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 next year.
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.
_2.gif)






April 17th, 2008 at 7:23 am
To the Bengals, it’s not a matter of the cap hit. It’s the $8 million and all of the other guaranteed money that has been paid to Johnson. They’re simply too cheap to have that money go down the drain.
That said, I’d love to see them stick to their guns and force Johnson to either play for the Bengals or sit out.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Thank you, Florio — excellent information. These types of posts are why I read PFT.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
As a life long die-hard Bengals fan who is now ashamed of the “85″ jersey hanging in the closet, I hope that Mike and Marvin break it off in Chad. He either plays all out for the Bengals, or he wastes away for the next four years on the bench. This isn’t about money, it is about the principle. Ocho Pyscho signed a contract two years ago that paid him very well, and he needs to hold up his end of the bargain. If I was Marvin, I would make Chad ride the pine until he “gets his mind right”. Stand firm MB & ML
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
As a Bengal Fan I don’t need the team to explain to me why they won’t cut/trade this freak. I think I speak for the majority of Bengal fans when I echo WhoDeyBuck in saying LET HIS AS$ SIT!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Ditto on the extra info. None of us are capologists, so we’re beholden to what columnists usually tell us and I didn’t realize you could spread that cap hit over 2 years.
Although that being said, there is a part of me that still wants to see the Bengals “Keyshawn” his ass and make him stay home, just like his infamous “cousin”.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Another factor is that why worry about money that will be recovered in arbitration when he refuses to go “anywhere near Cincinnati”. The fact that we’re even discussing money is silly. Again, for the first time I agree with Mike Brown. Stop letting the inmates run the asylum. Make his sorry but not catch another pass for four more years. By then he’ll be way washed up.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am
As a life long Bengal’s fan I want to call Chad’s bluff. I would not give him what he wants. He signed a contract with heavy signing bonuses and he needs to honor it or stay home. I for one hope the Bengals stick to their guns and do not trade Chad Johnson. Our fans and especially our kids have showered this man with praise and idol status. What a slap in their faces. Sit him!!!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I like that..”Ocho Psycho.” Please don’t come to the Skins.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
shut up & play or not play, who cares, Chad you jackass!!! if you play you up your stakes & if you don’t you bolster your worthless ego, JUST SHUT UP!!!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Rtandler, $8 million dollars *is* the cap hit. Unless I am quite mistaken, none of that is guaranteed. Guaranteed money tends to be in the first few years of a players contract, not throughout.
Essentially, if I am hearing Florio correctly, he’s saying that “dead money” is sort of like a free pass:
You don’t have to pay it to a player (since the player is no long on your roster) and at the same time it is a penalty for trading/cutting players, so you can’t spend that same money on someone else. So essentially, for an “el cheapo” type owner, it’s a way to beat the minimum amount you have to spend on your players salary.
Seems like potential good news for Cowboys fans!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
“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.”
Specious, inure and chronically in the same sentence? Did Tiki sign on as a summer intern at PFT?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Throwing Carson under the bus was a huge mistake. Everyone that has followed this mess has caught Chad Johnson in so many lies. To accuse Carson Palmer of being the liar when he said himself (on ESPN) he would play is insane. After that, every Bengal’s fan I know wants the Bengal’s suspend him or sit him. I wouldn’t even care if there were no cap hit…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am
If Mike Brown and the Bengals organization were truely cheap they’d have cut Chad already because the cap hit would cause them to pay less than to hold onto him (or to designate him as a post June 1).
People need to get off of the tired old position that Mike Brown is excessively cheap. When it comes to players salaries, the Bengals have spent the highest amount allowed for the past 5 years… they’re not depending on the salary floor, they’ve been as high as anyone else. Removal of the floor wouldn’t affect someone who has always been pushed to the highest allowable point, and to surmise as such shows a complete ignorance to the situation.
It’s incredibly biased to have a column a week or so ago praising Bill Parcells for trying to sign the #1 overall pick to a lower contract than last year because rookie contracts are out of control while at the same time criticize Mike Brown for standing firm (especially since he holds ALL of the cards) and forcing Chad to live out the contract he signed or retire. Primadonna players always getting paid more for production when they can’t get paid less for sucking is just as much of a problem as bad rookie deals.
The Bengals lose nothing by holding on to Chad. They do not have to pay him game checks he doesn’t play in; he has said he will not show up to offseason programs so he can’t hurt team chemistry, and they can use it as revenue since they get to fine him $14k/day. Above that, if he sits out a year they get his rights for an additional year. If he does decide to show up they do not have to play him. They can better afford to force him into submission than they can afford to cave, and it is 100% his fault for being in this position.
Had he kept quiet his disdain his market value would have been high enough that the Bengals might have decided to move him in return for multiple draft picks, or a package of picks and a player. Since he couldn’t control himself his market value isn’t that high (because teams assume Mike will cave) and the Bengals would be stupid to take a sub-par deal for him.
Chad can’t cause the problems for Cincy that TO could for Philly. Even during his tirades TO was on the field (until they paid him to stay home) because Philly couldn’t field a team without him. Sure there is a huge drop-off without Chad in the lineup, but Cincy will be more than able to seperate Chad (if he decides to show up) from the team… by not even showing up he’ll make it even easier for the Bengals to leave him with now options.
Chad is showing his complete ignorance by not simply giving in and showing up. First it would improve his market price for other teams which could cause the Bengals to take a deal, and second if he really wanted out the only way to do so would be to distract the team and you have to be there to do that.
In the end it’s all about the money for Chad and he basically realized that he signed a contract that wouldn’t result in a new pay-day until he was past his prime, thus he wants to get his new deal now. What his short-sighted ignorance doesn’t see is that first, the Bengals hold the keys to his ability to get that other deal, and second all of this public drama is hurting his ability to sign a large deal with another team.
There it is, read it up, swallow it, and digest it… that goes for you to Florio.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
As a big time Cincinnati Bengal fan….I call tell you that there is NOTHING that we would love to see more than Chad Johnson rotting on the bench. H.O.F.20??
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 10:12 am
An owner also has to look at what he can get from his investment. By keeping him, he will make Chad honor his contract but he will have a malcontent that may or may not play like he has in the past. By getting a good trade offer, you can get something back for the pain in the ass, and maybe start to get that locker room attitude turned in the right direction. Either way has it merits, but in the end, it will come down to money (and draft picks and rights to any players involved in a trade can be worth enough to make the deal). Turning a blind eye to all trade offers would be folly, given the possibility for improvement through such a trade. Chad Johnson’s stock on Mike Brown’s investment has been falling for some time. He just has to make up his mind he wants to sell now for a guaranteed amount, or take his chances that Chad’s value will not hit rock bottom before he hits free agency (many years from now).
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
according to what I’ve read the bengals would still have to pay for the rookies this year (under the cap) and then also pay a replacement player, so its not fair to say the Bengals would be getting back all the money they don’t spend on Chad–I think it is fairly obvious that Chad’s painted himself into a corner–my guess is that he will show up and say he had some sort of epiphany either by talking to his old coach or Marvin or Jesus–at any rate, no way he burns up $6 million plus–last thing–how come none of the reporters ask Chad if he wants to win so bad why doesn’t he work harder or avoid the drops late in big games (Denver 2 years ago)? For a guy that wants to play in the Superbowl he may want to start by not trying to fight his coach at halftime of their only playoff game
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
all things considered, it would be in the teams best interest at this point to just part ways with an obvious disgruntled employee. If Chad wants out so badly, give back an appropriate proration of the bonuses paid and forfeit the rest of whatever is owed to him. Cinci should be cleared of whatever cap hit they are taking and just move on.
I guess the problem would be the message this sends to players and teams that, in the future, might find themselves in contracts they don’t want to be in.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“Ocho Psycho.” Now that is creative.
It will be interesting to see if Chad does sit and not play.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am
That is exactly it….nerfball. If the Bengals give in to Chad Johnson’s demands for a trade he wins. It shows other players on the team and around the league that if they throw their current city and team under the bus…they will be rewarded with what they seek. Chad wants out of Cincinnati and I could care less. It is the principle at this point. Go ahead Chad…sit out. BTW if Chad does sit out, who does that hurt more him or the organization? The Bengals should stand firm. CJ has no leverage. He must play or sit and I love that.
Please Bengals, do not reward this egomaniac with the trade he wants.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Mike,
While you may say that the prorated signing bonus cap hit is offset by the salary they won’t have to pay, they will still have to pay someone else to replace him. Therefore, from a macro standpoint, it is not a wash.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated