Ocho Cinco In B&G

[SBXVII]

The Bengals have stated they are not trading. I believe this is a moot point now. If the team kept pushing the issue wouldn't it fall under tampering? I'm suprised it hasn't yet. I know Chad has been the orchistrator but I would think we are walking a fine line. I wanted Chad but the Bengals are refusing to move him so lets look elsewhere and leave the Bengals to deal with an unhappy player who if they thought he was a cancer during the season then imagine him this year when he's unhappy and does not want to be there.

I would also stress that players need to honor their contracts. I liked that fact that GW put players on the bench. Maybe when a team has a player who is causing problems more coach's should be putting those players on the bench. The team won't get into trouble cause the player is in uniforme and is listed as active. The player will get bored sitting on the bench and will get the anger of the other players cause he is not being a team player to get on the field.

Either way it's the Bengals problem. Let them make their bed and lay in it. All we were trying to do is help them out. We need a WR and they need someone who will play their locker room games.lol.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The Bengals have stated they are not trading. I believe this is a moot point now. If the team kept pushing the issue wouldn't it fall under tampering? I'm suprised it hasn't yet. I know Chad has been the orchistrator but I would think we are walking a fine line. I wanted Chad but the Bengals are refusing to move him so lets look elsewhere and leave the Bengals to deal with an unhappy player who if they thought he was a cancer during the season then imagine him this year when he's unhappy and does not want to be there.

I would also stress that players need to honor their contracts. I liked that fact that GW put players on the bench. Maybe when a team has a player who is causing problems more coach's should be putting those players on the bench. The team won't get into trouble cause the player is in uniforme and is listed as active. The player will get bored sitting on the bench and will get the anger of the other players cause he is not being a team player to get on the field.

Either way it's the Bengals problem. Let them make their bed and lay in it. All we were trying to do is help them out. We need a WR and they need someone who will play their locker room games.lol.

The Mavericks also said "we are not going to trade for Jason Kidd"

[Stuck in TX]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

The Mavericks also said "we are not going to trade for Jason Kidd"

Give it up. He is too costly for us and why in the world would the Bengals let him go and take an $8 million hit? We are not playing Madden here. Its simply way too far fetched to happen, and even if it did all it would do is prolong our DB woes and make us have to wait yet again for another season with a 1st round draft pick being used for someone we need. I am convinced that all you CJ in D.C. supporters must see something in the 2009 draft class...

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Stuck in TX

Give it up. He is too costly for us and why in the world would the Bengals let him go and take an $8 million hit? We are not playing Madden here..

Shhhhhhhhh, a lot of people here don't know that.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Stuck in TX

Give it up. He is too costly for us and why in the world would the Bengals let him go and take an $8 million hit? We are not playing Madden here. Its simply way too far fetched to happen, and even if it did all it would do is prolong our DB woes and make us have to wait yet again for another season with a 1st round draft pick being used for someone we need. I am convinced that all you CJ in D.C. supporters must see something in the 2009 draft class...

They wouldn't! I said this about 20 pages ago...they would accelerate his bonus and they would save his cap number from this season, therefore, they would only take about a $3.2 million cap hit according to Sirius NFL Radio

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by jdlea

They wouldn't! I said this about 20 pages ago...they would accelerate his bonus and they would save his cap number from this season, therefore, they would only take about a $3.2 million cap hit according to Sirius NFL Radio

He is under contract with Cincinatti until 2011. They may be able to save the cap hit from this season, but what is the hit they would incur next season? Or the following season?

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

He is under contract with Cincinatti until 2011. They may be able to save the cap hit from this season, but what is the hit they would incur next season? Or the following season?

They take none. All of his bonus money hits them when he comes off the books, but his base salary comes here with him. He would no longer count against their cap after this season.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by jdlea

They take none. All of his bonus money hits them when he comes off the books, but his base salary comes here with him. He would no longer count against their cap after this season.

Do you have a link or something that would better explain this? It makes no sense.

If they traded Johnson they would relieve themselves of the salary portion of the contract. But they are still liable for the pro rated signing bonus on him. Essentially the remaining portion of his bonus untill 2011 is accumulated in one lump sum and counts against thier cap. That is the "dead money" and that is where the 8 million in cap hits come from, the remaining portion of his signing bonus.

Now if there is a way to get rid of "dead money" like you say, then how come the Redskins have not been doing it for years? The Redskins lead the NFL in dead money at a staggering number of 128 million dollars in dead money alone. The NFL salary cap is only 116 million and the Redskins have more than that in dead money alone.

One would think that if there was a way to alleviate all that dead money like you say, than the Redskins would have been doing it for years.