Should Carson Palmer "man up?"-

[paintmered]

What does Carson gain by taking a stand and promoting change within the Bengals organization at this stage in his career? Not a thing. Because by the time it materializes, he'll be at the very tail end of his career and won't be able to take advantage.

As Hoosier said, I think it's a simple matter of him looking at his options and prioritizing them based what he found most desirable: first is to be traded, second is to retire, third is to play for the Bengals. Since SoP will never trade Carson, option two it is then. I don't think Carson being heroic nor is he being a coward by retiring. He is putting himself first, though, and I can't blame him for it. In in his situation, I'd make the same choice.

SoP never puts his players above making a buck, so why should the players put SoP and the organization above them?

[Redsfaithful]

Of course maybe there were things said to him that would be coming, that simply never happened.

No way to know for sure, but I think there's probably truth to this.

[cincrazy]

"We're like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves -- high ho, high ho! -- with the spirit over there today." Direct quote from Bengals owner Mike Brown.

And people wonder why Carson wants to retire?

[KronoRed]

Asked why he wouldn't trade the 31-year-old Palmer and get some draft picks in return, Brown said it was a matter of principle.

"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."

So getting something of value and perhaps helping the team is less important then "he made a promise, we're gonna be grumpy"

Loons.

[IslandRed]

So getting something of value and perhaps helping the team is less important then "he made a promise, we're gonna be grumpy"

Loons.

He probably doesn't want to hand a how-to-get-out-of-Cincinnati game plan to future disgruntled Bengals... especially because there are almost always disgruntled Bengals.

[Danny Serafini]

Do you find it equally dishonorable when the team cuts a player before the end of a contract because it doesn't think the player is good enough anymore or he's not worth the money to be paid to him in the future? (Which happens several hundred times a year across the NFL...)

If you say yes, then fine. If no, and the argument is that the contract allows the team to do that, then, the contract also allows the player to retire.

I do have a problem with teams dropping players anytime they want for free like that. I understand they have the collectively bargained right to do so, but fundamentally it's still wrong. It's a contract, both sides should have to live up to it. I was hoping to see true guaranteed contracts come out of these negotiations, because the players deserve them.

[dougdirt]

I do have a problem with teams dropping players anytime they want for free like that. I understand they have the collectively bargained right to do so, but fundamentally it's still wrong. It's a contract, both sides should have to live up to it. I was hoping to see true guaranteed contracts come out of these negotiations, because the players deserve them.

You are missing the point though.... within the contract that you want honored, there are clauses for both the release of a player and the retirement of a player that both sides agreed upon. It is part of the contract and by releasing the player or the player retiring, is agreeing to certain terms of the contract.

[Redhook]

I'm still 100% on Carson's side. Granted he hasn't pulled off this stunt off well, but anything that goes against Mike Brown is a positive in my book. I hate that man more than the Steelers. And that's saying something.

[kaldaniels]

You are missing the point though.... within the contract that you want honored, there are clauses for both the release of a player and the retirement of a player that both sides agreed upon. It is part of the contract and by releasing the player or the player retiring, is agreeing to certain terms of the contract.

Agreed. If within said contract there is a retirement clause, and Carson exercises it, he did not break the contract.

[KronoRed]

He probably doesn't want to hand a how-to-get-out-of-Cincinnati game plan to future disgruntled Bengals... especially because there are almost always disgruntled Bengals.

True, half the team would retire, I also think it's funny Brown flat out admits getting out of Cincinnati is a reward.

[Redhook]

I also think it's funny Brown flat out admits getting out of Cincinnati is a reward.

[Hoosier Red]

You are missing the point though.... within the contract that you want honored, there are clauses for both the release of a player and the retirement of a player that both sides agreed upon. It is part of the contract and by releasing the player or the player retiring, is agreeing to certain terms of the contract.

I think people misunderstand the parameters of contracts. I hear the complaint of, "Why does he want to renegotiate, if he didn't want to sign for 7 years, he shouldn't have signed for 7 years."
But contracts have never been steadfast documents which would never be touched.

They simply state that until the end of the contract, or until it's somehow amended, XXXX player will be paid XXXX dollars so long as he continues to play for XXXX team. The number of years shouldn't be thought of as the definite number of years, but rather the longest possible number of years that can go without further negotiation.

A better analogy is the number of years is like a non-compete clause that some companies send. Carson will be paid by the Bengals so long as he plays for them, but he's under no obligation to do so. However he can't go play for any other team until the contract runs out, unless Mike Brown releases him from his contract.

[Caveat Emperor]

Is it just me, or does the video of Brown's presser make him look like he's a black hood away from being Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?

[Redhook]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...LcI_story.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1TKFMQyI0

2 excellent articles highlighting the ineptitude of Mike Brown. We've all heard it before, but it's nice to see people from other cities view Brown as an imbecile too and actually feel bad for our city because of this moron.

Brown needs to trade Palmer to improve the football team. It's as simple as that. Palmer doesn't wanna play here, he's not the same player he once was, and will never be again. Trade him while he has some value. Brown won't because he'd rather win off the field, at least in his mind.

[Roy Tucker]

I still think that when Palmer said this, I knew he wasn't long for playing for the Bengals.

Not that I'm calling him a coward or anything. I think he's a courageous player and plays with a lot of guts. But I think this thought has always been in the back of his mind (particularly playing behind the Bengals' OL).

And unless he's playing for a team that is fully and completely committed to putting the best team it can on the field, he won't play. The stakes are just too high.