Prisco on Bengals/Whitworth

[HoosierCat]

I think the bengals only have $100k in dead money this year. That's pretty good management if you ask me. I'm not real sure, with tbe release of simmons, if the dead money total went up from 100k.

Dead money and dead cap space are different things. The Bengals effectively borrowed tens of millions in cap space from future years when they gave big bonuses to Carson, Chad, TJ, Willie, Rudi, Levi, etc. Something on the order of 20% to 25% of this year's cap space has been used in the previous four years.

Hoosier, I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know for sure... but where have you seen that $20-25 million figure?

Go to go-bengals' cap page and add up all the bonus money given out in previous years that's being amortized this year. I eyeballed it a while back and stopped counting when I got to $20m.

[Stripes]

Go to go-bengals' cap page and add up all the bonus money given out in previous years that's being amortized this year. I eyeballed it a while back and stopped counting when I got to $20m.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

If the Bengals find themselves somewhat restricted by the cap this season (I wouldn't call it cap hell by any means) because of past moves to keep the most important players in place, that sounds like a good problem to have. It certainly makes it more difficult to bring in other players to fill needs in the present, but I'd much rather have the likes of Carson, Chad, and Levi signed for the long haul than risk their futures in Cincinnati for the sake of taking further risks in free agency.

[derekshank]

I think the bengals only have $100k in dead money this year. That's pretty good management if you ask me. I'm not real sure, with tbe release of simmons, if the dead money total went up from 100k.

Dead money and dead cap space are different things. The Bengals effectively borrowed tens of millions in cap space from future years when they gave big bonuses to Carson, Chad, TJ, Willie, Rudi, Levi, etc. Something on the order of 20% to 25% of this year's cap space has been used in the previous four years.

I'm not willing to go do the research... but I'm willing to bet that any team with multiple pro-bowlers have the same issues. You can't pay them the bonus up front. Peyton Manning had one of the biggest bonuses ever. The Colts were forced to spread it out over several years. Wuit acting like the Bengals are the only team that does this. If the didn't, they wouldn't be able to keep their own players OR sign free agents.

The only difference between the bonus money and the contract money is that bonus money is guaranteed. You have to look at the bonus money as part of the contract. If you don't like it, then you are complaining that we paid Carson too much... and I'm guessing you'll be in the minority on that one.

P.S. If the choice was between having Carson, Chad, TJ, Willie, Rudi, Levi, and one of the free agents that you coveted so much... I'd choose our one of our own guys every damn time.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I think the bengals only have $100k in dead money this year. That's pretty good management if you ask me. I'm not real sure, with tbe release of simmons, if the dead money total went up from 100k.

Dead money and dead cap space are different things. The Bengals effectively borrowed tens of millions in cap space from future years when they gave big bonuses to Carson, Chad, TJ, Willie, Rudi, Levi, etc. Something on the order of 20% to 25% of this year's cap space has been used in the previous four years.

Hoosier, I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know for sure... but where have you seen that $20-25 million figure?

Go to go-bengals' cap page and add up all the bonus money given out in previous years that's being amortized this year. I eyeballed it a while back and stopped counting when I got to $20m.

That doesn't matter much if the players are still with the team. As you well know, signing bonuses are primarily given because of their guaranteed nature since salaries aren't. Amortizing them over the full length of the deal gives you a good idea of what a player costs at a given year. That money's not "dead" in any sense if the players are still with the team.

[HoosierCat]

I'm not willing to go do the research... but I'm willing to bet that any team with multiple pro-bowlers have the same issues. You can't pay them the bonus up front. Peyton Manning had one of the biggest bonuses ever. The Colts were forced to spread it out over several years. Wuit acting like the Bengals are the only team that does this.

Of course every team does it -- from the Bengals to the Redskins. That's my point. The Bengals do this and tie themselves up; the Redskins do it, yet somehow have plenty of cap space every year. Why? Because they structure deals differently. The Bengals like that nice even burn, so if they were to sign a guy for 5 years and $30m with a $10m SB, their ideal would be a $6m hit a year. Another team might do a backloaded deal with salaries of 2,3,4,5,6m plus the $10m bonus. The upshot is that if both teams cut the guy in year 3, each carries a $6m charge, but the backloading team clears $15m in cap space off its future books versus $12 million for the even burn team. That's one way guys like Snyder stay out of trouble.

If you don't like it, then you are complaining that we paid Carson too much... and I'm guessing you'll be in the minority on that one.

It isn't a question of paying Carson too much, it's a question of when you do the deal and how it's structured. Carson's rookie deal still had several years to run, was there really a need to give him a big extension so soon? Couldn't that money have been put toward more immediate needs? The argument that he was cheaper sooner than later seems to hold less water now that the coin top-tier players are commanding appears to be flattening out.

That doesn't matter much if the players are still with the team. As you well know, signing bonuses are primarily given because of their guaranteed nature since salaries aren't. Amortizing them over the full length of the deal gives you a good idea of what a player costs at a given year. That money's not "dead" in any sense if the players are still with the team.

I didn't say the money was dead, I said the cap space was dead. The cap doesn't care if a player is on the roster or not, it still has to account for that bonus. Amortization is done so the owners don't pay more to the players than their cut of total revenues; essentially the owner borrows against future revenues, gives that to the player in the form of a bonus, and when those revenues come in in later years they go to the owner by effectively lowering his cap (dead cap space).

Ah, I see what you're saying.

If the Bengals find themselves somewhat restricted by the cap this season (I wouldn't call it cap hell by any means) because of past moves to keep the most important players in place, that sounds like a good problem to have. It certainly makes it more difficult to bring in other players to fill needs in the present, but I'd much rather have the likes of Carson, Chad, and Levi signed for the long haul than risk their futures in Cincinnati for the sake of taking further risks in free agency.

I would, too. I just think it could have been done in a way that left us more wiggle room than we've got.

[derekshank]

I'm not willing to go do the research... but I'm willing to bet that any team with multiple pro-bowlers have the same issues. You can't pay them the bonus up front. Peyton Manning had one of the biggest bonuses ever. The Colts were forced to spread it out over several years. Quit acting like the Bengals are the only team that does this.

Of course every team does it -- from the Bengals to the Redskins. That's my point. The Bengals do this and tie themselves up; the Redskins do it, yet somehow have plenty of cap space every year. Why? Because they structure deals differently. The Bengals like that nice even burn, so if they were to sign a guy for 5 years and $30m with a $10m SB, their ideal would be a $6m hit a year. Another team might do a backloaded deal with salaries of 2,3,4,5,6m plus the $10m bonus. The upshot is that if both teams cut the guy in year 3, each carries a $6m charge, but the backloading team clears $15m in cap space off its future books versus $12 million for the even burn team. That's one way guys like Snyder stay out of trouble.

I thought we'd already established that we don't want the Bengals to be run the same way Snyder runs the Redskins... but alright. You said... "if both teams cut the guy in year 3" but that's a pretty big "if" don't you think? What if the guy had performed at the expected, or even better than expected level? The first team is still essentiall forced to cut a player in year 3, because that was the plan... but the other team has the option to keep him at the same charge.

Backloading contracts forces you to let your own talent leave after a set number of years, to be replaced via free agency... but the market gets more expensive each year, so you actually get less for your money. That doesn't sound like a smart way to do business just for a potential extra $3mil in cap space assuming you'll cut a guy after year 3.

As an example of the perils of backloaded contracts... let's take Steve McNair:

Nearing the end of his contract, the Titans were forced to pay him a significantly higher amount of money counting against the cap than they did when he signed it. It was a gamble to assume that he'd be willing to restructure since he was getting along in years... and it didn't pay off. He felt no obligation to restructure his contract. But because the Titans were in cap-jail from years of back-loading contracts (causing most of their players to be paid more than the previous year), they were forced to allow McNair to leave (under negative terms which drew a great deal of criticism from the media - not to mention fans who had grown to love McNair as a lifetime Titan). Now just think... that could be Carson Palmer in 2012.

This actually happened to the Titans multiple times because of back-loaded contracts. They had several years of very successful football... early on, when their great players were still early on in their contracts, and making reasonable amounts of money. But one by one, each of those players eventually were let go, because they weren't worth the value of the contract, and the fact that every contract on the roster got more expensive year to year. Derrick Mason, Javon Kearse, Steve McNair... and so on. They then went 4-12, 5-11, and then 8-8 this last year after 4 years of rebuilding because of poor foresight. That is what cap-hell is. Not at all what the Bengals are experiencing.

So, is this really how you want the Bengals to do business? Doesn't it make more sense to just pay players evenly over the length of the contract? If there is a dip in their performance, it isn't any harder to cut them (see Brian Simmons)... but if they continue performing at a high level, there is no need to ask them to take less money - you've structured the deal in such a way that it's even, and you don't find yourself being forced to let players go before their contracts are up.

Hoosier... it is clear that you are an intelligent person, but the sooner you realize that boring off-seasons are simply evidence of responsible planning, the better off you'll be. It's not sexy to sit back and watch while teams like the Browns, Redskins, and for some strange reason, the Patriots this year (which by the way was a tremendous aberration from they way they built their dynasty) sign everyone under the sun, but I feel like you should be smart enough to see that it's just not the way the best franchises do business.

I'm sure you'll be able to come up with another intelligent sounding post about why I'm wrong - but I'm just not interested anymore. There are just way too many examples of franchises backloading and then getting bit in the ass... I just don't feel it's worth my time debating it anymore. It's not intelligent.

[Stripes]

I would, too. I just think it could have been done in a way that left us more wiggle room than we've got.

Could be, though I expect that'd not only result in delaying the inevitable, it'd restrict the Bengals even more down the road when the contract starts to expand faster. It'd leave the Bengals a small window to spend more on defense and try and force a championship team in turn... but that seems like an unecessary risk to take with the talented young roster already present in Cincinnati. I prefer the window stay open a longer time, even if it means more waiting to [hopefully] eventually see a defense capable of winning it all.

Throw in the fact that a lot of defensive free agents haven't performed well in new systems, and I can't help but be content with the Bengals doing things the way they have been.

[HairOnFire]

That money's not "dead" in any sense if the players are still with the team.

DING!!!!

Hoosier... it is clear that you are an intelligent person, but the sooner you realize that boring off-seasons are simply evidence of responsible planning, the better off you'll be.

DING!!!!

I prefer the window stay open a longer time, even if it means more waiting to [hopefully] eventually see a defense capable of winning it all.

DING!!!!