So this is espn+ giving their opinion on where they think the top 50 FAs best fits are…

Interesting that they have Pratt’s (and Bell’s) best fits being the Bengals. For sure Bell but I don’t think Pratt will be back.

The Bates one would not be good as I don’t think that they should pay him too $ but I would hate see him in our division…even if it is with the Clowns.

“The Browns will need to do some work with the cap, but Bates upgrades a Cleveland defense that needs better play and more ball production at the safety position. Bates has the post and split-field range to cover some grass, along with the scheme versatility to play from depth or spin down in coverage. He logged four interceptions and eight pass breakups last year in Cincinnati, and he has posted 14 career interceptions over five pro seasons. Bates, who played on the franchise tag last season, is in line for a long-term deal.”

The only outside FA they have for the Bengals is Yannick Ngakoue. I would pass on signing him and just keep Ossai as the nickle pass rusher

"Cleveland can't sign Bates because they have already paid other players large contracts."

- every Bengals fan

(02-21-2023, 01:25 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: "Cleveland can't sign Bates because they have already paid other players large contracts."

- every Bengals fan

Cleveland can't sign Bates because they gave their QB a stupid contract.

(02-21-2023, 04:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Cleveland can't sign Bates because they gave their QB a stupid contract.

They have the money, over half of their roster is either UFA, RFA, or ERFAs.  It's just that they'll have to be very careful how they spend that money, with so many positions to fill.

(02-21-2023, 04:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Cleveland can't sign Bates because they gave their QB a stupid contract.

If that’s playoff Texans Deshaun Watson it’s actually a great deal


From what i saw of the Browns last year he was pretty decent for having years off


They are a team I’m penciling in for 7-9 wins even in our division

(02-21-2023, 09:03 PM)Housh Wrote: If that’s playoff Texans Deshaun Watson it’s actually a great deal


From what i saw of the Browns last year he was pretty decent for having years off


They are a team I’m penciling in for 7-9 wins even in our division

Yep the Browns have Watson, Chubb, Cooper, Garrett, and Bitoni. The Chiefs have several as do the 49ers and Eagles.

The Best place for Bates is here in Cincinnati!

(02-21-2023, 04:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Cleveland can't sign Bates because they gave their QB a stupid contract.

I don't know how teams with such huge contracts still manage to sign major free agents, and yet every year I find myself surprised.  I see this comment from Jake Trotter, ESPN's reporter focused on the Browns, " Watson's record contract also will count $55 million against the cap this year, limiting Cleveland's financial options. Still, the Browns should be able to find a way to manufacture enough space to take at least one big swing in free agency."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35706001/2023-nfl-offseason-questions-afc-nfc-predictions-free-agency-draft-all-32-teams

(02-22-2023, 03:03 PM)Nepa Wrote: I don't know how teams with such huge contracts still manage to sign major free agents, and yet every year I find myself surprised.  I see this comment from Jake Trotter, ESPN's reporter focused on the Browns, " Watson's record contract also will count $55 million against the cap this year, limiting Cleveland's financial options. Still, the Browns should be able to find a way to manufacture enough space to take at least one big swing in free agency."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35706001/2023-nfl-offseason-questions-afc-nfc-predictions-free-agency-draft-all-32-teams

It's basically a matter of spending cash now to save cap later that year. You'll probably have to pay for it for a year or two cap-wise, years down the line, but you can kick that can for awhile so long as you don't mind spending more cash now.

For instance, the Browns could turn $20m of Watson's $46m base salary into a signing bonus and then pro rate that bonus over the 4 remaining years of his deal, $5m, $5m, $5m, and $5m. His cap hit this year would drop $15m (the 3x $5m over the next 3 years) from $55m to $40m. In exchange his cap hits would rise from $55m in 2024, 2025, 2026 to $60m and you're just banking on the cap to rise enough that the extra increase isn't too painful. Or you extend him and since he's probably not going to average $60m/yr on the extension, the extension would then be able to lower some of those hits by spreading it out a bit more.

The main downside of it (and why you don't see the Bengals doing it much, besides it requiring a competent and creative FO) is you're giving the player a large chunk of money right then and there. Rather than that $20m worth of base salary in my earlier example being paid out over 18 week installments or whatever of ~$1.11m between Sept 2023 and Jan 2024 if it were part of the base salary, you're instead giving them a $20m signing bonus right then and there in whole in say March 2023. If you're shorter on liquid cash, it can be a problem if your an owner whose main/only source of income is their team. It's also the owner losing the opportunity to make profit/interest off of their $20m for the 7 months or whatnot before they'd have to start paying it out in game checks.

(02-22-2023, 09:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's basically a matter of spending cash now to save cap later that year. You'll probably have to pay for it for a year or two cap-wise, years down the line, but you can kick that can for awhile so long as you don't mind spending more cash now.

For instance, the Browns could turn $20m of Watson's $46m base salary into a signing bonus and then pro rate that bonus over the 4 remaining years of his deal, $5m, $5m, $5m, and $5m. His cap hit this year would drop $15m (the 3x $5m over the next 3 years) from $55m to $40m. In exchange his cap hits would rise from $55m in 2024, 2025, 2026 to $60m and you're just banking on the cap to rise enough that the extra increase isn't too painful. Or you extend him and since he's probably not going to average $60m/yr on the extension, the extension would then be able to lower some of those hits by spreading it out a bit more.

The main downside of it (and why you don't see the Bengals doing it much, besides it requiring a competent and creative FO) is you're giving the player a large chunk of money right then and there. Rather than that $20m worth of base salary in my earlier example being paid out over 18 week installments or whatever of ~$1.11m between Sept 2023 and Jan 2024 if it were part of the base salary, you're instead giving them a $20m signing bonus right then and there in whole in say March 2023. If you're shorter on liquid cash, it can be a problem if your an owner whose main/only source of income is their team. It's also the owner losing the opportunity to make profit/interest off of their $20m for the 7 months or whatnot before they'd have to start paying it out in game checks.

Thank you for the detailed and very informative explanation. Watson already had a 45-million-dollar signing bonus. How can he get yet another signing bonus? Do they just redo a new contract and thus get to do yet another signing bonus? What is the maximum signing bonus one can give?

The Titans cut their Pro Bowl LT. Unfortunately, Tre Waynes questions his durability

(02-22-2023, 10:21 PM)Nepa Wrote: Thank you for the detailed and very informative explanation. Watson already had a 45-million-dollar signing bonus. How can he get yet another signing bonus? Do they just redo a new contract and thus get to do yet another signing bonus? What is the maximum signing bonus one can give?

Yeah, that's what is almost always meant when you hear about someone "restructuring" their contract. Just them getting a chunk of their current year's base salary up front in the form of a signing bonus to move numbers around purely for cap accounting reasons. They're not taking less money, actually more upfront in a lump sum rather than spread out in game checks so they can make more money off of that money now rather than wait for it later over time.

Pretty positive there's no limit of signing bonus you can get. It's all still eventually accounted for under the cap, so it's really just how much you're able/willing to shell out as an owner. 

I imagine if an extra filthy rich owner (by even NFL owner standards) started throwing around huge signing bonuses out of the normal escalation there'd be some other owners upset about the precedent that they were setting that other players would start to expect from other owners, which is why there was so much hubbub about Watson's big fully guaranteed deal. Ultimately there isn't much they could do to overtly stop that owner from doing it without the NFLPA suing for collusion and then Congress getting involved with the NFL's business.

(02-22-2023, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Titans cut their Pro Bowl LT. Unfortunately, Tre Waynes questions his durability

He hasn't played a full season in about 5 years. That said, when he's upright he's pretty good. If he's cheap, he might be a good signing to be a backup.

(02-21-2023, 01:25 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: "Cleveland can't sign Bates because they have already paid other players large contracts."

- every Bengals fan

Cleveland can't sign Bates because every Bengals fan would hunt Bates down and hang him by his short and curlys.. I probably wouldn't, but some of you would probably go full comando over it..

(02-23-2023, 09:27 AM)Sled21 Wrote: He hasn't played a full season in about 5 years. That said, when he's upright he's pretty good. If he's cheap, he might be a good signing to be a backup.

You couldn't have a better backup than Taylor Lewan at LT, especially if he is healthy, but that has been the problem....

And he is 31. Give me Garrett Bolles coming off a broken leg who is a year younger and we can trade a mid rounder for.

Bolles should be ready by TC.

(02-23-2023, 09:27 AM)Sled21 Wrote: He hasn't played a full season in about 5 years. That said, when he's upright he's pretty good. If he's cheap, he might be a good signing to be a backup.

If we did bring him in, I'd hope it'd be to start. Maybe push Jonah to RT or move him to RT until LC is healthy 

(02-23-2023, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If we did bring him in, I'd hope it'd be to start. Maybe push Jonah to RT or move him to RT until LC is healthy 

Problem is getting him through a full season healthy. I think with his injury history he is best suited to the backup role with limited snaps. 

(02-23-2023, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If we did bring him in, I'd hope it'd be to start. Maybe push Jonah to RT or move him to RT until LC is healthy 

(02-23-2023, 05:03 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Problem is getting him through a full season healthy. I think with his injury history he is best suited to the backup role with limited snaps. 

It is a gamble with Lewan no doubt. When he is healthy he is undoubtedly one of the best LT's in the league but he is hardly 
ever healthy. But agree with Bfine, if we did bring him in it would be to start and we would have to move Jonah to RT. I just 
think Garrett Bolles would be far less of a gamble than Taylor Lewan. 

(02-22-2023, 09:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's basically a matter of spending cash now to save cap later that year. You'll probably have to pay for it for a year or two cap-wise, years down the line, but you can kick that can for awhile so long as you don't mind spending more cash now.

For instance, the Browns could turn $20m of Watson's $46m base salary into a signing bonus and then 

****

The main downside of it (and why you don't see the Bengals doing it much, besides it requiring a competent and creative FO) is you're giving the player a large chunk of money right then and there. 

****

If you're shorter on liquid cash, it can be a problem if your an owner whose main/only source of income is their team. It's also the owner losing the opportunity to make profit/interest off of their $20m for the 7 months or whatnot before they'd have to start paying it out in game checks.

And thus an advantage for rich owners, like the Haslems, who have so many billions to burn that they just purchased the Milwaukee Bucks for 3.5 billion. They have quite the advantage in terms of giving guaranteed money and signing bonuses.

(02-23-2023, 03:00 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: You couldn't have a better backup than Taylor Lewan at LT, especially if he is healthy, but that has been the problem....

And he is 31. Give me Garrett Bolles coming off a broken leg who is a year younger and we can trade a mid rounder for.

Bolles should be ready by TC.

(02-23-2023, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If we did bring him in, I'd hope it'd be to start. Maybe push Jonah to RT or move him to RT until LC is healthy 

This, Lewan is not looking for a backup role to end his career.