The Myth of Having to Go Into a Season With Cap Space

[Shake n Blake]

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Everyone has philosophical differences on how they believe teams should be run. To each his own.

I'll state two facts.

1. In my now three years covering the team, I've never heard - not once - anyone in the front office "cry poor," on or off the record. I've never heard from a player, or even an agent, that they were told "we don't have the money." Think about that -- agents! Public perception is what it is and I know the history, but from April, 2015 til now, I've never heard it.

2. Re: releasing "old/bad" players = free up cap space = buy more good players.

Here's the thing: the Bengals pay Leon Hall the final $9M in his last year with a bad back and diminishing ability (and a Peko, and a Maualuga, etc.) for a very good reason. They structure their contracts in a way unlike most NFL teams. They don't give out the giant guarantees and signing bonuses that inflate the cap and make agents look good. And in order to have players take those deals - Dalton, Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Whitworth, etc. - they have to have a good reference point that those players will see nearly every dollar of that deal.

An example to show this. Bear with me:

Julio Jones
Per OverTheCap.com (use them, by the way): "Jones signed a five year, $71.25 million contract extension with the Atlanta Falcons on August 31, 2015. Jones received $47 million in guarantees including $35.5 million in full guarantees. The guarantee consists of a $12 million signing bonus and Jones’ salary that is paid in 2015 and 2016. If Jone is on the roster the 3rd day of the 2016 League Year, his 2017 salary of $11.5 million will become fully guaranteed."

That means it's really a 2-year deal for $35.5.

Take DeMaryius Thomas: "Signed a five year, $70 million contract with the Denver Broncos on July 15, 2015. The contract contains $35 million in fully guaranteed salary and $43.5 million of total guarantees. According to Mike Klis, Thomas received an $11 million signing bonus and will earn a guaranteed roster bonus worth $6.5 million. His $13 million salary in 2016 is fully guaranteed and an $8.5 million salary is injury guaranteed and will vest to fully guaranteed in 2017. There is a $4 million option due in 2017 that will buy back the 2018 and 2019 league year. If the option is not exercised the final two years of the contract will void."

That means it's a 3-year deal for $43 million.

You're kind of getting the point with deals....

Now, A.J. Green - better than Thomas, and I would say he's better than Jones - but that is a worthy argument.

Anyway, Green signed "four year, $60 million contract extension with the Bengals on September 12, 2015. All contracts details are currently from a report on ProFootball Talk that indicates Green received $26.75 million in full guarantees including a $15 million roster bonus paid in 2015...If Green is on the roster on the 3rd day of the 2016 league year he will receive a $6 million roster bonus."

Basically, Green agreed to a 4-year deal for $26.7 million guaranteed.

Now, WHY in the world would A.J. Green do that? Because he knows that he will actually play out this contract. He will play through the 2019 season and collect every penny of the $69.376 of his deal from 2015-19. And he will NEVER be asked to restructure, take less money, or push it forward. And WHY would he believe that? Because guys like Leon Hall, Michael Johnson, Peko, etc. all lived out their contracts.

We'll see in 2019 if Jones or Thomas or Dez Bryant have A) have been cut B) have been asked to restructure and take less C) played it out and earned every dollar.

Maybe they will. But I can nearly 100% guarantee you Green will.

Long way to explain that, but hopefully it helps.

I can't speak to whether that's the "best way" to do things. Or the "right way." But If you want to sign a talent like Green for basically half of his market value in guaranteed dollars ... you better have some equity with agents and players that you'll live up to your end of the contract.

EDIT: Oh, the rollover/unused cap space. I also can't speak to if that's the best way, or the right way, or if they should max the cap every single year or not. It's football management theory. But I'll tell you this, not every team you see winning "goes all in" and maxes to the cap. They don't. Some might in certain years. But most don't. Trust me and the NFLPA, which tracks this stuff to the dollar, other teams have hoarded more cash over the years than the Bengals have.

1. I think the "crying poor" is referring to Geoff Hobson writing his (literally) annual article that always lists off some embellished reasons why the Bengals never  have any money to go after mid-tier free agents. The best we can ever expect is guys like Law Firm and LaFell, and we only sign guys like that to replace a departed player. We never actually improve from one year to the next using free agency. 

2. Sure that's the benefit. The obvious (and huge) downfall is having to stay loyal to "dead-weight" players like a Leon Hall, when that money could be used to improve a hole on the roster, or just sign a difference maker. So it hurts us in 2 ways. Staying loyal to players whose play isn't living up to their contracts, and not having more cap flexibility to aggressively pursue upgrades.

I'd also argue that the benefit isn't all that great. It essentially allows the Bengals to be lazy. Plenty of teams do it the right way and find creative ways to stay below the cap while also improving their roster at the right times. Timing is everything. As you mentioned, not many teams spend to cap every year, but they try to strike at the right times. When they feel they're close to contention. When we've been close to serious contention, we can't bring in more talent because we're hindered by how they do business.

As for the good players we've retained, sure, Dalton, Green, Atkins etc were probably lured by the loyalty, but guaranteed money probably would've worked too. 

(08-18-2017, 08:28 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @ochocincos
Personnel moves/decisions can be debated in every city. But the fact is you can’t sign everyone. They’ve retained / extended the best players they’ve had since what, 2011? (And Whit is not really a good example of someone they didn’t want to retain. Dude spent a decade here with multiple extensions.)  If you knock them for not keeping a second or third receiver, then do they get extra credit for locking up Atkins and Dunlap, a HOF-track DT and a Pro Bowl pass rusher? There is a cap and 53 guys – and Jones and Sanu got over $72.5 million. I mean, you’re going to pay three wide receivers a total of $145 million over the length of their deals? It’s just not feasible. And the Bengals did match Detroit’s offer – Marvin just chose to leave to be a No. 1. That was his right.

I can’t argue with being more flexible in free agency or changing that thinking. As for the most-drafted players on a roster thing – but the Patriots and Packers and Steelers consistently rank in the top third of the league, along with the Bengals, in number of homegrown players on rosters. There are many ways to roster build, but the way the math works is you need starters playing four years on a rookie contract to help pay for stars elsewhere.

I’ll agree on scouting. And think about it – the staff has cycled. They’ve had three offensive coordinators and defensive coordinators since 2013. New position coaches came in in 2014 on defense with Matt Burke and Vance Joseph, and entire positional grouping on defense changed before 2016. I think you’re pointing more to the head coach?

@ThePistons – great point on the teams that have been to the Super Bowl since ’88. It’s been too long at this point, regardless of the positives that have happened since 2003.

@bambino5130 - Take Zeitler for example, they could have locked him up, when the Steelers chose to sign DeCastro for a similar deal at about 5 years and 10 million per

They could not have. I knew that situation very, very well – Zeitler was going to be the highest paid guard in football. The Bengals don’t believe guard is a $10M per year position. Frankly, neither do I. Trust me when I say Zeitler didn’t feel disrespected. He gambled on himself and it paid off.

Again, Whitworth doesn’t count IMO. At some point you gotta cut the cord and the Rams had to pay him that. He was paid handsomely over many years with many extensions. Reggie Nelson? Old and same kinda deal as Whit. You had Shawn William sitting there. Marvin Jones’ deal was matched, to the dollar, but he chose to go to Detroit.  He also gambled on himself. Would you have paid Marvin $40 million after missing all of 2014 with a foot injury? No one would have. Didn't hear a peep from anyone saying they should extend him in my first camp in '15. And he wasn't feeling disrespected, either. Hindsight is always 20-20.

I had zero issue with letting Marvin Jones, Sanu, Whit or Zeitler walk. In fact, I've defended each (non?) move. What irks me is that we watched these guys walk and didn't use the money elsewhere. We offered a big contract to Marvin Jones? We offered big money to Whit? Ok...well where did that money go? Why didn't we sign a different (maybe cheaper) Tackle or Guard in free agency? There were plenty available.

As BenZoo pointed out, it's hard for fans not to be pissed when we're watching our offense set records for futility behind a train wreck o-line...while there's 18 million in unused cap space just sitting there. We gave up 41 sacks and ranked 23rd in YPC last year, watched our 2 best linemen walk, and responded by sitting on our hands? Paul Alexander wasn't fired. Our big move was to bring back a washed up Andre Smith?

Regardless of the Bengals theories on team building, there's no excuse for that. It looks awful.