Bengals: Chad trade would be costly to Bengals

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Chad trade would be costly to Bengals

The Bengals would have about $8 million in dead money on their salary cap in 2008 if they traded or released wide receiver Chad Johnson.

21 Comments:

at 2/05/2008 2:51 PM

Anonymous said...

Why is it the same if the trade him vs. simply cutting him? Why doesn't the team he's traded to assume the contract and its inherent cap issues? Can you please clear this up? It doesn't make any sense. Is it because of the bonus money he was paid up front?

at 2/05/2008 2:57 PM

Anonymous said...

Thats perfect for the bengals. They are cheap anyway. If they don't have to pay Chad and they lose 8 million that they don't have to spend on anyone else then Mike Brown would be very happy.

at 2/05/2008 3:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Nope. The REAL additional cap hit is only $2.5 million.

The number that really matters is the ADDITIONAL cap hit from trading Chad.

That actual number is $2,507,143.

If they keep him he is going to cost $6,307,143 anyway. If they trade him his cap number increases to $8,814,286.

So the truth is he will cost only $2.5 million extra to trade.

However, they SAVE against the 2009 cap by at least $7,000,000.

So anyone saying they can't afford to trade Chad needs to try harder to understand the cap numbers: They pay and extra $2.5 million in 2008 and SAVE at least $7 million in 2009.

Mike and Katie - if you need someone to help in the front office give me a call. Seriously.

-Halftime

at 2/05/2008 3:46 PM

Anonymous said...

Marvin needs to meet with Chad, and restore the relationship. Chad wants his surrogate father to show he still loves him! He is still a damng good player, and a pretty class act off the field.

at 2/05/2008 4:12 PM

Anonymous said...

So what?! Bengals are so far under the cap, this is a non-issue. Who even believes what this team says when the numbers are not made public anyway? Smoke, mirrors, and incompetence. The issue with Chad is not, and should not be, a financial one.

at 2/05/2008 4:25 PM

Anonymous said...

Good, so we can stop hearing about it. If chad wants to play next year, he's going to have to kiss and make up w/Marvin.

Lets so how long we can go before the next Chad interview/set of headlines.

Onto the draft/building the team. When does the FA signing period start?

Greg

at 2/05/2008 4:29 PM

Anonymous said...

Mark,
Lets get rid of Carl Pickens Jr. and move on. TJ and Chris Henry will be enough. Chad is eating up the locker room with his cancer and he must go. We want men playing for the Bengals...not a crybaby....get rid of him!!!!!!

George in Zanesville

at 2/05/2008 5:34 PM

Anonymous said...

Chad is more than a $8 million problem...

at 2/05/2008 6:15 PM

Anonymous said...

halftime didn't really get it right. Chad's contract runs thru 2011. He gets about 3.3 million per year in signing bonus. That's over 12 million in signing bonus that has to be absorbed into next years cap. Yes, they'll save his base and roster bonus of about 4.4 million, but the hit is, as Mark said, over 7 million for next year. Not only do you lose that money which you now couldn't spend on free agents, you have to remember that due to injuries this past year, they were almost 2 million over the cap. So that's basically 9 million they cannot spend up to the cap next year.

And that's just the money. You cannot replace his talent very easily. If you do, it'll probably cost the same amount, which the Bengals will not have to spend due to the cap hit of trading him. If you thought the running game was bad this year, let's see how good it is next year without a passing game either.

halftime, I think Mike and Katie can handle the cap without you, seriously.

at 2/05/2008 6:28 PM

Anonymous said...

anonymous 2:51, the hit comes from what the club has already paid him. They paid him his entire signing bonus, and pro-rated it for salary cap purposes over the length of the contract. But if they trade him, the Bengals are still held responsible for what they already paid him, which includes the bonus. The new club only assumes his base salary and any workout bonus in his contract, since they are the ones that would be paying that money.

That's one reason you don't see many big name trades in the NFL unless the player is in his last or 2nd last year of his contract.

at 2/05/2008 8:05 PM

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:15:

Boy. Where do I start.

First off, the signing bonus is only spread over 3 more years and 2011 isn't included because it is an option year.

There is only about $9 million in bonus left to be absorbed, not $12 million as you say.

And Mark never mentioned $7 million. I did.That's the amount they SAVE on the 2009 cap but I've yet to see anyone even mention it.

As for the $9 million you mention (more precisely $8.8 million) my point is that they are going to spend $6.3 million of that anyway so it's only an additional $2.5 million to trade him. Not that big of a deal.

If they redo someone's contract to push $2.5 million into 2009 when they SAVE over $7 million by trading Chad then they could in theory make it so there is no extra money against the cap this year.

Please come more prepared if you plan to challenge me again. You embarass yourself by using your fuzzy math. Seriously.

Oh, and for the record, I don't like the idea of trading Chad. I only was responding to all the misinformation saying the cap hit would be prohibitive which is clearly untrue.

at 2/05/2008 8:53 PM

Anonymous said...

Protecting our passer and getting to the other guy's passer is far more significant than any wide out. Chad's a very good player, and hard to replace, but not essential. The money is too much a secret to comment on, but maybe someone could impress on Chad that at least one fan (me) remembers 5 plays of his in 2007. One good--a great TD catch in the end of the end zone. But 4 bad: A drop while streaking open down the middle of the field; a very difficult catch NOT made in the end zone late against SF, a catch and step out of bounds on the last offensive play of a game--the situation was 4th and about 12; Chad caught the ball 10 yards downfield, and stepped out of bounds (no one near) to end the Bengals chances; and an end around at the end of a game, Bengals in the lead trying to kill the clock and Chad goes out of bounds without being touched. So our big dollar wide out is not making the plays in those cases.

at 2/05/2008 10:32 PM

Anonymous said...

What the heck ever happened to teaching your kids a lesson???? Really, if your child cries and whines about something, do you give it to them. If your a good parent you don't!!!! You teach that child to sacrifice, appreciate, and respect everything and make them a better person. No different here, I mean yes I do get tired of Chad acting like a d... baby, but its time to teach him to grow up. First off, he is a great receiver and is a good component to this team. Second, what kind of message do you send to your other players and the league, when every time someone cries you give in and trade them??? He is under contract, he is really good, and he needs to grow up. Don't spoil him even more by giving in, tell him to grow up, be even better this year and shut the critics up, and make it clear that HE IS NOT IN CHARGE. That is a big problem in the NFL, not just Chad but others also. They get these million dollar contracts, and a little fan fare and they believe they are in charge of everything. Guess what CHAD, you ain't in charge, and its not a black or white thing, its an ADULT THING. Eat your big macks and fries, put in your gold teeth, and catch the damn ball....Thats it, end of story.

at 2/06/2008 12:55 AM

Anonymous said...

This year, I finally had enough of the Bengals. 30 years of mostly pain. No end in sight.

Lifting their foul stench was like a dead weight being pulled from my shoulders. I enjoyed the playoffs, rooted through the Super Bowl and now amuse at the bengals latest woes.

Nothing will ever change.

at 2/06/2008 8:48 AM

Anonymous said...

Dear firefly,
BAD... Stop it! NOOO, eat your vegetables first. Stop hitting your little brother! Do you want to go to time out?! GO TO YOUR ROOM! These phrases are also frequently used with dealing with D... Babys and i suggest we use them on Mr. Johnson. Correct?

Mike from Pluto (demoted)

at 2/06/2008 8:53 AM

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter. You take an extra $2.5 million hit to have him gone. Isn't worth it to not have him destroying the team, like T.O. did to both SF & Philly? You want to save that extra 2.5, cut RUDI JOHNSON at $3.5 & or WILLIE ANDERSON at $6.2 million. There, you made up for the additional hit (got some picks for Chad) and made your team MUCH better in the locker room.

at 2/06/2008 10:08 AM

Anonymous said...

halftime said "my point is that they are going to spend $6.3 million of that anyway so it's only an additional $2.5 million to trade him. Not that big of a deal."

But if they spend the 6.3 mil they will at least have an all pro wide receiver to show for it. You can't discount that, it’s not like they can use that 6.3 and give it to another receiver.

at 2/06/2008 11:09 AM

Anonymous said...

I would have to say that i would rather pay one trillion dollars to nobody than 10 bucks to a distraction. Having said that, I don't have one trillions moneys. Johnson is a stupid face and there is nothing we can do about it. I suggest we wait till the offseason and see what he does. I doubt he holds out if we dont trade him. Also keep in mind that his potty mouth is selfish and wants to market himself as much as possible. He will still try to produce enough stats to make it to the probowl AND BE DUMB!

Sin seer lee,
Mike from Cheesburger Ham sandwich.

at 2/06/2008 11:38 AM

Anonymous said...

No one mentioned the name so I will. Drew Rosenhaus, ok so someone said T.O., distraction and SF/Philly. But this guy orchestrates these type of standoffs for more money/exposure for his clients. I beleive we gave chad his money after the 05' season as a top five reciever. He performed as a top five reciever therefore he is being paid accordingly. Please chad just drop the bs or do what AROD did you can still keep your agent just don't listen to the guy he is harmful to your career. And if you really want to goto miami so be it good luck catching any balls from john beck or cleo lemon. Get realistic fans chad is going to end up sitting on the bench and we will be fine if we focus on d and running the ball get back to basics you can't drop carson back 60 times either.

at 2/06/2008 12:03 PM

Anonymous said...

From profootballtalk.com. I wonder if the Bengals front office even knows the salary cap effect:

POSTED 4:19 p.m. EST, February 5, 2008

CAP HIT FOR TRADING CHAD WOULD BE MANAGEABLE

Mark Curnutte of the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the Bengals would face a cap charge of $8.03 million by trading receiver Chad Johnson. But Curnutte doesn't address two important details that would reduce the practical consequences in 2008.

First, assuming that the number quoted by Curnutte reflects only the gross cap acceleration, the net hit would be $4.78 million, given that the Bengals wouldn't have to pay Johnson his $3.25 million salary in 2008.

Second, much of the acceleration can be deferred if Johnson is traded after June 1. Under the pre-2006 CBA, this wasn't the case; any trade resulted in a full acceleration of all remaining signing bonus money. Under the current labor contract, only the current year's bonus allocation applies if the player is traded after June 1. The rest of the unallocated signing bonus money would hit the cap in the next year.

Also, we need to pick a fairly minor nit with Curnutte's report. He says that Johnson would forfeit his $3.25 million salary if he is traded or released. If he is traded, however, the new team would inherit Johnson's contract, and would owe him $3.25 million in 2008.

Finally, even if the full cap hit were $8.03 million, we're talking about the Bengals here. Trading or cutting Johnson before June 1 would make it easier for the cost-conscious Bengals to satisfy the mandatory salary floor without having to spend all of the requisite dollars in the current cap year.

at 2/06/2008 12:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:55,

I'm with you. I have been a faithful fan for toooo long. I have been tiring of this over the last couple of seasons. This team is a circus, a trainwreck, a bad TV sitcom, whatever you want to call it. It is more fun rooting against them and waiting for he next debacle then waiting for incompetent ownership to field a winner. This team has gone full circle from perpetual cellar dwellar, to quasi-legitimacy, back to cellar dwellar in the span of 4 seasons. Better players are not the answer and better coaches are not the answer, it all starts at the top. Wake me back up after Mikey Boy dies.

Previous Posts

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Chad trade would be costly to Bengals

21 Comments: