Logic
-
Posts
9,667 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Logic
-
-
Supposedly, it's the worst kept secret of the draft this year that Washington wants to move up and get an offensive tackle to protect their new QB investment.
While I don't necessarily trust the veracity of the person who posted the rumor or the specifics of the trade itself, it won't surprise me in the least if we DO trade with Washington.
It's about as far back as I can see Beane being willing to move, too.-
2
-
-
Just now, FireChans said:
Tell that to this dude who thought he checkmated me with this gem lmao
1.) I don't think the post by Appoo that you quoted means what you think it means2.) You still have yet to answer me by explaining the mechanism by which the Bills can trade for Deebo Samuel today.
Talk all the smack you want. Until you can explain how I'm wrong and you're right, it's all just gum-flapping. -
1 minute ago, NoSaint said:
we all agree to terms, it’s the 2025 pick and we wait until June 1 for paperwork?
also gives some runway for other cap maneuvering
The Bills' salary cap space, even with the additional $10 million, still would not be equal to Deebo's cap hit. Indeed, other cap maneuvering would be necessary by Buffalo between now and June 1st.
But it certainly seems to me, though -- and this is backed up by the timing of the Tweets in question -- that people are primarily talking about the 49ers trading a WR away NOW, during the draft. And that, in particular, is what I'm mostly discussing here. -
Just now, FireChans said:
Haha. I know the salary cap terms like dead cap and cap hit get confusing but the 9ers definitely save money trading Deebo. Took a 5 second google search to prove.
You can just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about lmao
Just waiting patiently for you to explain how the Bills pull this trade off.
I know it'll be a nuanced and well thought out plan.
I can hardly wait.-
1
-
-
Just now, FireChans said:
Ur wish is my command
Awesome!
For your next trick, please explain how a trade for Deebo Samuel would be possible.
I beg you.
I'm dying to hear your explanation of how to make this work.
I don't know how else to explain the difference between "believing it's very unlikely a player will be traded away due to the dead cap hit it would create" and "it's literally not mathematically possible to trade for some of the guys Bills fans seem to want".
But please, PLEASE....explain to us how they can do it.Just now, FireChans said:they save $6M by trading Deebo lol. I don’t think you understand the salary cap.
Oh for *****'s sake.
Ya know what? Nevermind.
I've already spent far too much time talking to a wall here.
Believe what you want.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, FireChans said:
“There’s no way we’re paying an extra $3M to have Diggs play elsewhere” energy
Riddle me this: How are the 49ers -- themselves just $6million under the salary cap -- going to eat the amount of Deebo or Aiyuk's cap hit it would take to make this trade possible? Please, by all means, explain it to me.
-
1 minute ago, njbuff said:
There are ALWAYS ways to get around the cap if you truly want a player.
It has been done before and it will be done again.
If Beane wants one of those guys and they can work on trade, it will be done. But who knows.
Sure. In this instance, there is one -- and only one -- way. The team trading the player to us would have to agree to pay that player's salary, or at least enough of it to make the player's cap hit for the Bills less than their available salary cap space.
The 49ers are ALSO quite tight to the cap, with just over $6 million. Anyone think they want get super creative about finding a way to use all of their remaining cap space and hamstringing themselves to the point that they can't afford to sign their draft picks just to pay the salary of a traded-away player to help the Bills out, all in exchange for a 2nd round pick?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, thenorthremembers said:
Unless they traded and resigned one of those players. If they add years to the contract they can then backload it.
I dont want Deebo but its not impossible.
No. You cannot legally negotiate a new contract with a player until he is on your roster. You can not legally add him to your roster if doing so puts you over the cap for even a moment. There is no "hey, give us the day to work out a new deal with him once he's on our roster". That's not a thing.-
1
-
-
Just now, Roundybout said:
Thank god.
@Warriorspikes51 @GoBills808 So do we want to keep doing this for a while longer, or?
And before anyone points out the "nearly" part in that post: It refers to the (incredibly unlikely) possibility of the team we're trading with agreeing to pay the player's salary this year. For various reasons, that's simply not gonna happen.-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Warriorspikes51 said:
we’re not allowed to do anything per _____ expert TBD poster _______
The exact mechanism by which it is literally not possible for the Bills to trade for a WR whose salary cap number exceeds Buffalo's available cap space has been explained several times in this thread. You can flippantly dismiss the reality of the situation by jokingly referring those doing the explaining as "self proclaimed experts" all you want, but you can't change the reality of NFL salary cap rules.-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
What rule are you referring to?
It was posted in this very thread, but since I'm guessing you won't scroll up to look at it:
All NFL teams must be salary cap compliant by March 13th.
It is now past March 13th.
The move would make the Bills, well....NOT cap compliant.
Ergo, it would not be possible for the Bills to trade for a WR who's salary exceeds Buffalo's available salary cap space.
-
This thread is gonna go on for 11 more pages even though this trade would be literally impossible due to league salary cap rules, isn't it?
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
Like how they couldn't trade diggs right
Nope.
That was different.
That instance of saying "can't" was people overstating the unlikelihood of trading Diggs because of the dead cap it would create.
THIS instance of saying "can't" is because they LITERALLY CAN'T. Teams HAVE to be cap compliant at this point in the year. The Bills, by trading for any of the veteran receivers with high cap hits, would be over the cap. You can't negotiate with a player while he's on another team. A trade submitted to the league where the acquiring team would be put over the salary cap by the acquisition will be declined.
I'm not saying it's unlikely. I'm saying that NFL rules make it literally impossible. Significant difference.
4 minutes ago, FireChans said:Gotta have a short term memory to be an elite poster
Or just an understanding of league rules.
2 minutes ago, appoo said:I dunno if the NFL rules allow for this, but for the Bills to get Deebo or Aiyuk they'd have to get an extension in place prior to the trade so they don't break the cap when they take on their contract.
Aiyuk is much more likely as his on his 5th year
NFL rules do NOT allow this.-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:
Hahahahaha another self proclaimed cap expert on WGR telling everyone “definitively” the Bills can’t trade for Deebo or Aiyuk
They um...can't.-
1
-
-
I don't understand how NFL analysts, all of NFL twitter, and four pages worth of posts on this thread don't seem to be acknowledging the following:
The Bills CAN'T trade for Deebo. Literally cannot do it.
The only way it would work is if San Fran said "we'll pay most of his salary this year", which...why would they do that?
Failing that unlikely scenario, the Bills' salary cap situation makes it literally impossible for them to trade for Samuel, Aiyuk, or Higgins right now. They can't afford it.-
1
-
1
-
-
I don't buy it at all.
For one thing, his skillset is redundant with Curtis Samuel's. I don't think you need TWO guys like that on your offense. Curtis Samuel is already Deebo lite. Heck, has list name is even Samuel!
For another, the Bills literally CANNOT trade for Deebo right now. It's impossible. See Tweet below.
Lastly, he's 28 and expensive and hasn't had a 1,000 yard season in several years. I think it's smoke. I think it's a lie.
-
1
-
-
It's really only good listening for comedy purposes.
I remember the year Mitch Trubisky was our backup the first time around. After a not-so-great outing by Josh (I don't remember which game), there was at least one caller very earnestly and pointedly suggesting that we bench Josh for Mitch. Seriously.
For some reason, one's willingness to call into WGR to espouse their opinion seems to correlate directly with how undeveloped their critical thinking skills are.-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
I'm fairly certain the Bills currently CAN'T trade for any of the WRs people are discussing, because they wouldn't fit under the salary cap.
Until the June 1st money kicks in, the Bills have under $5million available.
My understanding is that you can't negotiate a new contract with a player who is currently on another team.
So short of the trading team eating a VERY significant portion of the cap hit, I literally don't think it's even POSSIBLE for the Bills to trade for Aiyuk or Higgins right now.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, HerdMentality said:
This board tells me the choice is DeJean.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d6y5YK7S5pN8WgqF5t6qJSvpyQsA44hDkts8hPHDDSs/htmlview#
Yes but, crucially: That board was not made by Brandon Beane and his staff.
I like DeJean, too. It would be a very logical pick.
I'm just saying...draft boards vary wildly.
-
1 minute ago, Turbo44 said:
I wouldn't be concerned - muscle can be added, height cannot. I'd be thrilled with Franklin at 33 and Baker or Rice, Polk, McCorley, Roman Wilson, Burton as a followup
I wouldn't be concerned - muscle can be added, height cannot. I'd be thrilled with Franklin at 33 and Baker or Rice, Polk, McCorley, Roman Wilson, Burton as a follow up
I wouldn't be concerned - muscle can be added, height cannot. I'd be thrilled with Franklin at 33 and Baker or Rice, Polk, McCorley, Roman Wilson, Burton as a follow up
But should I be concerned? -
Just now, Low Positive said:
Watch this three times and call me in the morning
Thanks, but I watched plenty of Worthy leading up to the draft. I like him. Time will tell if I'm right or I'm an idiot. For the Bills' sake, we realllly better hope it's the latter, because if it's the former, we directly helped our biggest rival get a lot better on offense. Again. -
Just now, jkeerie said:
Last night's take was the most illogical opinion I'd ever heard you express, Logic.
In truth...just about anything the Chiefs do pisses me off as a matter of course.
Yeah.
It was a combination of me liking Worthy a lot and disliking the Chiefs a lot.
So to sit around for three plus hours eagerly awaiting the Bills pick, then to see that the guy I liked was still on the board, then to see that we traded that pick to the Chiefs, then to see them use that pick to take the player I liked....I was pissed.
Emotions sometimes win out over calm-headed logic. I am human.
I STILL don't love handing a 4.21 receiver to a team we historically can't stop in the playoffs, but I'll live.-
4
-
-
The Panthers trade was awesome. The 33rd pick is arguably more strategically valuable than the 32nd, because it's very coveted by multiple teams, and you have an entire day to compare various offers and re-set your board, vs having 10 minutes on the clock at pick 32.
Yes, you give up the 5th year option, but that's only of major consequence for QBs and, as the PFF blurb points out, is not as valuable as it once was for other positions.
The Chiefs move was good in a vacuum, and without it, the Panthers trade could not have happened. Obviously, trading with the hated Chiefs still stings.
Taking emotion out of it, it's hard not to conclude that Beane made intelligent strategic choices.
...But I was still pissed off last night.-
11
-
8
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
-
It's gotta be Franklin tonight, right?
-
1
-
NFL looking into an 18-game season and having the Super Bowl on President's Day weekend.
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I don't know how many times I need to say it, but...the NFL is Icarus.
