Assessing the Cap

[*SHRacerX*]

(03-21-2022, 02:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: If you commit to going the dead cap route, cap does not matter but you have to be committed to buying cap space each year with cash (This is what the Saints have done for 5+ years). You can always buy cap through mechanisms like restructures and void years. The Bengals go the route of not wanting to have to spend cash to fix their cap like other teams so we are a bit more conservative at times, but it makes it so we don't need to use these tricks to manipulate the cap.

I think it was Paul Dehner, jr. that said something to the effect of:  "The Bengals strategy for cap manipulation is different, and one could argue that it makes the lows last longer, but it also makes the highs last longer...so if they are on a high, no one has a problem with it".  Thought that was pretty accurate.  

[Luvnit2]

(03-30-2022, 01:09 AM)casear2727 Wrote: Projected rookie salaries are not included either number.

Adjusted Salary Cap     212,200,000
Active Contracts (Less) 190,685,156
Dead Cap          (Less)     9,592,578  
Est Cap Space (All)         11,922,266

This number includes all 60 salaries currently signed and accounted for to the team (Stanley Morgan's numbers have not been added).

Add the 9 smallest contracts: 6,465,000 to the All Cap and you have the Top 51 number: 18,387,266

The numbers match exactly.

TY for the clarification, I just don't understand why they would include all players in any cap calculation when only the top 51 count.

So as of now we have 18.4 million and rookie pool is 5.,3 million and we have Stanley Morgan which will be minimal adding to the cap. So, we have around 13.1 million after we sign rookies. Of course, these are all estimates from Spotrac

[Luvnit2]

(03-30-2022, 04:33 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: KC let Mathieu walk and signed Justin Reid to $10.5m/yr deal to replace him. I think letting Mathieu walk was about more than money. Also I don't think trading Hill was about a lack of cap space either. There's just no world that exists where a single WR is worth $30m/yr. They also signed a $10m/yr WR and if PFF has any basis, the "starting LB" they cut was graded at 44.1 in 2021, 50.5 in 2020, and 48.8 in 2019.

The Packers offered Adams more money than the Raiders, so that wasn't about cap struggle either, he just wanted to leave.

You're putting a whole lot of things together as evidence of struggling with the cap, but most of them simply... aren't. The Bengals didn't struggle with the cap, and they "cut a starting C". Sometimes you just want someone else.

Andy Reid said a couple of days Hill was traded because of the cap. Look it up. We cut subpar players and not all pro players so your argument is weak.

[casear2727]

(03-30-2022, 10:21 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: TY for the clarification, I just don't understand why they would include all players in any cap calculation when only the top 51 count.

So as of now we have 18.4 million and rookie pool is 5.,3 million and we have Stanley Morgan which will be minimal adding to the cap. So, we have around 13.1 million after we sign rookies. Of course, these are all estimates from Spotrac

We wont see another hit of 5.3M from the rookie pool as many of these contracts will simply replace those currently accounted for in the Top 51 (Sportrac) lists the base as identical), closer to 3M.  There are other minimal expenses such as OTA, Morgan, etc.

The team likes to have a rollover amount set aside so I would subtract another 5-7M.

Thus we likely have around 7-8M to currently play with would me guesstimation. 

[Luvnit2]

As of today, 13 of the 32 teams do not have the cap space to sign their rookies. Why is that significant? Teams will have to either cut, trade or restructure players contracts? Or they will have to cut/trade players at some point. If these teams sign anyone more than 1.2 million a year, their cap rises so they have more work to do. There are several other teams with very little cap space after they sign their rookies.

This gives teams like the Bengals a competitive advantage (supply and demand) as they target additional free agents. The Bengals may wait now until after the draft to sign FA's as well anticipating good vets being cut due to cap issues.

I see a lot of teams doing more cap gymnastics (pushing cap hits from 2022 to 2023 and beyond) as free agency continues and after the draft.

[casear2727]

(03-30-2022, 10:39 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: As of today, 13 of the 32 teams do not have the cap space to sign their rookies. Why is that significant? Teams will have to either cut, trade or restructure players contracts? Or they will have to cut/trade players at some point. If these teams sign anyone more than 1.2 million a year, their cap rises so they have more work to do. There are several other teams with very little cap space after they sign theri rookies.

This gives teams like the Bengals a competitive advantage (supply and demand) as they target additional free agents. The Bengals may wait now until after the draft to sign FA's as well anticipating good vets being cut due to cap issues.

I see a lot of teams doing more cap gymnastics (pushing cap hits from 2022 to 2023 and beyond) as free agency continues and after the draft.

Absolutely, there will be more cap casualties.

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2022, 01:09 AM)casear2727 Wrote: Projected rookie salaries are not included either number.

Yes they were.

I am talking about the part of the chart that addresses the cap hits for the draft picks.  They have two different columns with two different numbers for some of the picks.  One column is "total" and the other is "top 51".

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2022, 10:24 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Andy Reid said a couple of days Hill was traded because of the cap. Look it up. We cut subpar players and not all pro players so your argument is weak.

For some reason there are people heer who claim that the cap has no limits and we can sign whoever we want whenever we want.

I don't know how they explain all the players that become free agents every year from other teams due to cap problems.

If the cap has no limit then why do we even have the term "cap casualty"?

[Luvnit2]

(03-30-2022, 10:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes they were.

I am talking about the part of the chart that addresses the cap hits for the draft picks.  They have two different columns with two different numbers for some of the picks.  One column is "total" and the other is "top 51".

I see the same thing Fred sees in the draft pool area. It breaks down each pick in both columns, but in column 2, it adjusts for a player being removed from top 51 and replaced with a draft pick.

[casear2727]

(03-30-2022, 10:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes they were.

I am talking about the part of the chart that addresses the cap hits for the draft picks.  They have two different columns with two different numbers for some of the picks.  One column is "total" and the other is "top 51".

I was replying to someone one else...   I provided the math.  The rookie numbers are not included in either Total or Top 51.

You may want to read the header of that section regarding Draft Picks:

2022 Projected Draft Pool Cap
Estimated cap dollars necessary to sign upcoming draft picks (not included in the cap figure yet)

[casear2727]

(03-30-2022, 10:49 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I see the same thing Fred sees in the draft pool area. It breaks down each pick in both columns, but in column 2, it adjusts for a player being removed from top 51 and replaced with a draft pick.

Fred is wrong. Those numbers are NOT included in the current cap figures.

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2022, 12:18 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I was replying to someone one else...   I provided the math.  The rookie numbers are not included in either Total or Top 51.

You may want to read the header of that section regarding Draft Picks:

2022 Projected Draft Pool Cap
Estimated cap dollars necessary to sign upcoming draft picks (not included in the cap figure yet)

I know they are not included in the total at the bottom.

I was referring to the fact that they show zero offset under the column "top 51" for the salary of our top 3 picks.  Why is that?  why wouldn't these top three picks bump a cheaper player out of the "top 51".

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2022, 12:20 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Fred is wrong. Those numbers are NOT included in the current cap figures.

Fred never said they were included.  Fred was just talking about the projected cap space needed for our picks.

[casear2727]

(03-30-2022, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know they are not included in the total at the bottom.

I was referring to the fact that they show zero offset under the column "top 51" for the salary of our top 3 picks.  Why is that?  why wouldn't these top three picks bump a cheaper player out of the "top 51".

Because all they can really estimate is the minimum base salary which is 750k in 2022, which matches several of our current players.

The signing bonus is the estimated portion that is unknown due to negotiated payment terms.

[Au165]

(03-30-2022, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Fred never said they were included.  Fred was just talking about the projected cap space needed for our picks.

Does Fred think he is on his other account, or is Fred losing it?

[TecmoBengals]

(03-30-2022, 12:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Does Fred think he is on his other account, or is Fred losing it?

[casear2727]

(03-30-2022, 12:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Does Fred think he is on his other account, or is Fred losing it?

LOL, not sure. But you made a valiant effort in your attempt in explaining cap manipulation. I wouldnt know where to begin after a couple of Fred's takes...?

[*psychdoctor*]

(03-30-2022, 07:28 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I would imagine a safety will now be picked in the first two rounds and Bates will be long gone.  From what I understand, they are miles apart.  This frustrates me to no end.  I am fairly sure the Bengals took the average of the top 5 safeties and offered it to Jesse over 4 years, with a large signing bonus, but not all guaranteed.  This is how they have structured every contract.  His agent wants top dollar and splash, and Jesse is carrying all the risk of an "off" season and then his next contract could be half of what has been offered.  

Look at what Hilton and Awuzie are playing for.  Probably half what Jesse has been offered.  Not enough.  Well, Jesse, the agent works for you and right now he isn't serving you, he is serving himself.  

Now the Bengals will be forced to draft another safety high and this will likely be your last in Cincy with this defense around you.  There may be a big payday (short term) for a team like the Jets ahead of you, but that is only until someone comes in and wipes out their expensive talent to start over.  Sucks because everyone on this team likes you.  

The unfortunately  reality is Bell is less expensive in his role and probably will get extended but looks like Bates and Bengals are heading for a divorce.  I could see Bengals grab Cine or Joseph this draft.  

[*psychdoctor*]

(03-30-2022, 12:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: Does Fred think he is on his other account, or is Fred losing it?

What, you think it is weird that Fred is talking about himself in third person?  Psychdoctor thinks it is normal....

[BenZoo2]

(03-30-2022, 04:32 PM)psychdoctor Wrote: What, you think it is weird that Fred is talking about himself in third person?  Psychdoctor thinks it is normal....

Ben Zoo thinks you’ve lost yo mind and should seek professional help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk