3 hours ago, BBR said:

Honest question... Have you seen anything, anywhere suggesting that his agent is even willing to negotiate a new contract with the new language in place.

Lots of people have speculated that they should have offered this, that or something else to entice them but it also sounds like the agent is just dead set against any agreement with the language that the team wants.

At this point, it doesn't look like either side can bend at all to reach some sort of compromise. The team can't drop the language without giving up on it forever because this situation will always be thrown in their face by and agent. The agent can't give in and allow the language into the contract without looking like a fool to any future players because of the hardline against it that was taken. Not sure how this one is going to get resolved but someone needs to eat a turd sandwich and smile about it.

There really isn't much else to argue about. The money is slotted, etc... Just the terms and when the cash actually gets paid.

I know it seems silly to hold out over language... But it's worth noting that Jermaine Burton might have lost out on $6M if his agent had allowed this language to be put in his contract. Sure... Maybe Burton is a shit head who deserves to lose $6M, but would you have praised the agent who didn't pay attention to the details? Would you let him negotiate your deal? You'd have crowed about how we pulled a fast one on Burton's idiot agent. Did Burton go to prison? But we do know last year they were considering cutting him.

But... Mike Brown IS too cheap to "waste" $1.3M on a player he cut. And now... We're back to praising how much Burton has grown in his second year... And really - the reason rookies get 4 year contracts is to give them time to figure it out. Sorry if some people and Mike Brown don't like it. But if you don't want Jermaine Burton stuff to be happening, don't draft Jermaine Burton. Consider it the offset for these guys not being able to pick their employer or negotiate how much they get paid. In return, they get the guarantee that they'll be able to get a fair shot and some leeway for mistakes.

Go ahead and look into what has happened with past players who have gone to prison. Were their teams on the hook to pay them? No. So Mike Brown's hypothetical is overblown. Most recent example being Aaron Hernandez who even had to pay back money from the year before he got arrested.

There are concession that the Bengals could make. Pay more of the money up front so that the "risk" of default is lowered being the easy solution. Knight's camp got a bump in the guarantees...

And in that same vein... OK, maybe other NFL teams have been using this language for a while. But the Bengals are moving towards offering less surety to their rookie picks at a time when the rest of the league is offering MORE surety to their rookies. (See Judkins) So... They might be "just catching up", but they've lost the moment. They're trying to get a guy to accept worse terms at a time when guys picked half a round later are getting fully guaranteed contracts.

If Stewart doesn't work out... I'm not going to cry about him taking up 1.2% of the cap. The thing that irritates me about Myles Murphy isn't him taking up 1.2% of the cap. It's the wasted 1st round picks. Those high draft picks are absolute gold in the NFL. And there are guys still in college now making more than an NFL first round pick. I know Mike "Lumina" Brown still thinks $4M is a lot of money, but it just isn't in today's NFL. The cap is paid for and has to be used under the CBA. Not spending it is unfairly taking money for the percentage allotted for players under the CBA. The spirit of the agreement if not the letter.

Paying "that kind of money" to a guy in prison... Man, Robert Kraft wipes his ass with that kind of money. You can pay for two Rookie contracts just by gathering up the loose $100's that went into the sofa cushions at his house. They literally give you that money as a part of revenue sharing. This is a yacht owner complaining about the marina charging him $5 to dock his boat. Maybe you're not rich enough to own a yacht buddy.

There are ways around this that a shrewd negotiator would find. The Bengals are not shrewd negotiators. At least they haven't shown any evidence thereof.

The NFL owners, one of which was Mike Brown, signed an agreement. In exchange for not having first round holdouts, they would have a slotted pay scale and in return the contracts would be guaranteed. They get first round picks incredibly cheap under this system, but they accept the risk of making a bad pick. This is literally the answer you get if you ask Chat GPT. This WAS the deal. Guaranteed contracts in exchange for cost control. Now Mike Brown thinks $16M over 4 years is too much "risk" to take on on his end? Where are all my "You signed the deal" homies at??

He also got Joe Burrow and Jamarr Chase for 4 years each on "cost control" contracts. He can apply that savings to whatever he might lose for picking another Jermaine Burton. I'm not going to cry because he had to spend some of Jerry Jones' money because he made a bad decision.

13 minutes ago, spicoli said:

Remember that this is the man who signed Adam Jones. Signed Vontaze Burfict. Kept resigning Corey Dillon.

This is the same man who drafted Frostee Rucker. And Chris Henry. And Odell Thurman. And Jackson Carman.

We had 10 players arrested over a 14 month span back in the 2000's.

But it's nice to hear Mike talk about the Bengals high standards and the things they don't tolerate. We cut that guy who was beating on his girlfriend last year, right??

10 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Remember that this is the man who signed Adam Jones. Signed Vontaze Burfict. Kept resigning Corey Dillon.

This is the same man who drafted Frostee Rucker. And Chris Henry. And Odell Thurman. And Jackson Carman.

We had 10 players arrested over a 14 month span back in the 2000's.

But it's nice to hear Mike talk about the Bengals high standards and the things they don't tolerate. We cut that guy who was beating on his girlfriend last year, right??

The subtext here is interesting. He kept some of those dudes around not out of a soft spot in his heart, but because he'd already paid them a lot of money. He's talking about the standard of conduct in terms of a guaranteed contract. There's nothing to say he can't cut someone for being a public menace, only that he doesn't get a refund if he chose to draft the guy in the first place.

I'd love to know what happened, or what they think might (have) happen/ed, to make such an issue of this clause.

14 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

The subtext here is interesting. He kept some of those dudes around not out of a soft spot in his heart, but because he'd already paid them a lot of money. He's talking about the standard of conduct in terms of a guaranteed contract. There's nothing to say he can't cut someone for being a public menace, only that he doesn't get a refund if he chose to draft the guy in the first place.

I'd love to know what happened, or what they think might (have) happen/ed, to make such an issue of this clause.

I mean... As much as I'd like to say it's a non-issue I'd be wondering why they seem so set on the language this year if I was Stewart. Again... Considered a high character kid. So... Why?

He's also not the first player to balk at this language... I'm reading that this was the source of the Mims holdout as well? So... Can't just be Burton. Maybe the renewed insistence comes down to that? But third round contracts aren't even guaranteed. So... What?

This is a guy with a very long history of rolling the dice on guys with bad character... This is financial insurance against his own bad judgement. But first round picks get those guarantees for a reason. They were negotiated. If they don't like the guarantees, then get rid of the slotted salaries and see how "fair" paying out that Rookie contract is.

I really have no problem with the language, but you don't change the terms of a $16M deal without some give and take. So... I get both sides. But warranties cost money. Even if the Family is miffed that he didn't participate in mini-camps... You have to shelve that and make the deal. Either today or 3 weeks from now. Because as much as I get both sides, only the Bengals have the power to resolve the impasse. If not, they're definitely going to be paying that money to a guy who is unprepared and most likely underperforming.

5 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

I mean... As much as I'd like to say it's a non-issue I'd be wondering why they seem so set on the language this year if I was Stewart. Again... Considered a high character kid. So... Why?

He's also not the first player to balk at this language... I'm reading that this was the source of the Mims holdout as well? So... Can't just be Burton. Maybe the renewed insistence comes down to that? But third round contracts aren't even guaranteed. So... What?

This is a guy with a very long history of rolling the dice on guys with bad character... This is financial insurance against his own bad judgement. But first round picks get those guarantees for a reason. They were negotiated. If they don't like the guarantees, then get rid of the slotted salaries and see how "fair" paying out that Rookie contract is.

I really have no problem with the language, but you don't change the terms of a $16M deal without some give and take. So... I get both sides. But warranties cost money. Even if the Family is miffed that he didn't participate in mini-camps... You have to shelve that and make the deal. Either today or 3 weeks from now. Because as much as I get both sides, only the Bengals have the power to resolve the impasse. If not, they're definitely going to be paying that money to a guy who is unprepared and most likely underperforming.

Worth noting that Jake Rosenberg is a former Philadelphia Eagles VP who has negotiated many player contract deals for their franchise. A front office that seems to be held in pretty high regard around here these days.

8 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Remember that this is the man who signed Adam Jones. Signed Vontaze Burfict. Kept resigning Corey Dillon.

This is the same man who drafted Frostee Rucker. And Chris Henry. And Odell Thurman. And Jackson Carman.

We had 10 players arrested over a 14 month span back in the 2000's.

But it's nice to hear Mike talk about the Bengals high standards and the things they don't tolerate. We cut that guy who was beating on his girlfriend last year, right??

Personally, I hope he sits out the year and goes back to college. Then when he re-enters the draft next year we take him again. 😂

38 minutes ago, spicoli said:

Personally, I hope he sits out the year and goes back to college. Then when he re-enters the draft next year we take him again. 😂

If he enters next year's draft the Bengals are barred from drafting him again per NFL rules. The only team that would be.

He's not eligible to play any more in college. He will sign here shortly

2 hours ago, Dautcom08 said:

Worth noting that Jake Rosenberg is a former Philadelphia Eagles VP who has negotiated many player contract deals for their franchise. A front office that seems to be held in pretty high regard around here these days.

Well then... Obviously biased towards the FO. :)

There are things to negotiate. When the money gets paid, etc... So I would have to disagree. If they're "hammer and nail" deals, why are we still having guys get signed late? And not just the Bengals.

1 hour ago, BlackJesus said:

If he enters next year's draft the Bengals are barred from drafting him again per NFL rules. The only team that would be.

If that would happen, re-entering the draft next year,

he would be a 4th round pick if that for his drama and

bullshit this year

10 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

There really isn't much else to argue about. The money is slotted, etc... Just the terms and when the cash actually gets paid.

I know it seems silly to hold out over language... But it's worth noting that Jermaine Burton might have lost out on $6M if his agent had allowed this language to be put in his contract. Sure... Maybe Burton is a shit head who deserves to lose $6M, but would you have praised the agent who didn't pay attention to the details? Would you let him negotiate your deal? You'd have crowed about how we pulled a fast one on Burton's idiot agent. Did Burton go to prison? But we do know last year they were considering cutting him.

It does seem silly that they are arguing about paying 50% of the signing bonus now and 50% in a few months (or whatever those numbers are) vs. some other percentages. It's not like Mike is going to put that 50% in RocketLab for the next few months and hope they get a new launch contract to jack up the stock price. It's going to be someplace safe / stable that nets a small amount of interest.

Burton was never in danger of losing $6M. He was never going to lose the $1M+ that he received as a signing bonus for missing a walk-through and falling asleep in a few meetings. The NFLPA would have fought that precedent being set. He definitely could have been cut and the rest of his contract isn't guaranteed.

8 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

I mean... As much as I'd like to say it's a non-issue I'd be wondering why they seem so set on the language this year if I was Stewart. Again... Considered a high character kid. So... Why?

I don't think it has anything to do with Stewart the person. It's been rumored if not confirmed that Knight's contract has the language they're looking for. So I think they're trying to set the language up like the rest of the league because they realize that within 2 or 3 years, all 1st and 2nd round picks will have fully guaranteed contracts. A couple years after that it will probably include all of the 3rd round contracts too. So they do need to update their rookie contract language - just as most of the other teams are doing as well. From everything I can tell, this agent simply isn't going to allow that in his contract. Other agents probably would, but they would negotiate something else to compensate for it like Knight's agent did.

10 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

But the Bengals are moving towards offering less surety to their rookie picks at a time when the rest of the league is offering MORE surety to their rookies. (See Judkins) So... They might be "just catching up", but they've lost the moment. They're trying to get a guy to accept worse terms at a time when guys picked half a round later are getting fully guaranteed contracts.

It's not about the money (it's always about the money though) with regards to the guarantees. It's about the defaults and the results of a default and how that effects future guarantees. His contract will still be fully guaranteed barring a default. As Mike said, they aren't arguing about the money and instead both sides are arguing over something that other teams have in their contracts (including the 2 picks bracketing him) and something that nobody expects to happen (a default). These defaults are for things like criminal activity, violence against women, etc... that would land him lengthy suspensions. It doesn't sound like the agent is asking for more of the contract money up-front in exchange for the new default language and instead is just telling them to fuck off if the new language is in there.

Judkins has not been signed yet. So far, he hasn't received any surety in his contract and it's probably going to be a PITA to negotiate. Then again, it's Cleveland so they might just guarantee the whole thing as long as he goes to therapy sessions with Watson.

8 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

This is a guy with a very long history of rolling the dice on guys with bad character...

That was a long running issue with the team. One where (from memory) Mike even admitted it was a problem but it was something they thought they needed to do because their reputation with free agents was so bad that they felt a need to take those chances to acquire the players with higher talent despite questionable character. It bit them in the ass hard - repeatedly. That's undeniable.

10 hours ago, LostInDaJungle said:

The thing that irritates me about Myles Murphy isn't him taking up 1.2% of the cap. It's the wasted 1st round picks. Those high draft picks are absolute gold in the NFL.

Outside of Burton they've avoided that approach under Taylor with poor character picks and there's nothing publicly available suggesting Stewart is in that category. Stewart (and Mims last year) are in the risk category based off of a lack of performance in college that they are looking past because of their physical gifts and future potential. I guess Murphy appears to be in that category somewhat as well but at least he had some college production. So is this their new gamble for acquiring talent? It looks like they need to knock that shit off too because it's going to bite them in ass as well.

3 hours ago, Dautcom08 said:

Worth noting that Jake Rosenberg is a former Philadelphia Eagles VP who has negotiated many player contract deals for their franchise. A front office that seems to be held in pretty high regard around here these days.

“Disputes over this type of language with rookie contracts are rare,” Corry, a former sports agent, wrote. “The last one occurred in 2018 with linebacker Roquan Smith, the eighth overall pick. Smith missed the first two weeks of training camp because he and his agents objected to language where the Chicago Bears had the right to void his guarantees for an ejection or suspension from a game for violating NFL playing rules. A compromise was reached on the number of games in a suspension necessary to trigger voiding.”

So... Another option for resolving this stalemate.

There is mixed messaging on whether the language in the deal is in line with the rest of the league or if the Bengals are trying to insert some stuff that isnt in what the rest of the league is doing.

If/When this fool signs he immediately jumps to the top of my least favorite Bengal list.

Actually, I can't think of another one.

18 hours ago, Dautcom08 said:

For what it's worth, defaulting isn't 100% in a player's control. That's part of why the agent is taking a hard line. If a player gets a ticket for going 90 mph, that may or may not be a default depending on the team's feelings about him. If they like him, it won't be, if they are looking for an excuse to get out of his contract, it could be. If a player is falsely accused of a crime, the league typically waits to impose discipline but teams can act if they wish.

10 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

For what it's worth, defaulting isn't 100% in a player's control. That's part of why the agent is taking a hard line. If a player gets a ticket for going 90 mph, that may or may not be a default depending on the team's feelings about him. If they like him, it won't be, if they are looking for an excuse to get out of his contract, it could be. If a player is falsely accused of a crime, the league typically waits to impose discipline but teams can act if they wish.

I’m sure incidents that could void the guarantees would be specified in the contract with misdemeanors vs felonies being a starting point. No reason whatsoever to hold out this long. Shemar has involved himself with parasitic rats and is getting rat advice. Rats are only concerned with feeding themselves.

3 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

There is mixed messaging on whether the language in the deal is in line with the rest of the league or if the Bengals are trying to insert some stuff that isnt in what the rest of the league is doing.

Even if the Bengals proposed language mirrors other teams, there is a separate question of how willing the Bengals would be to drop the hammer on a player for stuff other teams might let slide. The Pickens clause comes to mind. The language itself is pretty broad, with a lot of "at the sole discretion of the club" type clauses. If I were the agent for a Bengals draft pick, I'd also want more clarity on when the team can use it.

4 minutes ago, IKOTA said:

I’m sure incidents that could void the guarantees would be specified in the contract with misdemeanors vs felonies being a starting point. No reason whatsoever to hold out this long. Shemar has involved himself with parasitic rats and is getting rat advice. Rats are only concerned with feeding themselves.

Well, that's the point. No contract can cover all the possibilities. So it's a matter of how broad the discretion is and who gets to exercise it. The CBA says rookie first round picks get 4 year guaranteed contracts. Yet teams want to negotiate that back (which the CBA also permits). It's unsurprising that agents don't want to give teams much leeway on invalidating guarantees.

Ozzy just died

Fuck Shamo Stewart and his agent.

F Ozzie and Shemars agent

37 minutes ago, IKOTA said:

I’m sure incidents that could void the guarantees would be specified in the contract with misdemeanors vs felonies being a starting point. No reason whatsoever to hold out this long. Shemar has involved himself with parasitic rats and is getting rat advice. Rats are only concerned with feeding themselves.

If the language is the same as other NFL teams... It's "Conduct Detrimental to the Club". About as broad as it could be.

5 hours ago, BBR said:

So is this their new gamble for acquiring talent? It looks like they need to knock that shit off too because it's going to bite them in ass as well.

Well, it's that or run the team like an NFL franchise instead of a Day-Old Bread discount store.

1 hour ago, LostInDaJungle said:

If the language is the same as other NFL teams... It's "Conduct Detrimental to the Club". About as broad as it could be.

It varies throughout the league, but there aren’t many examples of default language being triggered let alone players losing guaranteed money. Gambling is a pretty common clause being used now that it’s been so widely legalized. The vast majority of it has to do with off-field and legal reasons. It’s complete hyperbole to assume it will change much of anything since that hasn’t been the case around the league.

3 hours ago, IKOTA said:

F Ozzie and Shemars agent

Ozzy was a multi-generational legend .

Any co-relation to Stewart’s Jerry McGuire cheap imitation, is non sequitur