Question of the Day: Who do you support more? Andre Smith (Alvin Keels) or Mike Brown and the Bengals
by Kirkendall on Aug 24, 2009 10:51 AM EDT
in Contracts
82 comments
After meeting for over four hours on Sunday, no progress was made in negotiations between the Bengals and Alvin Keels because "the ship has sailed on the slotting system." The Bengals are offering nearly $12 million less than what the Smith camp has reportedly demanded. On Sunday night, Keels offered nothing more.
"That's all I'm going to say," said Keels as he prepared to board a plane Sunday night. "I guess we'll keep talking."
What the hell are the Bengals thinking? One could argue that the Bengals -- accidentally of course -- are more than willing to against the grain to do what they feel is necessary. Has their actions and positions forecasted into possible resolutions of outstanding league issues? Consider this. Mike Brown was one of two owners that rejected the current Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2006. Two years later, the other 30 owners followed suit.
Chad Ochocinco demanded a trade and spent most of last year's offseason promoting his desire to anyone that would listen. The Bengals dealt with it, even forgoing a trade proposal from the Washington Redskins for a 2008 first-round pick and a conditional third-round pick the following year that many people still believe was a mistake to pass up on -- me included. In the end, the Bengals refused to do what most teams do. While it might not be indirectly connected, you're seeing the Denver Broncos take the same position -- refusing to act on the whims of a diva wide receiver.
The top ten rookie contracts in the NFL are, by in large, ridiculous. Unproven kids beating proven, and good, veterans at their respective positions, should never happen. It's not like teams are battling other teams for that rookie's services. Mike Brown says to hell with the slotting system; you're a rookie and we'll pay you what we feel is fair. The other 31 teams have nothing to do with this. While Brown's position isn't one of isolation -- many owners, veteran players and even those in the Commissioner's office have spoken about rookie contracts -- he is the first, and likely will be on the only, owner to act on this widely popular impulse.
But the reality is this. There is a slotting system. And Andre Smith's representative wants his client to be slotted fairly, like the rest of the first round picks. If you're not going to adhere to the slotting system, then you're not going to get your draft pick signed. And if you do get him signed, he might be disgruntled enough to be a distraction, knowing that he got screwed financially to what the sixth overall pick would have received if selected by another team. The argument against that of course is that if it wasn't the Bengals selecting sixth overall, he wouldn't have been in the top-ten, with guys like Eugene Monroe and Michael Oher available who didn't set off the red-flag warnings Smith did.
Furthermore, you have to believe that anyone that has direct financial dealings with the Bengals, are observing this; which compounds an already fragile perception that others have of Cincinnati.
So the question of the day is this. Who do you support more? Andre Smith for only wanting a fair deal based on the current slotting culture? Or Mike Brown for looking to disrupt the slotting system?
0 recs |
82 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Its time to get signed...
Andre Smith is asking for a ridiculous amount of money! So in spirit, I’m with Mike Brown. Its good to stand up to ridiculous rookie contracts… However, reality dictates that we are going to have to pay this kid and right now, we need depth on our offensive line. Until the NFL comes up with a better system ala the NBA, we our going to continue to pay these kids
by The Dealio on Aug 24, 2009 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel sorry for Andre… sorta… but somebody had to have the guts to stand up to the ridiculous pay scale and if Mikey is the only one well good for him… sorta. I’m sure everybody will say it’s just because he’s a cheapskate. Just like in 2006 they thought he was nuts for voting against the CBA. Then two years later they all admit he was right. Who knows, maybe in two more years when the lockout starts because the new CBA couldn’t get hammered out in time everybody will wish they’d had the guts to stand up to first rounders as well.
by FriarBob on Aug 24, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I find your claims of "ridiculous salaries" to be....
…well, ridiculous. You understand these contracts aren’t guaranteed, right? You also understand the average shelf life for an NFL player is awfully, awfully short. Furthermore, you also understand that the team these players play for will make money whether they perform or not, right? So, if you are risking life and limb for these owners, why on earth is it “ridiculous” to expect a healthy cut of the pie, especially when it’s the player’s blood, sweat, and tears that makes the owners money?
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I understand all that. Far better than you do, obviously. Because I don’t give a single flip for what the player wants. These players are completely unproven. When they prove their worth and durability pay them or somebody else will soon enough. If they aren’t both worthy and durable enough to last long enough then they are worthless to my team or any other and I really don’t give a hoot what happens to them. They will find another job somewhere else and make the same kind of money you and I make. Their only loss is that they no longer win the lottery and end up set for life without lifting a single finger to do anything other than sign a rookie contract. Oh, my heart bleeds for them. /sarc off
But, but, but, these people worked hundreds of hours in college and got nothing for it yet! So what? So did every other college player who failed to be drafted. So did every other college player for that matter who failed to be drafted before the third round! For that matter, so did every other player who deserved to be drafted but got hurt their senior year and no longer can play football. So now Mikey should have to pay every other college player who didn’t make millions of dollars in college? Whatever.
First round rookie salaries are insane. Period. No ifs, no ands, no buts, no exceptions.
by FriarBob on Aug 24, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Their only loss is that they no longer win the lottery and end up set for life without lifting a single finger to do anything other than sign a rookie contract.”
Because that’s what all rookies do. They get their overvalued contract and then disappear.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow...
I almost cried there buddy. I think now we should give him a $230 million contract with $110 million guarantee for 1 year. I think that would compensate him risking life and limb, well…fat, very fat limb.
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 24, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But your somehow fine...
With owners getting rich and fat off of these players. That makes perfect sense.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey
I’m a Bengals fan, not an Andre Smith fan
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 24, 2009 5:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
My bad...
…I thought individual players made up a team. How stupid of me.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's ok kid
Happens to the best of us :)
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 24, 2009 8:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa, way off base
Please, look up the most dangerous jobs in the US. NFL player won’t be listed as one of them. Not even close. When something happens, it is nationally televised so the perception of it being dangerous is significantly amplified. Also, why’s it gotta be him that gets it? With the salary cap there’s only a certain amount of the pie that all the players are entitled to get. With these kids taking up huge chunks of it, they aren’t rewarding the guys who have stuck it out and actually “risked their life and limb” for several years. And shelf life? Please. The contract he is looking for will give him more money in a signing bonus than most people will ever will. The contract this kid is looking for has over 50% of his money being guaranteed. That does mean that even if he gets cut, at least that much money is still his. In fact, give me the contract that the Bengals are offering the kid, knowing full well I’ll blow out my knee on the first down I ever play and I would never be able to play again, and I’ll still take it. Then who loses out? Not just the owner, but the fans as well now that a nice chunk of the cap is dead money.
I am on Smith’s side due to the fact that he should get what’s established as fair, but the way this slotting system is working out is insane. I think Brown is doing something that should have been done a long time ago by several owners. This should be taken care of by Goodell, instead of spending so much time sticking his nose up players asses so as to hand out ridiculous judge and jury sentences. I know it’s all a lot deeper than this, but it’s a game. STFU, take your millions and play, whether your name is Smith, Curry, Sanchez, Crabtree, or anyone else just fresh out of school. More than half of the kids who signed those contracts will never live up to the money they are getting paid. Earn your money in the NFL. Hell, sign a huge contract dependent on incentives for all I care. The draft is supposed to help the worst teams, but now if the player turns out to be a bust, then all it does is hamstring them. Any wonder why the top teams have been staying at the top the last several years while the worst teams are stuck in the mud for the most part?
It took my two years to come up with an avatar and sig
and this is the best I could come up with.
by einman77 on Aug 24, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
F***ing Retarded
Our biggest priority in the offseason is to address our O-line and therefore protect our franchise player, and this is how the front office decides to go about it? Unbelieveable. If we didn’t want to pay top-10 money to the kid, then why the hell didn’t we trade down? I’ve gone from being ecstatic about the offseason to now rolling my eyes at the same-old Bengals ineptitude. If I was Carson, I imagine I’d be a bit pissed.
Annoyingly, the last 5-10 minutes of Hard Knocks is now also being devoted to this sham. Instead of watching a feature on one of our young up-and-comers, I have to watch Katie Blackburn talk on the phone like an 8th-grade girl with her “business face” on. Absolutely indefensible.
by McWad on Aug 24, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This has nothing to do with the player.
The slotting system in no way helps the player and in fact in some cases like this one hurts the player due to missed time etc. The slotting system as far as I can see is there to help the the agents. I know that everyone’s got to make the a living so I can understand how no agent would want it to appear the he or she was bullied by an organization but at the same time if the agent’s had thier client’s best interest in mind instead of instituting a self preservation instinct, if the agent takes less this year then there’s no way he or she get’s high profile clients next year, then this type of thing wouldn’t happen. I know how most people feel about Mike Brown and I think it’s a shame that he’s only saying, through actions, what everyone is thinking. That rookie salaries are out of the control and something needs to be done. Now we can only hope that some owner with some pull, Kraft, Snyder, Jones, can get this take care of.
by theRaginAsian on Aug 24, 2009 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Perfect Storm
I guess my question would be "if this was anyone else but Andre Smith in the Bengals 6th spot (top ten) would we fans feel differently about who to blame more? As it stands now most of my frustration falls on Mike Brown. If it had been someone else, because Andre had too many red flags, I would not have so much angst toward Bengals ownership/management.
I feel rookie wages are out of hand but I’d prefer the Bengals aren’t the ones making a stand at the expense of fielding a winning team. The Bengals realy don’t have much room for error to avoid “the loser label”. They should have drafted best available athlete
if they were not comitted to Andre.
by featherman on Aug 24, 2009 12:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
how stupid can they be
its known by everyone that the pay scale is slotted.
did mike think he was going to pull a fast one
the longer this kid is in alabama, the more money they are wasting. he is going to be out of shape and not know the playbook, which will waste 1/4 to 1/2 of his first year salary.
RETARDED
by nadfflictar on Aug 24, 2009 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+!
I don’t have any issue with Andre on this, other than perhaps his choice of agencies has caused a rift in all of bullshit, causing defensive stances to emerge from the front office.
That said, this is NOT the place to draw a line in the sand, which Mikey Boy is doing. The only thing the Bengals not bending is doing is to lose Andre off the field for at least the first 4 games (at this point).
5. Mark Sanchez QB N.Y. Jets Signed 5 years, $60 million ($28M guaranteed)
6. Andre Smith OT Cincinnati – how about 5 years, $49.125 million (25.75M guaranteed)
7. Darrius Heyward-Bey WR Oakland Signed 5 years, $38.25 million ($23.5M guaranteed)
That’s right in the middle. Move on, lets play ball and protect our franchise QB and make some running lanes for the backs. How hard is that? Then bitch and moan about the system at the next old fat guy’s meeting in florida in 2010.
by UpStateMike on Aug 24, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're comparing apples to oranges
And that’s how the Bengals are seeing it. You can’t compare a franchise quarterback and a supposedly prime time receiver to a tackle. That’s why the slotted system is wrong.
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 24, 2009 6:25 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
Apples to oranges, please don’t make me explain
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 24, 2009 8:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
then compare the bengals’ offer to eugene monroe’s two picks later. the 8th pick is getting paid more than what the bengals are offering the 6th pick and they play the same position.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 26, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Will do
Jacks was offering 28.5 with 18 guarantee, but the owner caved like a little girl and ended up giving him something like 34 (don’t remember the exact amount). I think they need him more than we need Smith right now.
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 26, 2009 9:56 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
still…apples to apples in terms of market value at the OT position. if the bengals had taken monroe instead of smith, then AS would be making that money in jax and monroe would be the one holding out (or otherwise would have accepted a much smaller deal than his peers). those are the facts as i see them. do you disagree? i maintain that the H-B deal isn’t even that absurd if you look at the rest of the first round…it was one of the first rookie contracts so i can see why the raiders get the blame, but the bengals can no longer stick to their “we’re looking at the rest of the first round, not heyward-bey” argument (from the first episode of hard knocks).
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 26, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the wrong place/wrong time.
Ok, I get it. Mike Brown wants to pay what is “fair” and not outrageous prices teams are paying for their top picks. Here’s the problem: EVERYONE ELSE HAS PAID! Brown is more concerned with dollar signs than puting together a winning team! This bullshit has cost us 18 years! Every other owner, im sure, completely agrees with Brown on this one but they have enough brains to figure out that they can make more money by putting together a winning team than saving a few million on one player.
If Brown is so against the system then he needs to stand up to it at the right time: during CBA talks. By taking a stand on his own, the Bengals must now play without their top pick. This is a problem NO OTHER TEAM has to face (aside from the 49ers). This is the wrong place to fight this battle, even if rookie prices are out of control.
by JohnnyK on Aug 24, 2009 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
For all those who voted no, I have some questions:
What, exactly, do you hope these negotiations accomplish? Smith “being put in his place?” Or are you worried that the team doesn’t have enough money to pay for its new rookie? If that’s the case, maybe you need to be reminded this is football — with a salary cap and revenue sharing — and not MLB, where the richest, biggest market team usually wins?
How, exactly, are you as a fan hurt by Smith asking for what’s fair based on other rookie signings? Lastly, who, exactly, asked Mike Brown to address something that’s going to be addressed when the current CBA expires?
Oh, and, by saying no, you also agree it’s worth continuing to jeopardize Carson Palmer’s health while the Bengals owner argues over 7 million dollars. Just thought you should know that.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 1:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not having enough money? Who cares? Not me. I wouldn’t care one bit whether Mikey had enough money in petty cash to pay Andre’s entire rookie contract in cash up front or if he has to mortgage his home to pay the first paycheck. You obviously don’t know jack squat about how the salary cap actually works. The salary cap uses numbers that have about a 10% relationship to the real amount of money spent. Just look at how many people wanted Chad traded last year despite the cap hit we’d take, and cooler head said “no we can’t do that”. What was that cap hit? Money Mikey would have to pay out for trading him? Nope, it was money he’d already paid years ago now coming home to roost. No whatever money this contracts ends up paying in signing bonus will all be paid up front but will be prorated against the cap for 5 years. Or what about Hanesworth’s new contract? The total value is over $100 million bucks, and the amount of money Albert takes home this year is something like 20 or 30 million, but the actual cap value this year is less than ONE million. And these are just two of MANY examples which makes the entire idea of the salary cap a complete joke as an argument to back up your position.
And it really doesn’t make one bit of difference whether I’m hurt or not by Andre’s demands. And Mike has every right to bring up whatever negotiation point he wants whenever he wants. I realize you hate him and want him to have his ownership of the team stolen from him which is a moronic position in itself (how would you like me to be able to steal your car from you and get away with it because I don’t like the way you drive?) but even from within that position he still is the owner and as long as he is he has every right to take whatever ownership position he wants. You in turn have every right to refuse to buy his product and I will support you in that, but not one inch further.
And finally, you’re arguing off facts not in evidence by saying that Carson’s health is on the line if we don’t sign Andre now. AC has done a pretty good job so far and he did an excellent job last year as a rookie. I have zero doubt he’ll be plenty good enough to get the job done at least adequately. For that matter, based on yardage and scoring and such maybe we should be more worried about keeping JT healthy instead of Carson!
No I’m sorry your arguments carry exactly zero weight with me.
by FriarBob on Aug 24, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meanwhile, Carson is limping around with an aircast on because of a sprained ankle. So yeah, getting the best tackle in college football last year in camp won’t help at all.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Further, you missed the point...
This isn’t baseball where the team with the most money wins. So that argument is quite valid. The fact you want to lowball a player just to put them in their place is puzzling, because all your counterpoints have amounted is this: “I don’t think rookies should make that much, so screw Smith.” and little else.
And yet, my arguments are a complete joke?
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
AC argument is overrated
All it takes is an injury anywhere on our O-line, and we’re in big trouble. I’ll agree that AC has looked good and I wouldn’t mind him being the starter, but at the very least you get Smith in early and in shape to play NFL football as the first backup. Relying on our current starters is completely short-sighted and silly. This is the NFL, injuries happen all the time.
By the way, I know you’re trying to make your point, but did you really just imply that we should worry about O’sullivan’s health more than Carson’s based off of two preseason games. Wow…just wow…
by McWad on Aug 24, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, you're WAY to angry
Here’s what I have took note from your comments in the past…
First and foremost, no one who posts messages on this site has any idea about anything. Except for you. (“You obviously don’t know jack squat about how the salary cap actually works.”)
That was the 2nd to 3rd time I’ve read a similar comment from you. (Whether you’re actaully right in this instance is irrelevant. You don’t have to be a dick about it.)
Let me ask you this: If we’re all a bunch of morons who don’t know what the hell we’re talking about, then why waste your time bantering back and forth with us? I certainly know that you’ve called me clueless on more than one occassion. It must be because I am.
2nd…
You think Anthony Collins is the answer? If so, I’d love to use your own logic about “not knowing squat” about talent evaluation. I mean, Andre Smith might not be the answer either, technically. But status quo sure the hell ISN’T the answer either.
I have an idea. Lets do nothing to improve!
3rd…
Yeah…JT O’Sullivam is REALLY the answer. Wow. You think this preeason’s “Show” the offense has put on is spectacular? I mean, it’s not BAD I suppose. But if you are overly impressed I again have to use your logic in decreeing, “You don’t know squat.”
I know everyone’s arguments “carry exactly zero weight with (you)” because you NEVER FAIL to always use that line, FriarBob, but maybe just maybe your opinion isn’t the only one that does “carry weight” in this world.
That or maybe you’re not always right.
In the meantime, why don’t you calm your nerves?
by JohnCockToastin on Aug 24, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the O’sullivan thing was him discounting the theory that carson is in an aircast because of collins. As to say that smith is no more equipped to unseat collins than osullivan is for palmer, but i could be wrong.
also, collins, if he had stayed in school another year could have gone very early in this draft. i’ve read countless articles that put him in the same category as Jason smith and he was being mentioned as a tackle of similar talent. So I have some faith in him.
by brandone on Aug 24, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope not really. Just a bit snotty maybe, but not angry. The ideas you and he are putting forward are idiotic, and I’m going to call a spade a spade. Sorry if you don’t like it. Sorta.
by FriarBob on Aug 24, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And being "more worried about keeping JT healthy instead of Carson!" is brilliant.
I forgot, you are the genius.
by JohnCockToastin on Aug 25, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That one was sarcasm. Sorry that I forgot the font, but it was pretty blatant so I figured everybody would recognize it.
by FriarBob on Aug 25, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
In all seriousness, don’t you think you can try and have some dialogue with AT LEAST the regulars without saying we’re alll idiots or discrediting our opinions as ludicrous?
I’m not going to necessarily speak for others, but I quite frankly don’t think my ideas are “idiotic.” You don’t have to agree with me on everything I say…but for fuck’s sake…
Don’t ya think we’re all sorta on the same team? …at least we all come to this site for the same reason.
by JohnCockToastin on Aug 25, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well few people ever do. Even when they are. I’m sure you think some of mine are too, but I’ll guarantee you I don’t think so. So why should I expect you to think yours are? I shouldn’t. And I don’t.
That doesn’t, however mean that they aren’t.
Your comments in the past have been just as rude as some of mine. Or worse. Then again, what I consider rude and what you consider rude aren’t obviously the same thing either. I consider profanity to be a sign of, well, a rude idiot. Sorry, but there are always other ways to say what you mean without having to curse up a blue streak. I generally prefer emphatic language to cursing myself.
So when I’m responding to somebody who I’ve seen make multiple “rude” comments (by my standards at any rate) I’m going to assume they don’t mind having the same thrown back at them. I just use a different standard of rudeness. For me calling you an idiot is a pretty minor deal. It’s kind of like your use of the F word to judge by your constant use of it. A pseudo-comma almost. For me calling something idiotic is kind of like saying “hey dude, wake up and really look facts rather than just engaging your emotions!”. Its nothing personal in any way shape or form.
by FriarBob on Aug 25, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair Enough
We’re getting way more deeper than football, which wasn’t ever my intention…but I have been curious as to your thought processes in the past. Perhpas now I have a better understanding.
You make good and fair points about people (and in this case us) having differing opinions as to what is rude and insulting.
You’re right…I don’t see any harm in casually dropping an F-bomb. Can it be rude? Sure. Is it emblamatic in me being an idiot? I find that to be quite a stretch. Considering that I write with decent grammar and use what I deem is at least a halfway decent vocabulary, I think I have proven at the very least I am not a slobbering idiot and thus derserve to not be called one.
The difference is that I didn’t personally insult you by saying “fuck.” You personally insulted me by calling me an idiot.
But…you and I differ on those paths…which is fine.
I wouldn’t call you an “idiot” for saying something I disagree with, and you wouldn’t use an F-Bomb.
I feel better though now actually…
I am curious though…what comments have I made in the past that you think have been disrespectful to others? (aside from cussing) Were they aimed at you or someone else?
It’s not that I don’t think I’ve never been rude, arrogant, or disrespectful to anyone before…but I think for the most part (aside from a curse word here and there of course) I have shown a willingness to listen to others point of views.
Naturally we all argue and debate…but I don’t consider disagreeing to be disrespectful.
by JohnCockToastin on Aug 25, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure anymore. I just remember (or think I do) what looked (to me at least) like a massively rude and very heated argument between you and somebody else and very little else. I suppose there is at least a reasonable chance it was merely a “first impression” sort of thing that stuck around longer than it should have.
by FriarBob on Aug 25, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually know EXACTLY the incident you are referring to
I believe it must have been a first impression…because I think I’ve only been “That Guy” once. Ironically in that instance, I was behaving in the exact manner in which I’m giving you a hard time about.
So…I’m a hyprocrite.
BUT…it was really only once. And I felt the poster – who shall remain nameless – was clearly an “idiot” and did actually deserve to be called such.
I clearly am not…and thus don’t deserve to be called such.
Deal?
by JohnCockToastin on Aug 25, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we need Dr. Phil…
This is our year!
by Carsonorbust on Aug 25, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Naw. Even an idiot (assuming either of us ever were one in the first place) can usually figure things out when they step back, disengage emotions and reengage their brains.
by FriarBob on Aug 25, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I can’t exactly throw the first stone at ya… :) I’ve done a few things myself that I then excoriated others over at a later date.
So yeah, lets both pretend both that incident and this one never happened and push the big red reset button.
by FriarBob on Aug 25, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with ya...
…Good talk, Russ.
by JohnCockToastin on Aug 26, 2009 8:15 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
i just read this entire conversation and i think both of you are idiots.
jk :) i’m proud of you guys for coming to this conclusion and i give you both a big WHO DEY!
by GrooveLeg on Aug 26, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
All I want is for the Bengals to compete on equal footing with the other 31 teams. With the Brown family in charge I don’t see it happening.
by featherman on Aug 24, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly my point.
The issue shouldn’t be whether:
“Andre is right- go with the slotting system”
vs.
“Brown is right- Andre doesn’t deserve that much”
The issue is how Brown is handling this problem. Many of you support him for going against a system that overpays players who have yet to prove their worth in the NFL. Fine, I agree it should change. However, Brown is doing it in a way that HURTS THE BENGALS and only helps his pocket. If he truly wants change then do it at the CBA bargaining table. No other owner is pursuing this course of action and thus, hurts the bengals competitively. We are the only team that loses out on this. If we want a change in the system, then every team must work together.
by JohnnyK on Aug 24, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
How about this...
I was just thinking about how a lot of the #1 overall picks nowadays have their deals already inked by the time the Chancellor steps to the podium. What if ALL the picks (or at least the 1st and 2nd rounders) were that way? How could they make it so that there HAD to be a deal in place (terms of the deal not disclosed until after the draft, to further blow up the slotting system) before the pick is made?
Would prevent holdouts over money by 1st and 2nd rounders, but I already see some flaws in this as I type…not the least of which is the possibility of an owner having Oil Slick sit there and hold his pick hostage until the clock runs out.
Help me out here…
by TheWalrus1971 on Aug 24, 2009 1:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Boo Agents,
If I were to blame somebody for these shananigans, I would have to blame the agents. The only people who really don’t have anything to lose are the guys who are doing the negotiations. The players lose valuable playing/practice time, the Owners lose credibility and the opportunity to sport a winning team, but the agents don’t have anything to lose by going after the biggest contracts possible. You can’t blame the owners for not wanting to overpay rookies, and you can’t blame the players for wanting to get a fair salary. The agents just get to sit by and profit off of all the carnage.
The other part of the blame has to go to the NFL for letting this whole thing get this far in the first place. It’s not like this is the first year that rookie contracts have been out of control. Something should have been done a long time ago.
Finally though, I think that Brown has to realize that even though the system sucks, everybody has to put up with it (at least this year). He needs to pony up and just pay Andre what is fair based on his draft position. Maybe next year, we’ll see a new system in place, but all NFL owners have work with the existing system.
This is our year!
by Carsonorbust on Aug 24, 2009 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks For Nothing, Mr. Scrooge !
If Brown and management had so much trouble with paying a #6 pick, then they should have traded down. They knew going in how the system works and that to add him to the team is going to cost big bucks. So now, if they just cannot part with the cash, then just trade the rights to Smith to a team that is willing to pay the salary for a #6 selection. We needed offensive line help and the miserly attitude is putting our season’s success at risk. We either needed an offensive lineman or the value for that pick. If Andre Smith was “our man”, then pay him accordingly and end this absurd charade. As we stand now, we have nothing and that is not fair to the team or us as fans.
by laibach on Aug 24, 2009 2:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it is not easy to trade back
but I think Mike Brown should consider letting other teams pass in front of him…….you get what you pay for.
he should know this, looking at his own business he’ll see the empty seats this year.
by nadfflictar on Aug 24, 2009 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why
don’t my polls get as many answers as this one? woooooooooowwww
If you don't live like you wanna, you live like you shouldn't
by trotanoy on Aug 24, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
skepticism
I am very skeptical of some of the “facts” being thrown around concerning the Andre Smith negotiations. What is the authority for the assertion that the Bengals are offering 12 million dollars less than what Smith/Keels are asking for? Where are these figures coming from? Alvin Keels? I feel this blogger is passing off bad information because he has no access to reliable information. But, for what its worth, if Keels is still asking for 40 mil over 5 years, he is as intransigent as the Bengals are accused of being. Smith/Keels have no leverage here. The Bengals can now kiss off the pair and go with Collins and Roland at RT, and not have to pay an immature head case tens of millions of dollars. Smith can sit out and wait for next year’s draft. By then, he will probably weigh 450 pounds. In any event, he will never be a top 10 pick again and will never see a rookie offer anywhere near what the Bengals have offered. Smith is on the verge of missing out on his chance to become a wealthy man and “a river to his [family]” Why? Because 30 million dollars or thereabout is not enough? Because a semi-demented owner in Oakland fell in love with DHB? Because the ridiculous Alvin Keels doesn’t think its fair? ( Where does Kirkendall get his info? How does he know what Keels considers fair?) And what is “fair”? Or unfair? Is it fair to make Andre Smith the second highest paid player on the Bengals? Kirkendall’s whole premise is absurd because it suggests that somehow paying Andre Smith 30 million dollars is unfair. Is he nuts? By the way, isn’t it somewhat absurd for Kirkendall to speak of the “slotting system” as if it were somehow an actual system that is supposed to be imbued with something so subjective as “fairness”? If that were true, Tyson Jackson at #3 would not have received three million less in guaranteed money than Curry at #4. Slotting is a convenience to assist in negotiations, and nothing more. By the way, Mike Oher is a bigger head case than Andre Smith.
by blueridge624 on Aug 24, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
just a note
curry’s deal was for 6 years. jackson’s was for 5. hence more guaranteed money.
by brandone on Aug 24, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I feel this blogger is passing off bad information because he has no access to reliable information."
If you say so. But so you know, all information we provide is sourced. For instance.
$28 million base salary the Bengals offered came from Joe Reedy.
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/bengals/2009/08/23/no-progress-in-smith-talks/
The NFL Network reported that Keels is looking for $40 million.
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/08/07/rookie-ot-smith-bengals-far-apart-in-contract-talks/
Now, from my understanding, 40 minus 28, is 12.
So please, where is this bad information being passed on from me because I have “no access to reliable information.”
Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Kirkendall on Aug 24, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
( Where does Kirkendall get his info? How does he know what Keels considers fair?)
Keels wants more than the seventh pick of the NFL draft. Unless you missed Hard Knocks, it’s where Blackburn asks “you’re still on the DHB deal” and then Keels tweets that Brown said “the ship has sailed on the slotting system.”
And unless you’ve totally missed it, the Bengals are offering Smith less than DHB — which I referenced for you using outside sources that we sourced previously. Oh, I believe Keels also said “fair” on the other end of Hard Knocks.
Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Kirkendall on Aug 24, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The phone call I mean with Blackburn
Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Kirkendall on Aug 24, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it
1) They should not have drafted Smith 6th if they didn’t want to pay him 6th round cash. Trade down!
2) Smith deserves to make as much as he can. For reasons cited by Chris.
3) Brown has the right to not pay that as cited by anyone that has ever bought anything.
4) Smith has way more to lose than the Bengals.
5) Some of you guys are WAY to worked up and long winded about this!
6) Kevin Huber is the God of Golden Legs.
by mskiles314 on Aug 24, 2009 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Insert the word TRY in the appropriate places in points one and two and eliminate references to the nonsense arguments from Chris and you’d have nailed it 100% on the head.
by FriarBob on Aug 24, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree with your second point there. The rookie salary system right now is way over inflated due to pressure on owners to sign their rookies and agents with greedy minds. He certainly doesn’t deserve to make more than most pro-bowlers are making, which is what he is asking for.
This is our year!
by Carsonorbust on Aug 25, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he is asking for his slot’s going rate…and if he were drafted by any team other than the bengals, he’d be in camp (if the reported offers are accurate).
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 26, 2009 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my two cents
I don’t really know who to fault here, but what I do know is that there are way too many people who have already deemed smith the next munoz or anderson. I have a good feeling about smith, but he’s not there yet. Those who think that carson is any less protected right now or even this year without him are a little shortsighted. Few people think about the fact that he’s a rookie and barring a few exceptions, rookies have mediocre first seasons as they adjust to the game in the NFL. Collins has played a year, he has seen the steelers and the ravens in person. He knows the chaos those defenses can create. Smith would obviously have an adjustment period and I don’t think any fan can ask for more than what collins is providing right now.
Also, if they needed a stopgap solution for depth in the case of an injury, there are plenty of veterans out there who could provide that. Jon Runyan especially if they need an RT. I would prefer them to sign smith so he can learn and be ready for a (hopefully) playoff run, but I think if they’re truly offering a contract based on the correct increase percentage over last year, then they can stand their ground.
by brandone on Aug 24, 2009 4:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good points...
…But aren’t ALL rookie contracts given on a leap of faith? That is, you HOPE the players will pan out as hoped.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah they are. and i’m in no way saying anything to contradict that. it’s not just rookie contracts, all contracts are given on a leap of faith. how many people were worried that haynesworth was just going to phone it in after his huge payday?
i hope smith works out and I hope he gets signed because he could be great in the future. I’m just saying there are other options and he may not be the impenetrable wall that everyone is acting like he will be, at least not yet. Even willie gave up a sack or 2.
by brandone on Aug 24, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
life
"Ghiaciuc's play was a distraction"
by firstPick on Aug 24, 2009 6:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is this necessarily bad for the Bengals?
1. They might get a good player at a discount. The longer this goes, the more the leverage the team has. Because if Smith isn’t going to start, what’s the rush?
2. Worst case: They never sign him, and they can then use the money for something else. Let’s assume there is a salary cap again at some point, even if there isn’t one for 2010. They need to spend their money wisely. Who’s to say that at this point they aren’t better off taking that $7M – $8M / year and using it to extend Joseph, Hall or Henry? Of course, this is dependent on the FO actually taking the money and using it and not just pocketing it.
The Bengals are the only team that can set a precedent like this (ignore the slotting system) because they absolutely don’t care about public opinion. Guess what — In this case it is actually a strength! They shouldn’t care. It’s the other owners — who worry about how the public will perceive their actions — that end up compromising and caving in to the status quo. The Brown family doesn’t care — and I predict it will actually work to their benefit this time. It’s like trying to negotiate with a crazy person — eventually you give them what they want just so you can get away from the madness. Don’t be surprised if the Browns end up getting a discount on this deal, albeit at the cost of losing Smith’s services as a starter for 2009. But still, might be a better approach.
by California Bengal Fan on Aug 24, 2009 6:54 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
If 2010 isn't a capped season, we're absolutely fucked anyway.
There’s no way that Mike Brown will even try to compete. He’ll probably field as cheap a team as possible until the cap is reinstituted.
by jsl413 on Aug 24, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An uncapped season might benefit the Bengals more than you think
Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.
by Kirkendall on Aug 25, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Brown family doesn't Care
- goal make money.
- goal win
They still can’t figure out that if you invert the two goals both would be achieved and public opinion would soar. I get tired of their "small Market argument for not spending in a ,at present, revenue sharing,salary capped league. Pittsburghs market is about like Cincinnati’s so why the disparity in wins/perceptions.
by featherman on Aug 25, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let it go
Brown is a businessman running his business in order to make money. Keels is an agent negotating on his client’s behalf a business deal with the Bengals. I really don’t care if they are 12 million dollars apart or if they are 12 cents apart. What I care about is the team that is on the field today. If Smith signs in the next 2 hours or 2 weeks what good will he do for the Bengals? Nothing for at least the first half of this season! I hate to beat a dead horse but lets harken back to Smith’s Combine and his pro work out day will we get that bi product because he is disgruntled over his contract. Let him sit and enter the draft next year and then see where he will be slotted. If he and his agent are smart sign now and think about free agency if he is as good as everyone believes him to be. I
by Bengal John on Aug 24, 2009 7:11 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Or,,,
And I know this is apparently a minority opinion, the Bengals could gasp continue to address the ONE offseason issue that still needs addressing — protecting Brown’s true investment, Carson Palmer.
Maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe a successful team — something where a good offensive line is a necessity — would make less of a profit than a perpetual 8-8/7-9 team…
It just seems a lot of this venom is nothing but the same ole/same ole about player salaries more than it is about Smith. Apparently, to some of you anyway, the only way Smith can do right is to eat the shit the Browns are shoveling out instead of standing up for what’s fair — and yes, fair is a RELATIVE term.
Why is it alright for the Bengals franchise to low-ball Smith when just about every other franchise has treated their first round rookie right? If this were Michael Crabtree, I’d could understand the sentiment a little more. As it stands, the owner/GM/CEO/Personnel manager (see a problem here?) of the Bengals caused every single bit of this debacle.
by IFChris on Aug 24, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it right? Can you really not see that, or is that just bloviating silliness trying to make a point in some backwards fashion?
This is AMERICA dude, not the USSR or some other dictatorship. Mike can do whatever he wants. Period. Even if he was 100% stupid and idiotic for him to do it, so long as it’s not actively illegal it’s still his company and he can do it if he wants to. That’s what owning something means in the land of the free. (Assuming it still exists of course.)
And you have every right to boycott and complain and say you don’t like it and wish it was done differently, but you do NOT have any right to say that he MUST do anything and you do NOT have the right to say he’s wrong. He can’t be unless what he’s doing is illegal. It’s his personally owned item to do with as he pleases.
It may be a stupid thing for him to do. I’ve already tried to show you why it’s not anywhere near as stupid as you seem to think it is, and will waste no more time on that, but even if I’m 100% wrong in everything I’ve said in that area he still has every right to do it if he wants to. Period.
by FriarBob on Aug 24, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is management cheap or is it spending responsibly ?
Seems like more fans are on the player’s side. Fact of life is too many Bengals first round picks ended up either injured or did not perform up to expectation (meaning not around any more). When you have guaranteed minimum, it is kind of very expensive to dish that out while you are sitting and not performing while many others who are making much less money are sweating out there and working hard. Last year’s economics don’t dictate this year’s pay scale. I favour specific incentive clauses, minimum games played, awards, etc. to patch up the difference in figures
by Richard L on Aug 25, 2009 2:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think them losing a first round draft pick this year would actually set them back that much IF they did a few things. First and foremost, lock up some younger players with the extra money they’d have. 2, trade smith’s rights for a 2nd or 3rd rounder next year.
they got maualuga and johnson, arguably 2 first rounders. even without smith, they had a killer draft this year. but if they don’t sign him, then they need to make good on the money before the uncapped year.
by brandone on Aug 25, 2009 7:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
At this point, I don’t think anyone’s opinion will change on this one way or another. I side with the Bengals on this, not as a Mike Brown supporter, but as a supporter of less ridiculous 1st-round rookie pay. Other people disagree with me, and I understand their reasons, but I disagree with them. The only point I’ll make in that regard, and I’m not sure if others have said it, is what if this were Bob Kraft, Jim Irsay, or the Rooneys in the negotiation; would they be lambasted for being cheap or would they be lauded for recognizing the economic realities at the present and attempting to follow the advice of DeMaurice Smith?
by Raging Clue on Aug 25, 2009 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
they wouldn't put their teams in this position
those owners are actually putting winning games at the forefront.
by featherman on Aug 25, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually applaud the principle that Mike Brown
is standing up for, however, his track record as a GM is so poor that I have little tolerance for his leadership. I’m tired of 0-4,0-5, 0-6 and worse starts to seasons. The Bengals lead the league in those kind of starts and it’s just disheartening to be looking to a 8-8 team as the best we can hope for.
I think the Bengals are close to being competitive but they need all the breaks they can get (like being able to sign their first round draft pick -even at this point if it’s for depth) in order to have a winning season.
by featherman on Aug 25, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your first sentence kind of proves my point; I think most of the pro-Andre side isn’t so much that as it is anti-Mike Brown, and it’s based on his track record rather than the reality of the situation. To me, the reality is that we can afford to let Andre sit out if that’s what happens, because I think the depth at the tackle position is serviceable enough that not having him (especially at this point) has no significant impact on the team. I think he’s an upgrade over Anthony Collins, but that doesn’t mean that not having him will be the demise of Carson. Let’s not forget, Carson’s ankle injury against the Saints didn’t come from a lack of blocking, it came from him stepping oddly, and the pass protection in the preseason has been very reminiscent of 2005.
by Raging Clue on Aug 25, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Three points
1. Andre deserves a fair market value for his position (which in my opinion is less than what most pro-bowlers make), but should try and get as much as he can.
2. Brown has the right to ask for a fair price (which in my opinion is less than what Smith is asking for and does not correspond with the slotting system).
3. The only person who isn’t losing anything in this holdout is Smith’s agent.
Let’s not try to blame one side or the other, the fact is that both sides are going to have to be reasonable and meet somewhere in the middle before Andre can play this year.
This is our year!
by Carsonorbust on Aug 25, 2009 6:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Cincy Jungle
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
