I keep hearing talk of who we'll sign out of William Jackson or Carl Lawson. I also see a lot of breakdowns on our cap space where people account for different signings. But I think some are forgetting a couple of things.

Jessie Bates and Sam Hubbard are both going into their final years. If this team has these two in plans for their future and they have faith in them then now is the time to get a deal worked.

You get a discount by signing them early and avoid a number of things that may occur if their contracts run out (Franchise tag, hurt feelings, market going up, etc.)

I think Jesse Bates is an absolute no-brainer to get a deal done with. He's earned it, he has to factor in our long-term plans, and there is no use in waiting. Why wait to sign him when we're in a decreased cap year, with a decreased market? If you don't get it done now you're potentially looking at the cap to reset from 180ish to the 210 range in 2022. You're looking at the flood gates to open in 2022 with teams looking to spend after a tightened 2021. The market will inevitably go up.

A lot of what I just said for Bates is true for Hubbard as well. While I don't think he's as important as Bates, I don't you can deny that if you want him long-term then you work something this offseason. Not only is he going to be more favorable to work with by giving him security a year early, he's not coming off a strong year. The price he will cost in 2021 may very well skyrocket in 2022.

If I'm the Bengals I get both of these done. And I wouldn't even consider signing William Jackson, unless he's looking for a sub 8 mil per deal. I also wouldn't consider tagging Lawson either. While I would like to have him, paying top 5 DE money is absolutely absurd.

So I guess the question remains do you want to pay Lawson higher end money on a long-term vs. Hubbard at a discount? Or do you work long-term deals for both DE's in one offseason?

I'll stop rambling, but I do think we really need to consider what happens with these two this offseason more than we currently do in our conversations about cap space.

(02-19-2021, 07:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I keep hearing talk of who we'll sign out of William Jackson or Carl Lawson.  I also see a lot of breakdowns on our cap space where people account for different signings.  But I think some are forgetting a couple of things.

Jessie Bates and Sam Hubbard are both going into their final years.  If this team has these two in plans for their future and they have faith in them then now is the time to get a deal worked.

You get a discount by signing them early and avoid a number of things that may occur if their contracts run out (Franchise tag, hurt feelings, market going up, etc.)

I think Jesse Bates is an absolute no-brainer to get a deal done with.  He's earned it, he has to factor in our long-term plans, and there is no use in waiting.  Why wait to sign him when we're in a decreased cap year, with a decreased market?  If you don't get it done now you're potentially looking at the cap to reset from 180ish to the 210 range in 2022.  You're looking at the flood gates to open in 2022 with teams looking to spend after a tightened 2021.  The market will inevitably go up.

A lot of what I just said for Bates is true for Hubbard as well.  While I don't think he's as important as Bates, I don't you can deny that if you want him long-term then you work something this offseason.  Not only is he going to be more favorable to work with by giving him security a year early, he's not coming off a strong year.  The price he will cost in 2021 may very well skyrocket in 2022.

If I'm the Bengals I get both of these done.  And I wouldn't even consider signing William Jackson, unless he's looking for a sub 8 mil per deal.  I also wouldn't consider tagging Lawson either.  While I would like to have him, paying top 5 DE money is absolutely absurd.  

So I guess the question remains do you want to pay Lawson higher end money on a long-term vs. Hubbard at a discount?  Or do you work long-term deals for both DE's in one offseason?

I'll stop rambling, but I do think we really need to consider what happens with these two this offseason more than we currently do in our conversations about cap space.

You can sign an extension now without adding much to the 2021 cap space.

Franchising Lawson and re-signing Jackson will probably cost at least 28m towards the cap this year. 

That doesn't even factor in re-signing other free agents: Huber, Wilson, Harris, Allen and Carter are all likely to be signed. That's somewhere around 9m, so that brings the total to around 38m...and that accounts for almost all the current cap.

Then you have guys like Perine, Daniels, Spain and Evans who they have to decide if they want back or not.

They can free up about 24m by cutting Atkins, Hart, Finney and Uzomah...but then you create other areas of need that have to be addressed in FA or the draft. 

It's going to be interesting to see what they do, because they're going to have to be a little more creative this offseason. 

They absolutely have to sign a G and get a new RT, IMO. There's a possibility they could do both without breaking the bank if the rumors about Rob Havenstein are true. Trading for him (reports are that the Rams would take a 5th round pick) addresses RT and then they could sign Matt Feiler to play LG, a position he did very well at and says he has a preference for. Both moves would only cost about 13-14m combined in cap space for the next 2 years.

(02-19-2021, 07:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You can sign an extension now without adding much to the 2021 cap space.

Yes, I'm aware.

Usually you'll see some level of front-loading a bit though (See Mixon's extra couple million tacked on to his 2020 hit because we split the bonus up over all 5 years).  And I think these two play greatly into determining how we approach Jackson and Lawson.

Even if these guys don't see a huge bump this year in their cap hit you're still going to see that bill due moving forward, and that's going to affect other long-term deals.

(02-19-2021, 07:52 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Yes, I'm aware.

Usually you'll see some level of front-loading a bit though (See Mixon's extra couple million tacked on to his 2020 hit because we split the bonus up over all 5 years).  And I think these two play greatly into determining how we approach Jackson and Lawson.

Even if these guys don't see a huge bump this year in their cap hit you're still going to see that bill due moving forward, and that's going to affect other long-term deals.

Point I was trying to make was that if the Bengals just reserve about $4-6 mill for those extensions, I think they'll be ok.

(02-19-2021, 07:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I keep hearing talk of who we'll sign out of William Jackson or Carl Lawson.  I also see a lot of breakdowns on our cap space where people account for different signings.  But I think some are forgetting a couple of things.

Jessie Bates and Sam Hubbard are both going into their final years.  If this team has these two in plans for their future and they have faith in them then now is the time to get a deal worked.

You get a discount by signing them early and avoid a number of things that may occur if their contracts run out (Franchise tag, hurt feelings, market going up, etc.)

I think Jesse Bates is an absolute no-brainer to get a deal done with.  He's earned it, he has to factor in our long-term plans, and there is no use in waiting.  Why wait to sign him when we're in a decreased cap year, with a decreased market?  If you don't get it done now you're potentially looking at the cap to reset from 180ish to the 210 range in 2022.  You're looking at the flood gates to open in 2022 with teams looking to spend after a tightened 2021.  The market will inevitably go up.

A lot of what I just said for Bates is true for Hubbard as well.  While I don't think he's as important as Bates, I don't you can deny that if you want him long-term then you work something this offseason.  Not only is he going to be more favorable to work with by giving him security a year early, he's not coming off a strong year.  The price he will cost in 2021 may very well skyrocket in 2022.

If I'm the Bengals I get both of these done.  And I wouldn't even consider signing William Jackson, unless he's looking for a sub 8 mil per deal.  I also wouldn't consider tagging Lawson either.  While I would like to have him, paying top 5 DE money is absolutely absurd.  

So I guess the question remains do you want to pay Lawson higher end money on a long-term vs. Hubbard at a discount?  Or do you work long-term deals for both DE's in one offseason?

I'll stop rambling, but I do think we really need to consider what happens with these two this offseason more than we currently do in our conversations about cap space.

I would think might be smarter to sign Alexander over Jackson with the points you made

The truth of the matter is Cincinnati can add several pieces re-sign both Lawson and Jackson III and extend Bates and Hubbard. It's all about contract structure and smart decisions. The biggest issue would be how much liquid capital do the Bengals have to pay out bonuses to make the contracts work.

I did an offseason thread on this board to show it with a spreadsheet of the cap numbers.

Traded for 2 cap potential cap casualties LT Reilly Reiff (3 year extension 3/40M) and NT Jurrell Casey (11.8M)
Signed Matt Feiler RG 3/21M
Re-signed Lawson 4/48M
Re-sign Jackson 3/36M
Extended Bates 5/50M
Signed DE Romeo Okwara 4/48M
Signed CB Gareon Conley 1/3M
Re-signed CB Alexander 3/15M
Signed WR Tyrell Williams 1/4M
Signed Rex Burkhead 1/1.5M
Traded for RT Rob Havenstein making 6,750,000 this season
Kept out the 9.4M to pay for the draft.
Even after all that was almost 11.4M under the cap for this season and around 23M under for next season with the ability to cut Waynes and Casey and save 23M if need be..

Point is it is easy to shove money into next season's cap but to do that takes liquid capitol to pay bonuses up front.

They certainly have the money to franchise Lawson but it would be an overpay and instead of being able to push that money into 2022 they would be adding 11M to this seasons cap which would change the bottom line potential for this offseason.

I'm still ok with not overpaying the shiniest turd on the D line, and a decent CB (who quite frankly hasn't lived up to his draft position). Throw that money at the O line, and skill positions and try and outscore opponents. Defense plays with their hands tied anyway.

But hell yes; Bates needs re-upped.

The team has to let some of their own FA's go, they simply cannot afford to have all their money tied up in one position (CB) they signed Waynes its time to get another CB through the draft, or sign a lesser FA to compete with a draft pick. I'm all for signing Alexander back before WJ!!!. If done right we can be players in FA: and I'd focus on the offense!!

Cuts:

1) Atkins, Finley, Hart, Finney==20 million

FA's(ours)

1) Alexander-Slot CB
2) Lawson-Edge
3) Huber-P
4) M.Thomas-WR/ST
5) Wilson-S/KR
6) Evans-LB
7) Covington-DL
8) Harris-LS

FA's (Outside)

1) Matt Feiler-RG
2) Gareon Conley-CB
3) trade if available Rod Haverstein(Rams) RT
3) Daryl Williams-RT- if no trade is to be made
4) Josh Reynolds-WR

Extend:

1) Jesse Bates

(02-20-2021, 01:18 AM)jason Wrote: I'm still ok with not overpaying the shiniest turd on the D line, and a decent CB (who quite frankly hasn't lived up to his draft position). Throw that money at the O line, and skill positions and try and outscore opponents. Defense plays with their hands tied anyway.

But hell yes; Bates needs re-upped.

WhileI wouldn't exactly call them turds, I agree with you for the most part.  You have 3 players that are going to command 14 mil per year plus that are due for deals.  Bates is a year off, but letting him hit the open market is a frightening proposition.  This isn't even considering Hubbard.  

If you're going to shell out a huge deal to a guy, then it out to be to the best player on your defense.  Who even knows how the market will set up when 2022 gets here?  If he has another great year and revenues return to near-pre-pandemic levels, Bates could be looking at 16 mil per year as opposed to 14 or so this year.  

The biggest problem is we have too many positions to fill and not enough draft picks/money to do it with.  It's a big reason why I'm not too excited about them spending the 5th overall on a receiver.  I like Chase and Smith, but this roster needs young, controlled, affordable talent at OL, DE, and CB as well.  Drafting a WR at 5 pushes that down the draft and makes it less likely that we find adequate replacements for guys we can't afford at the aforementioned positions.  

Lawson and Jackson are great, but I also don't love the idea of paying them contracts in line with the best guys in the league at their positions.  I just don't see them as impactful enough to justify that investment.  Bates certainly is.

Mackenzie Alexander is a must sign.. He brought alot of attitude to the D.

(02-19-2021, 07:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: You can sign an extension now without adding much to the 2021 cap space.

we could but why would the player want such a thing?

(02-22-2021, 10:43 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: we could but why would the player want such a thing?

The idea is to give a bit extra now and have a higher amount in the subsequent years.
A player would be happy to have some extra money this season and know he'll get a bigger bump in the following years.

(02-22-2021, 10:43 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: we could but why would the player want such a thing?

What he's saying is that with an extension (vs. a new FA contract) is that the increases in base pay don't begin until the following year.  Any player that is "extended" still has a year (or more) of their existing contract left on the books.

Take Joe Mixon's contract for example...

2020 - 3.9 mil (last year of rookie deal)
2021 - 8.1 mil
2022 - 11.5 mil
2023 - 12.9 mil
2024  - 13.1 mil

We gave him an extension that basically begins 2021.  His 2020 number went slightly up (by 2 mil) because we spread the signing bonus across the 5 years.

Why would the player do it?  Well, for security.  They get a signing bonus and guaranteed money.  In Mixon's case he got 10 million dollars to sign his extension.  He's also locked himself into a significant pay raise once his rookie deal expired.  They do it for security.

The alternative is to play out your rookie deal, with no extra money, and somehow hope that a.) you don't get hurt and b.) your value increases.  That's really risky.

(02-22-2021, 10:58 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What he's saying is that with an extension (vs. a new FA contract) is that the increases in base pay don't begin until the following year.  Any player that is "extended" still has a year (or more) of their existing contract left on the books.

Take Joe Mixon's contract for example...

2020 - 3.9 mil (last year of rookie deal)
2021 - 8.1 mil
2022 - 11.5 mil
2023 - 12.9 mil
2024  - 13.1 mil

We gave him an extension that basically begins 2021.  His 2020 number went slightly up (by 2 mil) because we spread the signing bonus across the 5 years.

Why would the player do it?  Well, for security.  They get a signing bonus and guaranteed money.  In Mixon's case he got 10 million dollars to sign his extension.  He's also locked himself into a significant pay raise once his rookie deal expired.  They do it for security.

The alternative is to play out your rookie deal, with no extra money, and somehow hope that a.) you don't get hurt and b.) your value increases.  That's really risky.

i just ment most players when signing an extension want a raise now...  Now if the signing bonus fills that fix then awesome.  But you are right that we like to front load as much as possible to open up options later in the contract.

(02-22-2021, 10:43 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: we could but why would the player want such a thing?

 Because if he gets injured this year he never gets an extension.

(02-19-2021, 07:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I keep hearing talk of who we'll sign out of William Jackson or Carl Lawson.  I also see a lot of breakdowns on our cap space where people account for different signings.  But I think some are forgetting a couple of things.

Jessie Bates and Sam Hubbard are both going into their final years.  If this team has these two in plans for their future and they have faith in them then now is the time to get a deal worked.

You get a discount by signing them early and avoid a number of things that may occur if their contracts run out (Franchise tag, hurt feelings, market going up, etc.)

I think Jesse Bates is an absolute no-brainer to get a deal done with.  He's earned it, he has to factor in our long-term plans, and there is no use in waiting.  Why wait to sign him when we're in a decreased cap year, with a decreased market?  If you don't get it done now you're potentially looking at the cap to reset from 180ish to the 210 range in 2022.  You're looking at the flood gates to open in 2022 with teams looking to spend after a tightened 2021.  The market will inevitably go up.

A lot of what I just said for Bates is true for Hubbard as well.  While I don't think he's as important as Bates, I don't you can deny that if you want him long-term then you work something this offseason.  Not only is he going to be more favorable to work with by giving him security a year early, he's not coming off a strong year.  The price he will cost in 2021 may very well skyrocket in 2022.

If I'm the Bengals I get both of these done.  And I wouldn't even consider signing William Jackson, unless he's looking for a sub 8 mil per deal.  I also wouldn't consider tagging Lawson either.  While I would like to have him, paying top 5 DE money is absolutely absurd.  

So I guess the question remains do you want to pay Lawson higher end money on a long-term vs. Hubbard at a discount?  Or do you work long-term deals for both DE's in one offseason?

I'll stop rambling, but I do think we really need to consider what happens with these two this offseason more than we currently do in our conversations about cap space.

Get what you are saying but with this model, you are opening up 2 significant holes on the roster that has more holes that can be filled realistically in a year to begin with prior to losing the top cb and de on the team.

This decision (to let them walk) will likely set the Bengals back a couple years alone. 

(02-22-2021, 01:37 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: i just ment most players when signing an extension want a raise now...  Now if the signing bonus fills that fix then awesome.  But you are right that we like to front load as much as possible to open up options later in the contract.

The primary reason players want an immediate raise is to guarantee the money/maximize their chance of receiving as much of that contract as possible.

They don't want to sign a 4 year $50m deal where $40m of that comes in the 4th year and the team can just cut them and it turns into a 3 year $10m deal. That way the player will play 3 years at below market value and then be cut. When they get paid is far less important than ensuring that they do get paid.

Hence signing bonuses that ensure the player gets paid but allows franchises to spread the cost out across the length of the contract.

(02-23-2021, 10:57 AM)jj22 Wrote: Get what you are saying but with this model, you are opening up 2 significant holes on the roster that has more holes that can be filled realistically in a year to begin with prior to losing the top cb and de on the team.

This decision (to let them walk) will likely set the Bengals back a couple years alone. 

Many fans greatly overestimate the ability to upgrade positions.

For example, I believe PFF had Hart ranked as the #40 OT (I don't put much weight in PFF individual rankings, but I am just using it as a starting point here).  Considering there is a requirement for 64 starting OTs in the league that means Hart would be an upgrade over starters for approximately 20 something teams.  So when you consider that only a small fraction of the 39 OTs ranked ahead of Hart are going to be UFA that means there is going to be a HUGE bidding war in free agency.  If a team is trying to replace one of the worst OTs in the league then they will be willing to pay a lot more for the upgrade.  That is the big difference between replacing an average starter like Hart and replacing a scrub.  The money spent does not provide as large of an improvement.

Then I see lots of fans talking about filling holes with third round picks.  But of the 355 players taken in the third round in the decade from '09 through '18 only about a quarter of them (93) started more than 48 games (approximately three seasons).  Well over half of them (200) started less than 32 games.  The draft is a much bigger crap shoot than people realize.

Everyone wants to shit on players who are just average starters.  While I agree that you can't win with a roster composed just of average starters they are harder to replace than many people realize.  And when you get a good player who is "good" but not an elite star it is a good idea o try and keep him.

That being said, Lawsons injury history really scares me.  Not only has he been hurt a lot in the NFL, but he missed entire seasons in college also.

(02-23-2021, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Many fans greatly overestimate the ability to upgrade positions.

For example, I believe PFF had Hart ranked as the #40 OT (I don't put much weight in PFF individual rankings, but I am just using it as a starting point here).  Considering there is a requirement for 64 starting OTs in the league that means Hart would be an upgrade over starters for approximately 20 something teams.  So when you consider that only a small fraction of the 39 OTs ranked ahead of Hart are going to be UFA that means there is going to be a HUGE bidding war in free agency.  If a team is trying to replace one of the worst OTs in the league then they will be willing to pay a lot more for the upgrade.  That is the big difference between replacing an average starter like Hart and replacing a scrub.  The money spent does not provide as large of an improvement.

Then I see lots of fans talking about filling holes with third round picks.  But of the 355 players taken in the third round in the decade from '09 through '18 only about a quarter of them (93) started more than 48 games (approximately three seasons).  Well over half of them started less than 32 games.  The draft is a much bigger crap shoot than people realize.

Everyone wants to shit on players who are just average starters.  While I agree that you can't win with a roster composed just of average starters they are harder to replace than many people realize.  And when you get a good player who is "good" but not an elite star it is a good idea o try and keep him.

That being said, Lawsons injury history really scares me.  Not only has he been hurt a lot in the NFL, but he missed entire seasons in college also.

Yes, but we draft sh*tty OL all the time...whether it be the 1st round or 3rd round