Cap management

[djs7685]

Let's talk about one thing that the Bengals have undeniably been good at, with some luck thrown in of course.

In 2015, the Bengals are currently paying out the least dead money in the entire league with an astounding $930,087. We're the only team under $1 million. Only 6 teams are under $5 million. Over half of the league is paying out $10 million or more.

We haven't had to release many players in the middle of their contracts due to poor performance or severe injury. Some may argue that we should or should have, but the fact is there that the Bengals rarely sign a contract that ends up being a "bad deal".

2015 - 32nd
2014 - 32nd
2013 - 25th
2012 - 19th
2011 - 16th

Now, those numbers can be slightly misleading as the Bengals actually had less in dead money in 2011 ranked 16th than they did in 2013 when they were ranked 25th. It just so happened that most teams in the league were in pretty good shape in 2011 as far as their contracts were going. As of right now, the Bengals highest amount of dead money has been around $8.1 million over a 5 year span, with the number usually much lower.

I guess this is just a "who dey!" to management for doing something right that almost everybody should be able to agree upon. I can't see many ways this could be twisted to be a bad thing.

[Stewy]

(09-01-2015, 02:26 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Let's talk about one thing that the Bengals have undeniably been good at, with some luck thrown in of course.

In 2015, the Bengals are currently paying out the least dead money in the entire league with an astounding $930,087. We're the only team under $1 million. Only 6 teams are under $5 million. Over half of the league is paying out $10 million or more.

We haven't had to release many players in the middle of their contracts due to poor performance or severe injury. Some may argue that we should or should have, but the fact is there that the Bengals rarely sign a contract that ends up being a "bad deal".

2015 - 32nd
2014 - 32nd
2013 - 25th
2012 - 19th
2011 - 16th

Now, those numbers can be slightly misleading as the Bengals actually had less in dead money in 2011 ranked 16th than they did in 2013 when they were ranked 25th. It just so happened that most teams in the league were in pretty good shape in 2011 as far as their contracts were going. As of right now, the Bengals highest amount of dead money has been around $8.1 million over a 5 year span, with the number usually much lower.

I guess this is just a "who dey!" to management for doing something right that almost everybody should be able to agree upon. I can't see many ways this could be twisted to be a bad thing.

  to the FO

[Stormborn]

Pretty special when your among the league leaders in recent wins, but there's always a downside to these things.

The organization has become gun shy of potential game changing acquisitions. They should be willing to risk their standings in this category so they can advance further on the field as well.

Just looking at both sides of the spectrum here.

[djs7685]

(09-01-2015, 02:43 PM)Stormborn Wrote: Pretty special when your among the league leaders in recent wins, but there's always a downside to these things.

The organization has become gun shy of potential game changing acquisitions. They should be willing to risk their standings in this category so they can advance further on the field as well.

Just looking at both sides of the spectrum here.

As you pointed out, it's definitely a more impressive feat when you're among the league leader in wins AND the lowest amount of dead money over a 5 year span, that's excellent to see.

On the flip side, I'm one of the guys that's usually yelling in free agency that we should go after a mid-top tier guy here and there. I'm all on board with that. BUT, even though that's the case, I'm still impressed that the Bengals haven't signed many "bad" contracts recently. There are many teams that are near the top of the dead money leaderboards that aren't known for their big FA acquisitions either, so it's not like avoiding FA is the only thing keeping us low on the dead money list.

Avoiding huge name FAs and contracts has likely had something to do with our perceived excellent cap management, but I'm just saying that there is much more to it as I'm sure you know, and the Bengals have definitely done a great job in that regard over the past half decade. Some may say the team is "loyal to a fault", and while that could be the case with some aging veterans, I still can't think of many occasions where we should have released a guy where there would have been a lot of dead money left on their deal.

[CornerBlitz]

The Bengals haven't signed any bad contracts lately because they haven't really signed anyone that makes a significant amount of money in the Free Agent market. These numbers will always be skewed in the Bengals favor because they rarely spend money in free agency.

They also rarely cut their players even though they are on inferior contracts such as Geathers all those years. Mike Brown is loyal to a fault in this case.

[djs7685]

(09-01-2015, 03:01 PM)CornerBlitz Wrote: The Bengals haven't signed any bad contracts lately because they haven't really signed anyone that makes a significant amount of money in the Free Agent market. These numbers will always be skewed in the Bengals favor because they rarely spend money in free agency.

They also rarely cut their players even though they are on inferior contracts such as Geathers all those years. Mike Brown is loyal to a fault in this case.

Is it really hard to give the Bengals FO any credit here?

Okay, so maybe if we cut Geathers a year earlier, we'd have only been the 31st in dead money instead of 32nd

Let's stop acting like free agency is the only reason the numbers are "skewed" to favor the Bengals. The numbers favor the Bengals because they haven't signed a ton of bad contracts. Some of it has to do with luck of our players not being injured, some of it has to do with free agency, but that's not 100% of where dead money comes from. Signing bad extensions and overpaying mediocre players also plays a role, and the Bengals have done a great job with cap management as of late.

2 divisional rivals, the Steelers and Ravens are both in the top 10 in dead money this year. Neither team is known for being overly active in free agency and signing players that command significant contracts from outside of their organization. We would be crushing MB for this if we were in the top 5/10 without being active in FA. The FO deserves some amount of credit for being dead last in dead money. We can't just pretend that there aren't any teams in the top of the dead money list that are just as inactive as the Bengals when it comes to FA.

[XenoMorph]

(09-01-2015, 03:41 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Is it really hard to give the Bengals FO any credit here?

Okay, so maybe if we cut Geathers a year earlier, we'd have only been the 31st in dead money instead of 32nd

Let's stop acting like free agency is the only reason the numbers are "skewed" to favor the Bengals. The numbers favor the Bengals because they haven't signed a ton of bad contracts. Some of it has to do with luck of our players not being injured, some of it has to do with free agency, but that's not 100% of where dead money comes from. Signing bad extensions and overpaying mediocre players also plays a role, and the Bengals have done a great job with cap management as of late.

2 divisional rivals, the Steelers and Ravens are both in the top 10 in dead money this year. Neither team is known for being overly active in free agency and signing players that command significant contracts from outside of their organization. We would be crushing MB for this if we were in the top 5/10 without being active in FA. The FO deserves some amount of credit for being dead last in dead money. We can't just pretend that there aren't any teams in the top of the dead money list that are just as inactive as the Bengals when it comes to FA.

i forget if it was the saints or the bucs but something like 20% of their cap is dead money this year. So 1/5 of their payroll is for players not playing on the team... Thats not a franchise the bengals should every try to be lol

[XenoMorph]

(09-01-2015, 02:43 PM)Stormborn Wrote: Pretty special when your among the league leaders in recent wins, but there's always a downside to these things.

The organization has become gun shy of potential game changing acquisitions. They should be willing to risk their standings in this category so they can advance further on the field as well.

Just looking at both sides of the spectrum here.

I would say because most "game changing" acquisitions dont seem to help the new team as much as the players wallet. players rarely live up to the break the bank deals. that ive seen. and most dont see those full contracts. Plus the strain it puts on the rest of your roster is bound to leave a void somewhere when making those acquisitions.

[CornerBlitz]

(09-01-2015, 03:41 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Is it really hard to give the Bengals FO any credit here?

Okay, so maybe if we cut Geathers a year earlier, we'd have only been the 31st in dead money instead of 32nd

I give the Bengals FO credit when it's due such as their recent drafts.

Regarding this dead money issue I don't give them much credit at all for the reasons I've already mentioned.

1. They don't spend money on Free Agents.

2. They are probably the least likely team to cut ties with players that are under contract.

These are the 2 biggest reasons that go into their dead money rankings. If you are excited about this or think this is some great FA maneuvering by Mike Brown then by all means celebrate. I for one am not sold.

[Daddy-O]

Kudo's to management. This is so important to being able to sustain a competitive team year in and year out. Now if lady luck will just shine on us for a change with injuries and bounces during the game we'll be golden. The odds have to eventually be in our favor at some point!

[67bengals]

Bengals front office has really been doing a great job for the last 5 to 6 years. I think there is no question that we have moved well  into the upper half of the NFL as an organization.

This is a great accomplishment.

[Au165]

(09-01-2015, 03:52 PM)CornerBlitz Wrote: I give the Bengals FO credit when it's due such as their recent drafts.

Regarding this dead money issue I don't give them much credit at all for the reasons I've already mentioned.

1. They don't spend money on Free Agents.

2. They are probably the least likely team to cut ties with players that are under contract.

These are the 2 biggest reasons that go into their dead money rankings. If you are excited about this or think this is some great FA maneuvering by Mike Brown then by all means celebrate. I for one am not sold.

The flaw in your logic here is, while simply not signing free agents and not cutting guys early would be no reason to celebrate, they do it while being one of the most successful teams on the field over the last 4 years. This would then show that they have drafted so well the need for high priced FA's is not there and that they do not award such large contracts that they must cut guys early in order to fill gaps in their line up to be successful.

There are large numbers of teams that do both things you point out above that don't get close to our success. That was the point is a macro view of the whole situation as they are interconnected.

[Bengal Dude]

(09-01-2015, 03:47 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: i forget if it was the saints or the bucs but something like 20% of their cap is dead money this year.  So 1/5 of their payroll is for players not playing on the team...  Thats not a franchise the bengals should every try to be lol

That's because those teams go out and sign multiple "big time" free agents. Most fans here are looking for one, not multiple players.

[JADefense]

Great job by the Front Office. Sooner or later, some of the critics will move out of the past and into the present.

[EatonFan]

This is a category that can help immensely. Almost all of your salary $$ are working for you. Plus it shows loyalty to your players.

Also, I think it builds better team chemistry when players aren't cut and replaced by some high priced FA who likely isn't much better than the guy they cut. Granted there is a strategy to this and I believe the Bengals organization is better for it.

[CornerBlitz]

(09-01-2015, 04:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: The flaw in your logic here is, while simply not signing free agents and not cutting guys early would be no reason to celebrate, they do it while being one of the most successful teams on the field over the last 4 years. This would then show that they have drafted so well the need for high priced FA's is not there and that they do not award such large contracts that they must cut guys early in order to fill gaps in their line up to be successful.

There are large numbers of teams that do both things you point out above that don't get close to our success. That was the point is a macro view of the whole situation as they are interconnected.

Or you can look at it on the flip side. If they actually had signed some quality free agents to supplement the good drafts, then perhaps it could have helped them to finally win in the playoffs. Or even get a better seeding and have better matchup or dare I say it a bye week.

We all know that this team has drafted well and has been good in the regular season, but that clearly is not good enough to get us where we want to be which is a team that is making a run for the Superbowl.

Free agency is a tool that all NFL teams have at their disposal to make their team better. Some teams do an awful job at signing inferior players while other teams sign quality free agents. The Bengals in this case are neutral. They don't do either because they rarely sign anyone which is the reason why these rankings are meaningless when you also include the fact that they rarely cut players.

[jfkbengals]

(09-01-2015, 08:27 PM)EatonFan Wrote: This is a category that can help immensely.  Almost all of your salary $$ are working for you.  Plus it shows loyalty to your players.  

Also, I think it builds better team chemistry when players aren't cut and replaced by some high priced FA who likely isn't much better than the guy they cut.  Granted there is a strategy to this and I believe the Bengals organization is better for it.

It also keeps from pissing off guys who have been playing their tails off only to see an outsider get awarded the big contract.