(05-19-2022, 03:03 PM)Stewy Wrote: Are you sure about that?  I was just looking through franchise tag prices, and one of the things I read about the LeVeon Bell situation was that the Steelers didn't want to pay the or strangle their CAP with the 3rd TAG number which is 40% about the top 5 average.  If Bell didn't play under the 20% second tag bump, then why would they be concerned about the 40% bump on tag 3?  What am I missing?

In regard to safety, the numbers going through my head were as follows - 1st Tag - 12m/yr; 2nd Tag - 14.4m/yr; 3rd Tag - 17.2 m/yr:  Yes these numbers would obviously go up as the avg. increases per year, so the 2nd and 3rd tags would be worth more than these numbers.

So the 3rd Tag barely gets him to where he'd be by signing for (some have speculated this number) 17m.yr or even 15m/yr because if he sits out two years that's 26.5 mil lost.

And another thing to consider....if Bates sits out two tags, that two of his prime years gone.  He would have walked about from 27 mil guranteed, while likely turning down at least 15m/yr from the Bengals (a reasonable number).  He'll never get that money back.  It's money lost, due to age and years played.  He could sit two years and come out and sign a 5yr 100mil contract, but he'll never get a 3rd contract, and after not playing for two years, he'll find his market VERY thin.  More reasons why players do not have the leverage that some think they do.  Their clocks are ticking, constantly, and teams know it.

(05-19-2022, 12:56 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: True enough, if you want to pay him only for the Playoffs go right ahead. Not my money.

I just love the Dax Hill pick enough and don't like the Agents BS enough to move on in anyway that is best for the team and Jessie.


Probably just a dream but that would be fantastic or just getting something for him would be just fine too.


No doubt that is the question. I don't like it myself even though he played great in the Postseason, to let the lack of a contract get
in his head like that and affect his game to that extent is not a good sign in my eyes. Gives me pause especially now with his Agent
being a doosh. If it was me I would of told my Agent to back off and would of just signed the extension offered already.

I am sure it is extremely fair and you get to play on a team that should be a contender for a long time with Burrow.


True if you want to pay him only cause of what he did in the SB run so be it. I think that is what he wants and we aren't going
to pay him that cause of his poor play in the regular season and his overall poor tackling his entire career. Dude has great range
though and that is rare, but Dax Hill makes him expendable even if he hasn't played an NFL down yet. He is way more pro ready
than Bates was coming out and is ten times the tackler with great range himself.


Great post Stewy, well said man.

(05-19-2022, 08:26 PM)J24 Wrote: He's was a top 10 Safety  as a rookie and he was the #1 Safety in 2020. Plus he is a young  proven player with a ton of upside. You're not signing him for just a playoff run.

As for the agent  thing it's just business no need to get butt hurt over it.

(05-20-2022, 09:23 AM)PDub80 Wrote: Is Jessie Bates iii the new Andy Dalton - only he wants top 3 at his position $? Can play great, can play bad, is mostly avg.... And dissapears at times?

(05-20-2022, 09:23 AM)PDub80 Wrote: Is Jessie Bates iii the new Andy Dalton - only he wants top 3 at his position $? Can play great, can play bad, is mostly avg.... And dissapears at times?

(05-19-2022, 08:26 PM)J24 Wrote: He's was a top 10 Safety  as a rookie and he was the #1 Safety in 2020. Plus he is a young  proven player with a ton of upside. You're not signing him for just a playoff run.

As for the agent  thing it's just business no need to get butt hurt over it.

(05-20-2022, 09:55 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Bates like many nfl players simply overvalues himself. vs the market

(05-19-2022, 08:26 PM)J24 Wrote: He's was a top 10 Safety  as a rookie and he was the #1 Safety in 2020. Plus he is a young  proven player with a ton of upside. You're not signing him for just a playoff run.

As for the agent  thing it's just business no need to get butt hurt over it.

(05-20-2022, 08:27 AM)casear2727 Wrote: If you are going off of PFF grades you cannot dismiss him going from #1 to #37 this season either.  I dont believe Bates is the 37th best safety, but he sure as hell isnt #1.

His lackluster play during the regular season is the cause for the current contract standoff IMO.

(05-20-2022, 10:41 AM)Whatever Wrote: If we're talking PFF grades, Bates' career averages a 71.8/season.  If you included his 90 postseason grade as a full season, that still only takes the average up to 75.5.  Good, but not elite.

Unfortunately with Bates, it's not even a typical upwards curve that you see with most guys on rookie deals.  It's a rollercoaster.  There is a lot of risk in paying him at an elite level, as in his down years, he's a liability to the defense and you can't have huge chunks of cap space tied  up in a guy that's a liability.  

(05-20-2022, 05:18 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I am sure whatever we offered him was more than fair.

(05-21-2022, 12:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What did we offer him?

(05-21-2022, 12:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What did we offer him?

(05-21-2022, 12:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What did we offer him?

(05-21-2022, 01:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: We don't know what the Bengals are offering or what Bates is asking. We can only speculate.


Historically, the Bengals have tried to undervalue free agents at positions they don't find to be premium.


Kevin Zeitler, Joe Thuney and Andrew Whitworth (or people close to them) all came out saying that the Bengals' offers to them were considerably lower than other teams' offers and that all three had some inclination to come to Cincinnati had they been offered similar contracts to the market.


Considering guard (and aging OT) and safety are on the lower end of the "value charts" for many teams, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bengals were approaching Bates in a similar fashion.

We also have a tendency to not offer as much guaranteed money as other teams. This may be due to Mike Brown not being as wealthy and liquid as other owners since he made his money exclusively through football (where as many other owners like the Browns' Jimmy Haslam made his fortune via a truck stop chain and a petroleum corporation) so he may not be able to put down the guaranteed money that other owners can (when you put guaranteed money on a contract, that money must go into escrow at the time of signing, not when it's due to the player). 

The Bengals, historically, stay around 35% of the contract guaranteed or less.



Trey Hendrickson got 16/60 (27%), DJ Reader 20.5/53 (39%), Joe Mixon 10/40 (25%), BJ Hill 13/40 (32.5%), Cappa 11/35 (31%), Awuzie 7.5/22 (34%), Hubbard 10/40 (25%), Waynes 15/42 (36%).



Going back further, Dalton 17/96 (18%), Green 33/60 (55%), Palmer 19/97 (20%).


Unless I'm forgetting any big names, it seems we've only given >50% guaranteed a single time, with Green. Many are in the 25 to 35% range. The recent safety contracts are in the 40 to 70% range.


My guess is that Jessie Bates is pursuing a contract at least similar to Marcus Williams' deal with the Ravens, which was 5 years, 70 million with 37 million of it guaranteed. 

And it wouldn't surprise me if the Bengals are angling for closer to what Tyrann Mathieu or Justin Reid got (3yr/28.3 M/18M guaranteed and 3/31.5/20.5, respectively).

Hopefully, they'll land somewhere in between like John Johnson's contract with Cleveland (3/33.75/24), maybe with a little more AAV and a little less guaranteed, something like 3/39/15.

I don't think Bates will go for that kind of deal, but maybe we get lucky.


When it comes to "who to blame" I lean more towards the Bengals than Bates since we are unlike most other NFL teams when it comes to guarantees, but I think what Bates may not be considering is that, while the Bengals don't do well with literal guarantees, they are pretty good about giving "practical" guarantees. Look at Tray Waynes. Only 15 million was guaranteed, but the Bengals kept him for 2 years for doing nothing at all, meaning his actual guarantee was 30.8 million, which would be 73%... I wish Bates' agent would realize this and advise his client appropriately. Because at least the first two years of any deal Bates signs are guaranteed. And the only way they'd cut him at that point is if he had a catastrophic implosion or is injured for both years.


There have been a few anomalies like Preston Brown, but there are many more examples where a player is kept too long rather than not long enough.


We'll see how things play out. I take solace in knowing that we drafted safety in the draft so, if absolutely nothing can be done and Bates does hold out/sit out the season, we aren't bereft at the position. I don't think he'd ultimately do that though. My expectation is that Bates will play on the tag this year and will likely leave in free agency in 2023, especially since he will not be a priority signing in next year's off season, as both Burrow and Higgins are eligible for extensions at that point.

(05-21-2022, 01:39 PM)jason Wrote: A chance to be a part of an ascending team that just had a shot at a championship, and has the possibility to do it again?... All the while making enough money to take care of himself, and his loved ones for life?

I don't begrudge anyone trying to get anything they can, and I'll always side with the millionaire over the billionaire (Not sure there is a billionaire in this case). But I just can't wrap my head around breaking the bank for an inconsistent safety.... Especially when we just drafted a cheaper option.

(05-21-2022, 01:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Historically, the Bengals have tried to undervalue free agents at positions they don't find to be premium.

(05-21-2022, 01:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Kevin Zeitler, Joe Thuney and Andrew Whitworth (or people close to them) all came out saying that the Bengals' offers to them were considerably lower than other teams' offers and that all three had some inclination to come to Cincinnati had they been offered similar contracts to the market.

(05-21-2022, 02:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why did you just list 3 names?  Pretty much 100% of free agents would come here if we offered them more money than any other team.

(05-21-2022, 02:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: They're examples of times we underbid players. Which was a central argument of my post.

(05-21-2022, 03:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What central argument?

That players go to the team that offers them the most money?

Since the Bengals have signed so many big money free agents lately you can no longer claim they are being "cheap" or "underbidding" for all these free agents.  Our offers have obviously been MORE than "competitive".  We have actually outbid all the other teams in the league for a long list of free agents over the last two years.  And the percentage of "guaranteed money" is just a part of the total package.  Sometimes players are offered an option of more money and less guaranteed, or less total but more guaranteed.  You can't just cut out the guaranteed portion of the contract and say that was the deal breaker.

If we don't sign Bates it is not because the front office was "too cheap".