The Wiz

That is really what it all comes down to for me at this point and it's sadly been both depending on the year (along with injuries of course).

This is the part where I feel like they are, also without seeing the contract. If his agent is telling him not to sign it, there must be something in there that is basically a big red flag. It could be something as simple as what you are speculating "basketball/snowboarding/etc" but could be something as easy as saying "oh, you were late to this meeting and that counts against your contract so no guaranteed money". Far ends of the spectrum I know, but I tend to assume that most of these franchises, especially the Bengals, will find every way to screw players out of money. Hendrickson is living proof of that right now.

And that's a perfectly legitimate reason to do it. The problem being that they are taking away "All' guaranteed money and nothing is specified on what it means to "default" is the issue. If they want to say "can't ride an ATV or ski-doo", fine. If they say, "If you default on your contract, you will lose all your guarantee" without laying out what it means in that same clause, they are basically trying to make it so no matter what, if something happens to him, they can cancel all of his guaranteed money. It's the same type of "catch-all" that you see in job descriptions where it says "and all other responsibilities". You might not know you are responsible for something until 4 years later and your boss finally says, "Oh btw, you have to work this weekend because that falls under your job description". It's a shady way of doing business.

Why does a team that is making billions of dollars a year need protection from a rookie making roughly $10-15m over the course of their rookie contract? It's not protecting themselves. It's allowing them to write a narrative that in any situation, they can decide to terminate his contract because they picked the wrong player. Seems like a "slumlord" model of operating your team.

I feel like that's why his agent told him not to sign. They probably didn't even clarify what they mean by "default" so they could potentially pick any reason to say that he defaulted on his contract. It just sounds like something the Bengals would do.

I can't believe how much this team is mismanaging some of their players but just saw this and I can't imagine anyone would want to sign that contract. Basically, if he defaults on his contract in any year, he voids all remaining guaranteed money for the remainder of the contract.

You should hear WGR right now. They are complaining that he's not holding out because they don't have anything to talk about now.

So the media is able to do their normal media stuff on the sidelines but no one is reporting anything? Seems odd.

I don't remember the year. I want to say 2008 or 2009. When we finally had the Pats where we wanted them and Leodis fumbled the kickoff to lose the game. Worst part was they ran the same TE seam route to Hernandez on (I'm pretty sure) consecutive plays to score 14 and go up 25-23 or something like that.

Even game him a piece of paper. Generous.

I don't think anyone is devaluing them. Cook has just proven it. It's all hindsight. Same way people complain that we should have just drafted Jefferson instead of trading for Diggs. I honestly don't care if he resigns or not. I just care if he plays this year(which in my mind, he would be lowering his value in FA if he didn't). Of all the RBs in the league I would think that Cook probably has the best shelf life considering how little he played in college compared to most other RBs. That alone would make me more intrigued to sign him for closer to what he is asking (~12-12.5 would be my max).