(06-02-2017, 05:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: If Eiffert hits FA he will probably get around 8 Million, a similar deal Dwayne Allen got with a similar injury history. Gronk's new contract is a $5.25 base salary then he has incentive tiers...

1st tier, which gets him to $10.75M either 90 percent play time or 80 catches or 1200 receiving yards or All Pro -- and he's made all pro four times.‬


‪2nd tier to $8.75M: he has to get 80 percent play time or 70 catches or 1000 receiving yards or 12 Tds.‬

‪3rd tier takes him to $6.75M is 70 percent playtime, 60 receptions, 800 receiving yards or 10 TDs.‬

So basically the same thing I am proposing with a HIGHER base than what Gronk is getting. Different situations, but what it does is it ensures the team is insulated on injuries and Eiffert can bet on himself and earn a top/the top TE deal in the game if he plays like we know he can. As I said before repeated tagging is bad for the roster management side and a gamble as an injury can occur post tag and the entire contract is a cap hit for the season.

(06-01-2017, 06:54 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Edit: My mistake I used 2016 cap numbers, we have over 19 million in cap space right now with Mixon(2nd round) and our 3rd round pick Willis unsigned

I know many don't like to discuss cap space, but it can be a burden to adding or keeping our own guys. Here is a link to an update and you will find the Bengals do spend and have spent.


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cincinnati-bengals/cap/2016/

IN fact, we are down to 6.3 million left with guys like AJ M. only making $650K making him by far least expensive solid back up QB in the NFL contract ending in 2018 or 2019, Eifert coming up, Hill (may be cut) and others it shows the complexity of keeping a solid roster, yet doing it financially responsible.

Discuss

(06-04-2017, 01:32 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Bengals do spend on player salaries. But they also make some spending decisions that leave one puzzled.

It's also hard to forget the years and years where the Bengals were one of the lowest spending teams in the league. Mike Brown was one the principle owners the union complained about when they demanded minimum salary cap spending. Mike Brown spent years earning his "cheap" reputation.

(06-04-2017, 11:29 AM)grampahol Wrote: A lot will hinge on how the other TEs on the roster perform. If the light comes on for Uzama and he puts up great numbers without injuries plaguing him then obviously Eiferts payday is going to shrink considerably. 
The thing is nobody really knows exactly how this will play out. If Eifert only plays a handful of games and Uzama kicks in big time then there's no good reason to hand him the big contract. 
On the other hand it may just turn the other way around with him demanding the big bucks.. 

(06-04-2017, 10:30 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: So your argument is a person's credibility is 100% about what they did 20 years ago and zero about what MB has done since the 2011 collective bargaining agreement??????

(06-04-2017, 01:26 PM)BengalChris Wrote:
My point was that the minimum salary cap was brought about because the cheapness of a few owners, one of which was Mike Brown. That's why we have that part to the 2011 collective bargaining agreement.

(06-04-2017, 01:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Wrong again. The salary cap was developed to insure big market teams could not over spend like the Yankees did in baseball for years to buy championships. The small teams could not compete financially. It has nothing to do with the cheapness of owners. That is just your opinion.

(06-04-2017, 02:19 PM)BengalChris Wrote: You misunderstood what I was saying. You are referring to the salary cap as a maximum. I'm referring to the minimum salary cap which mandates that teams must spend at least a certain amount on salaries. Because of that the Bengals had to raise their salary spending. The Bengals weren't the only team the union was complaining about.

The maximum salary cap came first, the minimum salary spending came later.

(06-05-2017, 09:09 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The minimum salary cap came after a huge TV deal. Itw as determined to be fair, the TV money would be spread more evenly over the entire league versus larger markets getting bigger share. Thus, the minimum was developed using the TV money eliminating any excuse for a team to not pay their fair share, but it is not a 1 year minimum, they must spend a certain percent over years to give teams the flexibility to manage it. Since the new CBA in 12011 MB has spent higher than the minimum threshold, that is my point. IN recent history, he is not close to cheap as you put it in an earlier post.