02-11-2016, 01:32 AM
If comp picks never existed, they'd still have the same philosophy...it just so happens their style equals comp picks. They try to keep their own, but Mikey's style is to pay for what you're worth to the team going forward not what stats you produced already. We criticize them for being too loyal, but they're also amazing at not creating piles of dead money. So they keep their own when the salaries match, and when they don't they replace them with draft picks long term. In the short term, you get the occasional AJ Hawk or Daniel Manning type.
This is where the question of "how much does the comp picks play into free agency" comes into play. Sure they've been burned by a few of the few big money FA's they've went after, sure they used to get left at the altar, but I think it's more about them buying into how well they scout college players. So when they wait around for the 1st and 2nd tier guys to sign, they end up with average but affordable players to fill a few gaps. So, it's not so much that AJ Hawk is their "plan", but when it's him or a UFA of similar talent....why not look towards a comp pick as a byproduct? I'm thinking they signed Marshall Newhouse kinda early as a UFA disregarding if it would affect a comp pick and it turned out it didn't (but I'm thinking an article was debating if it would). Comp picks are a fickle formula, but their style fits the formula to a T.
As for 2016, I could see it coming into play but here's what's different about this year. They stand to lose more in quanity if you consider they could lose one from each pairing (Jones/Sanu, Iloka/Nelson, Hall/Jones, ect...) and may even lose some rotation guys (Vinny, Gilberry, ect...) if they get fringe starter deals and they still want to hedge their bets on Clarke, Williams and Hardison types that "could" be rotational guys but you still want insurance. That's where I see Cincy bringing in say 3 or 4 vets that were released as opposed to the annual 1 or 2. For example, Marvin Jones takes a big deal from Cleveland, resign Sanu and use a 2nd-4th rd pick on a WR that can extend the field. They look at a FA group that includes a cut vet like Greg Jennings. They give him a 1/2 yr deal to provide insurance on the outside, and even start if Sanu or the rookie can't perform or are hurt. Jones, Smith and possibly Nelson signing solid deals could help them end up with a 3rd and 4th a year from now, provided they stay with their types of signings. I think where most people have a problem with this thread is the idea that they'd turn down a needed vet (say Mack at center) because they're just worried about getting comp picks a year from now. It's not so much that they'd refuse that type of player, it's just that they never seem to approach that type of player. Rather than pay premium price today with a lump signing bonus to fill a need, they'd rather spend that money on their own starter to stay there for 3 or 4 more years and fill the hole with a rookie/average vet or combo of the two.
This is where the question of "how much does the comp picks play into free agency" comes into play. Sure they've been burned by a few of the few big money FA's they've went after, sure they used to get left at the altar, but I think it's more about them buying into how well they scout college players. So when they wait around for the 1st and 2nd tier guys to sign, they end up with average but affordable players to fill a few gaps. So, it's not so much that AJ Hawk is their "plan", but when it's him or a UFA of similar talent....why not look towards a comp pick as a byproduct? I'm thinking they signed Marshall Newhouse kinda early as a UFA disregarding if it would affect a comp pick and it turned out it didn't (but I'm thinking an article was debating if it would). Comp picks are a fickle formula, but their style fits the formula to a T.
As for 2016, I could see it coming into play but here's what's different about this year. They stand to lose more in quanity if you consider they could lose one from each pairing (Jones/Sanu, Iloka/Nelson, Hall/Jones, ect...) and may even lose some rotation guys (Vinny, Gilberry, ect...) if they get fringe starter deals and they still want to hedge their bets on Clarke, Williams and Hardison types that "could" be rotational guys but you still want insurance. That's where I see Cincy bringing in say 3 or 4 vets that were released as opposed to the annual 1 or 2. For example, Marvin Jones takes a big deal from Cleveland, resign Sanu and use a 2nd-4th rd pick on a WR that can extend the field. They look at a FA group that includes a cut vet like Greg Jennings. They give him a 1/2 yr deal to provide insurance on the outside, and even start if Sanu or the rookie can't perform or are hurt. Jones, Smith and possibly Nelson signing solid deals could help them end up with a 3rd and 4th a year from now, provided they stay with their types of signings. I think where most people have a problem with this thread is the idea that they'd turn down a needed vet (say Mack at center) because they're just worried about getting comp picks a year from now. It's not so much that they'd refuse that type of player, it's just that they never seem to approach that type of player. Rather than pay premium price today with a lump signing bonus to fill a need, they'd rather spend that money on their own starter to stay there for 3 or 4 more years and fill the hole with a rookie/average vet or combo of the two.
