Cap Space

[jbengals1]

The Bengals are among the top five teams in terms of available salary-cap space. Not many teams could put a deal together the Bengals couldn't match, so there is very little risk of losing Johnson.

nfl.com

[bengalboomer7]

I've been saying that crap for weeks now!!!! I do like the sound of us having a lot of cap room, though

[Tampa Bengal]

True, they had a lot of cap space but the transition tag allows other teams to dictate how you spend your cap. If another team offers Rudi a crazy contract and he takes it, the Bengals have the right to match. Granted the Bengals don't have to match it but if they don't then they have to go back to the drawing board and find a new back to take the spot. If they do match, it may be a long term deal worth more than the 6 million he is already getting, hence killing the Bengals cap for years to come. I thought the franchise tag was perfect. It now allows the team to focus on signing other players and they can wait to offer Rudi a long term deal if they want with out other teams jumping in at the last minute and signing him (see Warren Sapp)

[HoosierCat]

One additional cap wrinkle this year that's recently been pointed out to me is that, under the terms of the current CBA (set to expire in 2007), the bonuses for any contracts signed in 2005 can be prorated over only the next five years, tops. So if we were to sign Rudi to a, say, 7-year deal with a $14 million bonus, that bonus would count $2.8 million vs. the cap over the next five years, not $2 million over the next seven.

[shworge]

One additional cap wrinkle this year that's recently been pointed out to me is that, under the terms of the current CBA (set to expire in 2007), the bonuses for any contracts signed in 2005 can be prorated over only the next five years, tops. So if we were to sign Rudi to a, say, 7-year deal with a $14 million bonus, that bonus would count $2.8 million vs. the cap over the next five years, not $2 million over the next seven.

I actually see this as a benefit for the Bengals because they don't believe in 6 or 7 year contracts. Now other teams will be less likely to give so many years and the Bengals will have an easier time matching offers.

[bengalsfan33]

I'm hearing that we're going to release Herring and Hady right off the bat, then a few other guys will be going due to the certain cap situation....

[bengalboomer7]

Where did you hear that? Sounds intriguing

[WHO DEY AGAIN?]

I don't know but I like the sound of it. Those guys are a total waste of cash.

[HoosierCat]

I'd be surprised if they released Herring anytime soon. His cap hit this year is $1.6 million, but they gave him a $2.5 million signing bonus when they inked him last year. So if they let him go his cap hit actually increases by $400k.

He could be a post-June-1 cut. That would allow them to spread the $2 million hit out over two years. But even then, that doesn't do much in terms of creating cap space.

[schweinhart]

Why cut Herring? He's a key component to the safety position. Beckett and Mitchell are the ones who stand to get cut at safety.

But Hardy.....I still doubt he gets cut. ML has got to show the potential free agents in the league that Cincy is a place they can sign, play, and stay the length of a contract if he hopes to attract the elite players.

Maybe Hardy gets restructured but I doubt he'll get cut. Especially since they got no one better to fill his shoes at the position. It's too early to switch Simmons to strongside. He's still got a couple of years of outstanding pass coverage left in him. Plus, Webster is a question mark and Landon thrives in open space not traffic.

[AGrizzlyBaer]

um landon?

[CJBestInAFC]

Why keep Hardy? Because you want to show the rest of the FA that we stay true to the contract through its entire length. Hardy is expendable. He is old, slow, and his skills are on a serious decline. He can't help on ST, so the only other place is to go away. It would be real sad if Hardy is still here next year, and Landon Johnson, who I think is a lot better than Hardy, will be the back up. Landon is the starter in Hardy's spot. Move Simmons there and then move Landon to Weakside with Webster in the middle. I hope Webster can make it a whole season next year or he is gone too. There is no need to keep a guy here that is old and will take away from a younger players development.

[jjakq27]

I think they might just trade out of the first round. If they wind up being close if they sign Rudi, TJ and Braham, I could see that happening. That's one way to avoid a big cap hit from signing a first rounder. Perhaps a couple of second rounders or even a second and an extra pick next year.

[schweinhart]

Why keep Hardy? Because you want to show the rest of the FA that we stay true to the contract through its entire length. Hardy is expendable. He is old, slow, and his skills are on a serious decline. He can't help on ST, so the only other place is to go away. It would be real sad if Hardy is still here next year, and Landon Johnson, who I think is a lot better than Hardy, will be the back up. Landon is the starter in Hardy's spot. Move Simmons there and then move Landon to Weakside with Webster in the middle. I hope Webster can make it a whole season next year or he is gone too. There is no need to keep a guy here that is old and will take away from a younger players development.

Keeping Hardy is more than just a good faith showing for other free agents to see, although that might factor into a decision of a truly elite FA if that time ever comes in Cincy.

Hobson can explain the thrust of how Hardy seems to figure into the 2005 season and why he won't likely be cut, especially out of the chute:

"People talk about releasing Hardy and wide receiver Peter Warrick, which would free up about $3 million in cap space. But people also have short memories.

The linebacking corps took a pounding in ’04, and who really knows how guys like Nate Webster (torn patella tendon), Khalid Abdullah (dislocated ankle), Landon Johnson (shoulder) and Caleb Miller (ankle) are going to come back. They should be OK, but you figure Webster isn’t going to get much work until training camp. So you need to keep a veteran around like Hardy who knows the defense.

Warrick may have some big physical questions, but remember midway through the season when they struggled on third down and in the red zone without him? Their ’04 numbers declined in those key areas, and what about the 68-yard punt return against Kansas City? And ask Rudi Johnson about Warrick’s down-field blocking. If he’s close to what he was, you’ve got to keep him. But, yes, if Rudi keeps that big number and they re-sign Houshmandzadeh, how do you keep all three? . . .

By the way, Hardy can’t wait to play in this defense. He thinks with the third year in the system, there’ll be less gray area and guys will be able to play more aggressively because of the comfort level of doing the same thing. . . "

[HoosierCat]

I think they might just trade out of the first round. If they wind up being close if they sign Rudi, TJ and Braham, I could see that happening. That's one way to avoid a big cap hit from signing a first rounder. Perhaps a couple of second rounders or even a second and an extra pick next year.

The 17th slot isn't going to cost huge dollars -- but that doesn't mean trading out of the first is a bad idea. Straight up, our first would be worth, oh, about a second, third and fifth rounder, depending on where in each of those rounds the picks are. The downside is that your best chance of finding a star is early; the upside is that there are still stars later on, but they're harder to find. If you find one, tho, you have a stud cheap, which is key in the salcap era, and more lower-round picks increase your chances of that.