Is Mike Brown a Spend Thrift?
by Jay McDonnell on Mar 8, 2010 6:00 PM EST
in Analysis
20 comments
Since following into his father's footsteps, Mike Brown has developed a reputation as being a spend thrift. We fans have accused him of being Ebenezer Scrooge. Not willing to part with the pretty penny to bring high profile free agents, favoring profit over winning. Even to this day, our attitude toward this has barely waned despite some changes over the past decade that may show the opening of his checkbook. This reputation is so steeped in history that the Bengals are often used by high profile free agents to posture for a higher paycheck from another team
All through the 90's Brown appeared not concerned about winning but turning a profit. His tight fisted mentality helped turn a proud franchise into a laughing stock of the NFL, if not professional sports as a whole. The only team able to supplant the Bengals as being the "'worst" was the Los Angeles Clippers of the NBA during the same time period. Being labeled "worst" didn't seem to faze Brown as he refused to acknowledge the lack of spending was the cause of the team's problem. Each year he would stand in front of the media preaching how the team was just one or two players from being a winner.
There is a theory by many that a large payroll brings championships. Spending money on countless high priced free agents will secure a winning season that will culminate in a championship. But does this philosophy translate to the NFL? And has Brown's spending habits changed in order to bring that elusive championship to our beloved team?
The information presented below is from the USA Today Salaries database which begins with the 2000 season.
Since Marvin Lewis arrived in 2003, there is a belief that he influenced Mike Brown's spending habits to become more of a player in free agency. Since Lewis's arrival, the team has performed well on the field this past decade then during the 90's, considered the worst in franchise history. Is it because of a different approach in spending? At times this decade, the teams' salary was in territory that big market teams find themselves. Below is a breakdown of the spending habits of Brown over the past decade.
|
Season |
Total Team Salary |
Rank |
|
2000 |
54.1 Mil |
18th |
|
2001 |
81.9 Mil |
4th |
|
2002 |
57.8 Mil |
24th |
|
2003 |
85.4 Mil |
4th |
|
2004 |
68.8 Mil |
30th |
|
2005 |
74.8 Mil |
25th |
|
2006 |
113.0 Mil |
4th |
|
2007 |
98.5 Mil |
21st |
|
2008 |
109.7 Mil |
20th |
|
2009 |
93.8 Mil |
28th |
The total teams' salary appeared near the top three times, but did not produce anything better than an 8-8 record for 2003 and 2006. In 2001, despite having the league's fourth largest salary, they finished a dismal 4-12. After the disappointing seasons, the team dramatically reduced total team salary. In the team's two post season appearances this decade, the Bengals' total salary never cracked the top 20. After a playoff season in 2005, the Bengals increased the total team salary.
Since 2000, only one Super Bowl winner had top salary in the league which was the Indianapolis Colts in 2006. In stark contrast, the 2007 New York Giants team salary was the league's lowest for that season. Of all Super Bowl winners this past decade, five teams had salaries in the top ten. Three teams had salaries that did not get into the top 20, and two of those teams were the New England Patriots in 2001 and 2004. The New Orleans Saints, this past season's Super Bowl champion, had a team salary that was fourth.
So what would an increase in the teams total salary show? For one, it would dispel the rap of being cheap and it shows a willingness to win. It is not a guarantee for a championship as some may think. It might give them a chance at being successful and bring excitement to us fans about those prospects, but there are many variables that occur during the season that have an impact on that season's success.
The Bengals have shown at times they are willing to open their checkbook. With this being a non-salary cap season, Brown and company may not be as willing. It could be that the skill level of unrestricted free agents is considered low in comparison to past seasons, or it may be a feeling that free spending may not lead to success. Should we demand and expect the Bengals spend more to bring us a winner? Or do we accept the idea that spending less may bring the success we desire? With the current level of Bengals activity, I would expect spending less would be the order of the day with the belief it will bring success.
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This was a good article.
But I do have to say that most winning teams keep the spending up for more periods of time, or consecutive years to keep players and continuity in the locker room. It looks to me that the spending that MB does on the years that he was up (on the chart) was followed by a dramatic decrease. That means getting rid of key players or letting them walk. (Steinbach?) for one instance. This is the whole problem. He has a good year and then decides to make up the money (that he tells himself) he lost, in the next year by letting good players go in FA and picking the bottom of the barrel FA . What matters is when the contracts are coming to an end and what player the contract belongs to.
YES, he is.
I don’t have a problem with the pay the Bengals front office spends their money in regards to players.
But I do care about keeping the team operating well and spending the money necessary for that. This seems to be something that Mike Brown and co. are not very good at doing. We need a bubble over one of our practice fields by the stadium. The team shouldn’t be chartering buses to take them to Mason for practice during Cincinnati winters. This shows that Brown isn’t thinking about the end of/post season (i.e. the most important part of the year!)
Free agents are a crap shoot in a lot of ways. Switching teams can have very positive or negative effects on a player (see Randy Moss in NE, and TO in Philly for respective examples.)
I believe that Marvin and his scout(s) have a good eye for talent. The playes taken since 2003 have all had great upsides. Injuries, crimes and tragedy have been responsible for many of these talented draftees’ declines (Thurman, Pollock, Irons, Henry *tear.)
Look to early 2000’s NE for examples of what building through the draft can do for a team. This is cheaper and more effective than spending big in free agency.
The most telling stat
Is that half of the teams that have won the super bowl have had a top 10 salary base, which means that you increase your odds of winning if you spend that much. Also, Brown was in the bottom half of the league in spending in 7 out of 10 of those years. I still think he’s cheap.
This is our year!
Really? If half were in the top 10, then that means half were not. 50/50 odds seems like a crapshoot to me.
Now if say 60% of the remaining were in the 11-16 range, then that might support you a bit more. But unfortunately that data wasn’t provided.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
But unfortunately that data wasn’t provided. isn’t an accurate statement, because 60% of the remaining were below 20, and we don’t know where the remaining two were.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
You’re still not looking at it correctly. If all things were equal (a normal bell curve), one would expect that the the 50% would be evenly distributed through the top 16 teams. However, we already know that half of the teams that won the super bowl (past 10 years) were in the top ten, which means that it was not evenly distributed….This tells us that Super Bowl winners over the last ten years have been weighted more heavily towards the top third in spending. If you factor in the other top six teams in terms of spending, it still just proves my point even further.
This is our year!
Perhaps, but neither are you. Because only one of those top 10 teams still won the super bowl. The other nine still lost out.
So the 90% odds of spending a bunch of money and STILL losing even IF the winner comes from the top 10 means that spending money is not some sort of panacea.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
Of all Super Bowl winners this past decade, five teams had salaries in the top ten. Three teams had salaries that did not get into the top 20, and two of those teams were the New England Patriots in 2001 and 2004.
I’m just quoting the article, if those facts are wrong, then I’ll admit that I screwed up.
This is our year!
Stacy Andrews
has taken a pay cut to stay in philly… It appears he only started twice last year.. Economically seems like a good riddance…
I have no problem with avoiding big-ticket free agents
That said, if we’re going to build through the draft, we have to invest in a better scouting staff. Avoiding FA and trying to draft with a skeleton-crew…it’s just not smart.
And maybe also better position coaches who can develop the raw talent we get our hands on.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
I think the key for the Bengals is to resign the players that have been proven their worth. Ala Jonathon Joseph, Cedric Benson, Leon Hall, Peko, etc. That is one of the things that makes me leery about getting a high priced WR like Marshall. Would signing a guy like that prevent El Cheapo from signing one or more of those other guys (long term)?
I think if Brown wants to prove he’s committed to winning, he needs to get a capable FA WR, and extend the contracts of our best players.
I wish they explained how they calculated those numbers
Those numbers seem a little odd to me. It is my understanding that most teams, since the CBA, spend at or near the salary cap every year. I noticed that some teams they have spending way over the cap in a given year (how did Oakland spend 152 million in 2008 when the cap was 116?) There is also a league minimum, which seems to be routinely violated by these numbers as well. Therefore, the differences seem to be a little suspect.
When teams spend under the cap, typically it isn’t out of “cheapness” as much as it is preparation for the likelihood of injuries and players getting hurt during the season with new signees coming in at lower salaries.
As far as Mike Brown being cheap—I have no problem with Brown philosophically with regards to team building. Use the draft primarily, and use the FA market to fill gaps. The Steelers do it that way and have won 6 Super Bowls. The Packers do it that way, so do the Colts. Lots of successful teams do.
I agree with above however—if you are going to do that, you need to invest in scouting and training to get the best players, develop them, and give them a reason to stay.
+1
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."
by KentuckianaBrowncoat on Mar 9, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
