sparky151 Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 you continue to skew facts. Harris played under the RFA tag last year, and Nugent played under the franchise tag last year. Of course they both are making less this year. Both of those tags come with set prices that the club has no control over. They are designed to favor the player. Why this conversation is still going on is beyond me. Now you're being silly. Franchise tags favor the player? If that was so why were the players tagged instead of just signed to market deals? The Bengals tagged Harris, Huber, and Nugent because they thought they were worth the amount the tag would cost. Same thing with MJ this year. This year they decided to give Huber a big raise rather than risk losing him, while striking a fair deal with Harris, and getting Nugent cheap. My view is that Huber wouldn't have gotten as much on the open market as the Bengals offered him and if someone else did offer as much the team should have let him go. Al Davis once paid Shane Lechler 4 mil per year but pretty much everyone regards that as stupid. Punters just aren't worth that much unless a team has a terrible defense and needs an extra couple yards, and doesn't have any defensive players worth paying the money to. That description doesn't apply to the Bengals. In fact of the highest paid punters in the league, only Andy Lee of the 49ers can be said to play for a good defensive team. His contract pays him 4 mil in 2013 but was under 2 mil last year and will pay him less than Huber in 2014. He just has a roster bonus this year and has also made several pro bowls. We overpaid Geathers and Maualuga too if you think I'm just hating on Huber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 No. That was pointed out because you kept harping about this contract having bad effect on cap and ability to sign other parts. None what you've stated is true. He's not overpaid and his contract isn't harmful to the cap. The dollars paid to Huber won't be available for Atkins, Dunlap, Green, Gresham, or Dalton. The Bengals aren't in position to overpay anyone until they get the key guys locked up. In the long run, pay should be proportional to value and punters just aren't that valuable. Rookies make less than vets and some positions pay less than others. There's a reason punters make less than other positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Now you're being silly. Franchise tags favor the player? If that was so why were the players tagged instead of just signed to market deals? The Bengals tagged Harris, Huber, and Nugent because they thought they were worth the amount the tag would cost. Same thing with MJ this year. This year they decided to give Huber a big raise rather than risk losing him, while striking a fair deal with Harris, and getting Nugent cheap. My view is that Huber wouldn't have gotten as much on the open market as the Bengals offered him and if someone else did offer as much the team should have let him go. Al Davis once paid Shane Lechler 4 mil per year but pretty much everyone regards that as stupid. Punters just aren't worth that much unless a team has a terrible defense and needs an extra couple yards, and doesn't have any defensive players worth paying the money to. That description doesn't apply to the Bengals. In fact of the highest paid punters in the league, only Andy Lee of the 49ers can be said to play for a good defensive team. His contract pays him 4 mil in 2013 but was under 2 mil last year and will pay him less than Huber in 2014. He just has a roster bonus this year and has also made several pro bowls. We overpaid Geathers and Maualuga too if you think I'm just hating on Huber. when you're talking about salary/yr, yes the tags favor the player. Their salary is more than it would be if they were working under a longterm deal. Hence why they're making significantly less this year when not tagged despite both coming off good years. This is seriously getting ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Josh Kirkendall @CincyJungle2m Peter King: "Teams that don't spend in the first two weeks of free agency are never applauded." So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 The dollars paid to Huber won't be available for Atkins, Dunlap, Green, Gresham, or Dalton. The Bengals aren't in position to overpay anyone until they get the key guys locked up. In the long run, pay should be proportional to value and punters just aren't that valuable. Rookies make less than vets and some positions pay less than others. There's a reason punters make less than other positions. If we end up a couple hundred thousand dollars short of resigining any of those guys it will be a shame. You can always make room for a couple extra hundred k. If we dont sign those guys it will be cause someone is offering 10M a year and we are in the 7-8M range. Not cause someone is offering 7.8 and we are offering 7.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Josh Kirkendall @CincyJungle2m Peter King: "Teams that don't spend in the first two weeks of free agency are never applauded." So true. If only Peter King had some public soapbox with which to try and change this...like a national weekly column or a TV spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 If we end up a couple hundred thousand dollars short of resigining any of those guys it will be a shame. You can always make room for a couple extra hundred k. If we dont sign those guys it will be cause someone is offering 10M a year and we are in the 7-8M range. Not cause someone is offering 7.8 and we are offering 7.6. And as is well known Mike Brown stays a few mill below cap at any time to cover contigencies anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 The dollars paid to Huber won't be available for Atkins, Dunlap, Green, Gresham, or Dalton. The Bengals aren't in position to overpay anyone until they get the key guys locked up. In the long run, pay should be proportional to value and punters just aren't that valuable. Rookies make less than vets and some positions pay less than others. There's a reason punters make less than other positions. Spin. Of course the same dollar or same cap space can not be paid or allocated to multiple players. Duh, but that is not the issue. What you are side stepping because you are wrong; Huber's deal doesn't harm the cap in regards to any player mentioned above. His cap hit is not top 5 in the league. It is top 10. His cap at no time during the course of his contract would escalate into the current top 3 cap hits for punters. If it is ever deamed to be an excessive cap hit it will be in years 4 and 5. At that point the Bengals would be at risk to fill that spot and take dead money charges of 640K and 320K. That is not prohibitve at all. It is simply not the prohibitive contract you want to make it out to be and YES in fact Huber is making what other punters make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 :jerry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bgal Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Field position is extremely important. Huber does a good job. He deserves top 8 money for his position. I would have been pissed if they didn't resign him just to save money. Huber has been breaking franchise records.. maybe a rookie could step in and be better but why risk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 We can't sign EVERYBODY to the cheapest contract possible and expect any FA to come here. This shows we reward our own if they pan out. I have no problems with this. It's like if we only sign the cheap guys eveyone gets pissy that we don't give out any money. But when we do sign someone, we desperately need to keep every penny for those future mega-contracts. It's a no-win situation... Guy is a good player who was very effective for us. And although we didn't nickel and dime him we got a good punter for 5 years at a pretty good price. Let's move on. I think the vastly more interesting situation is that we have two guys who we think will be back in stripes that keep getting strung along by a slow moving agent. One who publicly acknowledged this via twitter and one who supposedly wanted boatloads of cash and who is third on the Tackle totem pole, below two guys who didn't get top dollar represented by the same agent. I just hope Andre signs before he pulls another agent change off.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I cant believe people are complaining about "overpaying" a punter, the amount we "overpaid" is peanuts and isnt going to prevent us from doing contracts with other guys. Have some perspective, we're talking about a punter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 What was his bonus? It's not like his contract is not alterable. If the Bengals were right up against the cap, yeah complain, but with zillions of space, it's not a terrible move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 What was his bonus? It's not like his contract is not alterable. If the Bengals were right up against the cap, yeah complain, but with zillions of space, it's not a terrible move. $1.6M signing bonus, $1.65M roster bonus, $200K in Workout Bonuses, and $10.55M in base salaries. Over a 5yr contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 What was his bonus? It's not like his contract is not alterable. If the Bengals were right up against the cap, yeah complain, but with zillions of space, it's not a terrible move. We could always make him restructure to avoid the cap hit. It is what the cool teams do. :39: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 We could always make him restructure to avoid the cap hit. It is what the cool teams do. :39: Yeah, that's what I was getting at, no way the punter's contract ruins the Bengals chances of signing one of the other guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Gil Brandt @Gil_Brandt1m Got call from @RosenhausSports, says he has 20 unsigned FAs (incl. Eric Winston, Jenkins). Been in biz 26 yrs, has never seen tighter mkt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Gil Brandt @Gil_Brandt1m Got call from @RosenhausSports, says he has 20 unsigned FAs (incl. Eric Winston, Jenkins). Been in biz 26 yrs, has never seen tighter mkt A tight market never stopped Ben Roethlisberger from getting a deal done. These guys just need to find a way to get it done be it alcohol, drugs, or pretending your hotel TV isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValleyBengal Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Sigh, Dumervil now in our division. I just don't get how these teams with cap problems still manage to sign people like him, while we re-sign our own and stay with the status quo instead of targeting key areas and trying to get better there over what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Sigh, Dumervil now in our division. I just don't get how these teams with cap problems still manage to sign people like him, while we re-sign our own and stay with the status quo instead of targeting key areas and trying to get better there over what we have. x2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Sigh, Dumervil now in our division. I just don't get how these teams with cap problems still manage to sign people like him, while we re-sign our own and stay with the status quo instead of targeting key areas and trying to get better there over what we have. Fortune favors the bold... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiliMVP Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Well the Ravens did lose like 40% of their starters. Not sure if 1 Dumervil signing compensates for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bgal Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 The cap is a semi-illusion. Smart GMs will find ways to make things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Well the Ravens did lose like 40% of their starters. Not sure if 1 Dumervil signing compensates for that. That also freed up a lot of cap space. And Dumervil fits what they want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 Well the Ravens did lose like 40% of their starters. Not sure if 1 Dumervil signing compensates for that. Look at their roster, the # of draft picks they have......I think their demise has been greatly exaggerated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.