10-25-2020, 01:21 PM
(10-25-2020, 01:15 PM)ochocincos Wrote: One thing I didn't realize at the time of the Bengals claiming Austin Seibert was that he still has 3 years left on his contract beyond this year.
He's been a healthy inactive with the Bengals since he joined, yet has been kept on the 53.
The assumption is because they don't want to risk him hitting waivers.
As such, it made me wonder why the Bengals are bothering to hold onto Randy Bullock.
Bullock is in a contract year, and will make $1.875 mill.
The amount he's been paid to date has been his bonuses ($350k) plus six weeks of his base salary ($538k).
In total, that's $888k.
The Bengals are obviously playing Bullock today, so he is going to get another $89,705.
That would put his season earnings at $978k.
Given the cap is expected to go down next year, having another K on the roster already, and the Bengals very likely not making the playoffs unless they can win probably 8-9 of their remaining 10 games, does it make sense to keep Bullock through the rest of the year?
Cutting Bullock after Week 7 would result in a cap savings of $897k. He would have no dead cap hit remaining since he's already been paid his bonuses.
It's not a lot, but every near-million could be valuable to sign the needed FAs, as the Bengals have 26 guys set to hit FA, including a few key guys who will command bigger payouts in WJ3 and Lawson, plus potential need/desire to extend Bates, Hubbard, and/or Phillips.
I doubt Zac wants to go down to one kicker. He said the reason they are keeping Seibert around is because of the covid testing rules. I don’t really agree with that philosophy, but I would say that about most of what Zac Turner does.
