Are the Bengals Really Good Cap Managers?

[derekshank]

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?

Yep. I don't view myself as a blind homer... but I can't complain about the strategy the Bengals have used. It doesn't make headlines... but we also aren't seeing a mass exodus like most teams that utilize free agency.

Frankly I'm amazed at what I'm seeing from the Patriots so far this year... but as Hair stated, it's a direct result of the fact that they haven't retained their own talent. McGinest, Vinatieri, Branch, Clements. That's a lot of cap space cleared to allow them to get Adalius Thomas. But honestly, is losing a ton of your own talent in order to bring in other talent really the greatest good? Other than the fact that it has media sex appeal, I'd say it is the inferior way of doing business.

[HoosierCat]

Frankly I'm amazed at what I'm seeing from the Patriots so far this year... but as Hair stated, it's a direct result of the fact that they haven't retained their own talent. McGinest, Vinatieri, Branch, Clements.

Clements was a Bill, not a Patriot. And letting guys like McGinest walk was nothing different than the Bengals did with Simmons. As for letting a good young player like Branch go, so did we in Steinbach. If losing your own talent and bringing in a ton of other talent isn't good, what's losing your own talent and bringing in no one?

Of course, the Bengals aren't quite bringing in no one -- they are trying to find space to sign suddenly expensive role players, a scenario for which they seem ill-prepared (which is my point). The crunch continues. Note Hobson's comments at the end of his "Reggie, Reggie, Reggie" story, where he notes that a K2 re-signing would force them to dip into the traditionally sacrosanct rookie pool money they set aside, which would push them into renegotiations with a vet or two to free up space to sign the rooks.

[derekshank]

Frankly I'm amazed at what I'm seeing from the Patriots so far this year... but as Hair stated, it's a direct result of the fact that they haven't retained their own talent. McGinest, Vinatieri, Branch, Clements.

Clements was a Bill, not a Patriot. And letting guys like McGinest walk was nothing different than the Bengals did with Simmons. As for letting a good young player like Branch go, so did we in Steinbach. If losing your own talent and bringing in a ton of other talent isn't good, what's losing your own talent and bringing in no one?

Of course, the Bengals aren't quite bringing in no one -- they are trying to find space to sign suddenly expensive role players, a scenario for which they seem ill-prepared (which is my point). The crunch continues. Note Hobson's comments at the end of his "Reggie, Reggie, Reggie" story, where he notes that a K2 re-signing would force them to dip into the traditionally sacrosanct rookie pool money they set aside, which would push them into renegotiations with a vet or two to free up space to sign the rooks.

My bad on the Clements thing. I guess I was thinking of Samuel, who they franchised.

Anyway... who exactly have we lost without bringing in new talent? If you are referring to Steinbach, that is exactly why they went out of their way to draft Whitworth last year. It seems very well planned out in my opinion. (In other words... I disagree when you say they are ill-prepared).

We haven't lost nearly as many important players in the last several years as teams like the Colts and Patriots... and until recently, neither of those teams have been known for being big players in free agency. In fact, the only player that you could reasonably compliain about is Steinbach, and for the price he was demanding, it just wasn't a big enough area of need for the Bengals.

I do understand the frustration with not going after big free agents. And I know that your reasoning is a bit more sophisticated than many on the board (who just happen to be bored at this point in the offseason, and wish the Bengals were in the headlines). However, I don't find your argumentation convincing enough to warrant the amount of disgust you show toward their strategy - but hey... that's just one man's opinion.

[HoosierCat]

Anyway... who exactly have we lost without bringing in new talent? If you are referring to Steinbach, that is exactly why they went out of their way to draft Whitworth last year. It seems very well planned out in my opinion. (In other words... I disagree when you say they are ill-prepared).

Well, I didn't say they seemed ill-prepared to replace Steinbach. Clearly, the drafting of Whit meant someone was out on the left side, and everyone thought as much from the first. What they do seem to have been ill-prepared for was the mushrooming costs of even average guys and role players.

I do understand the frustration with not going after big free agents. And I know that your reasoning is a bit more sophisticated than many on the board (who just happen to be bored at this point in the offseason, and wish the Bengals were in the headlines). However, I don't find your argumentation convincing enough to warrant the amount of disgust you show toward their strategy - but hey... that's just one man's opinion.

I hear you. But let me say that I'm not "disgusted" with their strategy, just pointing out that I think it's breaking down. And again, it isn't the big-name FAs that concern me. The pressure I see is coming from the bottom of the talent pool up. It isn't the rising costs of superstars that's the problem, it's the surge in salaries for the other 40 or so guys on the roster.

[HairOnFire]

But let me say that I'm not "disgusted" with their strategy, just pointing out that I think it's breaking down.

For as long as I can remember you've claimed the Bengals free agent strategy has been an unqualified disaster so warnings that it may no longer "work great" in the future don't impress me much. The fact of the matter is the Bengals overall strategy has remained pretty constant over the years but they've also shown the ability to adapt to new marketplace conditions. They routinely offer contract extensions now to important players approaching free agency, and if they have to dip into their rookie pool more than in the past then I'm sure they'll do so.

The sky isn't falling.

[HairOnFire]

Well, I didn't say they seemed ill-prepared to replace Steinbach. Clearly, the drafting of Whit meant someone was out on the left side, and everyone thought as much from the first. What they do seem to have been ill-prepared for was the mushrooming costs of even average guys and role players.

Bull. Not only were the Bengals prepared for the loss of Steinbach but they've been very successful to date in signing the free agents that they identified as priorities. They've retained Justin Smith, Reggie Kelly, and Kenny Watson....leaving only Kevin Kaesviharn from their list. So even if he's lost to another team I'd say they accomplished almost everything they set out to do despite operating in a free agent marketplace that is ridiculously overheated and overpriced.

Last, losing K2 wouldn't be a disaster. All it means is the team has to adjust by changing targets, something that every NFL team has to do constantly in free agency.

[HoosierCat]

...leaving only Kevin Kaesviharn from their list. So even if he's lost to another team I'd say they accomplished almost everything they set out to do despite operating in a free agent marketplace that is ridiculously overheated and overpriced.

This is the core of our disagreement. You see the current market as "ridiculously overheated and overpriced." What I'm telling you is that this is going to be the norm going forward. It's a consequence of rising NFL revenues and the new CBA, which gives an even greater percentage of those revenues to the players.

Last, losing K2 wouldn't be a disaster. All it means is the team has to adjust by changing targets, something that every NFL team has to do constantly in free agency.

I never said losing K2 would be a disaster. But change targets to where? If we can't afford K2, just what caliber of DB is our money going to buy? Almost certainly one of lower quality, right? Or we have to toss some young'un like Kilmer in and cross our fingers.

[Spor_tees]

Just out of curiosity, the Colts and the Pats are two teams being compared to the Bengals, so I have a question for Hair and Derek. How can you sit and argue that the Bengals approach is so much better than the Pats or Colts when the Colts are in the Play-off EVERY year and just won a Super Bowl, and the Pats missed like 1 Play-off in the last 6 years, and have won 3 Super Bowls? Compare that to the number of times the Bengals have sniffed the play-offs. I think that is the meat and potatoes (referring the garnish comment) of this whole argument. Free agency shouldn't be any different than what is done when something works for a team in the NFL, people copy it. San Fran became very successful running the west coast offense, then a year later 3-4 other teams were trying to copy it. I don't see many teams copying the Bengals free agency plans...

[HairOnFire]

This is the core of our disagreement. You see the current market as "ridiculously overheated and overpriced." What I'm telling you is that this is going to be the norm going forward.

I'd say the free agent marketplace has been ridiculous and overpriced for years...which is precisely why I continue to support the Bengals strategy of staying out of the market whenever possible. Let other teams overpay for marginal talent that too often has to be released after only a season or two of service. In short, minimize your loss of homegrown talent by retaining your own important players. Meanwhile use free agency mostly as a way of freeing up your draft by adding one or two 2nd tier players a year.

[HairOnFire]

Just out of curiosity, the Colts and the Pats are two teams being compared to the Bengals, so I have a question for Hair and Derek. How can you sit and argue that the Bengals approach is so much better than the Pats or Colts....

I'll argue that the Bengals approach isn't better than the Colts. In fact, it's the same. Granted, there are some differences here and there, but no comparison is going to be exact. That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to find another team whose strategy in free agency was closer.

In my opinion the Patriot example isn't nearly as close, but it should be noted that their first championship team was built using more than a dozen 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier free agents, a team building strategy that was heavily ridiculed before the results were known. Since then they've continued to flesh out the base by adding a parade of older once-star players who can still play well enough, but are well past their prime. And that's fairly Bengal-like, ehh? They've also chased and signed several high profile free agents the Bengals routinely ignore, but adding those players usually resulted in the Patriots losing a player of equal status. Finally, the Patriots are like the Bengals in their willingness to use the franchise tag to limit the loss of important players in free agency.

In closing, I wouldn't say the Patriots and Colts are more successful based upon their efforts in free agency, but because they're farther along in their developement, feature star players who are far more mature, and quite frankly....they've drafted better.

[Stripes]

In closing, I wouldn't say the Patriots and Colts are more successful based upon their efforts in free agency, but because they're farther along in their developement, feature star players who are far more mature, and quite frankly....they've drafted better.

That's the short version of the opinion I've been trying to present throughout all of these FA threads. Agreed completely.

[HoosierCat]

I'd say the free agent marketplace has been ridiculous and overpriced for years.

Perhaps -- but in years past, that only impacted the top, top tier of players and FAs. There would be huge money deals for a handful of players, but then the money would burn itself out and the vast majority of players didn't get much more than an annual bump. Now, it's different. Now, it isn't just the guys at the top of the market getting paid, it's the guys in the middle and even at the bottom.

[HairOnFire]

I never said losing K2 would be a disaster. But change targets to where?

Losing a CB/FS in free agency doesn't dictate that you immediately attempt to replace him with a different FA player who plays the same position.

Where the Bengals would actually turn is anyones guess, but I'd start with a phone call to Patrick Ramsey's agent. I'd also keep hammering away at that long-term agreement with Justin Smith, and I'd get begin serious conversations with the restricted free agents who were tendered....especially Landon Johnson and Caleb Miller.

I'd say the free agent marketplace has been ridiculous and overpriced for years.

Perhaps -- but in years past, that only impacted the top, top tier of players and FAs. There would be huge money deals for a handful of players, but then the money would burn itself out and the vast majority of players didn't get much more than an annual bump. Now, it's different. Now, it isn't just the guys at the top of the market getting paid, it's the guys in the middle and even at the bottom.

You do realize that you're making an outstanding argument for placing even greater emphasis on retaining your own players and staying out of the FA market whenever possible?