03-12-2017, 01:26 PM
There has been a lot said about how Bengals structure their contracts. Both good and bad. The good is that by not paying out large signing bonuses they rarely carry dead money. Dead money Is usually defined as money spent on players no longer on the team.
However because the Bengals rarely cut players who are underperforming they actually don't benefit from this approach. You could argue that Mauluaga and Mike Johnson are dead money. Their salaries far exceed their production. I would argue the same about Pacman but I know others disagree about his actual performance. I still remberber Leon Hall carrying a ten million dollar cap hit his last year.
So using Mauluaga as an example - what would have been different if they had guaranteed him the entire amount when he signed? Regardless of his play it looks like he will collect it all. I could be wrong and after the draft he gets cut but if they don't take Foster I would not be surprised to see him on the field next year.
However because the Bengals rarely cut players who are underperforming they actually don't benefit from this approach. You could argue that Mauluaga and Mike Johnson are dead money. Their salaries far exceed their production. I would argue the same about Pacman but I know others disagree about his actual performance. I still remberber Leon Hall carrying a ten million dollar cap hit his last year.
So using Mauluaga as an example - what would have been different if they had guaranteed him the entire amount when he signed? Regardless of his play it looks like he will collect it all. I could be wrong and after the draft he gets cut but if they don't take Foster I would not be surprised to see him on the field next year.
