03-27-2021, 01:34 PM
(03-26-2021, 11:02 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...or it was a guaranteed money issue similar to what we have seen all FA. Feiler had 66% of his contract guaranteed, the organization usually tries to limit their exposure to guarantees on multi-year deals to give them flexibility. The Bengals are usually in the neighborhood of 25%-30% on guarantees in multi-year contracts. I am sure they were willing to meet the total money demands of all of the guys we have seen all FA, heck we essentially gave Hendrickson the same value as Lawson, but the difference is structure and specifically guaranteed money.
Its been this way for many years, and as far as I know, the Bengals are the only team with such a philosophy.
(03-26-2021, 12:16 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If I recall correctly, the Bengals' argument for not offering as much guaranteed money is that they are more likely to keep players through most/all of their contracts compared to other teams, so the total money is essentially mostly guaranteed.
But players don't like that approach, and now they are seeing the Bengals cut players early, so guaranteed money becomes more important.
This way of doing business hurts us in multiple ways. For one, it limits who we can sign in free agency. Secondly - if we keep players through the end of contract - it means we keep dead weight at a high price.
That's something that has really hurt us in the past (think of when we kept a washed up Leon Hall at 9 million). That said, we just cut Geno and traded Dunlap last season, so maybe they've changed that philosophy.
But then that means there's even less incentive for free agents to sign for less guaranteed money.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
