Dear bengals front office..

[Tlawsonmariat82]

We have a guy here who wears the number #30;he's well respected by his peers and his character is flawless.. currently he's in a contract year and almost every football pundit is saying he'll play this season without a contract please FO please let's get this one right..


Signing jessie right now before the season starts will send a message not to just our locker room but to the league as a whole.. jessie bates is the embodiment of Cincinnati right now I love this kid for his competitive spirit and for his overall commitment and dedication to the greater Cincinnati community..

This season feels a little different from others;the vibe is noticeably different from the locker room these guys have a more business like approach for some reason and getting jessie bates done right now will keep the moral going..

[GreenCornBengal]

Who is Jess Bateman?

[JWW1971]

I think it will get done before the season kickoff

[Bilbo Saggins]

Two years worth of tag rights does give them a lot of leverage. As much as I like Bates and enjoy watching him, he has had a bit of a missed tackle problem in the past. The Bengals FO are at risk of having a very expensive defense - one that just last year wasn't good at all at stopping the run. I don't blame them for not wanting to throw QB money at Bates. That said, I do hope that he gets paid. 

[fredtoast]

Why not send a letter to Bates and tell him to accept the Bengals offer?

We have no idea which side is being unreasonable. The Bengals could keep Bates at under $3 million this year and still make him the highest paid safety in th league next year. If Bates wants the security of a long term deal when he still has a year left on his contract he has to give a little back.

[Mgbrown66]

still two weeks until regular season starts. it may yet get done.

[*ochocincos*]

(08-27-2021, 01:03 AM)JWW1971 Wrote: I think it will get done before the season kickoff

If the extension is not signed by Game 1, I think he gets tagged next year, possibly the year after, and goes to another team after his tag is up.

[kalibengal]

(08-26-2021, 08:58 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Who is Jess Bateman?

the guy on Ozark 

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-27-2021, 11:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why not send a letter to Bates and tell him to accept the Bengals offer?

We have no idea which side is being unreasonable.  The Bengals could keep Bates at under $3 million this year and still make him the highest paid safety in th league next year.  If Bates wants the security of a long term deal when he still has a year left on his contract he has to give a little back.

Fwiw, I recently read somewhere (can't remember where) that it was rumored the Bengals offered in the 11-12 million dollar range.  I believe they referenced John Johnson's contract from the Browns as a similar deal, who currently checks in at the #9 highest paid safety.  Now, you can choose to believe this or not; it's up to you.  The article used the often seen "according to inside sources" so take from that what you will.

IF this is true it does seem like they're lowballing him more than he or his camp is being unreasonable.  The market for him is clear as day.  13-16 million.  13 million being a nice little discount for inking early, 16 million being a tad high and not getting a ton of bargain for locking him up early, and 14-15 million seemingly dead-on his market value.  (Safties 2 though 7 all make between 14 and 15.25 million)

Again, this all depends on whether or not these "sources" are accurate.  And negotiations can quickly change.  The may have started to low as bargaining tactic and went up from there, and these source are using old figures.  Or they're right on the money and they want to pay him closer to the 8-12 range rather than the 1-7 range.  Who knows????

[GreenCornBengal]

(08-27-2021, 03:39 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, I recently read somewhere (can't remember where) that it was rumored the Bengals offered in the 11-12 million dollar range.  I believe they referenced John Johnson's contract from the Browns as a similar deal, who currently checks in at the #9 highest paid safety.  Now, you can choose to believe this or not; it's up to you.  The article used the often seen "according to inside sources" so take from that what you will.

IF this is true it does seem like they're lowballing him more than he or his camp is being unreasonable.  The market for him is clear as day.  13-16 million.  13 million being a nice little discount for inking early, 16 million being a tad high and not getting a ton of bargain for locking him up early, and 14-15 million seemingly dead-on his market value.  (Safties 2 though 7 all make between 14 and 15.25 million)

Again, this all depends on whether or not these "sources" are accurate.  And negotiations can quickly change.  The may have started to low as bargaining tactic and went up from there, and these source are using old figures.  Or they're right on the money and they want to pay him closer to the 8-12 range rather than the 1-7 range.  Who knows????

I tend to believe it because what other motivations do the Bengals have to not start low and work their way up, other than hurting a guys feelings… as we know “it’s a business” is a common phrase in football… I don’t think Bates is a little wuss, so I don’t think he’s going to be all emotional about business transactions taking place behind the scenes while he works.

[fredtoast]

(08-27-2021, 03:46 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I tend to believe it because what other motivations do the Bengals have to not start low and work their way up, other than hurting a guys feelings… as we know “it’s a business” is a common phrase in football… I don’t think Bates is a little wuss, so I don’t think he’s going to be all emotional about business transactions taking place behind the scenes while he works.

The Bengals may have hurt themselves by marketing him as the best safety in the league and the face of the "new" Bengals (at least on defense).  Bates may think they will pay more than they actually will.

When it comes to re-working an existing contract the team is not really under a ton of pressure to get it done.  They have him this year no matter what.  If the Bengals offer him a contract for $15 million a year and he turns it down he will lose over $12 million dollars.  No matter how much he gets on his next long-term deal I doubt he makes up the the $12 million.  Then, of course, there is always the possibility he could suffer a terrible injury this year.

I think the team should pay Bates well.  I don't see his play regressing as long as he stays healthy.  But he has to understand that the Bengals don't have to tear up his old contract.  They need to find a dollar amount where both sides are happy.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-27-2021, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote:
When it comes to re-working an existing contract the team is not really under a ton of pressure to get it done.  They have him this year no matter what.  If the Bengals offer him a contract for $15 million a year and he turns it down he will lose over $12 million dollars.  No matter how much he gets on his next long-term deal I doubt he makes up the the $12 million.  Then, of course, there is always the possibility he could suffer a terrible injury this year.

I'm not sure I'm following.  Are you under the impression they would rework the deal where the new figures (15 per average) would immediately come into play?  Cuz that's not how it works.  It would be an extension.  He would play out his existing deal through 2021 and the base salaries from extension would kick in in 2022.  The only added money you might see on the books right away his signing bonus money which is really just cap related and can be spread out however the team chooses.  They could elect to front-load some of it and put on this year but the total doesn't change.

The only way he would lose 12 million if he turned down a 15 million dollar deal in your scenario is if he only made 3 million next year.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-27-2021, 03:30 PM)kalibengal Wrote: the guy on Ozark 

That’s Justine Bateman.

[JWW1971]

(08-27-2021, 02:54 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If the extension is not signed by Game 1, I think he gets tagged next year, possibly the year after, and goes to another team after his tag is up.

Yes I would agree with that

[BengalsRocker]

[Au165]

FYI as people go to the “Bengals are cheap” thing, we have spent the 10th most cash in the league over the last 5 years.

[Emeritus]

(08-27-2021, 02:54 PM)ochocincos Wrote: If the extension is not signed by Game 1, I think he gets tagged next year, possibly the year after, and goes to another team after his tag is up.

I'm not sure it drags out for that long but a tag # 1 could be in the cards. I truly believe the deal for Bates was done before the Adams contract. The agent blocked that but KB has a way of getting big deals done the right way. It'll happen before next season. Imo. Play well though #30 or #3. Btw did he really change his #? I'm looking for his #3 jersey if so. I couldn't find an Auden Tate #19. Hes my favorite wideout on the roster currently. They never gave the star a chance. Hoping GB calls w/ a pick!!  Not a Packers fan but I'd like to see what an AR could fire off.

They wanted to draft outside of need and left a star hanging. Silly them...
https://youtu.be/JbsAwYg9LYE

[*jason*]

(08-29-2021, 10:38 AM)Emeritus Wrote:

I'm not sure it drags out for that long but a tag # 1 could be in the cards. I truly believe the deal for Bates was done before the Adams contract. The agent blocked that but KB has a way of getting big deals done the right way. It'll happen before next season. Imo. Play well though #30 or #3. Btw did he really change his #? I'm looking for his #3 jersey if so. I couldn't find an Auden Tate #19. Hes my favorite wideout on the roster currently. They never gave the star a chance. Hoping GB calls w/ a pick!!  Not a Packers fan but I'd like to see what an AR could fire off.

They wanted to draft outside of need and left a star hanging. Silly them...
https://youtu.be/JbsAwYg9LYE

It feels like Auden Tate had the chance to let his star shine brightly in 2019.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-29-2021, 10:24 AM)Au165 Wrote: FYI as people go to the “Bengals are cheap” thing, we have spent the 10th most cash in the league over the last 5 years.

I'm really not sure how many times this has to explained to people who make posts similar to this, but I'll try once more just for good measure.

People who say the Bengals are cheap are NOT talking player spending.  No team is "cheap" when it comes to the payroll spent on the players.  The salary floor doesn't allow a team to be cheap. 

You can look at every single team from 1 through 32 and you'll find them pretty much jumbled together.  These rankings will slightly change depending on the windows used.  One team may be top half over one particular span while they'll bottom half over another.  Another team may be bottom half over a particular span while top half over another. 

The point is, if you take total player spending over a long period (say a decade) you'll find that there isn't much of a difference between dollars spent on players.  We're talking the difference between 1 and 16, and 17 and 32 being seperated by a percent or two.  Again, the floor sets the stage.  With every team having to meet a minimum of 88%, and with no team spending 100% every year, you'll have every team pretty much falling between 90-96% of cap spent.

So when you hear "Bengals are cheap" or "Mike Brown is cheap" is has nothign to do with player spending.  This goes for free agency as well.  Just because you spend more in free agency doesn't mean you're spending more total.  It just means you're spending more out of house than you did in house.  The same dollars are allocated but with a different approach.

The reason people perceive the team as being cheap are as follows:

-No indoor facility
-No GM
-Smallest scouting department in the league
-Small front office
-Front office filled with family members vs. paying qualified outsiders (more money with salary on top of profits and less expenses)
-Little to no investment into PBS.  Primarily funded by tax dollars
-Horror Stories:  Small towels (Kijani Story), Coin operated pop machine (David Fulcher story), no shampoo (Jonathan Josepth story), coach plane tickets (Tony Siragusa story), locked up gatorade, renting HDMI cables, etc.

I hope this helps clear this up a bit.  I don't know how many times I hear this argument.  And no matter how many times people try to correct it people never learn.  The Bengals being cheap has nothing to do with cap spent or being active in free agency.  When it comes to TOTAL DOLLARS SPENT they are 100% cheap.

[fredtoast]

(08-29-2021, 11:35 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: People who say the Bengals are cheap are NOT talking player spending.

You can't speak for anyone but yourself.

Many times the person calling the Bengals "cheap" is clearly talking specifically about spending money on players.