probably as good as the team can reasonably expect. Again, someone is probably going to pay him close to what he's asking. There are a couple of good LT's (Long I think being the top one?) who may drive the price down. If not though I think the Bengals have to consider it. The cap space is there and it'd be market value. At that point there's not much of an excuse not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah15 Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 fuck andre smith, god dammnit, he was getting destroyed that eagles game man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 JohnThornton @JohnThornton Bengals short changed him big time on rookie deal, will have to overpay now - “@CNos19: would you give Andre 9mil over 4-6 or let him walk?” Thornton gets it right, mostly. The Bengals paid coupon/bad combine prices for the 2nd best player in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Thornton gets it right, mostly. The Bengals paid coupon/bad combine prices for the 2nd best player in the draft. I don't think so, he wasn't even in football shape when he signed that deal. Making him out to be a victim is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I don't think he's a victim at all. Rather, I think he's the guy with with the most leverage. That wasn't true the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I don't think he's a victim at all. Rather, I think he's the guy with with the most leverage. That wasn't true the last time. No question. JT saying they'd "have to overpay" is telling; the implication being that Andre is trying to stick it to them and/or doesn't want to stay. If that's the case, it's not worth it at any price. If not, though, it doesn't sound like an incentive-based $9m is really overpaying. Also doesn't help your negotiations when your ridiculous amount of cap space is public knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Yeah I think the comment is flawed. Sorry you don't understand. Not everybody can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I think a pretty good point of reference regarding Andre is Carl Nicks. He was considered one of, if not the best, guards in the NFL. He hit FA last year and received a 5 year, 47.5M contract from the Bucs. That is 9.5M per year. 31M was guaranteed. If one of the best OGs is worth 9.5M on the open market, then one of the best RTs is probably worth something pretty similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueridge Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sort changed him my ass. Dude was a complete turd his first 2 years. He should give money back since he really didn't start performing to his pay until this year. I'm all for re signing him but 9 million dollars a year is too much. If he'd been solid all 4 years I think they'd pay him They paid him top 10 money for two years of being overweight and walking in a boot. The Bengals do not owe him anything. Another option would be to resign him and move him to LT in two years when Whit will be 33 and entering the last year of his deal and they will be looking for his longterm replacement anyway. Move the 28yr old Andre to LT and the 33yr old Whit to RT. You may even be able to get another year or two out of Whit at RT. You keep the weight clause in for Andre to ensure he'll be in LT shape, pay him like a RT for the first two years and then give him LT money for the final 3-4 years of the deal. Maybe even structure the weight clause so that he has to be at a LT weight by that third year. Andre gets the money he wants, the Bengals get their future replacement for Whit and ensures he only gets his money if he stays in shape. If he doesn't keep the weight down, his pay is kept at RT level, and you draft Whit's replacement and groom him for a year and keep Andre at RT. Smith isn't a LT. He has enough trouble pass blocking from the right side. Anyway, what is the logic giving him a LT contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 They paid him top 10 money for two years of being overweight and walking in a boot. The Bengals do not owe him anything. Smith isn't a LT. He has enough trouble pass blocking from the right side. Anyway, what is the logic giving him a LT contract? It was explained in the post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I don't believe the reports that a team will give Andre 9-9.5 mil per year. Who would it be? The Bengals shouldn't pay more than 7.5 tops and maybe not even that much. There are a number of tackles on the market this year so Andre can be replaced in free agency. Beyond that there is the draft and we have Wharton as a fallback. Boling was adequate at LG last year and Wharton has previously played RT for the Panthers. Collins and or Roland would be tertiary options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueridge Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 It was explained in the post... The post was illogical nonsense. Explain rationally why Smith should be paid LT money. I'm still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I could go either way on whether the Bengals should give Andre $9M a year. However, it really comes down to what your other options are for spending the money. It probably means you can't sign some bargain FAs like the Bengals normally do. Last year they paid over 9M for BJGE, Travelle Wharton and Jason Allen (the 3 big outside FAs). I think Andre was worth more last year than those 3 guys combined. To look at it from a different perspective, The Bengals could save about 7 million form cutting Allen and Wharton. Would you rather have those 2 guys and a $2M free agent or Andre Smith? Now, if the question becomes "do you want Andre Smith or Carlos Dunlap?" with the thinking they can't afford both guys, then that is a different and much tougher question to answer. I personally probably prefer Carlos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I don't believe the reports that a team will give Andre 9-9.5 mil per year. Who would it be? Someone will pay him in that neighborhood. There are a lot of teams with a ton of cap space. He is one of the best FAs on the market and would be a big boost to a team's running game. The Bengals shouldn't pay more than 7.5 tops and maybe not even that much. There are a number of tackles on the market this year so Andre can be replaced in free agency. I suspect that most of these other top OTs are going to get big contracts as well. Jake Long is going to get more than Andre and there are a couple other guys who will be pretty close. Beyond that there is the draft and we have Wharton as a fallback. Boling was adequate at LG last year and Wharton has previously played RT for the Panthers. Collins and or Roland would be tertiary options. It wouldn't be the end of the world if he leaves, but it is almost a guarantee that the fill-in won't be as good as Andre. The offense needs to make real improvement if we are ever going to do anything in the playoffs. Taking a step back and losing a young guy who is one of the league's best at his position is not a good way to start the offseason push to make that improvement. If you have to replace him with a rookie 1st rounder, you are taking a step back both at RT and the position you would have drafted in the 1st round (WR for example), so you are actually hurting yourself at 2 positions. Though you do have some extra money if Mike decides to spend it, so maybe you upgrade elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 The post was illogical nonsense. Explain rationally why Smith should be paid LT money. I'm still waiting. You seem to be arguing he is only worth $7M. Explain why arguably the top RT (Andre) should be paid way less than the top OG, Carl Nicks, who makes $9.5M per year. RT is more important than OG and generally gets paid more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 I don't believe the reports that a team will give Andre 9-9.5 mil per year. Who would it be?Someone will pay him in that neighborhood. There are a lot of teams with a ton of cap space. He is one of the best FAs on the market and would be a big boost to a team's running game. The Bengals shouldn't pay more than 7.5 tops and maybe not even that much. There are a number of tackles on the market this year so Andre can be replaced in free agency.I suspect that most of these other top OTs are going to get big contracts as well. Jake Long is going to get more than Andre and there are a couple other guys who will be pretty close. Beyond that there is the draft and we have Wharton as a fallback. Boling was adequate at LG last year and Wharton has previously played RT for the Panthers. Collins and or Roland would be tertiary options.It wouldn't be the end of the world if he leaves, but it is almost a guarantee that the fill-in won't be as good as Andre. The offense needs to make real improvement if we are ever going to do anything in the playoffs. Taking a step back and losing a young guy who is one of the league's best at his position is not a good way to start the offseason push to make that improvement. If you have to replace him with a rookie 1st rounder, you are taking a step back both at RT and the position you would have drafted in the 1st round (WR for example), so you are actually hurting yourself at 2 positions. Though you do have some extra money if Mike decides to spend it, so maybe you upgrade elsewhere. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sorry you don't understand. Not everybody can. 2M is 2M a year. Sure that means you can get an extra 2M every year so over a 5 year contract that means the total salary can go up 10M. But that doesnt mean you can go out and get a 10M a year guy due to a 2M step up, it means you can get a total of 10M over the course of a 5 year contract. PS Dont be a douche. More often than not I agree with your opinion and watch you be a douche to other people but dont really care because I agree with your point. Now one time I say your comment doesnt make sense and you are a douche to me about it. Classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 The post was illogical nonsense. Explain rationally why Smith should be paid LT money. I'm still waiting. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 LMMFAO. Mike Brown will NOT pay Andre Smith $9 mil a year. It's hilarious that some of you think he might. NO FUCKING WAY. He never over spends for FAs and that would qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 LMMFAO. Mike Brown will NOT pay Andre Smith $9 mil a year. It's hilarious that some of you think he might. NO FUCKING WAY. He never over spends for FAs and that would qualify. I tend to agree. If someone is willing to pay smith that much I think hes gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 2M is 2M a year. Sure that means you can get an extra 2M every year so over a 5 year contract that means the total salary can go up 10M. But that doesnt mean you can go out and get a 10M a year guy due to a 2M step up, it means you can get a total of 10M over the course of a 5 year contract. PS Dont be a douche. More often than not I agree with your opinion and watch you be a douche to other people but dont really care because I agree with your point. Now one time I say your comment doesnt make sense and you are a douche to me about it. Classy. Didn't mean to upset you. You said what I posted didn't make sense, and I felt it did, and you don't understand it. I'll try to find the original article and add it here, so that you can better understand what I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Didn't mean to upset you. You said what I posted didn't make sense, and I felt it did, and you don't understand it. I'll try to find the original article and add it here, so that you can better understand what I was talking about. If your point is that by going up 2M a year you can afford to sign a guy to a 5 year 10M contract, than yes that is correct. But that isnt the same as saying you get an extra 10M of cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 If your point is that by going up 2M a year you can afford to sign a guy to a 5 year 10M contract, than yes that is correct. But that isnt the same as saying you get an extra 10M of cap space. And if it hadn't gone up, what kind of contract could you have signed that guy to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 And if it hadn't gone up, what kind of contract could you have signed that guy to? I might be wrong but usually when someone says something will give us an additional 10M in cap room they are referring to a yearly basis, not over the course of 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.