There are options for Chad Johnson trade
CincyJungle made an upgrade. Read this first to get acquired to the site (like obtaining your old usernames).
Teams looking to acquire disgruntled wide receivers enters day #1,673. Since the Bengals have no interest dealing Chad Johnson (which we'll get to below), teams most interested in acquiring a veteran wide receiver are going to their next option -- after Larry Fitzgerald, Chad Johnson and Lee Evans were unshoppable (my word) -- Anquan Boldin. Doing their best Marvin Lewis impression (except for the lying and then admission), they're quick to respond: "NO!"
Apparently Oil Slick (Johnson's agent) and the Redskins came to an agreement either before, or at the exact moment, that the trade offer was made -- which we're not exactly sure when. The Redskins offered Johnson $21 million in guarantee money while offering the Bengals their 21st overall pick in 2008 and a conditional third-round pick in 2009.
Here's some points that people are making.
- If the Bengals can't trade Johnson because of an $8 million cap hit, then wouldn't the Bengals be in further cap troubles with a first-round pick drafted a the 21st slot?
Well, yea. Last year the Jacksonville Jaguars signed Reggie Nelson (the 21st pick) to a five-year deal worth $7.1 million in guarantee money. I admit, I'm no capologist. This site claims the first year, Nelson's cap hit was estimated at $1.9 million the first year. The number nine pick -- the Bengals slot this year -- Ted Ginn Jr. signed a five-year deal with $14.1 million guaranteed. That should work out to just under $3 million against the cap -- if my logic is correct. So based on those very loose assumptions, the Bengals would be roughly $13 million against the cap for two first-round draft picks and Chad Johnson's departure. Now add the $7.45 million for Stacy Andrews' franchise tag and that number hits $20 million. Obviously, this is a tall number for four transactions. So what are the team's options?
Being creative and proactive isn't a word avoided like the Salem Which Hunt trials.
A trade for 2009 picks rather than 2008. I don't think the Bengals will have improved success from 2007 -- meaning I don't see them playing better than 8-8 or 9-7 as is. Spread the hit through two seasons via June 1st cut. If allowed, work with Chad about restructuring the contract to lower the cap number with Cincinnati then instantly ship him to Washington before the ink dries so he can sign his Washington deal. Get Stacy Andrews signed to a long-term deal, redo Carson Palmer's contract and sign T.J. Houshmandzadeh to a long-term deal that's cap friendly early -- I've seen it done, so it can happen. All you have to do is be creative and hope that the players understand the situation and work with you to resolve it.
- The only way the Bengals can succeed in 2008 is with Chad.
I find this argument incredibly faulty and presumptuous. Consider that the Bengals, as a whole, with Chad Johnson, have one winning season and one playoff game under their belts. With or without Chad, the team has a losing record when you scratch the 2005 season. The Bengals need Chad Johnson like they needed Corey Dillon -- a great talent, but not the team's sole contributor. Other teams use wide receivers wisely enough that players less talented perform to achieve their ends. Secondly, we have to be concerned on how Chad will be received in the locker room come week #1. Just because he has the talent to achieve great performances, doesn't translate to a team's success. It never does. If keeping Chad means a fractured locker room, then keeping Chad provides little, if any, benefit to the team's overall success. Even Palmer is deflated: "I've moved on and I'm over it. I'm not really going to comment on it much more." If trading Chad helps the team, then why not at least explore the question rather than jumping down everyone's throats about a report that you had to later confirm, via press release, that it was written as true?
I realize I'm beating Barbaro and I apologize for that. Both player and team is frustrating as hell -- Chad for being the prick (at least a sheep to Oil Slick), the team for being stubborn.
0 recs |
5
comments
| Add your comment
Read Related
Comments
snazzy new layout...
...but your math is a bit off in point 1. A $1.9 million cap hit + a $3 million cap hit = $4.9 million, not $13 million.
The cap hit really isn’t an issue. Chad will count about $6 million against the cap if he stays. If he were dealt, that number rises to $8 million. So the Bengals would be looking at needing roughly $4 million in space to absorb both the additional hit of trading Chad and signing an additional low-first-round pick.
You could probably get at least half that space simply by reaching a long-term deal with Stacy. Heck, use a two-tiered signing bonus with a big payout in 2009 and you could probably make all the room you need. And you have space in ‘09, since dealing Chad and taking the whole hit this year would free up at least $5 million (if not more like $8 million) in cap space next year.
Alternately, it may be possible to trade Chad and split the cap hit into two $4 million chunks, one taken this year and the other in 2009. I know you can do this if you cut a player by designating them to be treated as a post-June-1 cut. Under the revised CBA teams can make 2 of these “ahead of time” June 1 cuts a year. I’m not sure that you can do this if you trade a player, but the espn.com story on the Bengals’ rejection of DC’s offer said they could. If that’s the case, then cutting Chad actually frees up $2 million in cap space this year, which conveniently gives you all the room you need to sign that extra pick.
As to point 2, I think you are right. This team can win without Chad. But that said, I’m not prepared to give him away for anything less than a premium price. Compare DC’s offer with what the Chiefs got for Jared Allen. Maybe Chad isn’t worth that much, but right now he looks worth more than a low first and a maybe something good next year—especially with so many teams (Philly, Dallas, DC) all looking to trade for a top-end WR.
by BeerRun on
Apr 23, 2008 1:41 PM EDT
reply
0 recs
Oops
Read it again and see where your math was going. My bad.
by BeerRun on
Apr 23, 2008 1:42 PM EDT
reply
0 recs
RE:
No worries. And keep in mind, those numbers are purely speculation from other sites. So they could be as inflated (or deflated) as they are accurate. Just something to keep in mind not to use those numbers with any authority.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Kirkendall on
Apr 23, 2008 1:59 PM EDT
up
reply
0 recs
Perry
What would cutting Chris Perry do for the cap numbers?
by IgnatiusJReilly on
Apr 24, 2008 10:26 AM EDT
reply
0 recs
RE:
go-Bengals.com says that cutting Perry would create $1.42 million in “dead money”.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com
by Kirkendall on
Apr 25, 2008 1:56 PM EDT
up
reply
0 recs









