Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 I think you misunderstood me. I dont necessarily think anyone is going to pay him 10. I dont necessarily think he is going to walk away either. Im just saying hypotheticals. I just dont agree with the hypothesis of we should pay him whatever he wants/can get. My scenario was just a hypothetical scenario and situation where if it played out that way I could easily see him walking. well then if were throwing around hypotheticals (that don't have a basis in likely offers).... why not..... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|High School Harry| Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 And if he's willing to take a fair deal then fine we will likely keep him. If he's looking for 9m plus a year he will likely be gone if someone is gonna pay him that. and end up regretting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 and end up regretting it. sure if this were 3 years ago when he was still slacking and not rededicated and playing like one of the top RTs in football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Huh? MB shelled out for Willie and Levi. Left tackle. That was spent to protect Carson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 well then if were throwing around hypotheticals (that don't have a basis in likely offers).... why not..... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!!! I think you are missing my whole point. My whole point is that Mikey and gang will put a value on him. If the market for andre is about what we think or maybe even slighty above, then i think and hope we will get him back. If there is a team that is willing to over pay for him (based on Mike and Marvin and the bengals internal valuation of the guy) then I think we will let him walk rather than over pay him. Really not that complicated and maybe got too much into the hypotheticals but its pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Practice squad doesn't count towards the cap. Most of the rookies won't really count either. It is only the top 51 salaries that count toward the cap. So the 2 cheapest guys on the 53 man roster don't even count... I think people end up double counting stuff due to confusion over this rule. Adding a 6th round draft choice has no impact at all on your salary cap space unless he makes more than the #51 guy already on your team. And if 51 was making $375,000 and the new rookie is making $380,000 then you only lose $5,000 worth of cap space. This is one of the thing Hobson always sort of obfuscates and misexplains as well. During the offseason, rosters can have up to 90 players and only the top 51 players cap numbers count. Once we get to final cuts, the week before the first game, all 53 players plus the practice squad plus guys on PUP and IR count. Guys on reserve lists don't count. The team manages it's cap situation with an eye on the regular season implications since they don't have to make any cuts to become cap compliant. The practice squad will cost less than 1 mil this year. The low leverage guys get split contracts which pay them less when on IR. Geno won't get 12 mil on a new deal because he doesn't have the leverage. The team can keep him for 3 more years for a total of around 20 mil before they have to start worrying about having the tag available for AJ. So Geno will get 8-10 mil per year on the new years in an extension. He's a better player than Johnson but isn't likely to be able to take advantage of that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatcat Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 During the offseason, rosters can have up to 90 players and only the top 51 players cap numbers count. Once we get to final cuts, the week before the first game, all 53 players plus the practice squad plus guys on PUP and IR count. Guys on reserve lists don't count. The team manages it's cap situation with an eye on the regular season implications since they don't have to make any cuts to become cap compliant. The practice squad will cost less than 1 mil this year. The low leverage guys get split contracts which pay them less when on IR. Sparky is correct on all of the above. In fairness, the practice squad needs to be part of the salary cap to maintain the competitive balance that the salary cap tries to maintain. Here is some excerpts an article from last year on practice squad salaries: The Patriots are one NFL team that consistently goes above and beyond the minimum practice squad rate of $5,700 per week. In recent seasons, the Pats have paid their entire practice squad weekly rates above the minimum salary at certain points. That trend continues in 2012 as the NFL Players Association base salary information shows that Patriots offensive linemen Thomas Austin and Matt Kopa are both earning $8,820 per week, which over a 17-week season would amount to a $149,940 salary. The reason for paying more? Some teams will make exceptions for players who might have drawn interest from other clubs or as a way to reward players for their practice performance. For example, the New York Jets tight end Hayden Smith is earning $6,875 per week, or $116,875 over a full season. Here are the rest of the practice squad players earning an increased rate this week: » Baltimore Ravens linebacker Josh Bynes - $7,000 per week ($119,000 over a full season) » Minnesota Vikings running back Jordan Todman - $10,000 per week ($170,000) » New Orleans Saints wide receiver Andy Tanner - $7,000 per week ($119,000) » Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver B.J. Cunningham - $6,000 per week ($102,000) » Seattle Seahawks quarterback Josh Portis - $6,700 per week ($113,900) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texbengal Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Interesting to see what happened with franchise tags - there was some thought that the Pats would try and franchise Sebastian Vollmer, and that the Vikes would do the same with Phil Loadholt. Neither happened (Clady was franchised by Denver). So that's 2 other veteran Ts that are out there as well - at least for now. Also re: S, neither William Moore nor Glover Quin got tagged, and those are two good, young safeties that (again, for now) could be available in FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texbengal Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Why do you say this? Collins has played well pretty much every time he gets a shot and I personally think he's a better pass blocker than Andre is. Couple that with the fact that the Bengals don't run the ball as much as they should or say they will, and that it's a passing league, then there you go. I agree that Collins is the better pass blocker, but Andre can get a lot more movement vs. the run. If they are as intent on running the FB as Marvin talks about, I would think Andre would be back, as long as it's not at a ridiculous rate. It'll be interesting to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 I think you are missing my whole point. My whole point is that Mikey and gang will put a value on him. If the market for andre is about what we think or maybe even slighty above, then i think and hope we will get him back. If there is a team that is willing to over pay for him (based on Mike and Marvin and the bengals internal valuation of the guy) then I think we will let him walk rather than over pay him. Really not that complicated and maybe got too much into the hypotheticals but its pretty simple. How about we just focus on what he is asking for rather than make up sillyness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 How about we just focus on what he is asking for rather than make up sillyness? What is made up silliness about that? That seems to be how they operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 What is made up silliness about that? That seems to be how they operate. No team is going to pay him more than what his asking price is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 No team is going to pay him more than what his asking price is. So what? If Mike puts a value of $7M on him and someone offers him 9 we probably won't sign him. That is a completely plausible chain of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 How about we just focus on what he is asking for rather than make up sillyness? I agree with JBandJoeyV here. I honestly think the Bengals place FAR more emphasis on what THEY think the player is worth, not what the player is asking for (is this too obvious?). In any negotation the side with more information generally "wins" and the Bengals tend to think their value is better information that what the market value shows. They anchor at a low price and may move a bit towards the middle but I've never heard any news that the Bengals significantly upped their initial offer to retainor sign a player. They place a value on a player, likely offer far less than that to anchor their startng point, and try to negotatiate towards whatever the real value they place on that player. If they can't come to an agreement suitable, they let the player walk. Seems to me it's not sillyness, just good business sense. Unfortunately players and agents take it as a slight and move on most of the time. The interesting part is even with their own players, they seem to let a player walk away if the player is overvaluing their services, which seems to not be the norm in the NFL. I do think it's the best way to operate in Free Agency since the vast majority of FA are worth far less than what they sign for. With the Bengals seeminly unwilling to mortgage the future for now (sign backloadedor inflated contracts they know will have to be restructured) , they lose out on quality players looking for top dollar but don't get stuck up against the cap like other teams. Now, I'm not sure that's the best way to win a championship since you basically have to knock it out of the park in the draft consitently to replace quality players each year but it certaintly leaves the team with a lot of options with their money. Unfortunately unless the run of hitting on draft picks continues, I think we'll see some loss of quality players like Andre since the players as well as the NFLPA want them to take the highest offer possible and it seems that the Bengals will not be that offer unless it's a no brainer. And in that case they likely lock up that plaeyer before they hit free agency. Once the payer hits FA, in my mind we rarely will sign that player back and have to look to the draft to replace/upgrade. Reggie Nelson last year is the only recent above average FA I can remember coming back after hitting FA. The only positive I see is with t he new CBA, the Bengals get an extra 3 days to find out if the market value s way out of their range before anyone signs with a different team and the players/agents might be able to come to their senses if the offers aren't at the level they expected. Hopefuly that happens with Andre but I have serious doubt that's how it'll play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 So what? If Mike puts a value of $7M on him and someone offers him 9 we probably won't sign him. That is a completely plausible chain of events. Yes it is, but no team is going to say hey we know you are asking for 9, but here have 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Yes it is, but no team is going to say hey we know you are asking for 9, but here have 10. Unless more than 1 team wants his services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 I too see a fellow who plays decently when sent in to play. However, the key element is: fill-in. I have never seen him as a 16-game player, and no doubt the coaches (and the rest of the league when he was FA) have seen the same thing. And "decently when sent in to play" does not equate with Andre. Not even close. It would be a downgrade. Why do you say this? Collins has played well pretty much every time he gets a shot and I personally think he's a better pass blocker than Andre is. Couple that with the fact that the Bengals don't run the ball as much as they should or say they will, and that it's a passing league, then there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Unless more than 1 team wants his services. Perhaps, but do you really think he's going to get 10? I think if more than one want him he may get 9, but hes not getting 10. Lets not be silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Obviously Jamie didn't get the point and he is getting way to caught up in the 10 million number I quoted just as an example. My entire point that everyone else seems to understand is that mike and his crew (hopefully Marvin is heavily involved) are going to put a number that they think Andre is worth. Is it 9 mil? Maybe. But I wouldn't be surprised if they value him at about 6-7 mil a year. If that is the case and another team out there is willing to give 9 then my guess is we won't match and let him walk. That's not saying we don't think his value is 9 mil a year, I'm just saying if we don't think he is worth that much, which is very possible we don't, the. If someone else does and gives him that money we will let him walk. Does that make sense for you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Perhaps, but do you really think he's going to get 10? I think if more than one want him he may get 9, but hes not getting 10. Lets not be silly. I didn't expect Haynesworth to get $100m from the Redskins, or Nate Livings to get $4m/year from the Cowboys. "Silly" is the standard when it comes to NFL free agents. From what I've read so far, I fully expect Andre to sign one of those long-term "blockbuster" deals for some ridiculous sum that he will be lucky to even see half of in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Obviously Jamie didn't get the point and he is getting way to caught up in the 10 million number I quoted just as an example. My entire point that everyone else seems to understand is that mike and his crew (hopefully Marvin is heavily involved) are going to put a number that they think Andre is worth. Is it 9 mil? Maybe. But I wouldn't be surprised if they value him at about 6-7 mil a year. If that is the case and another team out there is willing to give 9 then my guess is we won't match and let him walk. That's not saying we don't think his value is 9 mil a year, I'm just saying if we don't think he is worth that much, which is very possible we don't, the. If someone else does and gives him that money we will let him walk. Does that make sense for you?? makes perfect sense. Bengals have a max figure in mind, and will let him walk if they can't get a deal done at or under it. They aren't going to pay him more than they think he's worth. Some teams will pay whatever it takes to keep a guy (see Flacco), even if its more than what they actually think he's worth. The Bengals don't. That shouldn't surprise anyone. IMO they have a figure in the $7-$8 million range in mind. If that's not good enough to him, then he's likely gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Obviously Jamie didn't get the point and he is getting way to caught up in the 10 million number I quoted just as an example. My entire point that everyone else seems to understand is that mike and his crew (hopefully Marvin is heavily involved) are going to put a number that they think Andre is worth. Is it 9 mil? Maybe. But I wouldn't be surprised if they value him at about 6-7 mil a year. If that is the case and another team out there is willing to give 9 then my guess is we won't match and let him walk. That's not saying we don't think his value is 9 mil a year, I'm just saying if we don't think he is worth that much, which is very possible we don't, the. If someone else does and gives him that money we will let him walk. Does that make sense for you?? I competely got it, it had nothing to do with what I was saying, which was if the Market values him at 9 and the Bengals dont, I dont agree with the Bengals and neither did the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 I competely got it, it had nothing to do with what I was saying, which was if the Market values him at 9 and the Bengals dont, I dont agree with the Bengals and neither did the market. So you think we should pay him whatever he is able to get from another team even if they are over paying for him? And don't say if a team gives him 9M then that is for sure what he is worth because teams over pay for free agents every singe year. The majority of teams could think he is worth 7 but if one team thinks he's worth 9 then we should give him 9 to retain him? You don't think that's over paying? Once again I'm not saying that the bengals value him at 7 maybe they do value him at 9. But if they don't and some other team does he will likely walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 So you think we should pay him whatever he is able to get from another team even if they are over paying for him? And don't say if a team gives him 9M then that is for sure what he is worth because teams over pay for free agents every singe year. The majority of teams could think he is worth 7 but if one team thinks he's worth 9 then we should give him 9 to retain him? You don't think that's over paying? Once again I'm not saying that the bengals value him at 7 maybe they do value him at 9. But if they don't and some other team does he will likely walk. Can we stop with the "what if's" and deal with the reality. He's asking for 9, lets talk about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Can we stop with the "what if's" and deal with the reality. He's asking for 9, lets talk about that. This is still a message board, right? People are free to discuss topics they want, or not discuss topics they don't, right? So why spend so much time discussing something you clearly don't want to? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.