Trey Hendrickson Update

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 08:01 AM)Sled21 Wrote: He does have a vote. A team wishing to trade for him not only has to meet the teams wants, it has to have a deal in place with the player. All Trey has to do is turn down the offer.

No, this is not correct. The Bengals can tell the team where they are at with Trey (they have agreed on the money portion) so they know what it will take. Trey is under contract for 2025, that is what the team is buying knowing they will meet his demands.

The other team can't speak to Trey or his agent prior to the trade unless the Bengals allow it. I don't see the Bengals allowing it to happen because once they do, then their offer becomes public knowledge.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 11:48 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: No, this is not correct. The Bengals can tell the team where they are at with Trey (they have agreed on the money portion) so they know what it will take. Trey is under contract for 2025, that is what the team is buying knowing they will meet his demands.

The other team can't speak to Trey or his agent prior to the trade unless the Bengals allow it. I don't see the Bengals allowing it to happen because once they do, then their offer becomes public knowledge.

Where they are at in negotiations with the Bengals is moot. The team that would trade for Trey inherits the rest of his contract, not the last offer. For Trey, that is one year at 16 million. He's obviously not going to play for that, so they need to have a deal with him or risk them trading a pick or player away for a guy who won't play for them. So yes, they have to have an agreement that Trey will sign. And the Bengals already gave Trey permission to seek a trade. 

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 12:32 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Where they are at in negotiations with the Bengals is moot. The team that would trade for Trey inherits the rest of his contract, not the last offer. For Trey, that is one year at 16 million. He's obviously not going to play for that, so they need to have a deal with him or risk them trading a pick or player away for a guy who won't play for them. So yes, they have to have an agreement that Trey will sign. And the Bengals already gave Trey permission to seek a trade. 

If Try finds a trade partner, that may happen as you stated. But if Bengals find the trade partner, not they do not have to allow the partner to get a deal with Trey ahead of time. They know what the offer is because likely team would share it and what Trey is asking. So, in this scenario Bengals do not and would not have to get Trey's permission.

[XsandOs]

It seems that Bengals still want a 2025 first round pick equivalent for Trey. Which would be a first rounder in 2026 and a player that has a similar value to deliver a combined 2025 first round equivalent.

The issue is which player. Teams could offer a player to dump a salary on us - which would be counterproductive to what we want.

So the player component opens a whole new can of worms.

[THE PISTONS]

I suspect that if they partially guarantee some money in year 2, he signs. Like maybe half.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 11:42 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You do love to argue. Simply, Bengals are not going to consult with Trey or his agent prior to having a trade deal being in place. They do the deal and then inform he is traded. If he decides to retire, that is his choice and the trade is nullified.

Yes it could happen, but drastic step for Trey to quit playing and leave 100 million on the table.

No, I am just pointing out you're wrong on this because that's absolutely not how that works when it's a high value trade and the player in question is in a holdout/holdin for contract reasons.

The team trading for him is going to want to know if they can get a deal done with Trey before they commit resources to trading for him. That requires his input before a deal is finalized. No team is going to give a 1st and a young defensive starter and not even know if the player they're trading for wants to play for them or is willing to negotiate an extension with them.

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago on Sept 1st, he then also signed a contract extension with Chicago on Sept 1st. They didn't just magically negotiate the deal in an hour. They had an agreement worked out with Mack/Mack's agent before they finalized the trade.

Davante Adams was traded to Oakland on March 17th, he then also signed a contract extension with Oakland on March 17th.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 12:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No, I am just pointing out you're wrong on this because that's absolutely not how that works when it's a high value trade and the player in question is in a holdout/holdin for contract reasons.

The team trading for him is going to want to know if they can get a deal done with Trey before they commit resources to trading for him. That requires his input before a deal is finalized. No team is going to give a 1st and a young defensive starter and not even know if the player they're trading for wants to play for them or is willing to negotiate an extension with them.

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago on Sept 1st, he then also signed a contract extension with Chicago on Sept 1st. They didn't just magically negotiate the deal in an hour. They had an agreement worked out with Mack/Mack's agent before they finalized the trade.

Davante Adams was traded to Oakland on March 17th, he then also signed a contract extension with Oakland on March 17th.

Fair enough, it looks like it happens more often than not. 

[Essex Johnson]

(Yesterday, 12:44 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I suspect that if they partially guarantee some money in year 2, he signs. Like maybe half.

I'm not sure, from all accounts I've read, Tre has been set in the sand  on 3 yrs

[WeezyBengal]

A trade isn't going to happen. No one is going to offer what they want.

Does he play week 1? At this point I'd say no. It feels different.

[THE PISTONS]

(Yesterday, 02:13 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: A trade isn't going to happen. No one is going to offer what they want.

Does he play week 1? At this point I'd say no. It feels different.

Trending that way.

[Nicomo Cosca]

Can’t imagine he actually sits out games at almost a million bucks a pop. He’ll play just like Bates, Chase, and Tee all did when they were having contract disputes.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 03:26 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Can’t imagine he actually sits out games at almost a million bucks a pop. He’ll play just like Bates, Chase, and Tee all did when they were having contract disputes.

Nor do I. He might not play week one, but when he doesn't get his check that will be an eye opener just like the training camp fines were.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 03:26 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Can’t imagine he actually sits out games at almost a million bucks a pop. He’ll play just like Bates, Chase, and Tee all did when they were having contract disputes.

TJ Watt got $108m in new money guaranteed at signing.

If the Bengals are allegedly only offering guarantees on the first year of the extension. If he doesn't sit out then there's zero chance he gets what he's looking for, in which case $8m to sit out 8 games is peanuts compared to the new guaranteed money difference.


- - - - -
I don't think he'd do it, but there's also the chance he practices/plays and immediately gets "hurt". Then he doesn't play because he's not "healthy" and then doesn't give up any money.

[higgy100]

(Yesterday, 12:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No, I am just pointing out you're wrong on this because that's absolutely not how that works when it's a high value trade and the player in question is in a holdout/holdin for contract reasons.

The team trading for him is going to want to know if they can get a deal done with Trey before they commit resources to trading for him. That requires his input before a deal is finalized. No team is going to give a 1st and a young defensive starter and not even know if the player they're trading for wants to play for them or is willing to negotiate an extension with them.

Khalil Mack was traded to Chicago on Sept 1st, he then also signed a contract extension with Chicago on Sept 1st. They didn't just magically negotiate the deal in an hour. They had an agreement worked out with Mack/Mack's agent before they finalized the trade.

Davante Adams was traded to Oakland on March 17th, he then also signed a contract extension with Oakland on March 17th.

Ya it's definitely not like the rent-a-player in baseball where you get him for a couple months to try to push for the playoffs. They'll want the amount of years, amount and guaranteed amount agreed upon before anything.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 03:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: TJ Watt got $108m in new money guaranteed at signing.

If the Bengals are allegedly only offering guarantees on the first year of the extension. If he doesn't sit out then there's zero chance he gets what he's looking for, in which case $8m to sit out 8 games is peanuts compared to the new guaranteed money difference.


- - - - -
I don't think he'd do it, but there's also the chance he practices/plays and immediately gets "hurt". Then he doesn't play because he's not "healthy" and then doesn't give up any money.

Bell never recovered the money he lost sitting out. And if Trey fakes an injury to get out of playing, the whole league will know he did it and his value would drop exponentially. Not to mention, next year he's even a year older. His best move if they don't get a deal done is to play on his existing deal, have a great season, then go somewhere else on a new deal. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 04:44 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Bell never recovered the money he lost sitting out. And if Trey fakes an injury to get out of playing, the whole league will know he did it and his value would drop exponentially. Not to mention, next year he's even a year older. His best move if they don't get a deal done is to play on his existing deal, have a great season, then go somewhere else on a new deal. 

Bell was a RB, short careers and a non-premium position. He also sat out the whole year rather than showing up long enough to get credit for the season.

Chris Jones made his money back.

Hendrickson won't be able to go somewhere else on a new deal if he plays and has a great season. The Bengals will just franchise tag him, which this year was just $24.7m for DEs. If he plays that and does well, they'll just franchise tag him again for 20% more (which would be $29.7m just going off the 2024 number). So if he just plays and plays well, he's stuck here for about 3yr/$70m (probably a bit more since it'd be 2025 tag numbers), which is still $38m shy of Watt's new guaranteed money alone, and $53m shy of the total and is all dependent upon him playing at a high level the entire time versus guarantees.

Both numbers he'd be short of are significantly bigger than the $8m he'd miss out on sitting out half the season.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 04:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Bell was a RB, short careers and a non-premium position. He also sat out the whole year rather than showing up long enough to get credit for the season.

Chris Jones made his money back.

Hendrickson won't be able to go somewhere else on a new deal if he plays and has a great season. The Bengals will just franchise tag him, which this year was just $24.7m for DEs. If he plays that and does well, they'll just franchise tag him again for 20% more (which would be $29.7m just going off the 2024 number). So if he just plays and plays well, he's stuck here for about 3yr/$70m (probably a bit more since it'd be 2025 tag numbers), which is still $38m shy of Watt's new guaranteed money alone, and $53m shy of the total and is all dependent upon him playing at a high level the entire time versus guarantees.

Both numbers he'd be short of are significantly bigger than the $8m he'd miss out on sitting out half the season.

If Stewart pans out I doubt they'd franchise tag a Defensive End soon to be 32 yoa. 

[BFritz21]

(Yesterday, 02:13 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: A trade isn't going to happen. No one is going to offer what they want.

Does he play week 1? At this point I'd say no. It feels different.

Was just watching on Good Morning Football and they said that Trey only has one, maybe two years of good football left. 

At his age, I still think we're smart in not giving him all the guarantees that he wanted.

I still think that we're actually giving him too much with his age and how we have young guys to develop.

Don't get me wrong because I think we're better with him, but he's only hurting himself by missing this much camp and practice, which will be bad for his future if he doesn't perform well under the tag.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)Sled21 Wrote: If Stewart pans out I doubt they'd franchise tag a Defensive End soon to be 32 yoa. 

There's no way that Stewart could produce in 2025 a number would make any team comfortable having him as their only DE heading into 2026 instead of tagging Hendrickson for $25m-ish.

I mean if Stewart absolutely balls out and gets an unrealistic 10 sacks (last year the rookie sack leader was at 8.5 and second place was at 6.0... the only rookie to have at least 10 sacks in the last 5 years was Micah Parsons in 2021), that would still put him 7.5 shy of Hendrickson's last two years totals and we already were talking about how badly we needed a decent second DE to go with Hendrickson. 

So you'd swap out an All-Pro DE for a lesser DE, and then still have the same need at DE #2 in 2026 that we had in 2024.

[Luvnit2]

(Yesterday, 05:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: There's no way that Stewart could produce in 2025 a number would make any team comfortable having him as their only DE heading into 2026 instead of tagging Hendrickson for $25m-ish.

I mean if Stewart absolutely balls out and gets an unrealistic 10 sacks (last year the rookie sack leader was at 8.5 and second place was at 6.0... the only rookie to have at least 10 sacks in the last 5 years was Micah Parsons in 2021), that would still put him 7.5 shy of Hendrickson's last two years totals and we already were talking about how badly we needed a decent second DE to go with Hendrickson. 

So you'd swap out an All-Pro DE for a lesser DE, and then still have the same need at DE #2 in 2026 that we had in 2024.

Trey is a great pass rushing DE and a great person. You are making assumptions on Trey's future production. I hope he gets 20 sacks in 2025, he won't so that if he sits out games. A lot can happen for his production to decrease. My prediction is Trey's floor is 13 sacks and his ceiling is 17 sacks if he plays every game and is not injured.

It is still a lot to replace and not sure any one player should be expected to replace the one NFL sack leader the Bengals have had since 1969. Trey may not be able to produce Trey numbers as he ages.