The last few days have brought a flurry of updates regarding Trey Hendrickson‘s persisting standoff with the Bengals, though there seems to be no real progress regarding contract or trade talks
Hendrickson and the Bengals reached an agreement on the length and value of an extension weeks ago, according to NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero. However, the team still refuses to guarantee money beyond the 2025 season, which has been one of the All-Pro edge rusher’s demands all along. Hendrickson confirmed the state of negotiations as described by Pelissero to ESPN’s Laura Rutledge during Monday Night Football coverage of the Bengals-Commanders preseason game (via ESPN’s Ben Baby).
Rutledge also reported that there has been no movement on a potential trade, likely due to the Bengals’ high asking price. They rejected an offer of “a second-round pick and change,” before the draft, per Pelissero, preferring a first-rounder instead. He added that the price has “softened, or at least changed a little bit,” explaining that Cincinnati is now asking for a draft pick and a young impact player to help offset the loss of Hendrickson this year.
However, that does not gel with a report from The Athletic’s Dianna Russini, who says that teams who checked in with the Bengals regarding a Hendrickson trade were given an asking price of a 2026 first-round pick and a young defensive player. That player does not necessarily have to be a pass rusher.
Despite an early report that the Browns were interested in trading for Hendrickson, Cleveland is not “seriously pursuing” the NFL’s reigning sack leader, according to Mary Kay Cabot of Cleveland.com. The Patriots, however, have called about Hendrickson, per Outkick’s Armando Salguero, though putting together a package that meets the Bengals’ requirements may be difficult this close to the season.
Nikhil Mehta contributed to this post.
Since the length and amount are agreed upon, and it sounds the ask won’t be ridiculous, a trade might actually be feasible here.
The only number that matters is the guaranteed money. The rest is just cap garbage.
And the practical guarantees. Big enough signing bonus and years two and three become “guaranteed” due to the dead cap hit they’d get for cutting him. Though there are extreme cases, of course.
Either way, interested teams will find out the numbers that he’s agreed to in principal and can decide if it’s worth it or not, both in terms of the guaranteed money and the trade return.
Team and player agree on the length and value of the extension, but the team won’t guarantee payment past the first year because they don’t actually want to have to honor the length and value of the extension.
Absolutely
So just like Hendrickson, who is under contract and won’t honor the terms of the deal
Do call it “honor” when a team dumps a player with years left on his deal? Without guarantees, you can throw honor out the window.
Everybody here( Almost) is right. A contract without any guarantees in the NFL might as well be written on toilet paper. Or maybe flash paper.
It is astounding to me that there are still people who try to equate a team not honoring a contract with a player holding in/out.
These are not the same things.
A player cannot unilaterally break a contract. If a player holds out, they lose game checks, they get fined, and if the player doesn’t play in at least six regular season games that year, the team owner can hold them back from free agency for another year. Furthermore, the team owner can sometimes attempt to claw back some of the original signing bonus.
But a team owner can break a contract unilaterally if they want to. If a team owner doesn’t want to honor a contract, they can end it without consequence. Tell the player see ya, and the player is out of a job, won’t get paid the money they signed a contract to receive, nothing. And if the timing is bad, they might not even be able to get another gig with another team and recoup any of the lost funds.
THIS IS WHY PLAYERS DEMAND UP-FRONT MONEY! Because they know that team owners can’t be counted on to honor a signed contract, and so players attempt to mitigate the damage by getting money up front.
If the Bengals cut Hendrickson today, they incur no financial penalty and can unilaterally void the contract. If Hendrickson holds out for the season, he incurs the financial penalty of not getting paid, and the contract is still in force and carries over to 2026 because the player can’t unilaterally void the contract.
It’s blindingly obvious that team owners and players are not bound to the contract terms in the same way. The power imbalance is skewed heavily in favor of the team owner. So, it’s baffling that some of you criticize the players when they take actions that attempt to decrease that imbalance even a little bit in their favor.
Well, while I agree in principal, the team isn’t always without consequence when it comes to breaking contracts. Dead money is a prime example of that.
But you are right in that these contracts aren’t actually contracts. I look at these disputes on a case-by-case basis; Cam Heyward’s complaint isn’t the same, necessarily, as Hendrickson’s. But if the contract isn’t guaranteed, then it’s not actually a contract. Hendrickson is “underpaid” right now in comparison to players of equal or equitable capability, but he has three other issues that contribute to his cause here: Cincy does not want to guarantee any money past his first year (which essentially makes it a one year deal, as you said), he already agreed to essentially push back this contract a couple of years ago by signing his mini-extension, and he’s been the top or a top pass rusher in the NFL for the last few years. All of those give him some credence in his argument.
On Cincy’s side, their only real argument is that they don’t want to commit money to a player past age 30. That makes some sense, but Hendrickson hasn’t shown signs of slowing down and he already helped out the team by doing his other extension to buy them time, and he’s played significantly above expectations since originally being signed. Unfortunately for him, the only real leverage he has is how good he is on the field. The Bengals seem okay with suffering on defense if they don’t pay up.
I agree with the “play your contract” sentiment, because I do believe very strongly that you should honor your word. However, as you’ve pointed out, these contracts really aren’t contracts. If they were fully guaranteed, then both teams and the players could be better held accountable for what they agreed to, instead of the financial haggling and finger pointing and public negotiation that occurs with every extension. Players should practice, as it makes them and the team better. Teams should honor players’ risks and efforts by being trustworthy with what they promise. It’s much easier to do that for both sides when what’s on paper is what’s the truth. The people that I can see who truly benefit from announcing big, fake contracts are agents who can advertise it. The tenuous negotiations that hurt the players and the teams only benefit the agents, who get to announce a large number at the end that probably won’t get paid out (unless you’re Deshaun Watson…).
One thing that’s important to do here is distinguish between Team and Team Owner, which I do in my original post. Because there are plenty of situations where a Team Owner comes out ahead but the Team does not, like in the case of dead money and other cap hits. Or, another example specific to Hendrickson, if he holds out for the season, the Team Owner doesn’t suffer because that’s just money he doesn’t have to pay out, but the Team does suffer because they’re not able to benefit from Hendrickson’s defensive skills.
Team Owners frequently prioritize their balance sheet ahead of ballgames. It helps the team owner, but hurts the Team, and as a byproduct, it also often hurts the fans. Hell, sometimes those balance sheet decisions take the team away from the fans entirely when the team owner moves the team to a new city.
I’m not arguing any of that. I’m saying that these are case-by-case. In this case, Hendrickson seems like he’s done the team more favors than he’s been done. Frequently it goes that way, but I’ll also acknowledge that some players can make unreasonable in some cases. It’s not an absolute.
I don’t think that Hendrickson is doing that, to be clear, I just don’t think that we should be so black and white on either group’s “side” in these things. It comes down to the facts of each case. I do agree with your main point, though-the main fact of these cases is that contracts aren’t guaranteed, which usually screws the players (although it can sometimes screw the team, it’s more often the former). In this case, it’s pretty easy problem for Cincy to solve, and they’re not taking the very reasonable step of just guaranteeing 2026 to make it happen.
The players agreed to this structure through the CBA, that’s on them.
Mike Brown: “Playoffs? don’t talk about playoffs…we’re trying to win the NFL Posturing Award here”.
Literally all they had to do to avoid this was guarantee 2026.
Can you imagine any other team being this stupid?
Should we rename this to Trey Hendrickson Trade Rumors ? Every day … crazy