Well butter my buns… the Bills might be forced…

[Dr. Fong]

The rank and file of the NFLPA should jump at this.

[Mr. WEO]

Doc said it but nobody is listening. Haven't the Bills always spent close to the cap? Ralph has not gone for huge bonuses, but they's spent the money haven't they?

 

We need our capologist...who was that guy? Mike?

I agree. Let's move away form the "Ralph is cheap" stuff and on to "Ralph is incompetent". It's seems more accurate.

 

Signing bonuses absolutely count against the cap. Just, they can be amortized over the course of the contract. Unless, iirc, that player is traded, cut or retires; then, the balance/unpaid portion counts toward that year's cap.

 

Ostensibly, that was Butler's choice when he released Andre, Thurman and Bruce in [ON EDIT] 2000 --- to put the Bills through a shorter-term "cap hell" in order to come out fresh the next year.

A lot of guys here don't understand this.

 

[/size]

Sorry billsfreak. It's just an old saying… "butter my buns and call me a biscuit."

 

 

Actually, the argument as properly stated is not that "you have to spend big to win big" but rather, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the team that spends more, wins more."

 

Think of the Pittsburgh Steelers or Green Bay Packers with Daniel Snyder's or Jerry Jones' war chest.

 

If that were the case, these two teams would possibly be playing each other in the Super Bowl every year with that combination of excellence in management AND unlimited financial resources.

 

Why would we need to think of that?? The Steelers and Packers are doing just fine without Jones's war chest. That's the whole point! "Big spending teams" blow cap money on a few players. There has been and will be a salary cap, you know.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[dollars 2 donuts]

One small point here, and please correct me if i am wrong: if you are a small market team with a new owner counting upon some of that money to offset some of your financing...you are screwed.

 

In other words, if you are interested in buying the Bills it is going to be that much tighter for you, money-wise, to break even.

 

...I don't think this is necessarily good news for the Bills' future.

Edited June 16, 2011 by dollars 2 donuts

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Why would we need to think of that?? The Steelers and Packers are doing just fine without Jones's war chest. That's the whole point! "Big spending teams" blow cap money on a few players. There has been and will be a salary cap, you know.

That's part of the point.

 

The other part, again, is that all things being equal, a team has a greater chance of being successful if it spends more money.

 

A big budget team wouldn't be "blowing cap money" if it had great management.

 

If two teams both have equally great management, the team with the bigger budget would have a greater chance at success.

 

 

[Matt in KC]

We need our capologist...who was that guy? Mike?

He used to post as Clumping Platelets and deserves all the praise we can heap on him for his cap posts and page he maintained/maintains(?) at Billszone.

 

I just looked him up and don't see any posts on the "new" TBD, but don't know if he just took on a new screen name.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the old CBA had the teams going to a 90% minimum eventually, but don't remember the details. I thought last year was 88-89% of ~$130, which would mean this year's change would be $2-3 million at the most for teams going from the old minimum to the new - - not exactly a huge change.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I think the old CBA had the teams going to a 90% minimum eventually, but don't remember the details. I thought last year was 88-89% of ~$130, which would mean this year's change would be $2-3 million at the most for teams going from the old minimum to the new - - not exactly a huge change.

But once again, Matt… the newest proposal sets to eliminate the use of "dead money" applied to the cap.

 

And teams can and have carried tens of millions of dollars in dead money in the past.

 

One small point here, and please correct me if i am wrong: if you are a small market team with a new owner counting upon some of that money to offset some of your financing...you are screwed.

 

In other words, if you are interested in buying the Bills it is going to be that much tighter for you, money-wise, to break even.

 

...I don't think this is necessarily good news for the Bills' future.

Without knowing their bottom line, we'll never know.

 

However, what if somehow the Bills have the right management team in place now and the extra money they spend manifests itself in a better product on the field?

 

What happens to the bottom line then?

Edited June 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[PDaDdy]

Here is an interesting idea. How about an individual player salary cap? It could be a flat number say 10 million a year or it could be based on position where certain skill positions like QB can make 10 million but a Guard say might be limited to 5 million. In addition to this modification the league would also have to grant the right to the players current team to match any offer. This would allow small market teams to be able to keep and pay their homegrown superstars.

 

Currently a small market team that is lucky enough to draft a future star will almost invariably have them lured away when their rookie contract is up. Some teams will always be able to out pay certain teams. Even more importantly, all things being equal salary wise, players flee small market bad weather teams for the big lights of larger market cities. Even pay for even pay would you rather play in Miami or Buffalo? "I'm taking my talents to Miami." It's a no brainer for a young man in his prime with lots of money. This addition would give the little guys a chance to match and prevent poaching by big market teams but without having to match incredibly over inflated salaries.

 

It would almost be like restricted free agency for any player after their contract is up. The playing field would be leveled. If the player did sign with another team there could be some sort of draft pick compensation. Perhaps not as heavy as current restricted free agency but perhaps as good as or better than compensatory picks that are awarded when free agents are lost and do well with their new team.

 

Obviously there would be a lot of details to work out but the concept is a sound one and would make the NFL and players moving around so often seem a little less mercenary and a little more family.

Edited June 16, 2011 by PDaDdy

[Scrappy]

Keeping money into the system is what's important to the players, so I can see this being a good concession that improves the working conditions for all the players.

[Matt in KC]

But once again, Matt… the newest proposal sets to eliminate the use of "dead money" applied to the cap.

 

And teams can and have carried tens of millions of dollars in dead money in the past.

Thanks for the clarification. I needed it after skimming this on a quick work break.

 

 

 

Isn't dead money just counting against the cap money that was indeed previously spent on players but not amortized because the player left the team prior to the end of their contract? I don't see any way losing this accounting helps the Bills. If anything, wouldn't it encourage the rich teams to sign players to unrealistically long contracts then not have to count the "dead money" and be allowed to spend more on the next wave of contracts?

 

 

Sorry if I'm setting the conversation back. If i've missed the boat again I promise to go back and read before posting more opinions/questions.

[KollegeStudnet]

You guys are retarded...The Bills have almost always spent 90% of the cap

[PDaDdy]

You guys are retarded...The Bills have almost always spent 90% of the cap

 

I think the point they are trying to make is that they will be changing what does and doesn't count against the cap and raising the floor to 90%. I think the idea is that there was a lot of funny accounting going on and spending wasn't really what it appeared to be. Lets say for even numbers that the cap was $100,000,000. If a team had $20,000,000 in dead cap money and spent $80,000,000 on current player salaries they would be using up 100%. In reality they are really only paying their current active staff 80% of the cap.

 

I'm not sure of the details and I could be completely wrong but I think they are speaking to this sort of concept.

Edited June 16, 2011 by PDaDdy

[Beerball]

He used to post as Clumping Platelets and deserves all the praise we can heap on him for his cap posts and page he maintained/maintains(?) at Billszone.

 

I just looked him up and don't see any posts on the "new" TBD, but don't know if he just took on a new screen name.

That's the guy, thanks. I'll see if I can find him.

 

<edit> if it is/was Billszone then he hasn't updated the cap page for quite a while.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Isn't dead money just counting against the cap money that was indeed previously spent on players but not amortized because the player left the team prior to the end of their contract? I don't see any way losing this accounting helps the Bills. If anything, wouldn't it encourage the rich teams to sign players to unrealistically long contracts then not have to count the "dead money" and be allowed to spend more on the next wave of contracts?

 

Sorry if I'm setting the conversation back. If i've missed the boat again I promise to go back and read before posting more opinions/questions.

There's always the apparent effects of a rule change and the unapparent or unintended effects.

 

Like you, I'm still working this out in my mind.

 

I agree with you that if dead money is eliminated from the equation that this would allow the Daniel Snyders of the world to jettison bad contracts more easily and throw "fresh cash" at the newer, shinier models. In other words, teams would be penalized less for signing bad contracts.

 

From a different perspective, the NFL salary cap is a zero sum game in that there will be a finite number of players divvying up a finite amount of money.

 

If one accepts that, then the players as a group may benefit by more money being paid out, but no teams would benefit from the standpoint of a competitive advantage… other than the fact that richer teams might be hurt less than poorer teams.

 

However if one assumes that all NFL teams are more or less profitable, the rule proposal might only cut into their profits and not turn black ink into red ink.

 

I'm not convinced that such a rule change would hurt the Bills nor am I convinced that it would help them either.

 

 

[dollars 2 donuts]

But once again, Matt… the newest proposal sets to eliminate the use of "dead money" applied to the cap.

 

And teams can and have carried tens of millions of dollars in dead money in the past.

 

 

Without knowing their bottom line, we'll never know.

 

However, what if somehow the Bills have the right management team in place now and the extra money they spend manifests itself in a better product on the field?

 

What happens to the bottom line then?

 

Then I believe the Bills will be the biggest money making franchise in the NFL...

 

JK

 

San Jose, believe me bro I know what you are trying to say, but I am just realistically looking at this franchise's situation.

 

I am absolutely ruff guessing this...no, let me say pulling this out of my a** , but I think the next owner of this franchise is probably going to have to come up with 20-30 million dollars a year for financing...an expense that Ralph does not have to deal with.

Edited June 16, 2011 by dollars 2 donuts

[Rockinon]

Doc said it but nobody is listening. Haven't the Bills always spent close to the cap? Ralph has not gone for huge bonuses, but they's spent the money haven't they?

 

We need our capologist...who was that guy? Mike?

That's exactly right. The Bill's are all ready spending very close to the cap. The only thing that is slightly different is that instead of paying superstar money, the wealth is spread out amongst the players. People like to complain about not paying big money for guys like Jason Peters for example, but the team as a whole is still being paid very well. The Ralph is cheap stuff is BS. This news is going to change nothing more than a across the board raise or perhaps add some quality depth at one of the weaker positions. Not a real big change.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Isn't dead money just counting against the cap money that was indeed previously spent on players but not amortized because the player left the team prior to the end of their contract? I don't see any way losing this accounting helps the Bills. If anything, wouldn't it encourage the rich teams to sign players to unrealistically long contracts then not have to count the "dead money" and be allowed to spend more on the next wave of contracts?

 

Sorry if I'm setting the conversation back. If i've missed the boat again I promise to go back and read before posting more opinions/questions.

There's always the apparent effects of a rule change and the unapparent or unintended effects.

 

Like you, I'm still working this out in my mind.

 

I agree with you that if dead money is eliminated from the equation that this would allow the Daniel Snyders of the world to jettison bad contracts more easily and throw "fresh cash" at the newer, shinier models. In other words, teams would be penalized less for signing bad contracts (at least from a strict cap perspective).

 

From a different perspective, the NFL salary cap is a zero sum game in that there will be a finite number of players divvying up a finite amount of money.

 

If one accepts that, then the players as a group may benefit by more money being paid out, but no teams would benefit from the standpoint of a competitive advantage… other than the fact that richer teams might be hurt less than poorer teams.

 

However if one assumes that all NFL teams are more or less profitable, the rule proposal might only cut into their profits and not turn black ink into red ink.

 

I'm not convinced that such a rule change would hurt the Bills nor am I convinced that it would help them either.

 

I think the competitive gain for teams would be minimal but that the players would definitely benefit.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

That's part of the point.

 

The other part, again, is that all things being equal, a team has a greater chance of being successful if it spends more money.

 

A big budget team wouldn't be "blowing cap money" if it had great management.

 

If two teams both have equally great management, the team with the bigger budget would have a greater chance at success.

Where is the evidence of this?

 

Teams have the same budget.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Why would we need to think of that?? The Steelers and Packers are doing just fine without Jones's war chest. That's the whole point! "Big spending teams" blow cap money on a few players. There has been and will be a salary cap, you know.

 

That's part of the point.

 

The other part, again, is that all things being equal, a team has a greater chance of being successful if it spends more money.

 

A big budget team wouldn't be "blowing cap money" if it had great management.

 

If two teams both have equally great management, the team with the bigger budget would have a greater chance at success.

 

Where is the evidence of this?

 

Teams have the same budget.

See here, WEO:

 

You want evidence? You're not gonna get it. This is a theoretical discussion. We can't put NFL teams into a laboratory.

 

Me saying that "all things being equal" the team that spends more will have a greater chance of being successful" is like saying that "all things being equal" the person who drinks more will urinate more. It's like saying "all things being equal," the team with less injuries is more likely to win. It's like saying that "all things being equal," the team with more big game experience will more likely beat the team with less big game experience.

You don't have to agree if you don't want to but it's hard to have a reasonable discussion if you're gonna argue a point which the vast majority of people wouldn't even think of arguing.

 

And here's a question to you: Which teams have the same budget?

Edited June 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Vinny4sum]

See here, WEO:

 

You want evidence? You're not gonna get it. This is a theoretical discussion. We can't put NFL teams into a laboratory.

 

 

And here's a question to you: Which teams have the same budget?

 

I believe my initial point was not theoretical, but factual. The two teams that spent the least were Tampa and KC both won 10 games.

 

See that's easy no argument because it is fact.

[PromoTheRobot]

I love this idea. Unfortunately for the Bills it might mean over paying even more for mediocre talent Ralph has always had the cut off his nose to spite his face approach when it comes to homegrown superstars that finally want to get their pay day. He would rather pay the Chris Kelsay's of the world a boat load of cash than pay and keep the Jason Peters, Pat Williams, Antowaine Winfields of the football world.

You lost cred when you cited Jason Peters as an example.

 

PTR