Bengals Pass on Smith's Option

[HoosierCat]

As generally expected, the Bengals aren't picking up Andre Smith's option. So now he's a free agent after the 2102 season.

[TJJackson]

I think this is a good move

He worked extra hard this year to get the big payoff from the option being picked up -- ie he's one of those players who works hard only when upcoming big money is in front of them

Now he has to target big money in 2013 - which means he needs to play well and keep himself healthy for the next two years - which is good for the Bengals (for this year and next)

Hopefully, they will hold onto that money as extra bonus to lure him into signing if indeed he fulfills something close to his true potential over the next two years. They can then look at that extra cash as paying for his performance rather than his potential

As expected, since this contest was/is on the financial field rather than the playing field, the Bengals got another win - the only type of win they seem to truly care about

[HoosierCat]

While we're on the subject of offensive linemen, there's this tonight:

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/19/panthers-make-ryan-kalil-nfls-highest-paid-center/

$50 million for a center. Somewhere, Mike's head just exploded.

[HairOnFire]

While we're on the subject of offensive linemen, there's this tonight:

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/19/panthers-make-ryan-kalil-nfls-highest-paid-center/

$50 million for a center. Somewhere, Mike's head just exploded.

I'm guessing Mike's bald dome is very much intact. In fact, from what I can see the new CBA is torn right out of Mike Brown's playbook, especially the slotting system that eliminates the guesswork and unknown costs of rookie contracts filled with performace bonuses and likely to be earned incentive triggers. All of which dovetails very neatly with the shift towards bigger contracts given to veteran players who have earned the increase in pay, including non-stars like Kalil.

[rwalling]

As expected, since this contest was/is on the financial field rather than the playing field, the Bengals got another win - the only type of win they seem to truly care about

Couldn't agree more. SoP is sitting in his office counting his cash and giggling to himself, "I can't believe they're going to let me put a team on the field that's 28 million dollars under the cap (again)!" (money,money,money...)

[walzav29]

I bet they won't have the most money under the cap by the time the deadline is. I don't think Mike Brown is as cheap as he is dumb. (When it comes to football decisions)

[HoosierCat]

Couldn't agree more. SoP is sitting in his office counting his cash and giggling to himself, "I can't believe they're going to let me put a team on the field that's 28 million dollars under the cap (again)!" (money,money,money...)

Yup. That's where the profits are.

According to a financial officer for an NFL team, after ticket price, concessions and parking are added up, and then the visitor's share, overhead and taxes are deducted, each sold home seat represents around $30 in profit. This jibes with the numbers reported by Green Bay, the sole NFL club that discloses financial data. For 2010, the Packers sold 566,362 tickets and reported an operating profit of $10 million -- about $18 per occupied seat. The Packers' expenses were high in 2010, as they appeared in four road playoff games. Had they not, the profit per seat would have risen to $25 or $30.

The $30 estimate is a simplified number, but suppose it's roughly accurate. That suggests the 2010 attendance leader, Dallas, had a $21 million profit on seat sales, while 2010's worst-drawing team, Oakland, had a ticket profit of $11 million. That's a $10 million swing between the best case and the worst case for filling the stadium. Because most teams are in the middle of that calculation, going all-out to win with player and coaching salaries will add considerably less than $10 million in profit on packing the stadium. Contrast that with not spending up to the cap, which can add $20 million to $30 million to the bottom line. If your first goal is financial results, losing cheap can look a lot sweeter than winning expensive.

When this is taken into account, seeming nonsense suddenly makes sense. The Bengals, a low-spending team, are refusing to trade Carson Palmer, who says he retired but actually wants out of the Queen City. What's the point of getting nothing for Palmer? The point is to shed Palmer's large salary while creating an excuse for another bad season. When in this situation, teams with winning mindsets shrug and trade the unhappy star for whatever they can get -- think Green Bay with Brett Favre or Philadelphia with Donovan McNabb. Cincinnati management does not make winning its first priority. Losing cheap is fine, and getting nothing for Palmer generates a nifty excuse for a weak 2011 season.

[rwalling]

I bet they won't have the most money under the cap by the time the deadline is. I don't think Mike Brown is as cheap as he is dumb. (When it comes to football decisions)

I would call SoP a great many things, dumb is not one of them. Dartmouth and Harvard Law do not take dumb people.

On the other hand, I accuse him of being football inept, misguided in his values (profit over success on the field), miserly. I have trouble believing anyone would defend him from being guilty on all counts. He runs a great business, and a HORRIBLE sports team.

[Sea Ray]

I bet they won't have the most money under the cap by the time the deadline is. I don't think Mike Brown is as cheap as he is dumb. (When it comes to football decisions)

I would call SoP a great many things, dumb is not one of them. Dartmouth and Harvard Law do not take dumb people.

On the other hand, I accuse him of being football inept, misguided in his values (profit over success on the field), miserly. I have trouble believing anyone would defend him from being guilty on all counts. He runs a great business, and a HORRIBLE sports team.

Mike Brown is neither dumb nor cheap. What he is though is an enormous control freak. He refuses to hire a GM or anyone outside of his own circle--not because he's cheap--but because he fears losing control of his Ma and Pa shop.This is not how to run an NFL franchise. Cheap bastards don't pay out tens of millions to Antonio Bryant or Antwan Odom

[HairOnFire]

What's the point of getting nothing for Palmer? The point is to shed Palmer's large salary while creating an excuse for another bad season. When in this situation, teams with winning mindsets shrug and trade the unhappy star for whatever they can get -- think Green Bay with Brett Favre or Philadelphia with Donovan McNabb.

Bulls**t.

The primary difference in Palmer's situation when compared to a McNabb or Favre is rooted in Palmer absolute and steadfast refusal to honor his contract by reporting to work, the most basic demnd written into any contract. Thus, Palmer's situation doesn't compare even remotely to the examples given in the article. After all, McNabb worked with the Eagles to facilitate a trade, right? And Favre always reported to work eventually, usually after making someong in the front office prove how much they loved him.

Rather, Palmer's situation has to be compared to the almost countless examples where players holdout for extended periods of time in an attempt to force a team to trade that player against it's wishes and self-interest. And there's the rub because most NFL teams, including very good teams in New York, Philadelphia, San Diego and New England, will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any players contract grievances until the player agrees to report.

For example, I once listened to Charger GM defend the decision to ignore the simultaneous holdouts of TWO star players by stately flatly that the teams primary motivation wasn't forcing those players back onto the team itself, but more importantly for Smith and Charger ownership, forcing those players back onto the balance sheet. That's an interesting choice of words, isn't it? Smith went on to claim that anything would be considered after those players reported, but nothing would be considered until they agreed to report to work.

Frankly, I think it's flat-out stupid for sportswriters like Greg Easterbrook to attempt to portray Palmer as if he weren't directly responsible for the actions that put him in the situation he now finds himself. By his own words Palmer claims he's now retired, right? And if he really didn't retire, if it's all just a ploy to get out of his contract, then why should the team do anything to accomodate his demands if he won't report to work? Who is harmed most by Palmer's actions? Palmer or the team?

In short, when any player forces his team to assume an all or nothing stance, well....shouldn't that player and the team in question be prepared to accept nothing if the players demands can't or simply won't be met?

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

He runs a great business

Within the context of an anti-trust exemption and a valuation system that is driven by other teams' success, yes. If it weren't for those factors, the free market would put Mike Brown where he belongs.

[TJJackson]

He runs a great business

Within the context of an anti-trust exemption and a valuation system that is driven by other teams' success, yes. If it weren't for those factors, the free market would put Mike Brown where he belongs.

This + 100

[rwalling]

He runs a great business

Within the context of an anti-trust exemption and a valuation system that is driven by other teams' success, yes. If it weren't for those factors, the free market would put Mike Brown where he belongs.

This + 100

Regretably argument contrary to the fact.