Patrick Peterson?

[BurrowDeep2Chase]

He is projected for a 1 year/5 million contract. He is 33, but had 5 picks last season(T-2nd) and he had a PFF coverage rating over 80. He is also a former Tiger.

Whaddya think?

 

[Cincyfan78]

Likely pass - but I would kick the tires once more clarity involving cap space is known, though I would prefer a longer term solution, and younger, considering Awuzie is up after this season, leaving just CTB and Hilton, and no depth.

I'd look to add a CB in the draft, and find another potential F/A that fits a better long-term role.

 

[BurrowDeep2Chase]

PFF now predicts PP to land with the Bengals. They haven't been very accurate in past years, but its still a fun read, waiting for free agency to begin.

34. CB PATRICK PETERSON​

2023 team prediction: Cincinnati Bengals​

Peterson turned back the clock in 2022 and recorded one of the best years of his career, producing an 82.5 coverage grade, 66.8 passer rating when targeted and nine pass breakups. With Brian Flores’s heavy man coverage scheme coming to town, it’s likely that the 33-year-old Peterson won’t fit in their plans. Enter the Bengals, whose zone-heavy scheme would be similar to what he was running with the Vikings for most of his tenure there. He could complement Cam Taylor-Britt and form a nice trio with Mike Hilton rounding out the group.

 

[BurrowDeep2Chase]

We aren't going to be able to sign free agents with guaranteed contracts this year. We will be putting too much into Burrow and (Pratt, Higgins, Bates, or Bell). Signing some veterans like PP and maybe Bobby Wagner to short term contracts will be the best way to fill our roster. These guys want to win.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

We aren't going to be able to sign free agents with guaranteed contracts this year. We will be putting too much into Burrow and (Pratt, Higgins, Bates, or Bell). Signing some veterans like PP and maybe Bobby Wagner to short term contracts will be the best way to fill our roster. These guys want to win.

Perhaps, but I still see them wanting too much for their production. Wagner seems like a guy that is losing a step. Peterson on the other hand had a vintage year, but once again, he is 33, and he is coming off a really good year where in FA teams may outbid us for him causing his value to get inflated for what we need at a price we need.

Bates and Pratt are gone. Too expensive with guys we have to keep in place. Burrow, Chase, Higgins are priority 1, 2, 3.

I would like to see them bring Bell back, but the rest I think are gone.

 

[cincygrad]

Perhaps, but I still see them wanting too much for their production. Wagner seems like a guy that is losing a step. Peterson on the other hand had a vintage year, but once again, he is 33, and he is coming off a really good year where in FA teams may outbid us for him causing his value to get inflated for what we need at a price we need.

Bates and Pratt are gone. Too expensive with guys we have to keep in place. Burrow, Chase, Higgins are priority 1, 2, 3.

I would like to see them bring Bell back, but the rest I think are gone.

Yes, but if we go with extensions of our key guys this offseason, we won't really have as many cap issues as we do cash issues. The cap hits on Burrow and Higgins extensions won't be that big. Guaranteed cash on the other hand will be a big issue. So, I do see some potential to use available cap space to sign veterans to one-year deals. Having those deals guaranteed only for the single year (and not until after the first week) means that they'll be fully paid by TV money. I'd pay a little extra this year for a vet that is coming off my books next year.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Yes, but if we go with extensions of our key guys this offseason, we won't really have as many cap issues as we do cash issues. The cap hits on Burrow and Higgins extensions won't be that big. Guaranteed cash on the other hand will be a big issue. So, I do see some potential to use available cap space to sign veterans to one-year deals. Having those deals guaranteed only for the single year (and not until after the first week) means that they'll be fully paid by TV money. I'd pay a little extra this year for a vet that is coming off my books next year.

I know what you are saying, but if Burrow helps the team out by taking his bonus in stages he will get a huge bonus chunk this year. Yeah, that may not affect the cap this year, but it straps the franchise cash wise with him and Higgins both taking bonuses equating to probably $60 million this year between the two of them. Most these FA will probably want signing bonuses too, even if it is on 1 or 2 year deals. They have to know some of that contract is guaranteed in case of injury.

So by doing this, we are cap strong, but cash poor, something these FA's are going to want a little of to sign on the dotted line. I am not saying it is not doable, I just think the Browns bought this franchise when franchises cost next to nothing. They come from wealth, but not mega million dollar wealth to billion dollar wealth like most of the new owners. New owners know they can hand out these bonuses no issue, because salaries are still dictated by the cap, and the cap is set with the media revenue. So if they pay out up front money now, they know they will get it back in the end because the system is created to insure the owners stay rich, and the players get paid. Problem is, you need the liquid-able cash to front so many of these contracts now, and the DeShaun Watson contract reset the damn market and hurt teams like Cincinnati where the owner doesn't come from mega millions/billions.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling the Brown family poor, they are extremely wealthy now thanks to this league, but once again, extremely wealthy doesn't mean they have liquid-able cash to pour out in dump trucks to keep the new players happy now that the market and contracts have been redesigned to favor the wealthiest owners.

 

[DanBengalfan]

if he comes in here and he can walk without a crutch, they might.

 

[cincygrad]

I know what you are saying, but if Burrow helps the team out by taking his bonus in stages he will get a huge bonus chunk this year. Yeah, that may not affect the cap this year, but it straps the franchise cash wise with him and Higgins both taking bonuses equating to probably $60 million this year between the two of them. Most these FA will probably want signing bonuses too, even if it is on 1 or 2 year deals. They have to know some of that contract is guaranteed in case of injury.

So by doing this, we are cap strong, but cash poor, something these FA's are going to want a little of to sign on the dotted line. I am not saying it is not doable, I just think the Browns bought this franchise when franchises cost next to nothing. They come from wealth, but not mega million dollar wealth to billion dollar wealth like most of the new owners. New owners know they can hand out these bonuses no issue, because salaries are still dictated by the cap, and the cap is set with the media revenue. So if they pay out up front money now, they know they will get it back in the end because the system is created to insure the owners stay rich, and the players get paid. Problem is, you need the liquid-able cash to front so many of these contracts now, and the DeShaun Watson contract reset the damn market and hurt teams like Cincinnati where the owner doesn't come from mega millions/billions.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling the Brown family poor, they are extremely wealthy now thanks to this league, but once again, extremely wealthy doesn't mean they have liquid-able cash to pour out in dump trucks to keep the new players happy now that the market and contracts have been redesigned to favor the wealthiest owners.

I agree with your point about the Brown family, but I think you're missing the point about being cash poor. The issue with being cash poor is never the current season.... A one year deal has to all go onto the cap and all be paid out in cash in that current season. And, by and large that money is accounted for by the television contract - Meaning, the owners are given the cash to cover the cap. The big issue is the ever increasing trend of teams guaranteeing money in future seasons. In order to guarantee funds beyond the current season, a team must put up to 90% of those funds in escrow (or something similar). But owners don't have access to future years salary funds - So, they have to use other forms of liquid asset to put in escrow. A family like the Brown family does not have a lot of extra cash (relative to the owners that have made their money in other places).

So, for a year like next year.... The Bengals are busy saving cash (naming rights deals, increased merchandise, new sponsors for indoor facility, etc) so that they can guarantee deals to guys like Burrow and Chase.... And maybe Higgins. The cap on any of those deals is likely to be modest for the first year or two. But the cash commitment will be extreme.

So, the Bengals could choose to give some guaranteed deals to some stars and then fill out some key positions with 1-year commitments to guys that won't cost them in money needed to be saved for future seasons.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I agree with your point about the Brown family, but I think you're missing the point about being cash poor. The issue with being cash poor is never the current season.... A one year deal has to all go onto the cap and all be paid out in cash in that current season. And, by and large that money is accounted for by the television contract - Meaning, the owners are given the cash to cover the cap. The big issue is the ever increasing trend of teams guaranteeing money in future seasons. In order to guarantee funds beyond the current season, a team must put up to 90% of those funds in escrow (or something similar). But owners don't have access to future years salary funds - So, they have to use other forms of liquid asset to put in escrow. A family like the Brown family does not have a lot of extra cash (relative to the owners that have made their money in other places).

So, for a year like next year.... The Bengals are busy saving cash (naming rights deals, increased merchandise, new sponsors for indoor facility, etc) so that they can guarantee deals to guys like Burrow and Chase.... And maybe Higgins. The cap on any of those deals is likely to be modest for the first year or two. But the cash commitment will be extreme.

So, the Bengals could choose to give some guaranteed deals to some stars and then fill out some key positions with 1-year commitments to guys that won't cost them in money needed to be saved for future seasons.

They key would be to pay out as much in year 1 as possible, then, correct? You can still spread the hit over the life of the cap, but if, let's just say, Burrow signs for 250M over 8 years - if there is a way to pay at least 50% of that up front...meaning that the Bengals only need to cover $125M for the guaranteed/escrow portion. At 90%, that's...what...110M?? Is that doable for them - I have no clue.

and for the record, I have no clue if that is even doable on a larger scale to start with, let alone for the Brown Family.

Bottom line - "smaller" market/privately owned teams are going to have to really scrape and get creative to find ways to get around this issue. I'm sure there is a way, and some lawyer will figure it out (Is it doing shorter contracts, and paying as much as you can up front with rolling years or team options? Does that even factor into the guaranteed portion until the option is picked up? Could you sign a 8 year deal where year 4 and 5 are team option deals, and where year 6, 7, 8 are player option years? Again - I have zero clue on how this all works at a deeper level - just spitballing as to what possible ways there are to get around the need to hold so much money in escrow at 1 time.)

 

[CrashDavisSports]

They key would be to pay out as much in year 1 as possible, then, correct? You can still spread the hit over the life of the cap, but if, let's just say, Burrow signs for 250M over 8 years - if there is a way to pay at least 50% of that up front...meaning that the Bengals only need to cover $125M for the guaranteed/escrow portion. At 90%, that's...what...110M?? Is that doable for them - I have no clue.

and for the record, I have no clue if that is even doable on a larger scale to start with, let alone for the Brown Family.

Bottom line - "smaller" market/privately owned teams are going to have to really scrape and get creative to find ways to get around this issue. I'm sure there is a way, and some lawyer will figure it out (Is it doing shorter contracts, and paying as much as you can up front with rolling years or team options? Does that even factor into the guaranteed portion until the option is picked up? Could you sign a 8 year deal where year 4 and 5 are team option deals, and where year 6, 7, 8 are player option years? Again - I have zero clue on how this all works at a deeper level - just spitballing as to what possible ways there are to get around the need to hold so much money in escrow at 1 time.)

Is there anyway to guarantee a contract without actually calling it guaranteed forcing the team to use 90% in escrow?

Make the contract for 1 year with 7 following player agreed years so that the player has control to maintain that contract, but the team retains rights to trade said player if needed, but once the player is traded, every single year beyond the current year becomes void so the player can hit free agency if they choose to do that, or the new team has to pick up the tab on the remainder of the contract?

Just trying to think outside t he box. Not even sire if that is possible.

Granted, that creates issues for the team, as the player may see salaries escalating and may choose to void all t he rest of the years so t he team is forced to renegotiate sooner than desired f'n up the cap, or they have to trade him.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Is there anyway to guarantee a contract without actually calling it guaranteed forcing the team to use 90% in escrow?

Make the contract for 1 year with 7 following player agreed years so that the player has control to maintain that contract, but the team retains rights to trade said player if needed, but once the player is traded, every single year beyond the current year becomes void so the player can hit free agency if they choose to do that, or the new team has to pick up the tab on the remainder of the contract?

Just trying to think outside t he box. Not even sire if that is possible.

Granted, that creates issues for the team, as the player may see salaries escalating and may choose to void all t he rest of the years so t he team is forced to renegotiate sooner than desired f'n up the cap, or they have to trade him.

That's what I was kind of saying - there's got to be some creative way to loop around holding that much money at 1 time....

 

[CrashDavisSports]

That's what I was kind of saying - there's got to be some creative way to loop around holding that much money at 1 time....

Considering there is no way in living hell the Bengals will cut Burrow loose before the end of his contract, probably looking to give him another and make him a Bengal for life. Short of him becoming Zach Wilson, or dying, I can't see the Bengals NOT giving Burrow 100% of everything they promise him without having to dole out 200 million in cash up front for escrow.

If Burrow gets a 8 year contract for $400 million, but gets ZERO guaranteed money...Burrow will still get $400 million dollars with 8 years of service. There is no way in hell Burrow is going anywhere unless he chooses to push the issue.

 

[cincygrad]

Considering there is no way in living hell the Bengals will cut Burrow loose before the end of his contract, probably looking to give him another and make him a Bengal for life. Short of him becoming Zach Wilson, or dying, I can't see the Bengals NOT giving Burrow 100% of everything they promise him without having to dole out 200 million in cash up front for escrow.

If Burrow gets a 8 year contract for $400 million, but gets ZERO guaranteed money...Burrow will still get $400 million dollars with 8 years of service. There is no way in hell Burrow is going anywhere unless he chooses to push the issue.

This is the issue.... All of these big deals are "essentially" guaranteed because you can't get out of them until the last year or two - By that point, 80% of the contract has been paid anyway. But, the agents want guaranteed deals for everyone, so they are stuck on the fully (not just practically) guaranteed.