Steely Dan

My feeling exactly. The Bills need to bring some more talent into camp at WR but right now WR is the deepest position on the team. If Furrey is willing to play for vet min then bring him in it can't hurt but anything over that is a bad idea. JMO Save it for the PPP board. This is a football discussion.

To save us both time on searching the internet for the answer to this definitively, I emailed Chris Brown to see if he can settle this once and for all. This is what I wrote: Hey Chris, could you please settle an argument for me. I believe a team can amortize a signing bonus as they see fit. If they know they're going to be way under the cap in the following year they can get rid of that bonus off the books in two years. A friend of mine says they have to amortize it over the life of the contract in an even manner. Can you settle this once and for all. I have a feeling my friend is right. He usually is but, I'd swear that it can be amortized any way the team wants up to and including amortizing over the life of the contract. Thanks a lot.

Dibs, you are always 99.99% right but I could swear I've heard teams can amortize as they see fit.

They seem to conflict don't they?

Here's one explanation of the cap from 2005. An expression that was thrown about repeatedly during the various labor meetings is "cash over cap". Well, these signing bonuses are what insiders were talking about, when they brought up that term. One of the things that held up negotiations amongst the owners with the last CBA extension (back in 2006) was the move to place some kind of cap on the amount of signing bonus money that could be pushed into future years for cap accounting purposes. Although there was no cap on signing bonuses, there was a limit put in place (for 2006) that signing bonuses could only be prorated for up to five (5) years -- but that moved up to six (6) years in 2007. That sounds to me like signing bonus' don't have to be pro-rated evenly. Here's a synopsis of the cap in layman's terms. I have to go out for a little while but when I get back I'll see if I can find more about it.

If TE is ripping up the league after 7 games next year the Bills will give him a better contract but I can't see it before then. Don't turn this political jackass. Save it for PPP if you feel you must make your political views known. I know, Greer and Jackson aren't making any money at all next year, so far. You have a better idea for a conversation start your own thread. If you don't care then don't read. Douchebag.

Ok, ok, I'm mainly picking the Giants due to being able to laugh my ass off for the rest of my life so take my 85 Bears as the answer. Happy Now!! The 49ers team with Craig was a great team too. Craig was one of the best RB's ever.

Dumbass! It's just way too funny. I wonder if there's any legal repercussions for what he did? Probably not but I hope this gets splashed all over the media.

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Probably, but the Chiefs are asking for too much and Gonzalez doesn't want to play here.

I doubt the government gives these idiots any money. It's most likely funded by a group of people who can't debunch their panties. Agreed, I don't think that ad is as bad as some I've seen but the SB game has been somewhat more conservative with their ads. They've banned a GoDaddy.com ad before. For PETA this has worked out even better. They don't have to pay the exorbitant SB ad prices and are getting more pub than they could with the Super Bowl ad itself.

I found it hard to believe they aren't making a profit but I guess Florida law is effed up. If they can't make a profit then I agree with you and it appears with the Florida law is they really can't. I just can't believe a state run by a Bush would have a law like that.

Jeez this guy is desperate. The Coleman campaign said tens of thousands of page views brought the site down, but the explanation on mnpublius says ColemanForSenate.com has handled much more traffic in the past, and that it's also pointing to an IP address that goes nowhere. “The new Coleman website features a page where voters can search a database to determine if their vote is one of the thousands of voters the Franken campaign is seeking to disenfranchise,” Coleman's campaign said.

I disagree with the underpayment of TE. He hasn't proven yet he deserves more money IMO. If he has a good season this year and leads the offense then he deserves a raise but he's not one of the best QB's in the league right now.

Don't look if you're someone who doesn't want to see these things. This is a gallbladder that has been removed from a patient. Kinda looks like a cornucopia. Here's a picture of a couple of stones. An inflamed gallbladder. Kinda looks like a bullfrog. This one's gross! A gallbladder full of stones. This one looks like a cornucopia too. I have to say NBF I didn't think you had enough gall to get that removed! BA DUM BUM Ptsch!!

Thanks for the info. The only experience I've had with gall stones is when my grandfather had his removed and they put them in a jar for him to take home. They were really cool to look at. They were a lot bigger than you'd believe. See if the doc will let you take yours home. They're great conversation pieces! Here's more info.

Jackson doesn't count because he's not under contract with Buffalo right now. It has to be someone under contract.

Obviously we can't tell anything about the EFA, RFA, and FA's now but of the guys under contract who do you think? This includes total contract at the time of signing and what they are worth now. My votes are: Most overpaid: Tie: Derrick Dockery, 3/2/2007: Signed a seven-year, $49 million contract. The deal contains $18.5 million guaranteed, including a $16 million signing bonus. $8.1 million of the signing bonus was paid immediately. 2009: $2.75 million, 2010: $4.5 million, 2011: $5.65 million, 2012: $6.575 million, 2013: $6.775 million, 2014: Free Agent Aaron Schobel, 8/24/2007: Signed a seven-year, $50.5 million contract. The deal contains $21 million in guarantees, including Schobel's first four base salaries. 2008: $1.5 million, 2009: $3.5 million, 2010: $6.025 million, 2011-2012: $6.5 million, 2013: $8.5 million, 2014: Free Agent I'm leaning more toward Dockery because he really hadn't done much before getting his contract and he seems just ordinary. If he makes the Pro-Bowl this year then maybe he'll start earning it. Schobel had injuries this year but that has to factor in to it a bit. If he stays healthy this year then I think Dockery will win the award outright. Most underpaid: Marcus Stroud: 4/14/2005: Signed a five-year, $31.5 million contract. The deal included a $6.5 million signing bonus and contains $12.5 million in total guarantees. 2008: $3 million, 2009: $3.5 million, 2010: $4 million, 2011: Free Agent This is assuming Stroud doesn't get a contract extension and raise this offseason and I'm pretty sure he will be given one. Josh Reed, 3/17/2006: Signed a four-year, $10 million contract. The deal included a $2 million signing bonus. 2008: $1.825 million, 2009: $2.025 million, 2010: Free Agent

Sorry, the 2007 Giants. Better. There's someone who gets it!! Other than the Giants I'd say the 85 Bears. They were coached extremely well and weren't afraid to let The Fridge run it in at the goal line. They were a fun team too!

Ok, you know the most about this stuff but, if they are front loading contracts then it would seem there would be very little cost toward the end of a contract. Here are Lindell's numbers: 12/26/2006: Signed a five-year, $9.1 million contract extension through 2011. The deal included a $3.5 million signing bonus. 2008: $1 million, 2009: $1.09 million, 2010: $1.36 million, 2011: $1.45 million, 2012: Free Agent. So if his bonus is evenly amortized over the life of the contract that would mean the bonus would be $700,000 per year. He would have received $700, 000 in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The remaining unamortized cap hit would be $1.4 million. That's if they amortized it evenly. I would believe the brunt of it would be amortized in the front. Especially because the Bills have been under the cap recently but, lets assume $1.4 million is still owed, on the books. Then his salary for 2009 is $1.09 million. It would cost the Bills $310, 000. Not much of a hit at all. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that his bonus has already been wiped off the books and so Buffalo would save $1.09 million by cutting him. Also he's 32 years old and IMO has a fading leg. We'll see, I guess.

I would tend to agree but let's say they are cutting the estimate by a third that still means 9% vs. 14%. I don't know for sure but I still think it comes out better in the wash. See this is the type of garbage I was expecting all of the ultra-conservatives here to spew. Are you saying GG that insurance companies can't turn a profit with these regulations or is it they can't maximize their profits due to regulations? I have a feeling it's the maximize thing but do you really believe that insurance companies will leave because they don't make a profit?

Umm, as far as I know you can pick your doctor more or less. They don't mandate your doctors.

You're right, they should all be unregulated so they can raise their rates indiscriminately. Why should the government interfere?

I'm too tired to find a link now but Medicaid runs at about a 3% overhead and BCBS at about 14%. 'Nuff said. Isn't that the American way? If they only write policies for 18 to 40 year olds then others will have to go to another company. The fact is that you believe in government regulation of insurance companies and believe it doesn't go far enough. I thought the whole idea was to keep government out of business as much as possible. If SF had higher costs due to hurricane damage why shouldn't they be able to recoup those costs by passing them along to policy holders? If they don't like it they can move.

WTF? First it's been proven that Medicare and Medicaid run at a much more efficient level than private insurers. Your solution is to have over a hundred thousand different health care systems and when somebody is injured a 1000 miles away then only their counties health care plan would apply. I see that as one big flustercuck that would be unimaginably difficult to manage.

I didn't miss the point at all. You're saying the regulation of the company didn't go far enough. They should have regulated everything they did to the point of kicking them out of the state. You thought it would work against you and so you agreed with the regulation that kept them from getting the 47% increase because that would have been bad for you. I don't understand why you thought the 47% increase was bad at all. I'd think you'd be against them regulating that in any way. After all in a capitalistic society it's the laws of supply and demand that make everything work without any necessary regulations. If they had made that 47% increase then customers would just go to other companies. What's your problem with that? Edited to add: The reason they wanted to raise those rates, I believe, is due to higher costs from hurricanes. If you don't like it move.