(02-26-2016, 12:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We really don't have any money at all after $10 million for the "rookie pool", $20 million for signing our own, a $5 million "injury buffer" blah blah blah.
Don't worry though, we'll kick the tires on at least 5-6 crappy free agents who will come for a visit and promptly leave with no deal.
Sure it "works" if you're content with 5 straight playoff "appearances". Some of us just think their formula could be tweaked to work better.
Maybe instead of stalling out at the same point every single year like we're stuck in the movie Groundhog's Day, we could actually spend a little more (just once) in an attempt to get over that hump. Maybe we should be looking at how New England and Denver approach things. How much money have they carried over every year? Are they signing higher quality free agents than us?
(02-26-2016, 03:21 PM)grampahol Wrote: Oh yeah...conspiracy.. That eye over the pyramid on the dollar bill? Mike Brown's eye.
I usually have a few bucks leftover from my monthly social security check and it's all because of Mike Brown and our conspiracy to lose the playoffs every year. It's so Mike and me can go party with hookers once a year and laugh at the rest of the fan base.
Hey! I might have EIGHT BUCKS rolling over this month. I could spend it all on a super bowl winning team, but I prefer to lose and feel crappy about it 11 months out of the year..
The Bengals not spending all of their cap space is viewed a "conspiracy theory"?
What else do you consider a conspiracy theory? Cigarettes causing cancer? Cocaine being a bad choice of pain killer for a child's toothache? Obesity caused heart problems?
We don't spend what is available to us. That's why there is rollover every year. Pointing that fact out doesn't needn't be mocked as if someone just said that jet fuel can't melt steel beams and 9/11 was an inside job. Using simple math isn't akin to calling the parents of the Sandy Hook victims paid actors.
It's all right there in the numbers. How some of you dismiss it is beyond me.
There is no reason from a financial reason why they can't keep there main free agents this offseason. They have a ton of money available and could have more to spend if they cut a couple of players.
(02-26-2016, 10:53 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: He does understand how it works. The less spent on the "work force" the more the owner keeps. It is that simple. Some on here would like to make it more complex but that is the net sum of it.
The link above (from the same source already used) shows that once again the Bengals are in the top 10 in cap space (ie...money not spent). Take a look at the teams in the top 10...none were contenders.
The real issues is teams like the 49er's and the Giants will fix the issue and spend on players that will give them the depth necessary to truly compete. They do not live in the "top 10 in UNSPENT cap" year after year...the Bengals do. Hence one huge reason they have the longest playoff win drought in the league. Do you really think it is just happenstance all the teams in the top 10 in UNSPENT cap combined for ZERO playoff wins?? SMFH!
No matter how you would like to spin it. Temas that bank payroll do not have a very good success rate in terms of championships. Fact!
What you linked does nothing for your arguement. Ok so we have a lot of cap space for 2016. We also have a lot of free agents. And we havent even started spending yet. How about those studs on the other end of the spectrum. The Ravens dolphins and saints dont have shit to spend and didnt even make the playoffs. We are considered by many to have one of the best rosters in the league. And we also have a ton to spend. This isnt a bad thing. Ask any NFL GM if they would like to have one of the best rosters and have more money to spend than most of the other teams. Common sense. There is no spin on my end.
They do their job. We had a loaded team that played their ass off. They didnt hurt Dalton or make Joey porter go on the field and the refs give our playoff win away.
And like I said earlier. If they wanted to keep the money they wouldnt roll it over. They dont have to roll anything over. And if Iloka would have signed the extension we offered last year we wouldnt be rolling over nearly as much if any.
Simple shit here guys. At least complain about something that makes sense.
Isn't part of that money assigned to Dalton in case he hits his contract incentives?
That would be an extra $1.5 million per year bringing that extra money down to $6 million. Or is contract incentive money already figured into total cap space?
Just wondering.
Song of Solomon 2:15
Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
(02-26-2016, 12:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We really don't have any money at all after $10 million for the "rookie pool", $20 million for signing our own, a $5 million "injury buffer" blah blah blah.
Don't worry though, we'll kick the tires on at least 5-6 crappy free agents who will come for a visit and promptly leave with no deal.
Sure it "works" if you're content with 5 straight playoff "appearances". Some of us just think their formula could be tweaked to work better.
Maybe instead of stalling out at the same point every single year like we're stuck in the movie Groundhog's Day, we could actually spend a little more (just once) in an attempt to get over that hump. Maybe we should be looking at how New England and Denver approach things. How much money have they carried over every year? Are they signing higher quality free agents than us?
Hobson's cap articles are starting to become one of my favorite moments of the offseason.
Remember when we had around $30 million a couple of years ago, but he basically said that we only had around $7 million to spend in free agency? It seems that we're obsessed with making sure we have no chance of falling into any kind of cap hit. I appreciate that we have the lowest dead money hit of any team, but I'd gladly watch this team take some bigger cap hits if it translated into ANY postseason success.
You can always trust an dishonest man to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you have to look out for.
"Winning makes believers of us all"-Paul Brown
(02-26-2016, 05:41 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Hobson's cap articles are starting to become one of my favorite moments of the offseason.
Remember when we had around $30 million a couple of years ago, but he basically said that we only had around $7 million to spend in free agency? It seems that we're obsessed with making sure we have no chance of falling into any kind of cap hit. I appreciate that we have the lowest dead money hit of any team, but I'd gladly watch this team take some bigger cap hits if it translated into ANY postseason success.
woudlnt mind more FA spending but they have proven they can be successful without it. every year its something a little different. 14 we only had dalton on offense 15 we didnt have dalton but everything else.
16 maybe it all comes together.
But lowest dead money just means less Failed free agents or contracts. We were over the cap last year due to money rolled and will likely be over again this year.
(02-26-2016, 05:41 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Hobson's cap articles are starting to become one of my favorite moments of the offseason.
Remember when we had around $30 million a couple of years ago, but he basically said that we only had around $7 million to spend in free agency? It seems that we're obsessed with making sure we have no chance of falling into any kind of cap hit. I appreciate that we have the lowest dead money hit of any team, but I'd gladly watch this team take some bigger cap hits if it translated into ANY postseason success.
Exactly. I actually like how they do things, but I'd like to see them "go for it" at some point while this core is still in their primes. And by "go for it", I don't mean to splurge on $80 million dollar free agents and risk losing key guys that we've drafted and developed.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
(02-26-2016, 07:13 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Exactly. I actually like how they do things, but I'd like to see them "go for it" at some point while this core is still in their primes. And by "go for it", I don't mean to splurge on $80 million dollar free agents and risk losing key guys that we've drafted and developed.
So I was just reading up on the most recent CBA, mainly out of curiosity in regards to the spending floor. And, unless I read it wrong, rollover money can only be carried over for one season. You can't perpetually carry over the same 8 million you didn't spend years earlier. You can roll it over once, and poof, it's gone.
So let's say the salary cap is 135 in 2013, and Team A only spends 130 mil. They elect to "rollover" that 5 mil. And now let's say the salary cap is 140 million in 2014. Team A now has 145 mil in cap space available to them because of the 5 million they rolled over.
Now here's where it gets a little confusing. If Team A only spends 130 million again in 2014, how much can they rollover to 2105?
Got your guess? Because if I did a decent enough job explaining it, your answer should be 10 million.
Even though they spent 15 million less than they technically could have, they can only carry over the money they were actually short of the league wide salary cap. That 5 mil from 2013 is gone.
Now again, I may have misread this. And I'm going to try to read up on it some more. But if this is true it's an absolute game changer in regards to our perceived lack of spending and/or strategy.
I'm curious if the same people who are all about saving cap space to re-sign are own guys are the ones who are willing to let Marvin Jones walk out the door because he isn't worth the money and we can replace him with a cheap draft pick.
(02-25-2016, 10:06 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: That can't be right, can it? I was told that the we were saving money for Andy and AJ. That was the money was carried over for. So now that we've signed both there shouldn't be any unspent.
Keep in mind, we started carrying over money in 2011. 2-0-1-1. Five freaking years ago. We carried over money from 2011 to 2012, then from 2012 to 2013, then from 2013 to 2014, then from 2014 to 2015. And now we're carrying over money from 2015 into 2016.
Let than sink in...
Money that is carried over is simply unspent money from the year prior. Unused cap space. Sure, every team at some point will most likely have a year where they don't spend to cap. For any number of reasons. Young roster in a rebuild, clearing of cap space, saving for a push the following year, cleaning house, etc.
But why would a team have unused money for FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS? Why? Again, we were told we were setting aside for Andy and AJ. For Geno. For Carlos. All of them are now signed. Does anyone honestly believe that we were saving money in 2011 for a Geoge Iloka contract in 2016? He wasn't even drafted until 2012. Marvin Jones, Sanu, were they budgeted in for while they were still in college?
Every year we rollover more money from the last, which only means we continue to have unspent money from the previous year. Every year we're near the top in space. Every single year. We cry about expiring deals, and injury pools, and rookie deals. Yet it never gets spent. Never.
Tens of millions of dollars that goes directly it the pockets of the Brown family. Tens of millions of dollars that other teams have and will try to use to better their respective teams. And here we stand, with the longest playoff win drought in professional football. With 5 straight one and dones. No closer to a Superbowl now than were in 2011, or 2009, or 2005.
It's the same story, we watch this some movie every single damn year. If you're cool with doing less, and investing less resources into our product than others then that's fine. But please, save all the bologna that we're only saving for future deals, or that we're simply being conservative.
We don't spend what we can. Our peers invest more. Period. Pretending that this witholding of future cap space is part of some master plan is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Rant over...
Mike Brown didn't fumble away the sure playoff win over the Steelers, one of his well paid players did.
(02-26-2016, 10:53 AM)Rhinocero23 Wrote: He does understand how it works. The less spent on the "work force" the more the owner keeps. It is that simple. Some on here would like to make it more complex but that is the net sum of it.
The link above (from the same source already used) shows that once again the Bengals are in the top 10 in cap space (ie...money not spent). Take a look at the teams in the top 10...none were contenders.
The real issues is teams like the 49er's and the Giants will fix the issue and spend on players that will give them the depth necessary to truly compete. They do not live in the "top 10 in UNSPENT cap" year after year...the Bengals do. Hence one huge reason they have the longest playoff win drought in the league. Do you really think it is just happenstance all the teams in the top 10 in UNSPENT cap combined for ZERO playoff wins?? SMFH!
No matter how you would like to spin it. Temas that bank payroll do not have a very good success rate in terms of championships. Fact!
What don't you understand? Spending money on non-productive players, just to be spending cap money, does not make you more successful. You're assuming that by spending more money that you hit on the best players. It's just doesn't equate to success like you indicate. Denver is one of the rarities and it worked out really well for them with Demarcus Ware and Aquib Talib, but outside of Denver most free agents getting the big bucks don't pan out. Using the the 49er's and Giants to prove a point unvalidates the point.
The lack of playoff wins has nothing to do with unspent cap money, rather execution. The fact that they (Bengals) are even in the playoffs consistently indicates they are successfully managing the business operations. Playoff games are less than 10% of an NFL season. If your consistent 90 plus percent of the time I'd say the formula works. Unless you are a glass half empty person!
(02-27-2016, 11:38 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: What don't you understand? Spending money on non-productive players, just to be spending cap money, does not make you more successful. You're assuming that by spending more money that you hit on the best players. It's just doesn't equate to success like you indicate. Denver is one of the rarities and it worked out really well for them with Demarcus Ware and Aquib Talib, but outside of Denver most free agents getting the big bucks don't pan out. Using the the 49er's and Giants to prove a point unvalidates the point.
The lack of playoff wins has nothing to do with unspent cap money, rather execution. The fact that they (Bengals) are even in the playoffs consistently indicates they are successfully managing the business operations. Playoff games are less than 10% of an NFL season. If your consistent 90 plus percent of the time I'd say the formula works. Unless you are a glass half empty person!
1. No, no, no. No one is saying spend it on non-productive players.
Why wouldn't you spend it on productive players?
Can't the team tell by now that Hunt and Clarke are not productive players and Marvin Jones is? I've never given Mike Brown much credit in the IQ department, but a blind man can see the difference in production that is this far apart.
2. Not true at all. We've spent the big bucks on AJ Green, Atkins, Dunlap and Dalton. They've worked out well.
Denver didn't get lucky with those two guys, they evaluate talent well.
Cleveland doesn't evaluate talent well. And every free agent big payday that failed was a mis-evaluation of that player's ability, attitude or fit with the team.
(02-26-2016, 04:33 PM)J24 Wrote: There is no reason from a financial reason why they can't keep there main free agents this offseason. They have a ton of money available and could have more to spend if they cut a couple of players.
And I'm sure they like to do that (keep their own), but you don't overpay and fork out top tier money to keep players that are not top tier at their position (like Jones and Sunu). If other teams are willing to do that good for them. The Bengals pay their top talent, the others tend to leave because they can make more elsewhere, where the talent at their position groups on other teams is not good.
I get paying guys like Iloka because to me he would be considered a top 5 talent at his position. And I think you'll see them get a deal with him for that amount - unless he simply wants to go elsewhere.
(02-27-2016, 11:52 AM)BengalChris Wrote: 1. No, no, no. No one is saying spend it on non-productive players.
Why wouldn't you spend it on productive players?
Can't the team tell by now that Hunt and Clarke are not a productive players and Marvin Jones is? I've never given Mike Brown much credit in the IQ department, but a blind man can see the difference in production that is this far apart.
2. Not true at all. We've spent the big bucks on AJ Green, Atkins, Dunlap and Dalton. They've worked out well.
Denver didn't get lucky with those two guys, they evaluate talent well.
Cleveland doesn't evaluate talent well. And every free agent big payday that failed was a mis-evaluation of that player's ability, attitude or fit with the team.
I think you've hit on the whole strategy, pay the top talent and try to sign the others to their fair market value. The problem is guys like Jones and Sanu will want top talent money and may get that elsewhere because teams might be weaker at those position groups. You make them generous offers within their tier range, Jones #2 money, Sanu #3 money. If they don't sign it doesn't mean the Bengals are cheap, rather other teams value the player more than the league standard for that talent.
Andrew Hawkins is a perfect example. The Browns paid him more than the Bengals were willing to pay for his talent range. It didn't make the Browns more successful by doing so. It could be argued that it strapped them more, making it more difficult to retain their better talent, like TJ Ward, ect. It's a cycle and somewhat simple formula, if you do it right (and not overpay) you will generally be better with the dollars every year.
(02-27-2016, 12:04 PM)Daddy-O Wrote: I think you've hit on the whole strategy, pay the top talent and try to sign the others to their fair market value. The problem is guys like Jones and Sanu will want top talent money and may get that elsewhere because teams might be weaker at those position groups. You make them generous offers within their tier range, Jones #2 money, Sanu #3 money. If they don't sign it doesn't mean the Bengals are cheap, rather other teams value the player more than the league standard for that talent.
Andrew Hawkins is a perfect example. The Browns paid him more than the Bengals were willing to pay for his talent range. It didn't make the Browns more successful by doing so. It could be argued that it strapped them more, making it more difficult to retain their better talent, like TJ Ward, ect. It's a cycle and somewhat simple formula, if you do it right (and not overpay) you will generally be better with the dollars every year.
Hawkins wasn't worth close to the money the Browns offered and he wasn't a key component of the offense either. The same was true of Anthony Collins.
Sanu will probably be offered #4 receiver money and he's likely wanting to go to a placer where he can be a #2.
Still, Marvin Jones, Adam Jones, Reggie Nelson and Iloka are all key starters for this team.
Hall was over paid on his last contract, but the team honored it anyways. So he won't be back except on a near veteran minimum deal.
(02-26-2016, 05:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What you linked does nothing for your arguement. Ok so we have a lot of cap space for 2016. We also have a lot of free agents. And we havent even started spending yet. How about those studs on the other end of the spectrum. The Ravens dolphins and saints dont have shit to spend and didnt even make the playoffs. We are considered by many to have one of the best rosters in the league. And we also have a ton to spend. This isnt a bad thing. Ask any NFL GM if they would like to have one of the best rosters and have more money to spend than most of the other teams. Common sense. There is no spin on my end.
They do their job. We had a loaded team that played their ass off. They didnt hurt Dalton or make Joey porter go on the field and the refs give our playoff win away.
And like I said earlier. If they wanted to keep the money they wouldnt roll it over. They dont have to roll anything over. And if Iloka would have signed the extension we offered last year we wouldnt be rolling over nearly as much if any.
Simple shit here guys. At least complain about something that makes sense.
Daddy-O: What don't you understand? Spending money on non-productive players, just to be spending cap money, does not make you more successful. You're assuming that by spending more money that you hit on the best players. It's just doesn't equate to success like you indicate. Denver is one of the rarities and it worked out really well for them with Demarcus Ware and Aquib Talib, but outside of Denver most free agents getting the big bucks don't pan out. Using the the 49er's and Giants to prove a point unvalidates the point.
The lack of playoff wins has nothing to do with unspent cap money, rather execution. The fact that they (Bengals) are even in the playoffs consistently indicates they are successfully managing the business operations. Playoff games are less than 10% of an NFL season. If your consistent 90 plus percent of the time I'd say the formula works. Unless you are a glass half empty person!
from 2011 till now...
All but one SB winner were ranked in the bottom 1/2 of unspent cap.
Only the 2014 Patriots (14th in cap space unspent out of 32) ranked in the top 1/2 of unspent cap. Two winners were ranked in the bottom 10 of unspent cap.
Do you see the pattern here? Should be pretty simple to follow.
2011 - Bengals ranked 9th with the most cap UNSPENT - $30+mil
2012 - Bengals ranked 5th with the most cap UNSPENT - $4+ mil
2013 - Bengals ranked 9th with the most cap UNSPENT - $7+ mil
2014 - Bengals ranked 6th with the most cap UNSPENT - $10+mil
2015 - Bengals ranked 15th (break through!!!) cap UNSPENT - $8+ mil
As others have pointed out correctly the rollover is to be spent the next year.
The Bengals have never spent the total rollover over from the previous year...that means it was absorbed back into the profit line.
SOP has been out spent by every SB winner since the new CBA has been in place. SOP has been outspent by every conference champion as well. Why lie to yourself...the ownership of the Bengals have not changed one bit. Cheap, bush league, mikeymouse outfit sill describes the Bengals ownership. Not the fans or the players but SOP for sure.
I am sure the weak argument of "but the team that spent the most did not win the SB" will be offered. I could not care less about any other team than the Bengals. Give me an owner that overspends to try and win any day over our current BS ownership that is still searching for a freaking playoff win let alone a SB appearance!!!!
The fact is SOP has not given the team a fighting chance because he want to win on the CHEAP and it does not work.
(02-27-2016, 09:20 AM)tlotharw Wrote: Mike Brown didn't fumble away the sure playoff win over the Steelers, one of his well paid players did.
Agreed. Ordinarily I would be one of those whining about the Bengals being cheap, but.....if they put a team on the field the caliber of what they did last year, I don't care if Mike Brown puts 20 million in his pockets from money carried over...he earned it. Besides, who among us wouldn't keep the 7 million if they were the owner? Most years I can, but last year I cannot tell you where they could have spent any extra money that would have made a dime's worth of difference. Dennard went down, Dalton hurt, anyone really believe McCarron was going to take us all the way to the Super Bowl? Sure, we all hoped he would, and he was a darn fine backup, probably top tier in that department given his level of experience but c'mon man! OK, we're gonna whine, I say take the 7 million or whatever it was, add it to Marv's salary, and find a real coach somewhere. I don't know who, where to find him, etc. etc. but I still think that was the missing link someone who could harness all the vast talent we have and make them play like pros instead of college kids celebrating awesome plays in the dumbest of ways, running out the tunnel, onto the field in hero costumes. Someone who could get these young men to play like professionals, act like they've been there after making plays, not committing stupid penalties but if they do and the flag drops...shut up and go back to the huddle. The man could be a complete jerk, completely senile, or the nicest guy ever as long as he gets the job done....there's where the money needs to go,imo.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
