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

[THE PISTONS]

Sportrac shows our cap space somewhere around $18.6 million. We largely have this cap space because we didn't sign Whitworth.

We paid about $3.25 million for Andre Smith. A guy who has never played Guard.

A lot of fans get touchy when I talk about spending some of our cap space talking about how we have to extend Eifert and Burfict...which we haven't.

Well, here is where this hoarding of cap space with the promise of retaining our own free agents becomes a myth:

1 ) Even if we spend this money on a guy like Ronald Leary who makes about $9 million a year...and we'd still have $13 million cap space. Plenty of money for an extension for Eifert or Burfict.
2 ) We have guys like MJ that we could waive to create cap space.
3 ) The cap generally rises each year.
4 ) A competitive team is more attractive to even our own free agents.
5 ) We'll spend $3.25 million on a guy who has never played Guard...but won't spend more to actually upgrade a position.
6 ) Other teams restructure contracts. We don't seem to.
7 ) Look at all the guys we lost last year like Nelson, Sanu, Jones, etc. Hoarding cap space doesn't really help us.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-16-2017, 12:44 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Sportrac shows our cap space somewhere around $18.6 million. We largely have this cap space because we didn't sign Whitworth.

We paid about $3.25 million for Andre Smith. A guy who has never played Guard.

A lot of fans get touchy when I talk about spending some of our cap space talking about how we have to extend Eifert and Burfict...which we haven't.

Well, here is where this hoarding of cap space with the promise of retaining our own free agents becomes a myth:

1 ) Even if we spend this money on a guy like Ronald Leary who makes about $9 million a year...and we'd still have $13 million cap space. Plenty of money for an extension for Eifert or Burfict.
2 ) We have guys like MJ that we could waive to create cap space.
3 ) The cap generally rises each year.
4 ) A competitive team is more attractive to even our own free agents.
5 ) We'll spend $3.25 million on a guy who has never played Guard...but won't spend more to actually upgrade a position.
6 ) Other teams restructure contracts. We don't seem to.
7 ) Look at all the guys we lost last year like Nelson, Sanu, Jones, etc. Hoarding cap space doesn't really help us.

Agreed. Holding onto the $ the way the Bengals do is a very conservative approach, as there's no guarantee extensions will actually happen. If they don't happen, Bengals "roll it over" to next year with the same uncertainty. Rinse and repeat.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-16-2017, 12:49 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Agreed. Holding onto the $ the way the Bengals do is a very conservative approach, as there's no guarantee extensions will actually happen. If they don't happen, Bengals "roll it over" to next year with the same uncertainty. Rinse and repeat.

Yep. They never really seem to go all in like other teams.

It's a huge competitive advantage to spend 15% less than other teams. With our small scouting department...it isn't like we're out scouting, out gameplanning, out preparing.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-16-2017, 02:24 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yep. They never really seem to go all in like other teams.

It's a huge competitive advantage to spend 15% less than other teams. With our small scouting department...it isn't like we're out scouting, out gameplanning, out preparing.

Bengals are the X axis in the graph below. The curved graph represents most other teams. Steady Eddie.

[THE PISTONS]

The thing is we'll eventually win 1 playoff game after not winning 1 for 25 years and some fans will use that as evidence that what they do works.

After we made the playoffs 3-4 years in a row a similar thing happened.

Most teams in the NFL have won 5+ playoff games since we last won one.

[THE PISTONS]

Modern free agency in the NFL began around 1992. Before that, players moving teams was more restricted.

The Bengals haven't won a single playoff game since modern free agency began.

[BengalFanInNJ]

But we need that $18 million to sign all the replacements for the injured players. Just ask Hobson.

[mikey6866]

The way they manage the cap can be frustrating at times. 19 mil under and crying poor during FA. Im perfectly fine with them keeping this much room if they sign either burfict or eifert to an extension. If we keep the money and lose either of them then I will be very critical. Gotta sign one and tag the other or get them both signed. Eifert is hurt all the time but when hes healthy the offense is completely different with him on the field. Burfict is the lynchpin of the D and the best LB we have had in a long time. He is also a must sign.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-17-2017, 12:35 AM)mikey6866 Wrote: The way they manage the cap can be frustrating at times.  19 mil under and crying poor during FA.  Im perfectly fine with them keeping this much room if they sign either burfict or eifert to an extension.  If we keep the money and lose either of them then I will be very critical.  Gotta sign one and tag the other or get them both signed.  Eifert is hurt all the time but when hes healthy the offense is completely different with him on the field.  Burfict is the lynchpin of the D and the best LB we have had in a long time.  He is also a must sign.

That's just it. They could free up even more cap space by releasing underperformers like MJ and some others too.

So even if they only had $5 million in cap space...they could extend Burfict and Eifert. The cap is projected to rise too.

The Steelers are usually right at the cap and keep the guys they want to keep.

[jowczarski]

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.

[THE PISTONS]

(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.

Good post Jim. Fair points.

re: Football Management Theory - Modern free agency in the NFL began in 1992. The Bengals haven't won a single playoff game since then. Maybe they should start trying to be more like the rest of the league???

[*SHRacerX*]

(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.

Thanks for taking the time to spell this out with examples.  I have understood their way of doing things for some time, and have applauded it.  I know a greedy agent might put down the team to his prospective clients but they only do that because they get another big bonus themselves every time a new deal is inked.  The Bengals have countless examples of where they have honored a contract and it is really better for the player in the long run because, as you eluded to, so many players that don't live up to their contract (and even some that do) are cut for "cap reasons" or other excuses but the bottom line is most of those inflated dollars, 95% of the players will never see...it is all about perception, or in this case, misperception.  

[rezolve11]

(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.

Thanks for laying this out, Jim. It's helpful to see!

[*SHRacerX*]

(08-17-2017, 10:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Good post Jim. Fair points.

re: Football Management Theory - Modern free agency in the NFL began in 1992. The Bengals haven't won a single playoff game since then. Maybe they should start trying to be more like the rest of the league???

Since the so-called modern FA period began, the Bengals had an incredible run of bad luck on consensus draft picks that crippled this team before the advent of the rookie wage scale.  

You can argue that they shouldn't have drafted Akili Smith, but he was a consensus first round prospect.  Ki-Jana Carter, David Klingler, Dan Wilkinson, Reinard Wilson....Those bad picks (by misfortune, not all just bad players) had guaranteed contracts that made it impossible for teams to move on from bad first round picks.  The teams that picked at the bottom of the first round could miss but they weren't nearly as impacted.

Ironically, their luck changed as the rookie wage scale was created (which saved the butt of teams that had horrible picks like Gabbert, Locker, Ponder, etc) and the team has been very competitive since Marvin arrived in the early 2000s.  

The rallying cry of not having won a playoff game is so old and ESPN-tired.  So what?  They had one won two years ago, but they still weren't likely to win it all.  

When a team is solid and competitive, getting those last few pieces to put you over the top to become a championship squad isn't easy.  The talking heads around the league like to praise the steelers (puke), Patriots, and teams like Seattle for the way they built their teams, but the fact is that an injury to the starting QB in the case of the steelers and Pats made those teams better.  The Pats had no idea what they had in Brady or they wouldn't have waited until pick #199 to take him.  He was paid next to nothing and he wasn't much more than a game manager early, but they had assembled an amazing team around him...especially on defense.  They were able to keep a lot of that defense because once Bledsoe was gone, they weren't paying as much for their QB.  Ditto Wilson at Seattle:  a third-rounder that won the job and saved them a fortune on QBs.  They were able to keep a lot of other players because of that.  

The Bengals are close.  Very close.  They have offensive firepower akin to last year's Atlanta Falcons.  They have a better defense than Atlanta.  If they stay healthy, I believe they can do the same thing Atlanta did last year, without choking in the fourth quarter.  

[Hoofhearted]

(08-18-2017, 08:54 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Since the so-called modern FA period began, the Bengals had an incredible run of bad luck on consensus draft picks that crippled this team before the advent of the rookie wage scale.  

You can argue that they shouldn't have drafted Akili Smith, but he was a consensus first round prospect.  Ki-Jana Carter, David Klingler, Dan Wilkinson, Reinard Wilson....Those bad picks (by misfortune, not all just bad players) had guaranteed contracts that made it impossible for teams to move on from bad first round picks.  The teams that picked at the bottom of the first round could miss but they weren't nearly as impacted.

Ironically, their luck changed as the rookie wage scale was created (which saved the butt of teams that had horrible picks like Gabbert, Locker, Ponder, etc) and the team has been very competitive since Marvin arrived in the early 2000s.  

The rallying cry of not having won a playoff game is so old and ESPN-tired.  So what?  They had one won two years ago, but they still weren't likely to win it all.  

When a team is solid and competitive, getting those last few pieces to put you over the top to become a championship squad isn't easy.  The talking heads around the league like to praise the steelers (puke), Patriots, and teams like Seattle for the way they built their teams, but the fact is that an injury to the starting QB in the case of the steelers and Pats made those teams better.  The Pats had no idea what they had in Brady or they wouldn't have waited until pick #199 to take him.  He was paid next to nothing and he wasn't much more than a game manager early, but they had assembled an amazing team around him...especially on defense.  They were able to keep a lot of that defense because once Bledsoe was gone, they weren't paying as much for their QB.  Ditto Wilson at Seattle:  a third-rounder that won the job and saved them a fortune on QBs.  They were able to keep a lot of other players because of that.  

The Bengals are close.  Very close.  They have offensive firepower akin to last year's Atlanta Falcons.  They have a better defense than Atlanta.  If they stay healthy, I believe they can do the same thing Atlanta did last year, without choking in the fourth quarter.  

So what you're saying is we should give the bengals brass a pass for the lost 90s because they drafted shitty players? 

Also, people ***** about the PO losses because winning one playoff game is better than none every day of the week. Even tho we lost the two Super Bowls we represented the AFC in, that's still a huge highlight for this franchise. Same applies here. Winning a playoff game or two would do wonders for the fans and even players.

[Hoofhearted]

(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.

Do you think they ever ponder if they should change their tactics at all in this regards? It certainly has it pros and cons. Pros is the player knows he'll get every penny of that contract. Cons would be we could hang onto the player for a year or two to long, while production doesn't quite match pay. 

[THE PISTONS]

(08-18-2017, 08:54 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Since the so-called modern FA period began, the Bengals had an incredible run of bad luck on consensus draft picks that crippled this team before the advent of the rookie wage scale.  

You can argue that they shouldn't have drafted Akili Smith, but he was a consensus first round prospect.  Ki-Jana Carter, David Klingler, Dan Wilkinson, Reinard Wilson....Those bad picks (by misfortune, not all just bad players) had guaranteed contracts that made it impossible for teams to move on from bad first round picks.  The teams that picked at the bottom of the first round could miss but they weren't nearly as impacted.

Ironically, their luck changed as the rookie wage scale was created (which saved the butt of teams that had horrible picks like Gabbert, Locker, Ponder, etc) and the team has been very competitive since Marvin arrived in the early 2000s.  

The rallying cry of not having won a playoff game is so old and ESPN-tired.  So what?  They had one won two years ago, but they still weren't likely to win it all.  

When a team is solid and competitive, getting those last few pieces to put you over the top to become a championship squad isn't easy.  The talking heads around the league like to praise the steelers (puke), Patriots, and teams like Seattle for the way they built their teams, but the fact is that an injury to the starting QB in the case of the steelers and Pats made those teams better.  The Pats had no idea what they had in Brady or they wouldn't have waited until pick #199 to take him.  He was paid next to nothing and he wasn't much more than a game manager early, but they had assembled an amazing team around him...especially on defense.  They were able to keep a lot of that defense because once Bledsoe was gone, they weren't paying as much for their QB.  Ditto Wilson at Seattle:  a third-rounder that won the job and saved them a fortune on QBs.  They were able to keep a lot of other players because of that.  

The Bengals are close.  Very close.  They have offensive firepower akin to last year's Atlanta Falcons.  They have a better defense than Atlanta.  If they stay healthy, I believe they can do the same thing Atlanta did last year, without choking in the fourth quarter.  

The biggest thing the rookie wage scale did was make it so the Bengals didn't have to negotiate contracts with rookies...thus ending holdouts. Smith was a long holdout. Justin Smith. Andre Smith. I'm sure there were others.

Rookies need to be in camp on time.

I hope you're right on the comparison to Atlanta.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-18-2017, 09:23 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: So what you're saying is we should give the bengals brass a pass for the lost 90s because they drafted shitty players? 

Also, people ***** about the PO losses because winning one playoff game is better than none every day of the week. Even tho we lost the two Super Bowls we represented the AFC in, that's still a huge highlight for this franchise. Same applies here. Winning a playoff game or two would do wonders for the fans and even players.

Agreed. Management drafted the players. Our front office has an extremely small amount of scouts compared to the rest of the NFL (as I've posted in other threads.) I don't know about the size of the FO in the 90's but I assume it was similarly small.

Then...the 1st Round pick we drafted would get into a prolonged contract stalemate.

Re: Playoffs - We've won 5 playoff games in our 49 year franchise history. Most teams in the NFL have won 5 playoff games over the past 20 years...

[THE PISTONS]

(08-18-2017, 09:27 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Do you think they ever ponder if they should change their tactics at all in this regards? It certainly has it pros and cons. Pros is the player knows he'll get every penny of that contract. Cons would be we could hang onto the player for a year or two to long, while production doesn't quite match pay. 

Yes - On the cons you have players not producing. But you also have a lot of free agents who won't come because they want the other type of contract. That's kind of a double-whammy.

Maybe it's why they wait in free agency until players are signed as the ones unsigned are more willing to accept the Bengals way of doing contracts.

[jowczarski]

@ThePistons Football Management Theory - Modern free agency in the NFL began in 1992. The Bengals haven't won a single playoff game since then. Maybe they should start trying to be more like the rest of the league???

I can’t argue with that.

But – I will point out the following fact from the NFLPA PRIOR to free agency starting last year, “According to numbers compiled last week by the NFL Players Association, nearly one-third of the league's clubs are below the minimum cash spending floor for the four-year window from 2013 to '16, and those teams will have to make up the difference at a time the salary cap is rising.”

The Bengals were not one of those teams.

So where were they in total spending? The NFLPA updated team spending in December (we won’t get 2017 numbers for a few months).
https://twitter.com/NFLPA/status/805867703466676224

In a four-year period (2013-16) the Bengals trailed the following teams in total dollars spent:
1. Philadelphia
2. Denver
3. Seattle
4. Green Bay
5. Miami
6. Kansas City
7. Buffalo
8. Chicago

Now, we see Denver, Seattle and Green Bay in there. Some of those numbers include the huge salaries Peyton Manning/Von Miller and Aaron Rodgers/Clay Matthews earn. But when you say “like the top of the league”…well, I’d venture to say the Bengals have had more recent success than those other teams? And I realize this is a four-year compilation, and most definitely the Bengals kicked left over money from one year to the next, like most teams. But even the NFLPA, which tracks this stuff to the dollar, wouldn't call the Bengals "cheap" regardless of how they spend.



@SHRacerX - the Bengals had an incredible run of bad luck on consensus draft picks that crippled this team before the advent of the rookie wage scale.  … Ironically, their luck changed as the rookie wage scale was created


Tremendous points.

@Hoofhearted - Do you think they ever ponder if they should change their tactics at all in this regards? It certainly has it pros and cons.


This I can tell you – they won’t change it. They firmly believe it’s the best way to manage the cap and have the ability to carry a half dozen or so Pro Bowlers on any given roster at a given time, like this year’s team (Green, Atkins, Dalton, Dunlap, Burfict, Jones, Huber, Peerman) or last year’s team if you add in Whitworth.