FanDuel - WFBC

July 27, 2011

The Bengals refuse to trade Carson Palmer: the disenfranchised QB has threatened to retire unless he is traded away from the Bengals. Mike Brown, Bengals president and owner refuses to trade Palmer on "principle" and had the following to say about the situation- “Carson signed a contract. He made a commitment. He gave his word,” Brown said. “We relied on his word. We relied on his commitment. We expected him to perform here. He’s going to walk away from his commitment. We aren’t going to reward him for doing it.”

posted by insomnyuk to football at 10:22 AM - 13 comments

And how many players have the Bengals released when they were done with them since Palmer became a Bengal?

posted by apoch at 10:56 AM on July 27

I should probably make up a list of positive aspects of the recently ended lockout.

If I did so, not having to think about or hear from Mike Brown would be right up near the top.

posted by beaverboard at 10:58 AM on July 27

Good for Brown. Fuck Carson Palmer. Let him sit out a few years and rust some more.

posted by scully at 11:08 AM on July 27

I'm with terrapin on this one. The NFL doesn't work if players can threaten retirement anytime they don't want to be on the team they are on.

posted by bperk at 11:26 AM on July 27

Good for Brown. Fuck Carson Palmer. Let him sit out a few years and rust some more.

Why? A team walks away from a "commitment" any time it chooses; why can't a player? The combination of deals like this and the "franchise" tag basically tie a player indefinitely to a team they may or may not want to play for, but there's no equivalent out there to hold a team to the same standard.

All this accomplishes is that:

1) It make Palmer worse off; 2) It makes the Bengals worse off (as they have neither Palmer, nor the equivalent return a trade would bring); 3) It makes the League worse off because there's one less semi-competent quarterback starting.

Brown's got this notion that people need to stay true to their word, which is all well and good, until they cut a player they think isn't worth their contract. It takes two signatures to make a deal.

posted by dfleming at 11:29 AM on July 27

The NFL doesn't work if players can threaten retirement anytime they don't want to be on the team they are on.

My guess, based on the way Brown dealt with Ochocinco/Chad Peace/whoever he is now, is that this didn't start with a threat of retirement. We caught this a ways down the road.

Palmer likely went to Brown and said he wasn't happy with the direction of the team and wanted to be traded. Brown told him what he told Ocho; under no circumstances is that happening. Palmer has two options then; play for a team he doesn't want to be on, or retire without pay.

Let's put this another way; Logan Makins decides he doesn't want to be a Patriot anymore. The Patriots franchise him, literally committing him to the team against his will. What recourse does the player have to go and do what he wants? He can threaten not to play. That's it.

posted by dfleming at 11:35 AM on July 27

Mike Brown basically never trades players. This, to me, is mind boggling. Trades are an integral part of professional sports. He is, hands down, the worst owner in all of football. His teams are consistently mediocre (save for one or two seasons with Palmer) because he acts as the general manager and makes bad decisions. Instead of getting some value for Palmer and trading him, maybe getting some draft picks or a few good young players, the Bengals are getting nothing. Zilch. Zero. No other team in the league would do this. But Mike Brown won't change his behavior because every year fans come to the stadium anyway. The Bengals need a new owner and a real general manager if they are ever going to see some modicum of success.

posted by insomnyuk at 11:51 AM on July 27

It is ridiculous for NFL owners to play the "he made a commitment" card. All over the league this week we're seeing NFL teams drop players despite having made a commitment to them -- Marion Barber had a contract with the Dallas Cowboys through 2015.

The retirement card is all a player under contract has, and it's a weak threat. If Palmer can make it work, I say more power to him.

posted by rcade at 01:23 PM on July 27

Retirement is the only way Palmer has to get away from a bad team. The Logan Mankins situation is not comparable for one major reason. Mankins has decided to return to a competitive team under the franchise tag with the hope that he can receive a contract extension under favorable terms. Even if this doesn't happen, he would be a free agent after the season, and even if franchised again, would have a very lucrative one-year contract that is guaranteed. Palmer doesn't particularly want more money. He wants to play meaningful games with a reasonable chance of post-season success. He does not have that, nor will he have that with current team ownership. Thus, there is no equivalency between Mankins and Palmer, because Mankins will be playing for a good team.

posted by Howard_T at 03:43 PM on July 27

Mankins has decided to return to a competitive team under the franchise tag with the hope that he can receive a contract extension under favorable terms.

Mankins didn't have a choice; if he didn't return, he doesn't get to play next year for someone else. Whether or not a team is good or bad is irrelevant; the guy doesn't get to choose where he plays or for how long. That's the whole point of free agency; it allows the players to pick where and for how much they want to play. Mankins, a free agent twice now, hasn't had that opportunity.

posted by dfleming at 04:16 PM on July 27

Palmer doesn't particularly want more money. He wants to play meaningful games with a reasonable chance of post-season success. He does not have that, nor will he have that with current team ownership.

The ownership was the same when he extended his contract for a ridiculously long time. He was happy then that he would probably get to spend his whole career with one team. I think players, especially players under their rookie contracts, get a raw deal. I just don't think Palmer is an example of that phenomenon.

posted by bperk at 05:09 PM on July 27

Ol' clueless Mike is just trying to do to Palmer what his daddy did to Bill Walsh. Reward loyal long standing service with denial of opportunities elsewhere.

And it's always advisable for team management to take a cornerstone player to task and question their principles in detail on the public record.

This scene will sit well with current and future incoming NFL players as they assess the pros and cons of playing for the Bengals. Maybe someday a seventh rounder will pull an Eli Manning and tell the team he won't play for them if they draft him.

If Palmer was not operating on "principle" as Brown says the Bengals are, he could simply allow his discouragement with the team for not following through on their assurances to improve things to influence his actions in a different way.

It would be very easy for him to stick around, not give a damn, stink the place up and collect a paycheck. Plenty of other guys do it.

Maybe the league should move the Bengals to Area 51 and designate them as the mothball team for all the Albert Haynesworths of the NFL. Then Cincinnati could get a decent franchise run by astute people.

It could be worse. Look at the hellish choice fate presented to Browns fans. Have your hearts broken on multiple occasions by the Art Modell regime and get a bumbling replacement franchise in return...or have the last 20 years of Mike Brown transpire in Cleveland.

posted by beaverboard at 06:32 PM on July 27

This scene will sit well with current and future incoming NFL players as they assess the pros and cons of playing for the Bengals.

*snicker*

posted by grum@work at 07:55 AM on July 28

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.