(08-29-2021, 12:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't speak for anyone but yourself.

Many times the person calling the Bengals "cheap" is clearly talking specifically about spending money on players.  

(08-29-2021, 12:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: So let's get this straight, I can't speak for them but you can?

(08-29-2021, 11:35 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'm really not sure how many times this has to explained to people who make posts similar to this, but I'll try once more just for good measure.

People who say the Bengals are cheap are NOT talking player spending.  No team is "cheap" when it comes to the payroll spent on the players.  The salary floor doesn't allow a team to be cheap. 

You can look at every single team from 1 through 32 and you'll find them pretty much jumbled together.  These rankings will slightly change depending on the windows used.  One team may be top half over one particular span while they'll bottom half over another.  Another team may be bottom half over a particular span while top half over another. 

The point is, if you take total player spending over a long period (say a decade) you'll find that there isn't much of a difference between dollars spent on players.  We're talking the difference between 1 and 16, and 17 and 32 being seperated by a percent or two.  Again, the floor sets the stage.  With every team having to meet a minimum of 88%, and with no team spending 100% every year, you'll have every team pretty much falling between 90-96% of cap spent.

So when you hear "Bengals are cheap" or "Mike Brown is cheap" is has nothign to do with player spending.  This goes for free agency as well.  Just because you spend more in free agency doesn't mean you're spending more total.  It just means you're spending more out of house than you did in house.  The same dollars are allocated but with a different approach.

The reason people perceive the team as being cheap are as follows:

-No indoor facility
-No GM
-Smallest scouting department in the league
-Small front office
-Front office filled with family members vs. paying qualified outsiders (more money with salary on top of profits and less expenses)
-Little to no investment into PBS.  Primarily funded by tax dollars
-Horror Stories:  Small towels (Kijani Story), Coin operated pop machine (David Fulcher story), no shampoo (Jonathan Josepth story), coach plane tickets (Tony Siragusa story), locked up gatorade, renting HDMI cables, etc.

I hope this helps clear this up a bit.  I don't know how many times I hear this argument.  And no matter how many times people try to correct it people never learn.  The Bengals being cheap has nothing to do with cap spent or being active in free agency.  When it comes to TOTAL DOLLARS SPENT they are 100% cheap.

(08-26-2021, 08:58 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Who is Jess Bateman?

(08-29-2021, 02:58 PM)mikey6866 Wrote: The people who argue the Bengals aren't cheap just don't understand contracts in today's world. Agents still view Bengals as "cheap" because they don't like to guarantee money in contracts when 3/4 of the league is doing it with regularity. The reason we got Hendrickson instead of bringing Lawson back for same aav was because of guaranteed money. Lawson signed with jets because they gave him much more security with way more guaranteed money. It turned out to be a great decision for him with his season ending injury he has alot more protection and guaranteed money in the contract he signed.

It's really not about spending money as all teams have to sign a bunch of guys to pretty big contracts. The Bengals are still one of most conservative teams when it comes to cap as well which also leads to "cheap" label.

(08-29-2021, 03:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: I’ll say this as nice as I can, I understand how contracts work better than 99% of all people here. Money spent is money spent, cap numbers are for accounting and don’t actually correlate to actual dollars leaving the building. The cap can be manipulated and the floor is really loose in terms of actually forcing spending. Players agents always want guarantees, as they should, but it doesn’t make them cheap because in the end the money is spent, guaranteed or not.

I think you can call them conservative in structure, but again not cheap because at the end of the day money out the door means that statement is false.

(08-29-2021, 02:47 PM)Au165 Wrote: Considering the context of this thread is 100% about paying players, which my stat is about, and not indoor facilities, scouting, front office, etc . Also, consider the guy right above me posted a picture of Mike Brown in a thread about paying a player it would seem it was 100% insinuated he was being cheap. So yes, still to this day the narrative of the Bengals being “cheap” has referenced player spending and it is false.

To the floor comment, the difference between the Bengals spending and the 32nd team was about 80 million dollars. That isn’t chump change even in the “floor” system and shows that they are spending substantially more than the lowest spending teams.

(08-29-2021, 03:19 PM)mikey6866 Wrote: I'm not saying they are necessarily cheap.  There is a definite perception of them being cheap mainly based on guaranteed money in contracts and cap mgmt around the league is all I was saying.  I think they are a little too conservative and could start offering more guaranteed and work the cap more agressively but they haven't been complete cheapskates or anything like that recently.

We have signed guys to pretty big deals which are also considered more team friendly because they don't have alot of guaranteed money.  We also have traditionally had top 10 in available cap money year after year.  We are not a team that is in contstant restructure mode to manipulate cap.  Some view this as cheap but I think it's just being conservative and not necessarily cheap as you really don't want to be in a position where you are robbing peter to pay paul every year.

(08-29-2021, 03:24 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 99% of the people who consider the Bengals to be cheap are talking about all of the above, and not just player spending.  I'm sure if you were to poll any number of the "haters" on here about whether they're basing their opinion on what I detailed or what player spending they're going with the former.

(08-29-2021, 03:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: but they aren’t cheap and that’s my whole point here for a small market team who makes less than a lot of teams they spend more than most.

Heck, maybe if they spent less on players they’d paid for all those things Wes was complaining they didn’t have.

(08-29-2021, 03:33 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What a load of bologna.  They need to spend less on players to pay for things ever other single team in the league has?  Especially considering they enjoy a stadium deal that is better than 90% of the league?

How does Pittsburgh do it?  Kansas City?  Buffalo?  Green Bay?  Tennessee?  Indy?  Cleveland?  Carolina? Minnesota? etc.......

The Bengals are 100% cheap.  You can't save an absolute bundle on stadium expenses, and also skimp practice facilities, your front office, your scouting department, ammentites, and point to the fact that you're average in player spending and wash all of that away.

I GUARANTEE if you were able to pull the overall TOTAL expenses paid out for each NFL team over the last decade plus the Bengals are at or near the bottom.  If they're not sitting absolute dead last, they're awfully close.  What else can you base being cheap on if not dollars spent?

(08-29-2021, 02:58 PM)mikey6866 Wrote: The reason we got Hendrickson instead of bringing Lawson back for same aav was because of guaranteed money. Lawson signed with jets because they gave him much more security with way more guaranteed money.

(08-29-2021, 03:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: Your ax is pretty sharp not sure you need to keep grinding it.

(08-29-2021, 03:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: Again, they are top 10 in ACTUAL dollars leaving their pockets no matter how the contract is structured. My whole point is you can criticize a lot about how they run the team or structure contracts, you can even say they spend their money idiotically at times, but they aren’t cheap and that’s my whole point here for a small market team who makes less than a lot of teams they spend more than most.

Heck, maybe if they spent less on players they’d paid for all those things Wes was complaining they didn’t have.

(08-29-2021, 04:37 PM)mikey6866 Wrote: In total cash spending this year we are not in the top 10.  For total payroll spending we are in bottom half of league so im not sure what you are referring to as far as us being top 10 in ACTUAL dollars leaving Mike Browns pockets.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cash/

https://overthecap.com/cash-spending/

(08-29-2021, 05:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: I was referencing the total of the last 5 years, any one year is tough because the ebbs and flow of contract reups and FA classes.

(08-27-2021, 03:30 PM)kalibengal Wrote: the guy on Ozark 

(08-29-2021, 06:57 PM)mikey6866 Wrote: This is also not accurate.  It was 2016 and 2015 i believe we were in top 10 in spending both of those years but in the past 5 offseasons we have not been top 10 spenders in any of those years.  In the past 5 years we should be right around middle of pack.

2021 - not top 10 - most likely going to be in late teens
2020 - 13th
2019 - 18th
2018 - 26th
2017- 13th