Oil Slick made an appearance on ESPN.com's draft coverage saying that the Cincinnati Bengals have had at least one firm trade offer of two first-round picks. Not a conditional third, but a second first-round pick. So that covers one of three prerequisites given to us by Merrill Hoge earlier. The second is that the Bengals would like an established player. The third?

This is what I believe is the main hurdle for Oil Slick and Prima Donna Johnson. The Bengals want $5 million already paid to Prima Donna Johnson that was freely handed to him when he signed his -- how did Oil Slick put it two years ago, ground breaking? -- contract. While I think the "we won't trade Chad because he's under contract" is an inspiring position for fans tired of players consistently begging for trades, this really seems like a counter-demand that Mike Brown would make. If you're going to sign a contract, even though a ton of your money is given up front, you will earn that money even though you already have it. Otherwise, sit and retire.

But with this information coming out this morning/afternoon, it would seem like a trade is becoming even less likely that the demands are becoming so public -- and free flowing. Though who knows? We do know that the NFL Draft is still 90 minutes away and four teams have reportedly already made their selections. Funny.

During ESPN's Draft telecast, Merrill Hoge explained the Bengals demands for Chad Johnson -- something we haven't heard yet. If you want Chad Johnson, you'll have to give up two first-round picks (none of this conditional crap), an established player (offense or defense we're assuming) and $5 million back from Johnson's signing bonus that's already paid.

In other words, they'll trade him. But the demands might itself prove as a deterrent from teams looking to trade with him. The PFT guys also provide sound reasoning when it comes to the "dead money" folly that Cincinnati beat writers continue to pound into us. There is actually SEVERAL options that the Bengals can do to get around the dead money excuse.

Just a real quick amendment regarding the refused trade between the Bengals and the Redskins for Chad Johnson. For sure, the Bengals would have received a first-round pick in 2008. The conditional third-round pick was based on receptions by Chad Johnson during the 2008 campaign. If he caught 80 passes, the Bengals would have received a second-round pick. If Johnson caught 95 passes, the Bengals were awarded a first-round. Not that it really matters, but a little knowledge never hurt no one.

Chris Henry begged -- or is it bugged -- the judge during an April 22 hearing to allow him more "freedom" while waiting a trial on assault charges. Another hearing is scheduled for May 6. Not that it really matters since he's not a Bengals player anymore -- oh, how nice am I? (note: this is how bad Cincinnati.com's search engine is. I did a search on Chris Henry and it came back without any results)

Chad Johnson is, well, if you read this blog, you're well up to date on that. Wait, today is Friday. You're NOT up to date. Well, let's remedy that, shall we?

First, this excerpt on Lance's blog.

This isn't the first time we've heard this. Even T.J. Houshmandzadeh's name has been dragged into it. Remember this story?

We should admit, we're not sure if the Glazier comment is about the same thing. It might be, it might not be. But from that December, 2007, post, it would appear that Lewis was already in a downfall of "losing the locker room". However, for his part, Marvin Lewis has won back the locker room -- which he apparently lost because of Chad Johnson anyway. I love full circle stories, don't you?

Now Oil Slick is pleading like a weasel amongst tigers.

Is this Chad's version of "next question"? If so, we're disappointed. We expected so much more than this. Oil Slick pleads that the Bengals have a "king's ransom" with two first round picks that have been reported in the media -- which isn't true. The Bengals were offered one first-round pick in 2008 and a conditional 2009 third-round pick that could have upgraded to a first. As our boy Beerrun says, give me two first round picks for 2008 and 2009, then we'll talk.

"Bengals, if you're listening to me, please trade Chad."

Oil Slick is begging, man. He's BEGGING. On your knees, boy. I guess he's feeling the pressure of having a huge chunk of, at least, $21 million of Chad's guaranteed money -- to start -- is weighing him down. We all know that Mike Brown and company are making a point here. One that's becoming supported, not only from Bengals fans (who'd also be just as happy waving goodbye), but even NFL fans are getting a thrill watching Oil Slick beg and Chad squirm. No, keeping Chad doesn't doesn't help this team. Not one bit. Still, if the team sticks to their guns, watching this episode will keep high entertainment value -- provided Oil Slick begs and Chad squirms. That stuff right there just makes my day.

It's not that I disrespect Geoff Hobson, but there are times that I think he misses points -- or becomes oblivious to the team's bottom line -- make the team and ownership look good. For example, in his latest mailbag, Hobson is adamant that the Bengals keep Chad Johnson... and that they should.

Reggie Nelson is with the Jacksonville Jaguars, not in the NFL draft. Then this blurb from the Pro Football Talk guys.

Granted. Most people, even myself to some degree, think that once the paychecks appear, then Chad will return. But nothing is guaranteed with this entire episode. Will he played, won't he play. Will he pout, or just play. Will he play, or simply go through the motions.

If you have a Pro Bowl wide receiver that's potentially a Hall of Famer (like Corey Dillon) that sits out, you're missing his roster spot and whatever return the draft pick could have provided. You also miss the obvious distractions if Chad Johnson sits out -- the funny-ass SportsCenter interviews, the soon-to-be drive way interview, etc... I'm sorry, but if he does sit out, after each loss, the question about Chad Johnson will be asked to Lewis and Palmer (unfairly). You know it. And it will come from the same people that currently pen their support for keeping him, rather than trading him when the chance was presented. Now the question is that if every NFL team knows that the Bengals won't even listen to offers, will anymore show up when the team decides to move him?

Wouldn't you take a seventh round pick expecting T.J. Houshmandzadeh? Would you use the same comparisons when Palmer was picked #1 in the 2003 NFL draft while David Carr was first the year before? The only justified comparison from year to year, is predicting contracts based on slots. Not the actual players and their rookie season performances. That would be, what's the word, unproven?

When the Bengals traded Corey Dillon for the #56 pick in the 2004 NFL Draft, the team received unproven Madieu Williams. Even Hobson wrote at the time:

So the bigger risk is whether you keep Chad and he sits, using up a roster spot and losing your opportunity at the best deal that could have already passed by, or you dump the trash and risk the unprovens. Speaking of Fulcher, he had this to say about Chad:

Distraction. Distraction. Distraction. Rather than moaning Chad's attitude through the season, why not let a new kid become acquainted with the NFL while using the 2009 pick as another "need" filler.

Santana Moss. I'm always told that people are always replaceable. I'm not sure how Chad became an exception that rule. Before he came to Cincinnati, the Mike Brown era Bengals have stunk. When he came to Cincinnati, they continued to stink. During his career here, other than the glorious 2005 season and the half-time locker room "incident", the Bengals have been mediocre at best. So don't replace Chad. Remain status quo. Then complain three months into the season about the Bengals not listening (at least!) to trade offers.

I get both sides of the argument. I do. My school of thought, which could be different than yours (and that's fine), is that there is no chance that this team benefits with Chad in 2008. None. There's too many bridges that need mending really soon, or it won't happen at all. And the main point isn't the draft picks, but the problem within the locker room. Hopefully if Chad comes back, then all that can be put aside. But I'm not that optimistic.

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.

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.

UPDATE II: Alright, alright. So, the report was truthful now.

So the Bengals DID turn down the offer. I think. I think my head is going to explode. Alas, everyone laughs harder at our silly little team.

UPDATE: Marvin Lewis denies that the Bengals have received any trade offers from the Redskins for Chad Johnson. Not just the Redskins. ANY-one. The Bengals are vehemently denying that any trade offer has taken place. This Washington Post blog writes that " the Redskins are prepared to guarantee Johnson about $21 million as part of a new contract."

The Pro Football Talk guys are adamantly claiming tampering charges because Oil Slick and the Washington Redskins have a "very strong relationship" and that "a situation like this presents the prime example of how unauthorized communications with a player who belongs to another team can undermine that team’s relationship with its player"

Let's go back to that known $21 million guarantee figure in the Washington Post. The Pro Football Talk guys conclude that "the Redskins apparently are doing is 1000 times worse than the conduct that formed the basis for the Bears tampering allegations against the 49ers.  In our opinion, the Bengals should file tampering charges against the Redskins today, if for no reason other than to get the Redskins to back off."

ORIGINAL: ESPN is reporting that the Bengals refused a Redskins offer that could have given the Bengals two first round picks in 2008 and 2009. The deal was for the first-round pick in 2008 and a third-round pick in 2009. But if Johnson reached certain performance benchmarks, the 2009 pick could have been upgraded to a first round pick.

I guarantee you that the discussion and attitude with fans instantly went from Chad is a prick, to the Bengals front office are bigger idiots than we realized. Still, everyone laughs at our silly little team.

Not long after we posted a musing post about the Eagles and Chad Johnson, NFL Network's Adam Schefter reiterates the Bengals position since day one. No. No. No. Almost like a five-year old refusing to eat brussel sprouts. "No matter the offer," Schefter says.  "No matter the circumstances.  No deal."

Sure, a part of me wants the team to keep Chad and let him pout. His off-season character suicide campaign has worked so well that no matter what he says, that he'll remain the idiot -- not, ironically, the Bengals. Those tides could shift though (see below).

But another part of me wonders to what end. Keeping Chad because of over-inflated front office egos to teach a young, rich, spoiled, egomaniac wide receiver a lesson of contract loyalty, doesn't promise any benefit. I could care less for Chad anymore. He's not my concern. The Bengals are. Keep Chad and run the risk of T.J. Houshmandzadeh's prophesy coming true that it will "be a problem". Sure, it would mean giving Chad what he wants. But when he's gone, he's gone. No worries.

Alright, keep Chad. Then when when drops three third down passes, doesn't reach for a pass over the middle in the endzone, obliterates the locker room chemistry, then it's not Chad's fault. It's yours, the organization. The idiots that had a little fun watching Chad squirm -- admittedly, we had fun too -- but this will ultimately confirm that the team is, and here's the word that Marvin Lewis hates, being enablers.

If a first round offer comes around, why not take it? Because Chad needs to fulfill his contract? Look. I'm the first to criticize pampered players, but at the risk of the football team? There's bigger issues here and the team and its fans could literally find themselves the biggest losers in this.

While beat writers and other official web sites claim that the move is something the Bengals can't do, I find myself asking why? Economics? Do you, team officials, beat writers, Cincinnati sports aficionados, mean to tell me that the cost of dumping Chad Johnson outweighs the risk of keeping him? Is there no possible way to trade him? Other than the rookies, what possible signing would need that money that could make a difference? Injury pool?

NFL Network also reports that the Jacksonville Jaguars could be interested in Chad Johnson. Of course, we're sure that if Jacksonville offers their first five picks that the Bengals will say no. It's this type of thing that makes the league laugh at our silly little team.

There's an interesting development coming out of the Philadelphia camp. Perhaps it's nothing more than reading too much into it -- after all, I REALLY really want Chad Johnson to be somewhere else where he'll sulk because of a single boo-bird from section 325. But Bleeding Green Nation took out a blurb from a recent John Clayton post regarding teams in the running for a veteran wide receiver expressing interest in -- again, and say it with me, if... there's... a... trade -- Chad Johnson by the Cowboys (we've know that for a long time), Raiders and Eagles. The Raiders seem unlikely because of their spree this free agency that included (but far limited to) a maddening $55 million deal for B-rated (by way of injury) wide receiver Javon Walker with $16.6 million in guaranteed money. It would seem unlikely that the trade would happen without a new deal for Chad Johnson.

And it would seem that Lee Evans, another potential wide receiver that could shift teams, is under negotiations to extend his contract with the Bills. He has an "out" option after 2009, which Brian rightly concludes, he'd likely take.

The Pro Football Talk guys wrote the headline Eagles to make a Major Move at Receiver referencing an Eagles blog called GCobb.com. I have to admit, I spit out my Hawaiian Punch. The web site merely mentions a possible trade with the Lions for Roy Williams even though Clayton expressed in the above link that he, along with Johnson and Evans, are not being shopped. Right. Because all NFL teams are soooooo honest. Blah, blah, blah.

But when I saw that the Eagles were looking at Roy Williams, I was a bit taken aback. Not because it wasn't Chad, but because I just don't think this would be that major. Chad would be major. Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss would be major. A one-time Pro Bowl receiver, while decent enough for front page Sports news, wouldn't be so major. Perhaps to Eagles fans. So I'll reserve my classification of "major".

Again, take all that for what it is. More NFL off-season blodder (my word) that could go either way. Johnson was only referenced as an assumption with no known source claiming anything. Still, it did spark my interest.

We first wanted to point out that on April 23, 2008, this web site will go through a massive change which includes -- though not limited to -- graphical redesign, network-wide memberships, a better commenting system and a revolutionary shift from what you know of as "diaries". Go to our intra-city sports brothers, Red Reporter to get an idea how it will appear. In fact, if you're a general Cincinnati sports fan (Reds and Bengals specifically), go there anyway and praise the play of youngsters Jeff Keppinger, Johnny Cueto, Joey Votto, Mike Lincoln, Jared Burton, Edinson Volquez and the additions of Francisco Cordero and Jeremy Affeldt while Ken Griffey Jr. works towards 600.

Moving on with obligatory Chad Johnson reference.

Both Paul Daughterty and Chick Ludwig take Chad Johnson to task. Check out the comment where one reader asks Ludwig -- someone that's paid to cover that team daily -- why he won't butt out of the team's business. I'm not sure if that's just to defend Chad or a startling lack of intelligence. Either wouldn't surprise me.

Chicago Sports' David Haugh thinks it would be a bad idea if the Bears went after Ocho ______ (fill in whatever works best for you).

Moving on with SB Nation Mock Draft reference.

On Thursday, Mocking the Draft published my part of our second round pick, Pat Sims. That gives us Keith Rivers and Sims this year.