Are the Bengtals cheap?

[El guapo]

I've been hearing all these pundits acting like it's a given that the Bengals are a cheap team. I get that they messed up with Higgins, Chase, Hendrickson, and others. Yeah, they should have signed Bates. All fans could probably make similar complaints about their teams.

Is there a fact-based argument that the Bengals are the lowest-spending or cheapest team in the league?

[J24]

Yes they are cheap but their biggest problem is they are dumb.

[NATI BENGALS]

And the Cleveland Browns are big spenders. Yet all 32 teams have to abide by the salary cap. And even have a minimum spend requirement.

[CottonHill]

Yes, but not because they aren’t just handing out Mac extensions….but because they refuse to pay for adequate and modern scouting, facilities, infrastructure, etc.

[*rfaulk34*]

I'm confused.

Is this rhetorical?

[Southpaw Frerotte]

If they’re not cheap, which NFL franchise is?

[THE PISTONS]

This is funny.

We sign a free agent that nobody heard of and there's people in the thread defending it.

Say the Bengals are cheap...not 1 person showed up yet to defend them.

[*pally*]

Cheap isn't the word I would use. They are risk adverse so they are unwilling to put themselves in future cap hell. They are slow to adapt creative ways o structuring contracts. And above all, they refuse to overpay players above what they think is their worth. But we've seen it with Joe, Sam, even Trey when he first signed...they are willing to spend money but they prefer it to be on their terms

[El guapo]

I was hoping for a fact-based argument. Everyone has an opinion of course. Being the cheapest team in the league seems more like a reputation they have gotten than a factual argument. Like, back in the day they were the team of criminals because of a few bad apples.

Go to Spotrac and you won't find them at the bottom of the list in spending. Like, what makes them cheap? Lack of scouting? Some coaches they've had say they prefer the approach. And that's not a ton of money anyway.

[THE PISTONS]

(03-12-2025, 06:25 PM)pally Wrote: Cheap isn't the word I would use.  They are risk adverse so they are unwilling to put themselves in future cap hell.  They are slow to adapt creative ways o structuring contracts.  And above all, they refuse to overpay players above what they think is their worth.  But we've seen it with Joe, Sam, even Trey when he first signed...they are willing to spend money but they prefer it to be on their terms

I saw the Chiefs just did some restructured and freed up some $40+ million cap space.

[Clark W Griswold]

(03-12-2025, 06:25 PM)pally Wrote: Cheap isn't the word I would use. They are risk adverse so they are unwilling to put themselves in future cap hell. They are slow to adapt creative ways o structuring contracts. And above all, they refuse to overpay players above what they think is their worth. But we've seen it with Joe, Sam, even Trey when he first signed...they are willing to spend money but they prefer it to be on their terms

So they are stubborn…which is probably worse than being cheap.

[NUGDUKWE]

I think the fact based argument is we are dead last in the league in dead money. Which i get can sound smart. But it shows that we make very little or the least amount of moves to work around the cap. We give big cap hits on the first year of contracts which limits the amount of spending you can do in said year. We've all heard Burrow say he would restructure but nothing from the Bengals because it would just be more money they need to spend. I mean we sit here in a moment of time that we all dream about and wait for to have Burrow and Chase and a couple other solid players to have a legitimate chance for a superbowl. Only to have the front office and ownership not be willing to push the envelope a bit further to give us a slightly better chance. Cheap? Yes they need to sell the team because we will never win with them here.

[NUGDUKWE]

(03-12-2025, 06:28 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I saw the Chiefs just did some restructured and freed up some $40+ million cap space.

Yeah the Chiefs are also a somewhat cheap team. But they atleast do modern things and still let winning way more on the scale than money.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-12-2025, 06:28 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I saw the Chiefs just did some restructured and freed up some $40+ million cap space.

As has been mentioned, they likely don't have the liquid cash to cover the restructure and a hefty signing bonus for each of Chase and Higgins, let alone a raise for Hendrickson. Cap space has never been the issue, it's liquid cash that appears to be the issue.

[THE PISTONS]

(03-12-2025, 06:28 PM)El guapo Wrote: I was hoping for a fact-based argument. Everyone has an opinion of course. Being the cheapest team in the league seems more like a reputation they have gotten than a factual argument. Like, back in the day they were the team of criminals because of a few bad apples.

Go to Spotrac and you won't find them at the bottom of the list in spending. Like, what makes them cheap? Lack of scouting? Some coaches they've had say they prefer the approach. And that's not a ton of money anyway.

There's a salary floor in the new cba so you have to spend.

They don't like to give our huge signing bonuses. Supposedly they were close to a contract with Chase last year, but wanted to pay the bonus later.

You rarely see them sign expensive external free agents.

They lack scouts. Smallest in the NFL.

They wouldn't build a bubble for years.

In the 90s there's some crazy stories of cheapness.

Off the top of my head, those are some.

That said, they'll pay a guy like Burrow.

[BenZoo2]

(03-12-2025, 05:40 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm confused.

Is this rhetorical?

I just came in to post this same comment.

[THE PISTONS]

(03-12-2025, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As has been mentioned, they likely don't have the liquid cash to cover the restructure and a hefty signing bonus for each of Chase and Higgins, let alone a raise for Hendrickson. Cap space has never been the issue, it's liquid cash that appears to be the issue.

I created the thread on Succession planning in tje NFL. I wonder how much that ties in?

Like I'm sure they have hundreds of millions in the bank.

[THE PISTONS]

(03-12-2025, 06:31 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Yeah the Chiefs are also a somewhat cheap team. But they atleast do modern things and still let winning way more on the scale than money.

The irony is the best way to be cheap is to draft extremely well. Yet we have limited scouts.

[NUGDUKWE]

(03-12-2025, 06:35 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The irony is the best way to be cheap is to draft extremely well. Yet we have limited scouts.

We are about to go into a draft and I assume need to hit on every pick. We are screwed. 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-12-2025, 06:34 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I created the thread on Succession planning in tje NFL. I wonder how much that ties in?

Like I'm sure they have hundreds of millions in the bank.

$100M doesn't go far when converting salary to bonus and paying out fresh new signing bonuses to Star players, especially 3 of them. Just because the ownership group may have accumulated significant personal wealth over the course of their lifetimes does not mean that the Bengals bank account is sitting with hundreds of millions in it for splurge use on any given contract day.