Tuco

Looks pretty normal to me.

I bet he can still bring something to the table. We should kick the tires and bring him in on an incentive laden deal to see if he has anything left in the tank.

"If you keep cutting your own throat, eventually you run out of blood." -- Fred Smerlas

It predates him a little. Thurman Thomas credits Marv Levy with saying that to him for the reason why he never spiked the ball after his first touchdown.

1) As we know, the $5.68 mil was converted to bonus and 3 dead years added so the cap charge would only be the $1.136 mil we see for each year. At the end of 2023 when the contract void kicks in, the final 3 years will accelerate and all be charged as the $3.408 mil in dead cap in 2024. Once a bonus is prorated the only thing that can change it is the player leaving the team, in which case it accelerates the remaining years to the next year. The only way the Bills can stop the final 3 years from accelerating to $3.408 mil in dead cap in '24 is to reach a new extension that turns the voided years into real years. Even doing so, the $1.136 million figures will stay for each year and any new prorated bonus will be added on accordingly. Also, if after this year the Bills decide to part ways and cut or trade him, the final 4 years would be subject to acceleration. If they simply cut him before June 1st in '23 the final 4 years would accelerate and count $4.544 million dead cap in '23. If they cut him after June 1st it would then be $1.136 mil dead in '23 and $3.408 mil dead in '24. 2) Right. There really isn't a lot of difference between the top 51 and 53. I suppose it was made just to give the teams more wiggle room during the off season. Either way,m you generally need more room at the start of the season as, (3) yes the PS guys do count However much they are paid X whatever the number is - I think it's up to 16 now). Plus any player that goes on IR and has to be replaced and both count. Pretty much when they get to the 53 cut down date every player under contract counts against the cap except players on the commissioner's suspended or exempt list. 4) Good question and I'm glad you noticed this. Shortly before Star was actually cut both Spotrac and OTC included a guaranteed $2.5 million in '22 salary in their figures for Star. He also had $2.6 million in prorated bonus for both '22 and '23. That meant if they cut him after June 1st his cap charge would be $5.1 mil dead ($2.6 prorated + $2.5 million guaranteed salary) in '22 the other $2.6 mil dead in '23. Likewise, if they didn't use the June 1st rule, the whole $7.7 mil ($2.6PR + $2.6 PR + $2.5 guaranteed) would be dead cap in '22. That is what the Bills did. And I remember previously seeing the $7.7 million dead cap charge listed. Now there were some conversations (by cap nerds like me, not any of the TV guys or sports bloggers) that the guaranteed $2.5 million salary could have offset language that would relieve the Bills of that $2.5 mil obligation (or a portion of it) and also give them the $2.5 mil (or a portion) back in cap space in the event Star signed with a new team. I don't believe Star signed anywhere else. But I do remember the guaranteed $2.5 mil salary only showing up on the cap tracking sites a couple weeks before Star was released. So it's possible that guarantee was never real. Or maybe it was voided for some reason we'll likely never know about. Those sites rely on 3rd party info for everything and while they do a good job, they do have inaccuracies. Regardless, it certainly looks like the expected dead cap charge for Star's $2.5 mil guaranteed salary is no longer being charged and that's why it's only $5.2 instead of $7.7. And that's $2.5 mil that has at some point been rather silently added back to the Bills cap space.

LOL they change the CBA on the fly all the time. Especially during pandemics. But okay, I get your point and we will see. But in a league which finishes each season with around 2,000 players and starts the next year with over 2,900 under contract, just as with the franchise tag that most players hate when it's applied, I doubt there are too many on either side worrying changing anything for the very few who are affected by the RFA rules.

And I wouldn't. And neither, apparently, would the majority of the players or owners. I do wish you a good day.

Okay, so you're saying if the Bills declined the offer, the Bears got Bates and a week later they converted the guaranteed roster bonus to lower the cap hit - the same cap hit they tried to make the Bills accept - that would have been okay? Or you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it either? I mean, the latter could be a valid point I suppose. But I don't see it as an issue or anything that needs to be changed. And I still maintain the bonus and the decision were due earlier rather than later, though I doubt I can prove it any more than you can prove it wasn't. Nor do I see how it in any way favored the Bills and gave them an edge in signing Bates other than the edge that is purposely built into the system. Or rather, I don't see that it restricted Bates or the Bears any more than it's supposed to. But sure we can differ on that. But I'll maintain my original point that I don't think Beane went out of his way to convert salary (in fact I know it wasn't salary) like so many people think. And I do believe the bonus was put there by the Bears for the same reason.

If you give a player a guaranteed roster bonus, it counts the same against the cap on day one of the contract as it does on June 1st. If you change that bonus to a signing bonus and prorate it, it still doesn't matter if it's before or after June 1st. There is no distinction. The only thing June 1st matters for is prorated signing bonus on a released player. And the only reason you worry about June 1st is if you want to be able to use the rules when cutting a player. And if you're worried about cutting the player in the first year of the contract you don't give him $8.85 million fully guaranteed, nor do you guarantee the roster bonus. And even if you did, it doesn't do any good to use the roster bonus as a reason to make sure the player is still on the team by June 1st. For one you can always use the June 1st rule. And for two, since the bonus is guaranteed, it creates no incentive either way for the player to "make the team." The Bills didn't adjust the contract. They matched it just exactly as the Bears wrote it. And there was no reason for the Bears to make it a guaranteed bonus other than to make the initial amount Buffalo had to have in cap space be $3.5 million. The Bears could have just given the $1.5 million in guaranteed salary making the cap hit $3.5 million or they could have given the extra $1.5 million as signing bonus making the cap hit $2.375 million. Instead they made it with a cap hit of $3.5 with a guaranteed roster bonus, which is ALWAYS converted to signing bonus. They had no plausible reason to do that other than to make the cap hit a little bigger initially hoping Buffalo wouldn't match. Restricted free agency isn't about finding ways for players to get offers. It is, and always has been about the team being able to keep a worthwhile player for at least the same 4 years that all other players have to put in before becoming unrestricted. There's nothing wrong with the system and the Bills didn't adjust the contract. They matched exactly what the Bears made them match. There is only one reason teams put guaranteed roster bonuses in contracts. That reason is so the bonus can be prorated but at a later date than the original signing. The Bears did that, not Buffalo. And you can't show me any player anywhere who ever had a guaranteed roster bonus in the first year of the contract due on or around June 1st. That doesn't happen.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with most of this. First of all, while I can't go anywhere and find you the actual date that Bates' bonus was due, I can similarly say you can't go to Spotrac or any other site and find me a player's roster bonus that is due on June 1st. While you are looking, however, you will find that roster bonuses are overwhelmingly due within the first 5 days of the new league year every year. Yet roster bonuses that are guaranteed are different. They are only made for one thing and that's for prorating guaranteed money but not until a later date than the actual signing. You say you think it was the Bears intention to give the bonus on June 1st and charge it to this year? If they were going to do that they would have just made the $1.5 mil part of Bates' guaranteed salary. The cap charge would have been the same for them and it wouldn't have given Buffalo the so called advantage you seem to think they had in this deal. Nor would have given Buffalo the opportunity to, as you say, disincline the system. (even though i don't agree they did). Why would they make it an unnecessary guaranteed bonus if the only thing that could possibly come from that would be to give an advantage to Buffalo? The whole free agent system was designed, and agreed to by the players, to give unrestricted free agency to players after 4 years. They put restrictions on players with less than 4 years in order to not give them advantages over players who are contractually restricted by their rookie contracts. Drafted rookies have to sign a 4 year contract. RFAs are either undrafted players or are players who were drafted then released and then signed 1 or 2 year deals, so they had their chance at their rookie "payday." In Bates case, he has 3 years accrued. Even being restricted he was, after only 3 years, allowed to shop himself around and secure a minimum of $8.85 million guaranteed. Mean while a guy like Dawson Knox, who was drafted in the 3rd round, is still playing under his rookie deal where he has only ever made a guaranteed amount of less than a million. Both players are in their 4th year. But tell me which one was the more restricted of the two? Will Dawson Knox be able to negotiate a bigger deal when the time comes as a UFA? Probably. But if disaster should strike and something happens to Knox, or any other player in his situation, and he should suffer a career ending injury, well then tell me which player had the better deal overall. Was it the drafted player bound for 4 years to a contract that guaranteed him less than a million? Or the RFA who was allowed to make his case after only 3 years because of not being drafted? I'm sorry but you are not convincing me that the Bears had some weird idea that giving Bates' half of his first year guaranteed money in the form of a bonus due on June 1st or some other time and simply charging it to the cap this season just like they would if they simply gave it as guaranteed salary was anything but a little extra way to make the number Buffalo had to match a little higher and then let the Bears do the same thing Buffalo did if they didn't match. The Bears could have just as easily made that $1.5 mil guaranteed salary, or if Bates insisted he needed more at signing they could have added it to the signing bonus and prorated it. Anything in between was just the Bears (and the Bills according to you) gaming the system. Respectfully, I just don't buy your theory.

Oooh that's a good one! I doubt I can actually find the due date of the bonus so you've got me there. Yes, it was a guaranteed roster bonus. When they're guaranteed, roster bonus and option bonus are exactly the same thing. Both can be converted and prorated or paid and charged to the single season. And I've never heard of a guaranteed roster or option bonus that didn't have a deadline dated on it. But it must have been due at some point this year, right? You don't just leave it up to the team to decide when to pay a roster bonus. And if so, didn't the Bears have the exact same opportunity to convert it to bonus as the Bills did? And it was, after all, the Bears idea to include it in the first place. So I don't see how this is any kind of advantage that the Bills got because of the rules. Or how it in any way limited the Bears ability to sign an RFA. I'm sure the Bears know the rules and wouldn't have included the guaranteed bonus if they thought in any way it would make it easier for the Bills to match. Anyway, I'm glad they kept him. And there's too many people (not you) running around thinking the Bills changed the contract in less than a week by converting salary. Go Bills.

To the bolded is my point. The Bills did not make any adjustment to the structure of the contract. The contract the Bills matched included a guaranteed option bonus that was due just a few days after it was signed. If they didn't match, the exact same option bonus would have been included in the Bears contract. You can't ignore an option bonus. The team is forced to make their decision by the due date. If Bates had gone to the Bears, the Bears would have been in the exact same position. They would be forced to make their decision on the option bonus. And that, is a whole lot different than saying the Bills restructured and converted salary into bonus (which is what Buscaglia and now everybody else is telling everybody). I agree they shouldn't be able to do that. But they didn't The Bills didn't change the structure of the contract. The Bills matched a contract that included an option bonus. When the bonus came due, the Bills were forced, by the rules of the CBA, to make their decision on that option. And if the Bills didn't match the contract, the Bears would have had to do the same thing. Nobody changed the contract or it's structure. But you can't ignore an option bonus. The team's decision is forced.

Well that's what some of you were saying. LOL. Though I see a lot of different stuff different places so I may get it mixed up from time to time. And I wasn't really calling anybody out in particular. Anyway, my original point was, the Bills did match the contract as it was written (as of course, they had to). But the contract wasn't written with a guaranteed $3 million salary in 2022 that then had $1.5 million converted, as was erroneously tweeted by Buscaglia and now is being repeated by every other website and blog. The contract was written with a $1.45 million salary, a $50,000 workout bonus, and a $1.5 million dollar guaranteed option bonus. This was clearly posted on the Over The Cap website last week when they added Bates contract to their page. (and oh how I wish I had saved a screen shot, LOL). In fact I saw the way it was listed and commented on another message board back on Sunday the 3rd that there was a guaranteed option bonus due and that if the Bills wanted they could convert it. Guaranteed option bonuses are only good for one thing, and that's changing guaranteed money into signing bonus but at a later date from when the contract is signed. The term "option bonus" can be misleading, as sometimes contracts do have actual option bonuses, where the team has the option to pay it or cut the player loose - but those are usually referred to as roster bonuses in such cases. But when an option bonus is fully guaranteed, there is no team option as to whether or not to pay it - it's guaranteed after all. The option lies in the team's ability, when the bonus comes due, to either pay the bonus as guaranteed salary during the season and charge the whole amount to the cap in that year (almost never), or to convert it to signing bonus and prorate the cap hit (almost always). Usually guaranteed option bonuses are used in year 2 of a contract in order to push a portion of the prorated cap hit back a year. But for whatever reason, whether to try to make the initial cap hit higher and harder for us to match, or some other reason - it's basically irrelevant since we did match - the Bears included it in year one of the Bates offer. But now I'm rambling. The point is, the Bills did not "restructure" Bates' contract by converting salary. They matched the contract that included the guaranteed option bonus, and then exercised the option to convert that into signing bonus when it came due (even though it was just a few days after signing) - all without changing the contract one bit from the way it was written. In other words, the way the matched contract was written, even if the Bills didn't match and Bates went to the Bears, the Bears would have had the exact same option on that $1.5 million bonus roughly a week after it was signed. Nothing the Bills did changed the contract from the one they matched. That's my only original point. Contrary to popular belief, the Bills didn't change the contract one bit. And people thinking the rules need to be changed because they think the Bills did change the contract by "restructuring" and "converting salary" after only a week are, unfortunately, basing their thoughts on wrong information.

That would leave Bates with a base salary of $0 dollars for the season. That's not allowed. I wasn't really being snarky but let me tell you I understand the cap rules. I wish I had saved a screen shot of Bates contract details from Spotrac when they first went up compared to what they are now. But whether you like it or not, here's the real numbers and how they were changed. (by the way, Bates never had a $1.5 million salary for 2022, it was, and still is, actually $1.45 million) His initial contract looked like this (guaranteed amounts in bold red)- YEAR -- BASE SALARY -- PRORATED BONUS -- ROSTER BONUS -- WORKOUT BONUS -- CAP FIGURE 2022 -- $1,450,000 -- $500,000 -- $1,500,000(GTD) -- $50,000 -- $3,500,000 2023 -- $3,900,000 -- $500,000 -- $0 -- $100,000 -- $4,500,000 2024 -- $3,400,000 -- $500,000 -- $500,000 -- $100,000 -- $4,500,000 2025 -- $3,400,000 -- $500,000 -- $500,000 -- $100,000 -- $4,500,000 And the new figures with the guaranteed roster bonus converted to signing bonus and prorated look like this - YEAR -- BASE SALARY -- PRORATED BONUS -- ROSTER BONUS -- WORKOUT BONUS -- CAP FIGURE 2022 -- $1,450,000 -- $875,000 -- $0 -- $50,000 -- $2,375,000 2023 -- $3,900,000 -- $875,000 -- $0 -- $100,000 -- $4,875,000 2024 -- $3,400,000 -- $875,000 -- $500,000 -- $100,000 -- $4,875,000 2025 -- $3,400,000 -- $875,000 -- $500,000 -- $100,000 -- $4,875,000 Buscaglia mis-stated when he said they converted base salary. They converted a guaranteed bonus. Not sure what's difficult to understand.

LOL really? Bates had a $1.5 million salary that was converted to signing bonus? So now he has zero base salary for 2022? Come on man.

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.