Hobson - only $15 million of cap to work with?

[Au165]

(02-28-2017, 04:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Rey Maualuga's contract


Basically, 3yr $15mil/yr.

Inside LBer contracts

You take the $5mil/yr the Bengals are paying Maualuga and $5mil/yr of the $7-8mil/yr they have rolled over each of the past 4 years and they could afford Bobby Wagner.

Boby Wagner's contract

Just one example.

And they still have $2-3mil/yr unspent for "injuries."

When was Bobby Wagner on the market? Did Bobby Wagner want to come here?

[Au165]

Once again, I am not agreeing with who they spend things on, that has kind of evolved here in the thread. I am stating that Hobson's accounting everyone gets mad about is at least believable if you look at the numbers. The decision to cut or not cut guys or who to pay really is separate from Hobson's accounting. There may be cuts coming that Make's Hobson's number 25 Million, but as it stands we can kind of back in to his number, it's not crazy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 04:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...then back to my other point that really wasn't even the point of the thread. If they didn't offer him the same money they made the right call not overpaying him and found an equal option for far less money. Luck or not, looking back we came out on the right side of the whole exchange.

The thread is about Hobson's "creative accounting". I have show that it's not that creative compared to what the Bengals have done. Even if you want to point to the 5-8 million left at the end of the years they rolled over, they have still spent the league average or so and have spent far more than most will admit. As I pointed out 5 teams in the playoffs last year spent more than us, the rest spent less.

We could have a whole other thread, which we have many times, regarding the decisions themselves. I don't think all decisions made have been great, but I do think in the last 5 years they have committed financially to being competitive.

Again, what is the cumulative affect of not spending $7-8 million every year? Say over the last 4 years?

[*ochocincos*]

(02-28-2017, 05:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Again, what is the cumulative affect of not spending $7-8 million every year? Say over the last 4 years?

The same cumulative effect you have when you spend money on home/car/health insurance and never use it...essentially it's wasted and in the pockets of those you pay.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 04:54 PM)Au165 Wrote: When was Bobby Wagner on the market? Did Bobby Wagner want to come here?

It's an example of the type of player the Bengals spend their money on and the type of player they could afford if they didn't spend their money on players like Maualuga who should have been upgraded after his rookie contract expired. 

Who the hell wants to go to Detroit?  Marvin Jones went.  Why?  Money.

[Au165]

(02-28-2017, 05:12 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's an example of the type of player the Bengals spend their money on and the type of player they could afford if they didn't spend their money on players like Maualuga who should have been upgraded after his rookie contract expired. 

Who the hell wants to go to Detroit?  Marvin Jones went.  Why?  Money.

Actually his article in the players tribune made it sound a lot more like he wanted to be a #1.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 05:12 PM)ochocincos Wrote: The same cumulative effect you have when you spend money on home/car/health insurance and never use it...essentially it's wasted and in the pockets of those you pay.

But, I'm not paying it out.  I'm rolling it over to not pay it out again next year.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 05:17 PM)Au165 Wrote: Actually his article in the players tribune made it sound a lot more like he wanted to be a #1.

Can you show me a Bengals offer which includes the guaranteed money to prove he turned down the same offer?

[*ochocincos*]

(02-28-2017, 05:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, I'm not paying it out.  I'm rolling it over to not pay it out again next year.

Yes, I understand that. Essentially the Bengals are you paying the insurance. This money is allocated to cover unplanned expenses. But if those expenses never come, it's essentially "lost".
In the case of insurance, the money goes into the pockets of the insurance companies.
In the case of the Bengals, it goes right back into the pockets of the Bengals organization but still never spent.

Maybe a better example is throwing money into some kind of fund like a health savings account. It's there for when you need it. But if it's never deemed as "needed", you don't typically pull it out. You just carry it over to the next year just in case it's needed then.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 01:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: Honestly, nothing will really convince you because you have a preconceived narrative in your head. Let's look at it this way then, assume we didn't offer him the same deal, we instead paid Brandon Lafell far less and didn't want to overpay for Jones.

Lafell 64 catches 862 yards 6 TDs
Jones 55 catches 930 yards 4 TDs

Maybe they were right not to offer them the same deal if that's your theory? If that was the case, that would mean the Bengals management actually was smart. Maybe his past injury issues are why they wouldn't pay him the same deal? Pick your path either they tried to spend the money and gave him the same ill advised deal, or they low balled him found a comparable replacement for far less I'll let you make the call.

One thing I failed to notice earlier, LaFell was playing opposite AJ Green.  Jones wasn't.  The coverage each faced was a little different.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 05:26 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yes, I understand that. Essentially the Bengals are you paying the insurance. This money is allocated to cover unplanned expenses. But if those expenses never come, it's essentially "lost".
In the case of insurance, the money goes into the pockets of the insurance companies.
In the case of the Bengals, it goes right back into the pockets of the Bengals organization but still never spent.

Maybe a better example is throwing money into some kind of fund like a health savings account. It's there for when you need it. But if it's never deemed as "needed", you don't typically pull it out. You just carry it over to the next year just in case it's needed then.

I understand now.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-28-2017, 04:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Rey Maualuga's contract


Basically, 3yr $15mil/yr.

Inside LBer contracts

You take the $5mil/yr the Bengals are paying Maualuga and $5mil/yr of the $7-8mil/yr they have rolled over each of the past 4 years and they could afford Bobby Wagner.

Boby Wagner's contract

Just one example.

And they still have $2-3mil/yr unspent for "injuries."

(02-28-2017, 04:54 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: The sad part? If you cut Pacman and Maualuga (which is needed for both), you gain an extra $10+ million. Maualuga is getting $3.15 million this year. The most he would make in his contract.

Pacman is making $6.3 million. Next year he's making $5.3 million.

Yep, this is my main sticking point....why are we overpaying these turds instead of using that money to pay good players?  It's insane.

[samhain]

(02-28-2017, 05:38 PM)Wyche Wrote: Yep, this is my main sticking point....why are we overpaying these turds instead of using that money to pay good players?  It's insane.

Because they are clowns and for various reasons, they don't generate bidding wars like other players.  They know themselves that they are flawed, so they'll sign the "team friendly deal" to obtain financial security.  They have less leverage than a player that's clean off the field and has a stellar record on it.  

[Atomic Orange]

(02-28-2017, 03:38 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Statistically he was...but Jones had more deep speed which would have possibly opened things up for other player.

Sometimes its about more than statistics.

How could Jones go deep though when Andy literally had a second and a half to throw the dam ball???

[Housh]

(02-28-2017, 05:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: One thing I failed to notice earlier, LaFell was playing opposite AJ Green.  Jones wasn't.  The coverage each faced was a little different.

I don't know why you are still responding to that guy

Hes paid by the Bengals to post here.



If someone is seriously going to post stats and say "Glad we didn't overpay for Jones"

but then make no mention of scheme, teammates, targets, QB play, o line play, or ANY of the stuff like that that leads to stats which at the end of the day are freaking meaningless because Tom Brady just won a god damn superbowl with not one WR or TE getting more than 10 TDs, then I cant take his opinion on football seriously.

He made a bullshit cop out post just to "win" an argument and it has to be called out



We don't pay players what their worth because were cheap. Not because we have some mystic power to only sign deals that work out for us efficiency wise. If were one of the more efficient teams in FA its not because we rock so much at FA. Its because we take such a pow risk approach a monumental failure for us affects us less than a team who takes a HUGE risk and gets a dud. Let some ppl like AU and Fredtoast tell it and youd think we had a magical power in FA

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-28-2017, 04:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: The problem is people are arguing different things in here. I am arguing they have spent the money, I am not arguing they have spent it wisely (for the most part that is). I have argued they have made attempts to keep their own when they could, but not at the price of overpaying (see Sanu). I think some here don't understand all contracts have multiple year implications and use the crutch of one year cap figures to justify excessive spending. Last year only 5 teams in the Playoffs really spent more than us. It is bad coaching and pad play more than anything that has cost this team in recent history not the lack of spending. That 5 Millions roll over may have gotten us one guy last year, but we weren't one guy away last year. People need to look big picture.

One guy last year, one guy the year before, one guy the year before, and one guy the year before. It's not just one guy. It's one guy every year. That's four guys over the past four seasons. Those four guys affect four draft needs. Those four draft needs affect affect four future free agent needs. 

[Derrick]

(02-28-2017, 10:16 AM)ochocincos Wrote: In Hobson's latest article on Bengals.com titled "How fine is nine?", there is a section called Whit's Worth. Inside, the following quote...


Full article here - http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/How-fine-is-nine-Bengals-alive-and-kicking-with-Simmons-at-helm/f9b88411-55bb-4c61-a69e-f281a1cd8a6d

Normally, Hobson would spout off reasons why the full $43 million cannot be spent. This time, he just flat out says "Bengals can only spend X" and leaves it at that. Probably because he knows giving any kind of reasoning will be ridiculed. We all know how the breakdown should be and that the Bengals should have somewhere in the low $30 millions to spend. Saying only $15 million is immediately saying this franchise is not going to win a playoff game.

I just saw an article on CincyJungle by Jason Marcum entitled " Bengals plan to go cheap in retaining their own FA players". It also notes the $15 million total allocated for Whitt, Zeitler, and DreKirk. The article calls this figure ridiculous!

[Socal Bengals fan]

(02-28-2017, 04:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: Once again, I am not agreeing with who they spend things on, that has kind of evolved here in the thread. I am stating that Hobson's accounting everyone gets mad about is at least believable if you look at the numbers. The decision to cut or not cut guys or who to pay really is separate from Hobson's accounting. There may be cuts coming that Make's Hobson's number 25 Million, but as it stands we can kind of back in to his number, it's not crazy.

You are fake news

[Derrick]

(02-28-2017, 12:23 PM)Au165 Wrote: As I said we spent up to within 5 million last year and rolled over most to this year, so where is that money not getting used? Everyone's argument falls apart when you realize we are ending seasons right at the cap, we are not sitting around at the end of the year with $20 million in cap space.

It is being stashed where we fans will never discover it...in Mikey's basement.

[Hoofhearted]

(02-28-2017, 04:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: The problem is people are arguing different things in here. I am arguing they have spent the money, I am not arguing they have spent it wisely (for the most part that is). I have argued they have made attempts to keep their own when they could, but not at the price of overpaying (see Sanu). I think some here don't understand all contracts have multiple year implications and use the crutch of one year cap figures to justify excessive spending. Last year only 5 teams in the Playoffs really spent more than us. It is bad coaching and pad play more than anything that has cost this team in recent history not the lack of spending. That 5 Millions roll over may have gotten us one guy last year, but we weren't one guy away last year. People need to look big picture.

Spending money and spending is wisely are the same discussion tho. If you spend starting money for backup production, that's usually not a good sign. sure you spent close to the cap, but you spent it unwisely. Good teams can usually forecast these things since they know YEARS In advance the guys they need to sign and guys they need cut to for younger, cheaper options. That's responsible cap spending. It should be included in the discussion on why we're so close to the cap but so far away from a Super Bowl.