Tuco

Here's the deal - First of all, the confusion starts right in the beginning when Busgaglia tweets the Bills converted $1.5 million of base salary into signing bonus. WRONG!!! Bates didn't have a $3.0 million base salary for 2022 that they just converted $1.5 million of. His $3.5 million cap hit originally listed was in the form of $1.5 million base salary, $1.5 million guaranteed option/roster bonus, and the $500,000 prorated from his original $2.0 million signing bonus. Let's get to the $1.5 million guaranteed option/roster bonus. Whether it's called option or roster is irrelevant, the fact that it's guaranteed is what's important. Because the bonus is guaranteed, by rule the team has the option when the bonus is due to convert it to guaranteed salary and keep it charged to the current season, or to convert it to signing bonus and prorate the cap hit over the life of the contract. This is a very common tactic, but usually used in the 2nd year of a contract. Look at Stefon Diggs new contract. It came with a $16 million guaranteed bonus in year 2 that will automatically be converted next year and prorated. In Diggs' case it's so the team can split up his signing bonus proration. They can only prorate for 5 years so they give Diggs a certain amount of bonus this year and prorate it for the next five, then give him more guaranteed bonus next year and prorate it through years 2-6. This type of thing is nothing new. It's a great way to give the player a bigger bonus yet still keep the cap hit low in year one. And teams have been doing it for years. Now back to Bates. As I mentioned, the contract the Bills matched called for a $1.5 million bonus to be paid this year. The only reason a team would normally add such a bonus is so they can convert and prorate when the time comes. Now it's entirely possible the Bears did it on purpose to try to leverage Bates away. If they head simply made the $1.5 Mill bonus part of the initial signing bonus then Bates cap charge for '22 would have been the $2.375 million figure it is now instead of the $3.5 million figure the Bills had to match at the time. Was this a Bears trick to try to make it harder for us to match? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But the important part of all this is that despite what Buscaglia's tweet says, the Bills didn't "restructure" anything. They matched the contract as it was written and then converted a guaranteed bonus into signing bonus. It's possible the Bears had written it so the conversion would be automatic on a certain date, in which case the Bills doing this could actually have simply been a formality. Regardless, just so we all know, the Bills did not "restructure" any "base salary." They simply converted a guaranteed bonus into a signing bonus, which teams are free to do at any time and was probably the Bears plan to do also. And now a word about a somewhat related subject. I've seen a lot of people here mention they thought you couldn't restructure a contract for a year. Well that's not exactly true. The CBA says that after a contract is renegotiated (note that says renegotiated, not restructured) to give the player more money, then it can't be renegotiated again for a full year. That's different than a restructure where the money stays the same, and basically means if a player with an existing contract is given a new contract for more money, they can't do it again for at least a year. But it doesn't apply to an actual restructure where the player's money stays the same. Go Bills.

But this isn't entirely true. Yes, as the IPP player he was subject to the rules. But Wade had the choice every year to go out and find a team that wanted him. You don't just take a player from the off season 90 man roster and "assign" them to the practice squad. Not even an IPP player. At the final 53 cut down, Wade had to be kept on the 53 or cut and subject to waivers just like every other player. He was cut and nobody claimed him in any of his years. That made him an unrestricted free agent every year, just like any other cut and unclaimed player. And he was free to sign with any team's 53 man roster, or any team's regular practice squad if any team wanted him as such - including Buffalo. And his 3rd and final option, as an IPP player, was to sign with Buffalo's practice squad as an exempted IPP player, knowing at that time he signed he wouldn't be able to be called up during the season. Wade made the decision to sign to the PS as an IPP player rather than stay a free agent and hope some team would pick him up every time. I guessing he knew more about his situation than most of us. And this last sentence isn't necessarily aimed at you. But a lot of people were always complaining that the Bills were holding Wade back by keeping him as an IPP player and not letting him go to another team. Wade had his chances to go to any other team every year. Yet he either chose to stay on as an IPP player because he liked it and had a steady paycheck, or, very likely, because no other team wanted him as a regular player.

Aww shucks. It's likely really a 2-3 year deal that will stick us with a good amount of dead cap in '25 or so. But everybody knows that. I would expect to see a modest but guaranteed first year salary, and of course a signing bonus prorated for 5 years. Year 2 will be more costly but still not as bad as it will initially seem. The reason it's 6 years is so they can include more fully guaranteed money at signing but spread it out a little further. Expect year 2 to have a nice large guaranteed option bonus that will show a large cap hit in 2023, but will be converted into signing bonus at the start of '23 and can then be prorated over years 2-6 of the deal. Year 2 will also likely include a trigger of some sort that will guarantee at least some of the '24 salary. As will year 3 and maybe even 4. Or possibly a sizeable roster bonus instead. Either one will force the Bills to make a decision early on an aging vet with a monster contract starting in 2024.

I get the guy wasn't good last year. But cutting him without a replacement seems unnecessary. We always go into training camp with 2 punters out of 90 players. One of this year's punters will be the same one who was here all last year. Who, outside of $100,000 in total roster/workout bonus, just agreed to eliminate his guaranteed salary and to accept the minimum salary for a 5 year player. Previously, we would have had to cut him before March 19 in order to avoid his guarantee kicking in. That would have saved us $1.2 mil while leaving $700,000 in dead cap. We still get the dead cap by cutting him later. Nothing can help that. But under this new deal, we've already saved $415,000 of that $1.2 mil. And we can still save the rest of it, but with the luxury of not having to cut Haack until we want to - any time up to the 53 man roster cut down in September. So let's review- Before- --$1.0 mil guaranteed salary if not cut by March 19 --$275,000 roster bonus March 19 + $25,000 workout bonus = $300,000 also basically guaranteed since it's paid on March 19 also. --$1.2 mil (cap) savings if cut before March 19. --Cutting him before March 19 would leave us with no punter/holder, needing 2 new, unfamiliar, outsider punters/holders to head into camp. After- --Nothing guaranteed except $100,000 roster/workout bonus --Base salary is minimum allowed for 5 year player. Again, Haack is now on a minimum salary + $100,000 bonus deal with no guarantees or any kind of penalty for cutting him at any time through the off season instead of by March 19. --Already saved $415,000 of the $1.2 million cutting him before March 19th would have saved. --Get to go into camp with one of our 2 punters/holders as the same one we had all last year. Can still save the rest of that $1.2 million by cutting him any time (actually $1.55 million if cut after June 1st). I get a lot of you just want him gone. Our GM disagreed and has decided to keep last year's punter for continuity, camp competition/ camp body, etc., until such time we are sure we have someone better. Having made that decision, outside of $100,000 in bonuses (down from $300,000), while eliminating salary guarantees and deadlines, he couldn't have gotten Haack on a better team friendly deal. I know it's a free country and all. But if I'[m gonna spend any of my time complaining about any of Beane's contracts, this ain't one of them.

Technically, according to the CBA, any restructure is a new contract. In this case it's a new contract for less money and the removal of the guaranteed portion. He's basically now getting league minimum and most likely going to have to compete for his job.

You need to understand the reason for giving "permission to seek a trade." Yes, everybody knows he's going to be cut. They knew that before he was given "permission." And yes, everybody knows his cap hit. Also before. And no, nobody is going to trade for him at his current cap hit. Everybody knows that. Now consider, if some team wanted to trade for Beasley at his current 1 year contract and cap hit, they would just trade for him. The Bills don't need to give Beasley permission for that. Permission to seek out a trade allows another team to go ahead and make a deal with Beas before the trade. Maybe offer him $3 or $4 mil a a year - or maybe a 2 year deal. If they can come to an agreement and give the Bills a small amount in trade, then all 3 parties are happy. The new team gets Beas without having to outbid other teams in free agency. Beas gets to go to a team where he wants to be at a mutually agreed on price. And the Bills get whatever compensation they can for a guy they're going to cut anyway. The catch to all this is, Beas and his agent are not allowed to discuss any type of new contract with another team while still under contract with the Bills. Unless the Bills give them permission. So this way everything can be hashed out ahead of time. Maybe the Bills said to Beas we'd love to keep you but your age, our cap situation, etc. means we can only do so for $2 mil this year. Allowing Beas to seek a trade allows him to go out and gauge other teams interest in how much they're willing to pay. And if they reach a deal that's enough more than the Bills offer, and if the team agrees to give the Bills whatever (anything is better than nothing if we cut him - even just a 7th in 2023 0r '24), then everybody benefits. And this avoids the alternative. If the Bills wind up cutting Beas because he thinks he can get more than the $2 mil (or whatever) the Bills are offering, then he goes out and finds out there really isn't as much market for him as he thought, then Beas has to consider re-signing with Buff for the $2 mil (or whatever) they offered. Giving him permission to seek a trade (gauge his marketability) is much more about letting Beas decide whether or not to accept the Bills pay cut offer (if there really is one - " . . . though GM Brandon Beane told me late yesterday the team would welcome him back and 'no door has been closed' . . . ") before being cut, than it is actually expecting a team to give up much for him.

Pretty sure the deadline for the RFA tender is before the start of the new league year - next Tuesday. Then the deadline for the player to get and present an offer sheet from another team is usually around a week before the draft. April 22ish I think it is this year. Worth mentioning, once the RFA tender is applied the amount counts against our cap right away. So for example, we are already something like $3.5 mil over the cap. If they put a tender out there on Bates for whatever amount, say $4 mil, the $4 mil instantly figures into our top 51 cap figure and raises the already over $3.5 mil by that much more. The Bills need to start making cap moves soon.

You can. Doing so allows the team to cut the player early on to avoid paying roster bonuses, etc. but still give the team the benefit of being able to spread to prorated signing bonus (dead cap) into the next year as though the cut was made after June 1st. The catch is, that prorated roster bonus still counts against the cap until June 1st when it is then divided between this year and next. So basically its- 1- cut the player early, like in March, and save on his roster bonuses, etc. and also - 2- Designate him a June 1st cut and push some of the dead cap into the next year, just as would normally be done if the player was cut after June 1st, but- 3- You still have to carry all of the dead cap until June 1st actually rolls around. The June 1st designation has its place, but it's useless as a form of creating cap space at the start of the league year.

But June firsting Star doesn't give us the savings until June 1st. We would need to do something earlier.

It could mean that. But giving permission to seek a trade means giving permission to see what kind of new contract other teams are willing to offer. Just for the sake of example, maybe the Bills said we'd like to keep you this year but only for $2 mil. Beas may have said, I think I can do better on the market, but if not maybe I'll agree to stick around for that much. At which point then the Bills say go ahead. Two mil is all we're going to pay. If you can get $3 mil someplace else and all we get is a 7th for you, that's still better than us just cutting you so go for it and let us know. Just don't take too long. He could say just cut me. But then he might get a deal for $3 mil. But he might also only get a deal for $1.5 mil. Then nobody's happy. This way it gives a chance for something that can benefit both parties or can still be resolved between them depending on the numbers.

His roster bonus is due 6 days after the start of the new year. There is absolutely no reason his trade can't be consummated before then. In fact, if the whole idea is to get rid of his cap space in time for the start of the league year (which, at this point, is when we need it), the trade can and should be agreed to ahead of time so it goes into effect at 4:00 PM exactly at the start of the new league year. He does have the cap hit for his prorated signing bonus, but that will hit our cap whether we trade, cut or keep him so it's moot.

Oh. . . . never mind.

I'm still stuck on Aunt Suzie's birthday gift. Even though it isn't exactly related to Ticketmaster, it still falls under the same new laws. So Aunt Suzie gives you $1,000 for your birthday. The law says this isn't taxable because the amount is under the taxable threshold for birthday presents from Aunt Suzie. But Aunt Suzie is hip. She's not like grandma. Aunt Suzie is with the times and she uses venmo to send you the same $1,000 gift she's sent you for the last 15 years. Enter the IRS. Now that Aunt Suzie used venmo, there will be a 1099 form generated. You may get this form and throw it out since you know it's not really taxable. Yet when your taxes are filed, the IRS will know you omitted this 1099 form in the amount of $1,000 from your reported income. They won't know it's not taxable, and they won't really care. They will just know that your income listed on your tax form doesn't match theirs. Now in typical IRS fashion, they will presume you guilty of tax evasion. They will send you a bill for the $70 or whatever your tax on $1,000 comes to, plus a generous penalty and late fee, etc. You will now have been judged by an agency of the federal government and found guilty. Fortunately, this is America, and you will be given the opportunity to prove your innocence. This will take a bit of your time and maybe cost you some money, but hey, it's a small price to pay for freedom. Eventually you may prove your innocence and can then claim a small victory against the IRS and their strong arm. Yay. Of course you can avoid all this trouble by listing the $1,000 on your tax return, and going through the trouble of proving it was just a birthday gift from Aunt Suzie ahead of time. Or you can persuade Aunt Suzie to mail you a check like she did for so many years. Although the IRS has already tried, and will most likely eventually succeed in treating that $1,000 bank deposit in the same manner. We didn't really think the IRS was increasing its workforce by 15% to go after GM and Haliburton did we? And none of the above used to happen unless Aunt Suzie's and your other venmo transactions totaled over $20,000, or more than 200 transactions. But starting in 2022 that threshold drops to $600 and a single transaction. Yet somehow there are people who think this is all a good thing because, hey, we need roads to drive and new STADIA (Bills related!), and have to pay our share.

First of all, I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in subsidizing any business. While at the same time it should be the state and local privilege to decide where they want their tax dollars to be spent. But that's a much bigger argument than just a handful of stadiums around the country. The fed gives all sorts of tax breaks to all sorts of big businesses all over the place. The taxpayer in New Mexico vs the stadium in NY argument could go on endlessly. Why does a tax payer in NY pay for a new building for Boeing in Seattle, or why does a tax payer in Florida pay for a farm subsidy for all the farm land Bill Gates bought in Montana? This argument is practically endless when talking about ways the fed gives away tax dollars to rich people. Now in many cases these arguments are dealing with immediate taxpayer handouts to these rich people. They take federal tax dollars and give them, directly, to rich people. But what we're talking about here isn't any sort of federal negotiation regarding how much federal tax money will go directly to funding any NFL stadium. What this bill is talking about is eliminating the ability of the NFL to use interest free federal municipal bonds (interest free loans) to fund their stadium. They're basically talking about the portion of money that the NFL matches from the team owner (look up NFL G4 program), both of which are generally financed (and repaid) with these interest free municipal bonds. In effect, the fed isn't paying for the stadium or any portion of it outright. They're not even giving any direct tax subsidy like they do with so many other businesses and rich people. They're just lending the money to the team and the owner - and possibly the state for all we know - and letting them repay it without interest. This, of course, all looks good on paper. The fed helps state and locals build bigger and better by lending out interest free bonds. And it does technically "cost" the federal government money in the form of lost interest. But not nearly as much as an outright tax subsidy where the tax dollars are just given to the businesses. The fed isn't giving the tax dollars to the team and league, they're loaning it to them without interest. Just as they do with thousands of other businesses. Now if we want to eliminate federal tax dollars, subsidies and interest free federal loans to all businesses, I'm all for it. But that isn't what's happening here. Any news story about this bill begins with the fact that some Washington politicians aren't happy with Dan Snyder's Commanders and their behavior and lack of cooperation. In the world of federal tax subsidies to businesses, eliminating interest free federal loans for sports stadiums amounts to a grain of sand on a large beach. And this bill is clearly much more about a political pissing match than it is saving the fed any substantial amount of money. And, as others have said, it probably won't go anywhere. It's just a publicity ploy being used by unhappy politicians against Dan Snyder - and unfortunately - the rest of the league. But of course we'll have to watch it closely as our Bills are one of the few teams currently looking to build new. Thanks Dan Snyder.

They already do get paid for bye weeks in the playoffs. Other than that, great post.

I don't Billieve in this crap. But just in case, during the regular season, on game day, I have breakfast at the local diner around 10:00ish - making sure to drink my coffee left-handed and with only one refill. Then I go shopping at TOPS to stock up on whatever my game day crock pot dish will be. Then, before going from TOPS to Family Dollar, I drive around the block - even though the two stores are right next to each other. When the Bills lose I change directions the next week. I keep up the above tradition through the playoffs. Also, in the Fall of 1990 I said I wasn't going to shave my beard until the Bills win the Super Bowl. Outside of two fund raisers, I have stuck to that promise. Yes I do trim it, so no I don't look like Rip Van Winkle. But like I said, I don't really Billieve in this stuff.

You would think by now Dada could afford 2 TVs.

Two what? Did you say Utes? What is a Ute?

FWIW in the, "Pats* beat Miami/ Bills lose to Jets" scenario we would lose out on common games. Bills would have wins against MIA(2), NO, HOU, NYJ, CAR, ATL, for a total of 7 wins. NE* would have wins against MIA, HOU, NYJ(2), CAR, ATL, TENN, JAX for a total of 8. To the OP, if it becomes a 4 way (it won't, but if it does), it would then be 1 Cincy, 2 Ten, 3 Buf, 4 KC.

Thanks. Should be okay now.

How about one play that sums up our running backs lack of vision - If he bounces this outside instead of turning it in we're talking about how our team put together a great drive into that horrible wind and took the lead. No vision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94wLZgdbsX8

Boettger was at the 5 and still moving forward when they stopped the feed on the replay. But at that point Josh changed course and it was another 2 seconds where you couldn't see Boettger before Josh threw the ball.

Yeah the only way it could really happen is if a team did it on purpose. And the only reason I can possibly think of to do that would be if the team was in the final game of the season and needed to win with a point differential of more than the 1 or 2 points would give them a playoff tiebreaker. Say the only way the team could make the playoffs was to win by 4 points, and a touchdown puts them up by 1 point. Rather than go for 1 or 2 and win by 2 or 3 they could take the 1 point safety and give the other team 1 point. That would tie the game and send it to overtime, giving the team a chance to win by more than 4. Of course this scenario would be extremely rare anyway since the point differential is so far down the tiebreaker list. The NFL adopted their current tie breaking procedures in 2002, adding SOV, SOS, offensive and defensive rankings all before getting to point differential - and I don't believe they've ever gotten further than SOV in that time. Before that I think there was an instance of point differential being used in the '70s. So I guess it would take a coach looking to add an oddity to his or a player's resume. Like Bellycheat* letting Doug Flutie kick a drop kick for the first time since the '40s. I do remember seeing a high school team use the above scenario with a regular safety to get his team to OT for that very reason, but I don't remember how they fared in the end.

There were 73 games with a 0-0 score between 1920 and that game in 1943. Of course it was a different game back then, LOL. I find it interesting that 4 points was ever only scored once in the whole history of the league, when the Racine Legion defeated the Chicago Cardinals 10-4 in 1923.

Interestingly, there was a 1 point safety in a college game in 2004. Then another one in 2013 that just so happened to be called by the same broadcast announcer.