(10 hours ago)pally Wrote: and the real answer we've all been expecting and the headline from this press conference...no pay no play

Asked by Paul Dehner Jr if he envisions any scenario where we plays this year in his current deal, Trey Hendrickson said “no”

— Jay Morrison (@ByJayMorrison) May 13, 2025

(9 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It helped Palmer and Dunlap.

Palmer got a 2nd Team AP, 2nd place MVP vote, won a playoff game. (Also $90m post-Bengals)
Dunlap went to the playoffs while we went 4-11-1, and later won a SB.

Playing stubborn has worked. You just have to commit to it. What's his alternative? Play 2025 vastly underpaid with no future guarantee, get franchise tagged to be vastly underpaid again with still no future guarantee, and then MAYBE hit FA as a 33-year-old and lose ~$50m with the time passed and no longer having the value of back-to-back 17.5 sack seasons?

(9 hours ago)Synric Wrote: He's under contract he can't hold out. If he is healthy and does not play he won't acrue a season so he will still be under contract for the Bengals in 2026.


Normally I agree the Bengals are usually terrible in contract situations but honestly I think Trey Hendrickson's Agent is really bad at his job. 

(9 hours ago)TCUBengal34 Wrote: Is Trey underpaid at $16mm? Yes.

Would any team in the NFL pay $30+MM for a DE who is over 30 and just started playing the best football of his career? No.

I think the Bengals are a cheap, poorly run franchise (mostly), but I honestly don't blame them here.

(9 hours ago)Synric Wrote: He's under contract he can't hold out. If he is healthy and does not play he won't acrue a season so he will still be under contract for the Bengals in 2026.


Normally I agree the Bengals are usually terrible in contract situations but honestly I think Trey Hendrickson's Agent is really bad at his job. 

(9 hours ago)Clark W Griswold Wrote: He should play out his contract unless…they did tell him they would re-do his deal this off season.  Trey says they told him that and they haven’t denied it so they painted themselves into this corner. I hope they somehow work it out but I really doubt this ends well.

Let’s not forget to place a little blame on our golden boys - Burrow took all he could get, Chase had to be paid top $ and then made sure Tee got his or he wasn’t signing either.  They could have let Tee go and signed Trey but they had no choice because Chase was a must.

The team probably has some $ left for Trey but they have handled it poorly and the superstars on offense made sure they got theirs.  Perfectly within their rights to do so but if they are losing 40-37 every week I don’t want to hear anyone crying about wasting Burrow/Chases primes.  They helped make this bed so now they have to lie in it.  (And yes it would be much better if the FO wasn’t still stuck in the past with how they run the team)

(10 hours ago)rfaulk34 Wrote: 1. That's not even close to what i was saying. 
2. If the offer was a lowball, it IS the FO fault.
3. Actually, it does work that way most of the time. They knew they got him at a bargain, he over-performed and they're not willing to say "well done, here's a little thanks". Their unwillingness most likely has more to do with his age. 
4. If they don't pay Watt what Garrett is making, they'll be damn close. 

Your post was a little confusing because it fit my previous post better than the one you responded to where i simply said they probably offered him less than he believed he was worth, what the current market is and guessed what they may have actually offered. 

(9 hours ago)Nepa Wrote: The one comment from Trey that irks me is this: "Hendrickson: If I sat here with four sacks, they'd want a little (money) back." 

(9 hours ago)basballguy Wrote: I get both sides here.  

Trey deserves to get paid but the Bengals don't want to pay long term because it's clear most DEs fall off at 30.  Best case he might get double digit sacks at age 32.  

I feel like the Bengals are correct for trying to do a short term (2-3 year) extension.

(9 hours ago)WeezyBengal Wrote: Yeah, lets blame the other players for getting paid what they deserve and taking the most that they could get...eye roll. 

It's not the players responsibility to make sure their teammates get paid. 

The front office screwed this up. Trey is a baby and isn't living up to the contract he signed. Both things are true. 

They should have traded him before the draft and just moved on. It's too late now. 

(9 hours ago)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think cap space needs taken into account too.

A lot of the discussion in this thread, doesn't factor in the cap. Like 'Yeah I'd pay him $35 million a year'. Is he worth that? Probably.

A team like the Browns can give Garrett a huge deal, because they don't have many good players that are highly paid.

The Steelers? They don't have a QB that's high paid.

The Bengals have a QB, and 2 WR's paid at the top of their position.

Pretty obvious they're trying to draft his replacement.

(8 hours ago)Big_Ern Wrote: The browns have a very expensive qb

(9 hours ago)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think cap space needs taken into account too.

A lot of the discussion in this thread, doesn't factor in the cap. Like 'Yeah I'd pay him $35 million a year'. Is he worth that? Probably.

A team like the Browns can give Garrett a huge deal, because they don't have many good players that are highly paid.

The Steelers? They don't have a QB that's high paid.

The Bengals have a QB, and 2 WR's paid at the top of their position.

Pretty obvious they're trying to draft his replacement.

(8 hours ago)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: We have around $17.6 mil in actual cap space (top 53, picks paid, PS cost). 

Taking Trey from $16 mil to $32 would eat almost all of it. No $$ for injury replacements or rollover for next year. Or a G or safety FA. 

Now, we could create around $9.5 mil more by waiving Pratt ($5.85) + Volson ($3.66). But that would only push us to $27 mil. 

That is the cap situation.