CircleTheWagons

Obviously I want the Bills in Buffalo but don't blindly accept that the rule was made to move the Bills. When a new owner buys the Bills, he will make a valuation of the team. Part of that valuation would be the present value of an $8-10 million revenue stream every year. The current value of that stream would go into Ralph's pocket (or estate) at the time of the sale and the other owners would be on the hook to continue paying the money. The other owners are simply saying that any new owner of the team should not pay for that revenue because it won't be there. Instead of being a $770 million sale price it's now $600 million, since the new owner will need that extra $$$ to generate the revenue the other teams are unwilling to pay. Ralph gets less money but the economics of the Bills stay the same WITHOUT extra handouts from the other owners.

Well, Marv knows the league, but I'm not sure the Bills have the talent to compete yet

Sep 10 @New England W Sep 17 @Miami W Sep 24 N.Y. Jets W Oct 1 Minnesota W Oct 8 @Chicago W Oct 15 @Detroit W Oct 22 New England W Nov 5 Green Bay W Nov 12 @Indianapolis W Nov 19 @Houston W Nov 26 Jacksonville W Dec 3 San Diego W Dec 10 @N.Y. Jets W Dec 17 Miami W Dec 24 Tennessee W 16-0 on the way to 19-0. I'll be happy to split the winnings with all the other fans than can only pick Bills games with their hearts.

Good point. I think the problem wasn't the Bills, but the fact that they needed Moulds to work with them in the process rather than against them. When Moulds said he wasn't willing to renegotiate here, or even play in Buffalo, it was the end of your BATNA. Our best alternative quickly became cutting him. If Moulds had been willing to renegotiate with the Bills and allowed the Bills to shop him quietly under his new contract we might have had an opportunity to get more. Heck, even if he allowed the Bills to match Houston's offer then we could have put some real pressure on the Texans.

I guess we will have to disagree. The Texans knew they were getting Moulds, it was just a matter of timing. If I was a Texans fan, I would be choked that we gave up a draft pick for a player we could have in a few weeks for free. They are also in need of all their picks.

Marv's hands were tied. Houston had an agreement in principle with Moulds and I'm confident that his new contract was shopped around to see if there were any other takers. Now Moulds knows that if he sits tight, he's going to Houston, either in a trade or after he's cut. Every other GM is unwilling to pay Houston's $$$, so they're uninterested - Moulds will be a Texan. The 5th rounder is what the Texans are willing to pay to get Moulds in camp earlier and resolve the issue. They easily could have waited and got him for free.

The NFL no longer allows public ownership (Packers are the exception). I'm not sure if it's to avoid public scrutiny or to keep it a rich boys club.

Fair enough. But if Marv's willing to accept so little, doesn't it suggest that Marv didn't expect Moulds to contribute to the Bills this year? Of course I'm reading into it, but I think Marv decided that Moulds had to be re-signed to a new contract, traded, or cut before his next payment was due.

I think most of the people thinking he would be released (including me) said that he would be released before the Bills paid him any more money. The fact that the Bills settled for a 2nd day pick tells me that we were right. If there was any chance Moulds was going to play for the Bills this year, do you think they would settle for a 5th rounder?

But the Eagles may not have been willing to meet Moulds' salary expectations. I think there was only one bidder willing to pay Moulds ... so Marv either does the deal or Houston waits until he is cut. I'm impressed we got anything for Moulds - good job Marv!

Well, I'm fairly confident that we're not going to win it all this year, so I hope the Bills lose every game - no sense gambling on getting the first pick. I would never suggest any fan is anti-Bills, but I'll never hope the Bills lose a game, even if it's the difference between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf.

I remember a lot of talk early in the off season about the owners wanting to change the amount of money allocated to rookies - making it significantly less than they were receiving in the old CBA. Does anyone know if there have been any significant changes to rookie contracts under the new CBA? Oh yeah, just so this isn't considered off-topic, MOULDS, MOULDS, LOSMAN.

I'm pretty sure the rule is meant to prevent the Bills from not paying Moulds. They don't have to PLAY him but they have to PAY him.

I'm not a huge anti-Moulds fan - I have his jersey, but I would not characterize him as a "high character" guy, expecially over the last couple of years. Besides the "incident" in Miami last year, he has been complaining about "his" QB problems limiting his career and apparently actively campaigning for one of the QBs to start. In addition, I don't remember reading anything about Moulds working with our young receivers or QB in the off-season to help improve the team. I think Moulds is all about Moulds. I don't think it's unusual, in fact I think it's typical of NFL players. In no way would I compare Moulds to Owens. That doesn't mean that I think the Bills should plan on Moulds as an asset on the roster this year. I can't believe Moulds would be in favor of either of the young QBs on our roster or performing in the #2 role. I also hope he gets traded - but I don't think anyone but some Bills fans think there is any chance he will be on our roster this year.

Moulds will not refuse to play, instead he will be a distraction, play uninspired, and collect $7,000,000. He'll then be worth less in a trade next off-season and we will still owe him another $7,000,000 for 2007. I hope he gets traded but I won't be suprised to see him cut before he collects his reporting bonus (whenever that is).

Are you saying that Moulds will be worth more the longer we hold on to him - if we settle for a 5th now, Levy screwed up because he could have got a 3rd later? If that's what your suggesting, then remember that a higher draft pick later will be for 2007 draft, not the 2006 and will have unknown value based on that's team performance next year. Second, everyone else who thinks Moulds has any trade value seems to believe that we have the power NOW, rather than later because of teams filling out their roster, losing cap space, and going in other directions by training camp. Also the closer we get to camp, the closer we are to paying that roster bonus. I will be happy if we can get anything for him - I still think there is a good chance he gets cut before training camp.

I've seen this reference to the Bills "holding all the cards" a few times, and I just don't understand it. According to clumping platelets contract details, we probably have to give Moulds a $1,000,000 at the start of camp. For a player who won't renegotiate and isn't interested in being here, I don't understand why the Bills would pay it, so I'm assuming that Moulds will get cut before camp. If my assumption is correct, or even if the GMs thinking about Moulds believe it's correct, why would they trade for him? Is it really worth a draft pick to have him attend off-season workouts? The only benefit to trading for Moulds is if he's willing to accept a reasonable contract - but I think he would rather see what he can get on the open market before signing as a second-level receiver. If the Bills don't cut him before camp, Moulds gets a $1,000,000 for showing up. If we don't cut him before the start of the season, we owe him another $6,000,000. It appears the only threat we have is that we cut him late in the off-season when other teams don't have any cap room left, unfortunately with the increase in the cap this year, I'm sure there will still be several teams able to sign him to a cap-friendly contract up to the start of the season. Hopefully the Bills don't get caught playing poker and chicken while everyone is playing football.

I voted TKO, but that list just reminds me that the current Bills lack talent (sorry ).

I'm sure Marv tried - nobody wants to trade for Moulds with his current contract. How can Marv make a trade when every other GM wants to know Moulds salary expectations. Marv: How about a 3rd for Moulds? Every other GM: Interesting, but not at his current contract. What's he asking for? Marv: He wants us to honor his current contract, so about $6,000,000 Every other GM: (crickets chirping)

I think that's a great comparison. Do you not think the Pats tried to trade Lawyer before they cut him? I think he was still considered a top safety at the time and they couldn't find a trading partner.

The Bills are living up to the contract - they have the right to cut Moulds and void the remaining years on the contract. I look at the signing bonus player's receive as their compensation for the team's right to void the contract.

I completely agree with your point, but I don't believe the Bills need leverage with Moulds because he's not playing here this year. The only advantage of a team trading for Moulds is that they will not have other teams competing for a new contract. If teams feel like he wants too much money, why bother trading for his rights? NOBODY is going to honor his current contract. The sooner he figures that out, the easier it will be to move him.

Travis wasn't due to be paid the amount of money that Moulds is due, so that's not a valid comparison. The reason his advisors are looking for a trade partner is simple - Marv couldn't find one. The problem for the Bills is that they can't renegotiate Moulds' contract for the new team, only Moulds can. Nobody will trade for Moulds without a new contract - only Moulds knows what he will accept so Moulds need to work it out.

What about after the start of camp? Forget the cap or other free agents - do you think Ralph will pay $6,000,000+ this year for Moulds? If Moulds is here for opening day, he's owed that money.