NFL Laughing-stock

[Drobes]

...Sigh.. looks like we're well on our way to being the laughing stock of the NFL... again. Check out the Bengals reference on ESPN's Scouts Inc mock draft:

Mike (Phoenix) asks: Any chance the Cowboys use there 2 picks in a blockbuster deal to get Chad Johnson or Boldin from AZ? Cowboys need a good young WR with Owens and Glenn gettin older

Jeremy Green (Scouts Inc.): No. Chad Johnson is staying in Cincinnati. Which is ridiculous in istelf, but that's a rant for another time. But let's just say they're the Bengals for a reason. But if they could find a way to get it done for Boldin or even Roy Williams, who is an unrestricted free agent next season and could leave Detroit without the Lions getting anything for him, it would be a great deal. But I don't think any of those guys go anywhere.

An $8 mil cap hit spread across 2 years isn't much. There are many ways to circumvent or cover it straight out. Releasing Thorton alone combined with Pollacks retirement frees up 5.5 mil right there just for the first year! If this situation ends up with Chad sitting out, the losers in this deal are the Bengals fans and $8 million dollars goes back into lining Mike Brown's pocket book. This is exactly the kind of stuff that got us where we were in the '90's, unwillingness to invest in the team and holding back revenue under the salary cap.

[Skeeter McGee]

I'm just waiting for The Bengal Thing to come into this thread and clear up all this cap talk for me. :thumbsup:

[Phife]

...
An $8 mil cap hit spread across 2 years isn't much. There are many ways to circumvent or cover it straight out. Releasing Thorton alone combined with Pollacks retirement frees up 5.5 mil right there just for the first year! If this situation ends up with Chad sitting out, the losers in this deal are the Bengals fans and $8 million dollars goes back into lining Mike Brown's pocket book. This is exactly the kind of stuff that got us where we were in the '90's, unwillingness to invest in the team and holding back revenue under the salary cap.


The problem is the fact that you don't get to spread the $8 mil out over 2 years unless you trade Chad after June 1. Doing that doesn't allow you to get draft picks in this year's draft, as the draft will be long over before then. So, if we want to get draft picks in this years draft from someone, we need to find a way to get rid of the $8 mil this year, plus pay for the salary of the extra first round draft picks this year.

[AGking]

...Sigh.. looks like we're well on our way to being the laughing stock of the NFL... again. Check out the Bengals reference on ESPN's Scouts Inc mock draft:

Mike (Phoenix) asks: Any chance the Cowboys use there 2 picks in a blockbuster deal to get Chad Johnson or Boldin from AZ? Cowboys need a good young WR with Owens and Glenn gettin older

Jeremy Green (Scouts Inc.): No. Chad Johnson is staying in Cincinnati. Which is ridiculous in istelf, but that's a rant for another time. But let's just say they're the Bengals for a reason. But if they could find a way to get it done for Boldin or even Roy Williams, who is an unrestricted free agent next season and could leave Detroit without the Lions getting anything for him, it would be a great deal. But I don't think any of those guys go anywhere.

An $8 mil cap hit spread across 2 years isn't much. There are many ways to circumvent or cover it straight out. Releasing Thorton alone combined with Pollacks retirement frees up 5.5 mil right there just for the first year! If this situation ends up with Chad sitting out, the losers in this deal are the Bengals fans and $8 million dollars goes back into lining Mike Brown's pocket book. This is exactly the kind of stuff that got us where we were in the '90's, unwillingness to invest in the team and holding back revenue under the salary cap.

Who cares what Jeremy Green thinks. Most of the other people around the league and in the media are praising the Bengals for sticking to their guns on this issue and calling CJ's bluff. Jeremy Green is an idiot.

[PhxBENGALfanatic]

I am with AG King! We will soon find out what is to come of CHADGATE.

[Crewfish13]

An $8 mil cap hit spread across 2 years isn't much. There are many ways to circumvent or cover it straight out. Releasing Thorton alone combined with Pollacks retirement frees up 5.5 mil right there just for the first year! If this situation ends up with Chad sitting out, the losers in this deal are the Bengals fans and $8 million dollars goes back into lining Mike Brown's pocket book. This is exactly the kind of stuff that got us where we were in the '90's, unwillingness to invest in the team and holding back revenue under the salary cap.

Um... there's not 8 million dollars going anywhere with Chad. It's about accounting money, not physical money. Mike Brown is due to sign checks to Chad for a total of $3M this season, no more, no less. The problem is the 8 million in bonuses that they gave Chad in 2006 and 2007 with the new contract, and the amoritization of those bonuses over the remaining 4 years of his contract. So, Mike Brown either saves or spends $3M this year on Chad. Of course, having just spent $8M in bonuses over the last 2 years on a guy with the understanding he'd be here through 2011, do you think Mike will be happy to let him walk?

The problem isn't that Mike Brown won't invest, it's that a ******* player wants out as soon as Mike Brown is finished paying his initial $8M invesement to keep him in the first place.

And if the Bengals try to get Boldin or Williams, do you think they'll come cheap? We don't exactly have the cap room for another $3-5million/year (salary + bonus amoritization) wideout. Then again, journalism is the college major for people who stink at math (no offense intended to any journalists present who may be good at math).

[kevin]

Does this surprise you ????

Of course when the Bengals get mentioned during the draft, its going to be, " Oh no, its the Bengals " and they will talk of Chad and Henry. We were always the team that they said made the stupid picks every year. ESPN waited for our stupid pick.

Then in 2005 Berman started to like our picks and thought we were going places, but ever since Henry and Thurman, last year we were the Draft Day Bad Boys talk about all our off field problems. Now add to it this the Chad stuff, ESPN lives for this kind of stuff.

I guarantee ESPN will be talking about nothing but Chad and Henry and such when we draft. ....Myself, I will be too busy trying to see who we pick.

No, if you think it will be any different, you are wrong. ESPN is going to be all over this Chad and Henry stuff because thats what ESPN does. ....Just remember the standings after draft day are even, nobody has won or lost, even though ESPN acts like they know who won or lost. ....Only time will tell which players are good picks. ....So let ESPN laugh as we grab up 10 good players and MOVE ON. ....

We will get the last laugh if our picks play well for us this fall.

[sunny]

All of these talking heads like to look important and in-the-know and powerful by saying, "Why, if I were running that team, I'd do this, that, and the other." Most of these things are impracticle or impossible to do, but facts don't seem to get in their way. We live in a "sound bite" world and that's what they produce, just sound bites to perpetuate their "importance."

[Drobes]

I just don't want to see it go down like the Corey Dillon fiasco.

Dillon, one of the most productive RBs in the league at the time becomes disgruntled and demands a trade. Mike Brown takes a hard line stance with him and doesn't capitulate. Dillon proceeds to sit out the entire season and his trade value plummets. After the season he is then traded to New England. The Patriots pick up a steal, only offering up a fraction of what Dillons value was at the time he initially demanded a trade, and Dillon helps them win another superbowl...

I'm all for taking a hard stance and ignoring the demands of a childish player, but not at the expense of the team.

[Who2Dey]

I just don't want to see it go down like the Corey Dillon fiasco.

Dillon, one of the most productive RBs in the league at the time becomes disgruntled and demands a trade. Mike Brown takes a hard line stance with him and doesn't capitulate. Dillon proceeds to sit out the entire season and his trade value plummets. After the season he is then traded to New England. The Patriots pick up a steal, only offering up a fraction of what Dillons value was at the time he initially demanded a trade, and Dillon helps them win another superbowl...

I'm all for taking a hard stance and ignoring the demands of a childish player, but not at the expense of the team.
Dillon didn't sit out a season. He stayed on the team split time with Rudi and remained an ***, and a second round pick wasn't bad for a 30 year old RB. Remember the throwing of the equipment in the stands, and the "car wreck" that caused him to miss a game.

[busamboy]

I'm just waiting for The Bengal Thing to come into this thread and clear up all this cap talk for me. :thumbsup:

Why do you need him to do it?

[FloridaBengal#1]

I'm so sick of ESPN and there "experts". I've read some very great posts from fans on here in my opinoin some of the people on here could do a better job then those "experts". As for being the laughing stock of the NFL I dont think so we may have some problems and the media feeds on the bad there wasn't a huge hype in the press when we got a great new DC I listen to the opinions of you guys here on the boards more than those "experts". I'm glad we all share a love for the Bengals good or bad! Who Dey for life:tiger:

[BengalBug]

I'm just waiting for The Bengal Thing to come into this thread and clear up all this cap talk for me. :thumbsup:

Hope this helps guys

In order to convince the player to sign such a cap friendly contract, the team will fork over a large signing bonus. The signing bonus is guaranteed, so that money is the player's to keep if the team decides to release him later.

How can you have a real salary cap if all you have to do is give a player a signing bonus to get around it?
Answer: Now we come to the tricky part. The signing bonus IS part of the player's salary. So it counts against the cap. When determining team and player salary, the signing bonus will be prorated over the length of the contract.

For example, if a player signs a four-year deal with a $1 million signing bonus, $250,000 of that bonus will count toward team salary for each contract year ($1 million divided evenly over the four-year contract is $250,000 per year). If a team releases a player, the unamoratized bonus money (the remaining prorated bonus money) counts immediately against the cap.

In our example above, if the player is released after Year 1, the remaining $750,000 (the prorated signing bonus money for years 2-4) counts against the cap in Year 2 -- even though the player is no longer on the team's roster.

Again, let me take a moment to explain how important the extension of the CBA was. The proration of the signing bonus cannot extend beyond two years after the close of the existing CBA. With the CBA originally set to expire in 2007, that would have meant that the bonus proration had to be fully accounted for by the end of the 2009 season. Of course, if the CBA had not been extended and there were no cap in place in 2007 and beyond, you are probably wondering why this even matters. Simply put, it matters for two reasons:

1. There would have been a major cap ramification for 2006, the final capped year under that CBA.

2. As all went well in the Spring 2006 meetings, and the extension was put in place -- the cap situations associated with existing contracts will obviously still need to be dealt with.

An expression that was thrown about repeatedly during last season's labor meetings was "cash over cap". Well, these signing bonuses are what insiders were talking about, when they brought up that term. One of the things that held up negotiations amongst the owners was the move to place some kind of cap on the amount of signing bonus money that could be pushed into future years for cap accounting purposes. Although there was no cap on signing bonuses, there was a limit put in place (for 2006) that signing bonuses could only be prorated for up to five (5) years -- but that moves up to six (6) years in 2007.

why are so many players cut AFTER June 1?

Answer: After June 1, the team can stretch their salary cap liability over the next 2 seasons. Let's look at our example above, where a player signs a big contract for 4 years, including a $1 million signing bonus.

If the player is cut after the first year of the contract, the remaining $750,000 of the "un-amoratized" signing bonus hits the cap immediately (accelerates). However, if he is cut after June 1, the team can spread that money over Year 2 and 3 of the contract instead of taking the full brunt of the cap hit in Year 2.

Doing this will save $500,000 against the cap hit for Year 2.

Clearly, this practice is a nice way of freeing up cap space in a given year. Note, however, that the money still has to be accounted for against the cap -- and the remaining $500,000 that was never accounted for will hit the cap in Year 3. In essence, many NFL teams have mortgaged their future by overusing this practice, whereby they continue to pay against the cap for players who have not been on the roster for over a year.

This was another important benefit that would have gone out the door if the CBA had not been extended. Namely, with no cap in 2007, teams would not have had the luxury of being able to extend this acceleration beyond 2006.


What is to prevent a player from signing a huge contract, commanding a large (guaranteed) signing bonus, then never playing a single down in the NFL?
(this is what i find interesting, and i make a post about it next)

Answer: I call this the "Barry Sanders Rule".

Due to the Salary Cap, owners are now investing a greater amount of money up front for players in the form of guaranteed signing bonuses. Thus, the owners must try to protect their investments by including language in the contract that calls for a player to return a portion of the signing bonus to the team if the player “fails or refuses” to practice or play with the team.

In certain situations, a team will be repaid some of the signing bonus it paid to a player (i.e., a refund), or a team will fail to pay part of a signing bonus that was already allocated toward team salary. If this happens, the amount previously included in team salary will be added to the team’s Salary Cap in



What happens if a player is traded or retires?

Answer: We already know that if a player is waived on or before June 1, the remaining signing bonus that has not been included in salary “accelerates” and is included in that year’s team salary. Acceleration also occurs when a player is traded or waived and picked up by another team. The new team is not responsible for any of the original signing bonus. The team that waived or traded the player is responsible for the accelerated signing bonus (in the same manner as described above).

In most cases, if a player retires, the remaining signing bonus that has not been included in salary “accelerates” and is included in that year’s team salary. Thus, the team will take an immediate salary cap hit of the remaining signing bonus.

[Lancsbengal]

Who cares what the rest of the NFL think about us.I am proud to call myself a Bengal fan as i'm sure most of the rest of the posters on here are.We'll be laughing at the rest of the NFL next year when we bring the superbowl trophy home.

[The Bengal Thing]

I'm just waiting for The Bengal Thing to come into this thread and clear up all this cap talk for me. :thumbsup:


Uhm........what?

[FloridaBengal#1]

Who cares what the rest of the NFL think about us.I am proud to call myself a Bengal fan as i'm sure most of the rest of the posters on here are.We'll be laughing at the rest of the NFL next year when we bring the superbowl trophy home.

:thumbsup:

[JoeJoeBengal]

Don't let your ego get bruised. We bleed orange and black, not them. Who cares what they really think! We, the fans, are the one's whose opinions count.

The reality is, we like EVERY team, have had some disappointing picks. But, we've also had some that turned out to be really good. If there is a way to grade the overall productivity of draft picks, I'll bet we are a little better than 50%. Not bad considering our scouting. I bet if we added a really good scout, or two, we could jump to top 10.

As far as picks go, I hope we are not REALLY in the position of having to take an RB. I'd like to see a 3rd and 6th round receiver (one with return potential) and possibly an offensive lineman. Then spend the rest on defense with the expectation that at least 3 are really productive this year.

Whodey!

[DennyG2]

...Sigh.. looks like we're well on our way to being the laughing stock of the NFL... again. Check out the Bengals reference on ESPN's Scouts Inc mock draft:

Mike (Phoenix) asks: Any chance the Cowboys use there 2 picks in a blockbuster deal to get Chad Johnson or Boldin from AZ? Cowboys need a good young WR with Owens and Glenn gettin older

Jeremy Green (Scouts Inc.): No. Chad Johnson is staying in Cincinnati. Which is ridiculous in istelf, but that's a rant for another time. But let's just say they're the Bengals for a reason. But if they could find a way to get it done for Boldin or even Roy Williams, who is an unrestricted free agent next season and could leave Detroit without the Lions getting anything for him, it would be a great deal. But I don't think any of those guys go anywhere.

An $8 mil cap hit spread across 2 years isn't much. There are many ways to circumvent or cover it straight out. Releasing Thorton alone combined with Pollacks retirement frees up 5.5 mil right there just for the first year! If this situation ends up with Chad sitting out, the losers in this deal are the Bengals fans and $8 million dollars goes back into lining Mike Brown's pocket book. This is exactly the kind of stuff that got us where we were in the '90's, unwillingness to invest in the team and holding back revenue under the salary cap.
Where do you get that the bengals can spread the 8.8 million cap hit over 2 years, you might want to double check that one:huh:

[BengalBug]

Where do you get that the bengals can spread the 8.8 million cap hit over 2 years, you might want to double check that one:huh:

why are so many players cut AFTER June 1?

Answer: After June 1, the team can stretch their salary cap liability over the next 2 seasons. Let's look at our example above, where a player signs a big contract for 4 years, including a $1 million signing bonus.

If the player is cut after the first year of the contract, the remaining $750,000 of the "un-amoratized" signing bonus hits the cap immediately (accelerates). However, if he is cut after June 1, the team can spread that money over Year 2 and 3 of the contract instead of taking the full brunt of the cap hit in Year 2.

Doing this will save $500,000 against the cap hit for Year 2.

Clearly, this practice is a nice way of freeing up cap space in a given year. Note, however, that the money still has to be accounted for against the cap -- and the remaining $500,000 that was never accounted for will hit the cap in Year 3. In essence, many NFL teams have mortgaged their future by overusing this practice, whereby they continue to pay against the cap for players who have not been on the roster for over a year.

This was another important benefit that would have gone out the door if the CBA had not been extended. Namely, with no cap in 2007, teams would not have had the luxury of being able to extend this acceleration beyond 2006.

[The Noob Avenger]

I'm going to say that the Raiders have the laughingstock title locked up.

[jj22]

Not so fast...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24035113/

[Who2Dey]

why are so many players cut AFTER June 1?

Answer: After June 1, the team can stretch their salary cap liability over the next 2 seasons. Let's look at our example above, where a player signs a big contract for 4 years, including a $1 million signing bonus.

If the player is cut after the first year of the contract, the remaining $750,000 of the "un-amoratized" signing bonus hits the cap immediately (accelerates). However, if he is cut after June 1, the team can spread that money over Year 2 and 3 of the contract instead of taking the full brunt of the cap hit in Year 2.

Doing this will save $500,000 against the cap hit for Year 2.

Clearly, this practice is a nice way of freeing up cap space in a given year. Note, however, that the money still has to be accounted for against the cap -- and the remaining $500,000 that was never accounted for will hit the cap in Year 3. In essence, many NFL teams have mortgaged their future by overusing this practice, whereby they continue to pay against the cap for players who have not been on the roster for over a year.

This was another important benefit that would have gone out the door if the CBA had not been extended. Namely, with no cap in 2007, teams would not have had the luxury of being able to extend this acceleration beyond 2006.

I believe Denny was refering to the initial poster that stated we could have traded CJ to the Skins and split it.

[busamboy]

I'm so sick of ESPN and there "experts". I've read some very great posts from fans on here in my opinoin some of the people on here could do a better job then those "experts". As for being the laughing stock of the NFL I dont think so we may have some problems and the media feeds on the bad there wasn't a huge hype in the press when we got a great new DC I listen to the opinions of you guys here on the boards more than those "experts". I'm glad we all share a love for the Bengals good or bad! Who Dey for life:tiger:

I would hope that a majority of us can cover the bengals better than espn, because we spend all our time on one team. Why don't you tell me about...lets say the Carolina Panthers. Name all their starters, and backups, and while your at it, lets hear your opinion about it. Probably wouldn't be a very good opinion because you don't know crap about the Panthers, at least I don't. That should put it into perspective for you about wondering why people at espn have the slightest clue about what our team is all about except for what is on the surface. While you and I spend all our time on one team, they spend time on 32 teams and most of them are not from cinci.

[RetroBengal]

Who cares what Jeremy Green thinks. Most of the other people around the league and in the media are praising the Bengals for sticking to their guns on this issue and calling CJ's bluff. Jeremy Green is an idiot.

And then some.