We got offered 2 first round picks.. and said no!

This deal could give the Bengals the talent we need to create the makings of a new program. I think it is unfair to punish the whole team on principles alone. We could use the defensive help! Especially with Pollock on the road to retirement. I salute the coaches for their stand but, enough is enough.. lets move on and make a championship team Chad would wish he was on again. Picture it the Bengals in the Superbowl WITHOUT Chad!! How bad would that sting!?!?!

As a Bears fan,

I would love to see Chad in a bears uni, if i was the gm i would give cincy our  14th overall pick in this years draft and a 3rd rounder for next year, but there are other issue that my bears need to address this year starting with an offensive line, but Chad is def. worth it.

Hoya Paranoya,

You dont see teams asking for their money back when players don't perform

The team does not have to live up to its end of the contract. If the player doesn't perform, the team will release the from the contract and take a salary cap hit. So, in effect, they do ask for money back by terminating the deal. In addition, if the player gets hurt, he can be dropped. ex: AL Wilson. Bottom line business is business, the rules favor the owners. I love how fans get pissed at players "who are being greedy", and have decided to defend the billionaire owners. The players are treated as pieces of meat, nothing more. These guys are the reason why the billionaire owners are getting their television deals and merchandise sales. True the players get rewarded well, but its all relative. If you were generating 100s of millions of dollars in brand value, wouldn't you think its time to renegotiate? There is no loyalty or honor in getting injured and released. Teams do it over and over and over again. This isn't baseball or basket ball, no contract is guarenteed.

As for the Bengals, why alienate your best player and embrace all your felon players. last total: 15-20 arrests, 2 releases. If they did turn down that monster deal from the Redskins...............wow.

Hey Broncofan15

I totally agree. People that say "honor the contract" are extremely ignorant to contract law.

Here's an article about this you'd probably like. Harsh language after the link.

http://kaptainkato.wordpress.com/

Football all I can say is man somebody needs to kill your owner.  I thought we had it bad in Oakland with Al, but I think Mike Brown is more then content to have Chad's  salary count against the CAP and not have to pay him while he is out (Hence Marvin's Spine).  I saw an article that said Cincy could afford to trade him this year and that the main reason they weren't was while he holds out that is all money in Mike Brown's pocket.

The article brought up that Mike Brown really wants the uncappred season to happen , not so he can spend, but so the rule that was put in place because of him ( the Salary floor) would also go away.  This is the next best thing to that for Mike... A player's salary counting against the Cap and not having to pay it.

Good luck I think you are going to need it, becasue Chad will return in time to make this season count, but i doubt he will play. 

AJ and Bengals fans don't know if you saw trhis.  It was posted on out site by RaiderRockstar

CLARIFYING THE JOHNSON CAP HIT

Posted by Mike Florio on April 17, 2008, 7:07 a.m.

Whenever the possibility of trading Chad Johnson comes up, Mark Curnutte of the Cincinnati Enquirer crows about the supposedly crippling cap hit that the Bengals would take if they were to trade or release Johnson.

Again on Wednesday, Curnutte asserts that “the club can simply not afford to trade the wide receiver or terminate his contract.”

Curnutte continues to point to an $8 million cap hit that the Bengals would take. But Curnutte also continues to minimize and/or overlook a couple of key facts.

First, the June 1 rule permits the cap charge to be spread over two seasons. If Johnson is traded or released after June 1, the dead money in 2008 will be considerably smaller, apparently in the neighborhood of $3 million. He also can be cut now, with the move designated as a post-June 1 transaction.

Second, since the Bengals would avoid Johnson’s $3 million base salary for 2008 (and his $250,000 workout bonus, which they’ve presumably already been relieved from paying due to his failure to report for voluntary offseason workouts), it’s a wash in 2008 dollars.

Third, any cap hit in 2009 would be offset by $4.75 million in salary and workout bonus that the Bengals wouldn’t have to pay to Johnson.

Third, Curnutte makes his claims without setting forth any facts regarding the team’s projected cap situation in 2009, when the maximum per-team spending limit is virtually certain to increase by another $7 million or more, exceeding $120 million for the first time. So what’s $5 million or so in dead money, especially when $4.75 million or so in new money wouldn’t be paid to a guy with a stick in his butt?

Remember this — we’re talking about the Bengals. Mike Brown is one of those owners who would be happy to operate without a salary cap because there likewise would be no salary floor. Cutting or trading Johnson means in essence that the Bengals get extra credit toward the salary floor without spending any more money.

Our guess in this regard is that the Bengals are privately using the cap hit to help sell their decision to the fan base to dig in their heels and not trade Johnson, even if at some point it’s in the team’s best short-term and long-term interests to do so.

Sooner or later, the fans are going to demand that something be done; we think the Bengals are trying to head that off by floating a specious argument based on financial realities that in reality inure to the benefit of the chronically frugal franchise.

By Profootballtalk.com