BarleyNY

My bet is that there was an agreement to keep him at a certain % of cap or at a certain level amongst his peers when the last deal was signed.

Told ya all

It was written as a six year contract, but effectively it was a 3 year deal with a team optional 4th year. I wrote that on here the day the contract details became public.

$20M AAV puts Rousseau 13th among Edges. (That assumes early reports are correct.) If so, that’s ridiculous. He’s not a difference maker, so why give him difference maker money?

There’s no way to calculate cap space until the contract details of all these extensions come out. Were just gonna have to sit tight until then. Also it’s worth looking at cash spend at that point too.

Pegula will maximize his earnings. How much he has to sink into the stadium is irrelevant to that. This isn’t a cost plus model.

Maybe you don’t understand who Rousseau is and what his limitations are. He’s a useful player. But what he’s good at isn’t what’s most important and most valued for Edge players. He’s a good complimentary piece, but he’s never going to be a difference maker. That’s okay, but you have to be careful how much cash and cap space gets tied up in players like that. It’s not a loser mentality to be aware that teams have limited cash and cap space. Yes, this extension will open up cap space this season, but overall it will take up significant space Also there is a cash budget it will eat up a chunk of. Not acknowledging or understanding that is pretty juvenile.

Spotrac is really bad at projections. I wouldn’t use them for anyone. OTC’s valuations are better, but they’re usually still off. Plus they are for the previous season so you have to extrapolate them. I think they had him at $17M+ for 2024. The problem with these simple calculations is that there is no nuance. You have to see how players play against better competition and in high leverage situations. They aren’t set up to do that.

Said it in the Bernard extension thread. Pressure to not backslide this season. But moves like this also limit the team’s ability to improve.

I will wait for details, but it looks like an overpay for a good, not great player. Definitely a pattern now.

missed that. mods feel free to merge/delete

I said it when the details of the stadium deal were made public - the smartest facet of the deal on the part of Hochul/NY state was that Pegula would be responsible for cost overruns. It looks like $800M in overruns will be borne by them versus the taxpayers. Guessing the sale of 10% of the team will eventually cover most of that. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/03/06/bills-seek-650-million-debt-waiver-as-stadium-costs-creep-upward-again/?issueId=7DNGCRPR7NEGRHNA2O7LOH5EM4 “The Bills are seeking an exception to NFL debt limits to borrow $650 million to fund construction of the new Highmark Stadium, where costs continue to climb far beyond the original budget, sources said. According to the Bills’ request, per sources, the stadium will now cost $2.2 billion -- that’s up $100 million from the last official reportsfrom Erie County Stadium Development Corp., and now $800 million higher than the original estimate of $1.4 billion.”

I agree and those are the scenarios I’d like to see play out. Don’t pay him like he’s going to take a big step forward that will never happen.

Depends on Rousseau’s contract. If I’m him I hit FA next offseason unless I get the bag from Buffalo. He’s not worth $20M-$25M, but some crappy team will do it (just like with Edmunds). The Bills shouldn’t do it, but with the Bernard extension it seems like they probably will. The Benford deal tells me that there is pressure on them to not backslide in 2025. They aren’t looking to take unnecessary risks that could cause a backslide (even if there is upside to doing so).

IMO Benford should have been first.

Agreed. I was hoping the Bills would upgrade MLB. Extending him after his 2024 season is a very, very tough sell for me. He in no way earned an extension. I will wait on contract details before I finalize my opinion, but I don’t see how this could make sense.

It would equal out for this season, but there’d be an additional hit next season.

At the end of the day everyone understands that it’s a business. Can there be hard feelings with the player that gets tagged? Sure. But so what? It’s the rules the players agreed to and it’s what everyone has to live by. As for whether it’s good business. Often it is. Teams that abuse it are the Bengals of the league. It’s not the defining issue with them, it’s a symptom of how they do business.

It’s worthwhile to hear what the “company men” in the media say about such things. Listening to Tasker, it’s not the way the Bills are going to do business. They want backups that get along well with Allen and can help him prepare for games. I think it’s worthwhile to draft and develop a later round backup. The Bills aren’t going to do that anytime soon. It is what it is.

The reason isn’t because teams are afraid of hurting players’ feelings. Teams have been smart enough to get ahead of signing their quality players and have been getting that done early. Cap considerations are certainly part of that. Players get security and teams get a cheaper deal. The huge jumps in the cap have been very helpful because it’s provided the space for teams to keep more of their own players. Probably. But how much depends on the contract amount and structure. Also that’s IF we franchise tag him next offseason. There’s the transition tag for less. Or maybe he falls off and we sign him for a lesser contract - or not at all. Or maybe he goes off and we do franchise tag him. That’s fine too.

Okay. Franchise tag. a) that’s a long way off and a lot can happen in a year and b) it might piss off Cook, but I do not see it impacting any other player’s opinion of the Bills.

So who thinks that the culture and general appeal of the Bills will be significantly impacted if the Bills hold firm at a number they deem appropriate and a deal doesn’t get done? I sure don’t. I thought I was clear about that aspect of the discussion.

So you’d just give every player everything they want? lol. And do you think that team option restructures aren’t baked into virtually every contract these days? Talk about amateur GMing. Players are happy when their teammates get paid, but they all take care of their own business. Whether or not Cook gets paid means nothing to them when it comes to their own money.

Can’t say I know much about him other than he’s a OLB/Edge, but this is odd on its face. They have plenty of cap space and plenty of needs. He’s still in his prime years and has two seasons left on his contract. $17.5M each, no guarantees. So either he isn’t living up to that and he’ll likely be cut or he is and wants a contract extension with some guaranteed money and TEN doesn’t want to give him that. Anyone have any insight? Edit: Looked up his 2024 PFF grades (for what that’s worth). Excellent against the run and very good in coverage, but poor in pass rush. That would explain TEN wanting to cut ties. If that’s accurate, hard pass.

I disagree on your point about what you hope many rookie players can become. Take Henderson for example. He not only has been an excellent runner in college, but he’s also been excellent in pass protection and as a receiver. The hope for him is that all three phases translate to the pros and he’s an excellent all around back, something Cook isn’t. Some other rookies will be expected to shoulder a high workload and be on the field for short yardage situations, also things Cook can’t do effectively. I hope we can work something out with Cook. He’s an excellent runner and he helps this team, but he is limited in several areas. There is no way should he get close to the $15M AAV he’s asking for.