Are the Bengals Really Good Cap Managers?

[HairOnFire]

just like Chicken Little once did.

Like I said elsewhere, you got nothing left but calling people names, do you?

I don't need to have anything left. The debate effectively ended when you admitted that the Bengals long standing free agent strategy had "worked great".

I'd say it's the first thing you've gotten right in regards to free agency in years.

[HairOnFire]

So they finally notice the are in a situation where they'll either have to bleed off more talent to fill needs...or start playing the renegotiate-and-extend game to free up cap space, something they've had little taste for in the past. Well, I never said the FO was stupid. A bit slow, perhaps, but they eventually catch on.

Slow to catch on? Well, I think you've just described yourself. After all, you've spent years complaining about everything the Bengals do in free agency, only to admit in this very thread that their strategy has "worked great".

The entire quote appears below and was no doubt offered in response to fans who can't seem to understand the teams free agent strategy even after it has repeatedly laid it out in black and white terms. In short, the Bengals are waiting to see if Kelly and K2 can be retained before actively pursuing talent from other teams. This is something they've tried to explain to their fanbase over and over again, but too many of you have spilled your water simply because free agency has been active for a couple of days. But why wait for things to play out when you can freak out now, right?

The quote....

"Monday could be the turning point in free agency for the Bengals because if they re-sign one of their two free agents, as well as make a play for Porter, they'll have to make salary cap changes that could involve re-negotiations or releases. Or, if they lose Kelly or Kaesviharn, they'll head into free agency aggressively for the first time since it started Friday."

[ShulaSteakhouse]

I've waited for things to "play out" for the last 17 freakin' years Hair.

Other winning teams sure aren't "waiting around to see how things play out."

It would be different certainly if this were THE FIRST TIME, but this happens every single year and you know it.

You'll notice the Bengals' weren't in the Superbowl or even the playoffs last year, nor did they have a winning record...again.

This despite having one of the top 3 Qb's and WR's in the league, a top 6 RB, possibly the best #2 and #3 WR's, and according to some Bengals' fans, a "great" offensive line, of which they just lost their best interior lineman. They also have a "defensive guru" as a HC that hasn't produced yet on that side of the ball.

So excuse some of us and our high standards and sense of urgency.

We know where you stand - as someone who prefers to argue with people and make personal insults with nothing to back things up other than with your opinion.

One winning season every 15 years isn't good enough for me.

[HoosierCat]

Slow to catch on? Well, I think you've just described yourself. After all, you've spent years complaining about everything the Bengals do in free agency, only to admit in this very thread that their strategy has "worked great".

Read the post again. Their strategy worked great in terms of avoiding the boom/bust cycle of spending followed by roster purges, which was the traditional definition of a team that was a "good cap manager." But as I said in my very first post, I think that definition is incomplete. Can a team really be thought of as a good cap manager when it is suddenly straining to create cap space, not to get into a bidding war for a star like Thomas or Clements, but just to get enough space to re-up a blocking TE and a 30-year-old reserve DB? I don't think so.

The entire quote appears below and was no doubt offered in response to fans who can't seem to understand the teams free agent strategy

Well, thats just it. Their FA strategy is now reduced to the potential of having to dive into FA for players less well thought-of than Kelly or K2 because their cap management may not have left them enough room to get them back.

[HairOnFire]

One winning season every 15 years isn't good enough for me.

Yeah, it is. You're still around, right? Oh sure, you're freaking miserable, but you've always struck me as the type who prefers wallowing in his own misery rather than acting.

Seventeen years, right? Well, way to go tough guy. You showed 'em.

Seriously, how stupid does a person have to be if he expends as much energy, time, and interest on something he hates?

[HairOnFire]

Read the post again. Their strategy worked great in terms of avoiding the boom/bust cycle of spending followed by roster purges, which was the traditional definition of a team that was a "good cap manager." But as I said in my very first post, I think that definition is incomplete. Can a team really be thought of as a good cap manager when it is suddenly straining to create cap space, not to get into a bidding war for a star like Thomas or Clements, but just to get enough space to re-up a blocking TE and a 30-year-old reserve DB? I don't think so.

I feel no need to read the post again as I'm more than willing to accept your claim that the Bengals conservative free agent strategy has "worked great" in the past. After all, that strategy has allowed them to retain more home grown talent than any other NFL team. Who besides you didn't already know that?

When it comes to free agency I think for the first time in years you've blindly stumbled over a kernel of truth. Granted, you did so in an attempt to set up your Chicken Little styled criticism based upon things that MIGHT happen in a dark and gloomy future, but I think it's a start. Or rather, it's an ending or sorts. Because after years of complaining about everything the Bengals have done you're now willing to admit that their past methods have "worked great".

Hey, who cares if you're a slow learner? The only thing that matters is you finally got there. In your own words the strategy you spent a million keystrokes attacking..."worked great".

Sadly, you now seem determined to ignore your own conclusions that things "worked great" in favor of speculation about how badly things are going to go in the future. But I say let's worry about how badly you'll get things wrong tomorrow when the proper time comes. Instead, now that we know how badly you called things in the past let's concern ourselves now solely with the things you continue to get wrong today.

Which leads us to your empty claim that the Bengals conservative cap management strategy has resulted in only enough cap room to..."re-up a blocking TE and a 30-year-old reserve DB." You're dead wrong about that. (Again.)

Somehow your superior cap management skills have failed you as you've conveniently forgotten the franchise tag that ensures the Bengals of the services of a DE who if allowed to test the FA market would rank amongst the highest ranked free agent players available. Instead, the Bengals strategy of retaining their own free agents means they won't lose Smith at all or until they're better prepared to move on without him.....a strategy that has "worked great" for years.

BTW, feel free to read this post over and over again.

[HoosierCat]

Because after years of complaining about everything the Bengals have done you're now willing to admit that their past methods have "worked great".

Only in terms of keeping them out of cap jail. Only you would be so obtuse as to take it as a statement that things "worked great" in any sense beyond that, a claim that could be disproved by simply pointing to their pathetic record in the Shula/Coslet/LeBeau years.

Which leads us to your empty claim that the Bengals conservative cap management strategy has resulted in only enough cap room to..."re-up a blocking TE and a 30-year-old reserve DB." You're dead wrong about that. (Again.)

Somehow your superior cap management skills have failed you as you've conveniently forgotten the franchise tag that ensures the Bengals of the services of a DE who if allowed to test the FA market would rank amongst the highest ranked free agent players available.

The franchise tag on Smith is actually part of the problem, soaking up so much cap space that re-signing guys like Kelly and K2 is suddenly a problem. Had a long-term deal gotten done before FA, or even gets down now, then the Bengals will free up a couple million in space, easing the situation. Thats why the tag represnts a last-choice option for most teams, including the Bengals

[HairOnFire]

Because after years of complaining about everything the Bengals have done you're now willing to admit that their past methods have "worked great".

Only in terms of keeping them out of cap jail. Only you would be so obtuse as to take it as a statement that things "worked great" in any sense beyond that, a claim that could be disproved by simply pointing to their pathetic record in the Shula/Coslet/LeBeau years.

Bull. The Bengals accomplished alot more than staying out of cap jail. They've lost far fewer of their own important free agents over the years than any NFL team you could mention, an important consideration that you keep ignoring due to your desire to see the Bengals grossly overspend on marginal talent like a Corey Simon or a Nate Clements.

[HoosierCat]

Bull. The Bengals accomplished alot more than staying out of cap jail.

Yeah, they became the laughingstock of the NFL for their losing ways. It's an accoplishment, of sorts, but one that personally I could have done without. You are free to revel in it, though, if you wish.

They've lost far fewer of their own important free agents over the years than any NFL team you could mention,

I suppose. But how do we judge "important"? To what end have they kept all these "important" free agents? One playoff appearence and no wins since the Eighties?

an important consideration that you keep ignoring due to your desire to see the Bengals grossly overspend on marginal talent like a Corey Simon or a Nate Clements.

I'm not concenred whether they spend money on marginal talent like Corey Simon or Nate Clements. I'm just wondering if they'll manage to spend money on marginal talent like Reggie kelly and Kevin Kaeshviharn.

[HairOnFire]

The franchise tag on Smith is actually part of the problem, soaking up so much cap space that re-signing guys like Kelly and K2 is suddenly a problem. Had a long-term deal gotten done before FA, or even gets down now, then the Bengals will free up a couple million in space, easing the situation. Thats why the tag represnts a last-choice option for most teams, including the Bengals

Re-signing guys like K2 and Reggie Kelly is suddenly a problem because their value is being inflated by an overheated free agent market that for some strange reason you're just dying to get into. But the fact that the Bengals will have to pay an inflated price to retain their own talent is just a fact of life, and it most certainly doesn't mean that paying too much money for another teams marginal talent is suddenly a good idea.

As for Justin Smith's franchise tag, you agreed with that strategy after it was applied. Right? So all that's changed since then is you've gotten cold feet and are no longer willing to wait until the strategy pays off. Well forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but rapidly switching strategies is not the stuff of good cap management.

Finally, the franchise tag may be a last-choice option for teams but that doesn't mean it's a poor choice. For example, the Colts kept franchising Edgerrin James until they were in a position to replace him with a 1st round draft choice. So even though they never managed to sign James to the long-term deal that they preferred they were able to use the tag to buy themselves some much needed time AND options.

[HoosierCat]

Re-signing guys like K2 and Reggie Kelly is suddenly a problem because their value is being inflated by an overheated free agent market that for some strange reason you're just dying to get into. But the fact that the Bengals will have to pay an inflated price to retain their own talent is just a fact of life,

You seem to finally be catching on. I'm not dying for the Bengals to get into the market for some big name, I'm just commenting on how their cap management has put them in a poor position to re-sign talent for whom an "overheated market" is a "fact of life." The problem isnt that the Bengals can't compete for Adalius Thomas. The problem is that they are scrambling to compete for Reggie Kelly.

As for Justin Smith's franchise tag, you agreed with that strategy after it was applied. Right? So all that's changed since then is you've gotten cold feet and are no longer willing to wait until the strategy pays off. Well forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but rapidly switching strategies is not the stuff of good cap management.

I'm not suggesting they switch strategies, simply pointing out that the franchise tag is a restraint, not an aid, to them in free agency. It limits their options. And it was avoidable. They knew when Justin's contract was up, they knew it would take top dollar to resign him...so get it done. Instead, they choose to handcuff him and themselves.

[HairOnFire]

Bull. The Bengals accomplished alot more than staying out of cap jail.

Yeah, they became the laughingstock of the NFL for their losing ways. It's an accoplishment, of sorts, but one that personally I could have done without. You are free to revel in it, though, if you wish.

It's funny, you're supposed to be proving your theory that the Bengals conservative cap management strategy will no longer work great in the near future, but all you seem to do is wallow in the misery of the distant past.

Maybe if you weren't so intent on proving how well you'd manage the cap if you were given the opportunity you'd realize that Marvin Lewis has been the head coach for four seasons and hasn't had a losing record yet. Or that the Bengals last went to the playoffs just two seasons ago.

Again, if you were calling the shots this team would have made Corey Simon the highest paid defensive player in the NFL, would have allowed TJ and Rudi to leave for greener pastures, would have Chris Perry as the starting RB, and apparently would have just applied the franchise tag to Justin Smith...and then quickly removed it in a stunning demonstration of indecisive decision making.

But what the heck, just keep criticizing 'em. Who knows, maybe some day you'll have an NFL team of your own to run, and you can hire Shula Steakhouse to coach it.

[Kirkendall]

You guys need a radio show... or your own website. I'd visit. But I wouldn't pay. Although I do pay for ESPN Insider, so I'm somewhat of an idiot.

Continue.

[HairOnFire]

Re-signing guys like K2 and Reggie Kelly is suddenly a problem because their value is being inflated by an overheated free agent market that for some strange reason you're just dying to get into. But the fact that the Bengals will have to pay an inflated price to retain their own talent is just a fact of life,

You seem to finally be catching on. I'm not dying for the Bengals to get into the market for some big name, I'm just commenting on how their cap management has put them in a poor position to re-sign talent for whom an "overheated market" is a "fact of life." The problem isnt that the Bengals can't compete for Adalius Thomas. The problem is that they are scrambling to compete for Reggie Kelly.

Once again, that's total bull....as you keep attempting to reduce what the Bengals are attempting in free agency to a single player. The Bengals began free agency scrambling to retain Kenny Watson, Reggie Kelly, Kevin Kaesviharn, Justin Smith, and more than a half dozen of their own restricted free agents. And the problem that you keep having is you can't find any new names on that list.

Happily, I don't have your problem.

[HoosierCat]

The Bengals began free agency scrambling to retain Kenny Watson, Reggie Kelly, Kevin Kaesviharn, Justin Smith, and more than a half dozen of their own restricted free agents.

No, they didn't. By the time FA began, Justin had been franchised. The only question was whether they would reach a long-term deal and free up some cap space in time to matter this month (so far, no). The RFAs had all been tendered. At worst, they remain Bengals for one more season. The "scramble" was over guys like Watson, K2 and Kelly -- hardly the creme de la creme of FA. So far, the Bengals expert cap management has made sure one, Watson, is retained. The other two remain in doubt. And the absurdity of that situation, that the Bengals would be biting their nails in competition with the likes of NO, Oakland and the Cardinals, for those two seems obvious to me. If it doesnt to you, I suggest your sense of the absurd needs work.

You guys need a radio show... or your own website. I'd visit. But I wouldn't pay. Although I do pay for ESPN Insider, so I'm somewhat of an idiot.

Continue.

I do my best.

[HairOnFire]

I'm not suggesting they switch strategies, simply pointing out that the franchise tag is a restraint, not an aid, to them in free agency. It limits their options. And it was avoidable. They knew when Justin's contract was up, they knew it would take top dollar to resign him...so get it done. Instead, they choose to handcuff him and themselves.

First, the tag doesn't handicap the Bengals in free agency since the free agent they'd most like to sign is Justin Smith, a player whose future they now control. Second, it doesn't limit their options. Quite the opposite. Without the tag Justin Smith would be an ex-Bengal today. Next, you haven't got a friggin

clue if the tag was unavoidable but the results speak for themselves. The Bengals spent the last year extending contracts for multiple starters...losing only one to another team. That's pretty freakin' outstanding if you ask me. And finally, your get 'er done analysis ignores the fact that you've spent the last week begging the Bengals to copy the free agent strategy of the Patriots, a team that used the franchise tag on CB Asante Samuel.

The Bengals began free agency scrambling to retain Kenny Watson, Reggie Kelly, Kevin Kaesviharn, Justin Smith, and more than a half dozen of their own restricted free agents.

No, they didn't. By the time FA began, Justin had been franchised.

So in post after post after post you're going to keep pretending like Justin Smith isn't the Bengals most important priority in free agency this season? You're actually going to pretend like he doesn't count because the Bengals tagged him a few days before free agency began?

Wow.

[HoosierCat]

First, the tag doesn't handicap the Bengals in free agency since the free agent they'd most like to sign is Justin Smith, a player whose future they now control. Second, it doesn't limit their options. Quite the opposite. Without the tag Justin Smith would be an ex-Bengal today. Next, you haven't got a friggin

clue if the tag was unavoidable but the results speak for themselves. The Bengals spent the last year extending contracts for multiple starters...losing only one to another team. That's pretty freakin' outstanding if you ask me. And finally, your get 'er done analysis ignores the fact that you've spent the last week begging the Bengals to copy the free agent strategy of the Patriots, a team that used the franchise tag on CB Asante Samuel.

To go from last to first, the Pats had no idea Samuel was going to require the tag. He had 11 picks in his first three years, then 10 last season -- a breakout year. Justin, by contrast, is the steadiest plodder you could plot. And let's not even get into the fact that on top of that, the Pats could still find the cap space to ink Adalius Thomas, while so far we got...Kenny Watson. So, who's done a better job with the cap there?

Next, yep, the Bengals have done a lot of extensions over the past year, specifically on the offensive line. Good for them. But if I recall correctly, you recently said that this year's FA class was the weakest you have ever seen, right? I think that sentiment was echoed by most major media establishments, too, right? So it looks like virtually every team around the league has done a "pretty freakin' outstanding" job of hanging on to its starters, right? And obviously, no one is in cap jail, no team is making wholesale purges. Yet most teams, even those like the Pats that have had to use the tag, too, have money to spend in FA -- unlike the Bengals. If that isn't a cap management issue, I'm not sure what is.

Finally, as for the tag limiting the Bengals, of course it does. Thats a given with tags. If the tag didn't have limiting factors it would be used far more often. Right now it is depriving them of, oh, at last $2 million in cap space a long-term deal might give them. If they have to charge hard after K2 or Kelly thats space they could use. Now they have to think about cutting or restructuring players.

So in post after post after post you're going to keep pretending like Justin Smith isn't the Bengals most important priority in free agency this season? You're actually going to pretend like he doesn't count because the Bengals tagged him a few days before free agency began?

To go back to my original point (I know you don't want me to suggest you actually read anything I write more than once, maybe your eyeballs would boil out of their sockets or something) tagging Justin falls under the issue of bleeding talent. The Bengals had to let Steinbach go just to retain the small cap space (they say) they have. Don't tag Justin and you can go play in FA -- but you let more talent walk away from your team. It's a lose-lose situation. Either you sacrifice existing talent, or you give up the ability to get better. And the fact the Bengals put themselves in that situation is an example of bad mangement.

[HairOnFire]

Don't tag Justin and you can go play in FA -- but you let more talent walk away from your team. It's a lose-lose situation. Either you sacrifice existing talent, or you give up the ability to get better. And the fact the Bengals put themselves in that situation is an example of bad mangement.

Ridiculous. The Bengals cap management resulted in them losing only one of a half dozen important starters, an outcome far better than you once pessimistically predicted. So even though they exceeded your expectations you still find a way to criticize the result? Well, aren't you the cap expert?

[HairOnFire]

To go from last to first, the Pats had no idea Samuel was going to require the tag. He had 11 picks in his first three years, then 10 last season -- a breakout year. Justin, by contrast, is the steadiest plodder you could plot.

Hilarious. The Patriots used a high draft pick on Samuel but you somehow claim they had no reason to plan for him having success? And just for the record, the Patriots have been trying to sign Samuels to a new contract for more than a year. So much for your recent just get 'er done rant, ehh?

As for Justin, he routinely plods his way into the top of stat lists and rankings of tackles made by a defensive lineman, and averages 8 sacks a season, and if he had his free agent freedom right now I'm betting he'd be 50 million dollars richer. Not bad for a plodder, ehh?

So let's recap your latest rantings. The Patriots are good cap managers for using the franchise tag, but not the Bengals. Best, you supported using the franchise tag on Justin Smith one minute, but a minute later you claim it's use is proof of incompetence. Well, I guess it's no wonder you fancy yourself a cap master since you've found a way to take both sides of every issue. Most people can't do that.

Huge props.

[HoosierCat]

Hilarious. The Patriots used a high draft pick on Samuel but you somehow claim they had no reason to plan for him having success?

Hilarious. You could at least get your facts straight. The Pats' second 4th round pick and the 24th DB off the board is a high draft pick. Okey-doke.

Best, you supported using the franchise tag on Justin Smith one minute, but a minute later you claim it's use is proof of incompetence.

I know, the concept of lose-lose situations is tough for some people.

[HairOnFire]

I know, the concept of lose-lose situations is tough for some people.

Not really. I know that when free agency begins you're likely to mention Dave Shula or Bruce Coslet whenever one of your opinions is questioned. That seems to guarantee every post you write will be lose/lose. Thus, I'm familiar with the concept.

Note: My apologies for mistakingly thinking Samuels was a late 2nd round pick. That said, you predictably nibbled on the garnish while ignoring the meat. For example, doesn't the fact that the Patriots have been unable to re-sign him for over a year impact your Cable Guy rant about just getting 'er done? Or is this just another example of you applauding other teams for trying?

[HoosierCat]

Note: My apologies for mistakingly thinking Samuels was a late 2nd round pick. That said, you predictably nibbled on the garnish while ignoring the meat. For example, doesn't the fact that the Patriots have been unable to re-sign him for over a year impact your Cable Guy rant about just getting 'er done?

Larry the Cable Guy sucks. Ron White is way better. Anyhow. Of course the Pats have been trying to re-sign him, he was approaching unrestricted free agency. We've got a bunch of players who will be UFAs next year, and I suspect the Bengals, too, will spend some time trying to get them re-upped. 'Tis the nature of the business.

[HairOnFire]

Of course the Pats have been trying to re-sign him, he was approaching unrestricted free agency.

So why defend the Patriots for doing the very same thing the Bengals had to do? And most importantly, why do it when you're aware that during the same time period the Bengals reached long-term contracts with more starters than you once thought possible? Didn't we all know a year ago that a Bengal player was almost certain to get the tag? Yet less than 3 hours ago you were criticizing the Bengals by claiming that tagging Smith was avoidable....and faulting them for not getting a deal done prior to now.

[HoosierCat]

So why defend the Patriots for doing the very same thing the Bengals had to do?

Because there's two year's difference? Because one (Justin) was Mr. Steady-if-Unspectacular and the other (Samuel) came out of the blue and nearly doubled his career pick total in a year? I dont know if "defending" the Pats is the right word; they suddenly had a good but not elite player put up elite numbers. The Bengals had a guy do the same old same old good-but-not-great bit. Gonna keep him? Fine. Pay him and move on. Instead, it's tag him and wait, and oh, BTW he's chewing up all our cap, so sorry, we can barely afford Kenny Watson. And we may have to cut John Thornotn to keep Reggie Kelly. Huh? Seriously, tell me this does not strike you as a screwed-up situation. Meanwhile, the Pats, who unexpectedly found themselves faced with a tag-or-lose situation with Samuel, tagged him...and still signed a bunch of FAs. That speaks of some pretty good cap management in NE to me. Meanwhile, the careful planning Bengals and their even burn concept are...stuck.

[HairOnFire]

Seriously, tell me this does not strike you as a screwed-up situation.

No, it doesn't. Teams like Denver are always major players in free agency, signing guy after guy after guy. They also lose player after player every year. Teams like Cleveland have ample cap room to spend precisely because they haven't developed young talent over the years so when free agncy rolls around they purge themselves of mediocre players and print up new "Wait till next year!" signs. Teams like San Francisco are suddenly flush with cap room but only after going through multiple salary cap purges. Championship teams like the Colts and Steelers rarely chase expensive free agent talent, and even when they do it results in a trade off of talent that sees them lose players as good as they got.

As for the Bengals cap management, the offense that is one of the very best in the NFL has been built around players who were either retained during free agency or had their contracts extended before they could become free agents....most of them within the last two seasons. There's a price to be paid for keeping that group largely intact and to a large degree it has meant having less cap room than normal this year. Well so what? A lesser strategy would have resulted in far more player turnover...dictating the Bengals repeatedly replace their own players with marginal free agents at inflated prices.

As it stands today the Bengals have lost only one important free agent, Eric Steinbach, in three or four years, and even then they had the foresight to draft a very capable but far cheaper replacement a year before Steinbach was allowed to walk. They've also begun the process of locking up some of it's defensive talent long-term.

Knowing the above, why would anyone claim that the situation was screwed-up? And why would anyone claim that the potential salary cap cut of John Thornton is a loss that can't be easily overcome?