Are the bengals really that cheap?

[fredtoast]

Where can I find the nunmbers on how much teams are really spending on payroll.  Too many people around here are impressed by big "play money" free agent contracts that never get paid out.

I know that as of last year the Bengals were not among the bottom third of the the league in the first two years of the '13-'16 four year window.  At this time last year they would have only had two years worth of "cash spent" info, but according to this article 11 teams had spent below the 89% league mandated minimum and the bengals were not among those teams.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/02/17/salary-cap-cash-spending-union-nflpa-raiders-patriots/23522207/

Over the past two seasons, the Raiders spent the least cash: about $205.3 million, or 80.2% of the $256 million total they were allotted.  .  .  Also underspending — as of Feb. 9, when the NFLPA calculated the numbers — were: the Carolina Panthers (80.8%), New York Jets (81.16%), Jacksonville Jaguars (82.2%), Dallas Cowboys (82.6%), New England (82.7%), New Orleans Saints (86.2%), Washington Redskins (87%), New York Giants (87.9%) and Pittsburgh Steelers (88.3%).

[fredtoast]

Before you all attack me with an army of straw men, I agree with the people who wish the Bengals would at least sign one upper tier free agent if we have an immediate hole to fill.

I just don't buy into the argument that the Bengals are the cheapest team in the league.  They are not just keeping all the profits while not trying to win.

[StLucieBengal]

Agreed.

[OrlandoBengal]

The team has gotten much better than it was in the past. Is Mike Brown cheap? My opinion, yes he is, without a doubt. Are Katie and Troy better? Yes, they certainly seem to be.

I think that many people get tired of the annual Hobson article and talk from the front office telling everyone not to believe the independent sources, that the team has no money to spend. "Don't believe the math from those other people, listen to what we have to say even though it doesn't add up". It is extremely bad PR to put out to a fan base that suffered as long as this one has.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  At this time last year they would have only had two years worth of "cash spent" info, but according to this article 11 teams had spent below the 89% league mandated minimum and the bengals were not among those teams.

So here is a source that shows the Bengals spent the 12th most on payroll in 2015.  

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cash/2015/

So if these two different sources are using the same number it is clear that the Bengals have not been among the cheapest teams in the league for at least the last three years.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 01:07 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote:  
I think that many people get tired of the annual Hobson article and talk from the front office telling everyone not to believe the independent sources, that the team has no money to spend. 

The same way I get tired of the annual threads byt the same few people around here who do nothing but squeal about how the Bengals are the cheapest team in the league and Mike Brown just laughs at the fans while pocketing all the profits.

Could the Bengals spend more in free agency?   Yes.

Are they among the cheapest teams in the league?  No.  Not even close.

[GreenCornBengal]

Also underspending — as of Feb. 9, when the NFLPA calculated the numbers — were: the Carolina Panthers (80.8%), New York Jets (81.16%), Jacksonville Jaguars (82.2%), Dallas Cowboys (82.6%), New England (82.7%), New Orleans Saints (86.2%), Washington Redskins (87%), New York Giants (87.9%) and Pittsburgh Steelers (88.3%).


So I guess underspending isn't all that bad.

[OrlandoBengal]

(03-04-2016, 01:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The same way I get tired of the annual threads byt the same few people around here who do nothing but squeal about how the Bengals are the cheapest team in the league and Mike Brown just laughs at the fans while pocketing all the profits.

Could the Bengals spend more in free agency?   Yes.

Are they among the cheapest teams in the league?  No.  Not even close.

Mike Brown has a very well deserved reputation for being cheap.  Until this team wins a championship, that narrative is not going to change.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-04-2016, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I just don't buy into the argument that the Bengals are the cheapest team in the league.  They are not just keeping all the profits while not trying to win.

1.) How many teams don't have indoor practice facilities?  How many cold weather teams?  Is that not a reflection on spending?

2.) How many teams enjoy a better stadium deal?  If you were to rank each team, 1-32, in terms of money spent on the construction, upkeep, and upgrades to their respective stadium, where would we rank?  Again, would this not be another way top evaluate their overall spending?

3.) David Flucher - Paid pop machine.  Tony Siragusa - Coach ticket.  Kijana Carter - Paid for lineman's towels.  J-Joe - Gatorade and Pert Plus.  Training Camp - HDMI cord rentals.  There have been rumors out there for a long time that follow this team and it's cheapness.  Whether you choose to believe all of them or not, they do exist.  Just some food for thought, when looking at the big picture.

4.) Where do we rank in terms of front office and scouting payroll?  Again, if we're judging the team on it's spending, this is part of the puzzle.

5.) Is rollover money not unused cap space?  Is it not money that we could have theoritically spent the year prior?  Because, if this is true, is it not fair to say that we have left money on the table every single year, these last 5 years?

I don't know, to each their own, but I see a team that opens almost every single free agency period in the top half of the league in cap space.  Many times in the top 5.  I see a team who has rolled over a significant amount of money every single it was implemented.  I see a team that should have an indoor facility, that chooses not to spend in an area where everyone else does.  Many college and high schools even.  I see a team who pays less for their stadium itself.  I see a team who rarely, if ever, makes a splash in FA.  I see a team who employs one of the smallest front offices in the game.I've heard countless rumors throughout the years detailing their cheapness, etc, etc. etc....

Do any of these one things make them cheap?  Perhaps not.  But, Jesus, collectively it has to.  How could it not?  You would have to be a damn fool to look at everything surrounding this team now, in the past, and most likely in the future, and not come away with the impression that they spend less than most of their peers.

So rather than asking the question of if are they cheap or not, I think the better one may be:  How crazy do you have to be to not acknowledge the fact this team spends significantly less?

[Deanlj69]

You are spinning this to support YOUR opinion.  Can you provide data prior to the AJ Green and Andy Dalton draft?

Prior to the salary floor being announced  The Bengals constantly rolled over money.  I believe they have always wanted to win but it is always on their terms only.  There is a fundamental lack of flexibility.

To the numbers you have chosen to portray,  of course we are going to be one of the highest spending teams now because we have been winning and we have locked up some of our better players.

That does not mean we are a free spending team.  Because of the results the past few years they have chosen to re-sign some of our core players prior to that there was a lack of commitment to doing so while also ignoring free agency.

My belief is those who complain about the lack of spending is because there are times when you sign a big ticket free-agent it can provide a difference while we choose to always say there are no funds.

So when is a good time to spend in free agency?  I think the point of most people on this board is that Mike Brown has never spent in free agency no matter the circumstances of the team.

Don't point to success when we have not won a playoff game. If that is success in your eyes then I don't think you understand the ultimate goal.

I'm not advocating a free agency free-for-all but I do believe there are times when it makes sense to dip your toe in the water

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 02:15 PM)Deanlj69 Wrote: So when is a good time to spend in free agency?  I think the point of most people on this board is that Mike Brown has never spent in free agency no matter the circumstances of the team.

Except he has.

You may not agree with his choices, but he spent significant money to sign Antwan Odom, Laveranues Coles, and Antonio Bryant.

Bobbie Williams and John Thornton were decent starters signed away from other teams.

I agree it does not seem like enough, but to say "never" is incorrect.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 02:09 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Do any of these one things make them cheap?  Perhaps not.  But, Jesus, collectively it has to.  How could it not?  You would have to be a damn fool to look at everything surrounding this team now, in the past, and most likely in the future, and not come away with the impression that they spend less than most of their peers.

And this is s perfect example of the problem I have with some people on these boards.  It is impossible to discuss an issue like money spent on players without someone crying about the size of the team towels 20 years ago.

Complaining about Mike Brown being cheap is appropriate in some areas.  I can not argue with that.  But when we discuss payroll we have to look at some facts instead of just saying "Mike Brown is cheap so we must spend less than most other teams on players".

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-04-2016, 01:53 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Also underspending — as of Feb. 9, when the NFLPA calculated the numbers — were: the Carolina Panthers (80.8%), New York Jets (81.16%), Jacksonville Jaguars (82.2%), Dallas Cowboys (82.6%), New England (82.7%), New Orleans Saints (86.2%), Washington Redskins (87%), New York Giants (87.9%) and Pittsburgh Steelers (88.3%).


So I guess underspending isn't all that bad.

It's because they wouldn't pay Dre Kirkpatrick $7.5m, or Rey Maualuga a $7m cap hit in one year, or Leon Hall $9m to be a backup player, etc.

Those teams would demand a pay cut, or cut the player and then proceed to save that money and actually use it on someone better when the opportunity arises. (Case and point, when the Patriots went and signed Revis to win a Super Bowl.)

The Panthers might have won the Super bowl if they spent some more of that on a WR and maybe an OL.

Pittsburgh might have won something if they spent more on a secondary that wasn't atrocious.

[*michaelsean*]

I think overly cautious is more like it. A lot of big time FAs are busts, but that's often a result of signing for the sake of signing. But sometimes there is a guy that can really help. And how is it every single year that the Bengals have little cap space? There is a perception that other teams say, "We are going to do what we have to do", and the Bengals say, "Wish we could, but nothing we can do about it. See. Hands tied."

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 03:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It's because they wouldn't pay Dre Kirkpatrick $7.5m, or Rey Maualuga a $7m cap hit in one year, or Leon Hall $9m to be a backup player, etc.

Those teams would demand a pay cut, or cut the player and then proceed to save that money and actually use it on someone better when the opportunity arises.

What players would you have signed to replace these guys for less money?

It is not that easy to replace these type of players when you cut them.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-04-2016, 04:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think overly cautious is more like it.  A lot of big time FAs are busts, but that's often a result of signing for the sake of signing. But sometimes there is a guy that can really help.   And how is it every single year that the Bengals have little cap space?  There is a perception that other teams say, "We are going to do what we have to do", and the Bengals say, "Wish we could, but nothing we can do about it.  See.  Hands tied."

Yeah?  Well.....BY GOD we re-signed Taint, so there!

[J24]

(03-04-2016, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What players would you have signed to replace these guys for less money?

It is not that easy to replace these type of players when you cut them.

Casey Hayward, rolondo Mcclain, draft pick.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2016, 05:25 PM)J24 Wrote: Casey Hayward, rolondo Mcclain, draft pick.

Our defense is not as good with those guys.

[BengalChris]

(03-04-2016, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except he has.

You may not agree with his choices, but he spent significant money to sign Antwan Odom, Laveranues Coles, and Antonio Bryant.

Bobbie Williams and John Thornton were decent starters signed away from other teams.

I agree it does not seem like enough, but to say "never" is incorrect.

The Bengals do occasionally make a good free agent signing. Adam Jones was one, Bobbie Williams was one, etc. But generally speaking the team hasn't be very good in scouting other team's players. The fact that we spent significant money on Antwan Odom, Coles and Bryant is not a knock on free agency, but rather it's a knock on our scouting of those players.

It's just like not scouting draft picks before you pick them, which use to be a Mike Brown operating basis before Marvin Lewis arrived. Bryant was injured before they signed him and he never played a down for the team.

If the Bengals scouted the draft as they do free agency, then we'd be posting how bad the draft is because the players selected almost always suck and cost too much, etc, etc.

[J24]

(03-04-2016, 05:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Our defense is not as good with those guys.

Hayward is better than Kirkpatrick, Mclain is a cheaper version of Rey M, and a draft pick would cost much less than Hall. How is our defense worse?