Is MB Cheap really?

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-02-2019, 12:56 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Each year we see fans state MB is cheap and his goal is to pocket money from the salary cap revenue by under spending. Here are the facts, Bengals roll over 100% of unused cap money so they can spend it the following years. In other words, the money is used year after year for salaries and none goes to MB's pocket.

Here are the facts of teams in our division left over salary cap money according to Spotrac:

2016 - Browns $42 Million
Steelers - 5.7 million
Bengals - 5.6 million
Ravens - 4.3 million

2017 - Browns 59.5 million
Bengals - 10.1 million
Steelers 4.9 million
Ravens - 3.4 million

2018 - Browns 54 million
Steelers - 10.9 million
Bengals - 8.5 million'
Ravens - 8.3 million

2019 - Browns 37.6 million
Ravens - 9.4 million
Bengals - 7.1 million
Steelers - 3.2 million

What does it mean? Bengals rolled over 10.1 million or less every year
Browns far exceeded rest of division in less spending
Other 3 teams are all pretty close on spend

There is nothing here suggesting MB does not pay his players well, this pattern is consistent since the 2011 new collective bargaining agreement.

Can we put to bed MB is cheap? Cincinnati is a small market team (one of the smallest), yet year after year they spend with the mid and large market teams. The argument to suggest MB is cheap because he does not hire a GM is also a bad one. MB (I do not agree) feels he has as much football knowledge as any GM so he has filled the role with the help of Katie and Tobin in recent history. Argue philosophy on drafting and allocating the big bucks being spent, that is valid, but not the MB is cheap label.

Thoughts??

This is similar to the "Marv never plays rookies" argument. It's not as simple as A+B=C.

The Bengals can pay their players a certain salary, re-up their own Free Agents and sign outside Free Agents, just like everyone else. They can do all this and, for lack of a better term, manipulate the salary cap so they do what they're supposed to do--spending wise--and point to how they spend money just like everyone else. 

I'm not advocating they go out and break the bank, spends loads on outside free agents, but they could certainly do a better job of evaluating their needs and targeting one, or maybe even two, really good in their prime players to help the team. We all know they don't and have never done this. They recently started speding on better free agents, but they're still not proven, healthy producers. Probably the closest they've come was Preston Brown but even he could be just considered solid and not spectacular. 

So, it's not fair to say Mike Brown is cheap, any more than it's fair to say Marv never played rookies. It is fair to say that MB is very reactionary, very slow to change and adopt recent trends and it's hard to argue against him being very frugal and wanting to make sure the profit margin is as big as possible. 

Mike Brown is a classic 'half measure' owner. Does just enough to satisfy the bare minimum and only makes changes well past their expiration date.