Tagging Justin Smith will cost over $10 million

by Josh Kirkendall on Feb 12, 2008 8:55 AM EST in Contracts

Tagging Justin Smith would cost the Bengals $10.372 million, writes Mark Curnutte. Why such an increase? Because last season Smith was paid $8.644 million and franchising a player means you either pay the average of the top-five salaries at that position or an increase of 120% from the pervious season's salary -- whichever is greater.

Take $8.644 million and multiply by 120% and you get $10.372 million. Take into consideration that the league's salary cap is rising to $116 million and that's 8% of your payroll going to one a guy that recorded only two sacks in 2007. That's highway robbery.

Additionally, by tagging Smith and if you figure that the Bengals trade Chad Johnson, that would cost the team $18.4 million. That jumps to 15.9% of your salary cap for only two players -- one that won't even be playing for the team. Therefore, you have to wonder, if the Bengals are entertaining trade options for Johnson, would that prevent the team from tagging Smith?

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Less bang for your buck....

I think he is quite overpaid.
He works pretty hard, and is a good football player, but is not a great fit for our defense.
Let him go......

by Sloppygolf on Feb 12, 2008 12:18 PM EST reply actions

Hobson's latest Q&A

Check out Hobson's latest Q&A. He suggests that the Bengals will either use the franchise tag on either Justin Smith, Madieu Williams or Stacy Andrews. How could we possibly do that? Don't we learn? The way you consistently win in this league is to not overpay people and none of these guys are top 5 players at their position.

I might be able to understand franchising Madieu if we cut Dexter Jackson afterwards. I guess it might allow us to see how the new safeties develop. Hobson says tagging Madieu would be $4.4 M. Cutting Dexter saves $2 M.

The other two make zero sense to me. Stacy doesn't have enough starts and we are already paying our tackles ridiculous amounts for the return they have given us.

You said it all on Justin Smith. This was our biggest mistake last year. It would be embarassing to do it again.

by mp45242 on Feb 12, 2008 9:51 PM EST reply actions

RE: Honestly

I don't see why we should tag anyone. The guys that would leave in free agency aren't the type of guys you can't easily replace in a draft.

by Josh Kirkendall on Feb 13, 2008 9:32 AM EST reply actions

Reason for the tag...

...could it simply be be because no one wants to stay here?

That Chad is hardly alone in wanting -- just more vocal about it?

From all reports, long-term contract talks have gone on with Landon, Justin and Stacy at least. All have rebuffed the Bengals' advances. Even Dhani "cut by the Saints last year" Jones appears in no hurry to re-up for another tour in Cincy.

Faced with the potential flight of every UFA on the roster, the team may throw the tag on someone just so they can keep one player, regardless of whether they are actually worth the pay or not.

by BeerRun on Feb 13, 2008 10:48 AM EST reply actions