Mr. WEO Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Winner by KO, SJBF! and that is why SJBF, is "The Man" I'm just going to reply with this quote the next time WEO feels like "petulantly disagreeing" on a thread that sparks my interest. "Petulance", or 6 year old activity, is putting another poster on "ignore" when your shaky points are challenged---although my 5 year old doesn't even put his fingers in his ears and go nah, nah, nah while others are talking. I'll leave you to your hero! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollars 2 donuts Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 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. I still stand by what I said and that has been fleshed out a little more than last couple of days on WGR, especially after the Florio interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Clayton offers opinion on 5 teams most hurt/helped by proposed cap deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Clayton offers opinion on 5 teams most hurt/helped by proposed cap deal Notice the Buffalo Bills are not mentioned, because they are actually in the middle of the road as far as spending goes. It's not that the Bills didn't spend money, its that they didn't know how to spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The Bills problem with spending isn’t that they don’t spend enough, its that they spend it on stupid players. Guys like Kelsay Maybin who suck are paid like superstars and guys like Donte who are average at best make crazy amounts of coin. A higher salary floor will just mean more of the same in Buffalo, overpaying for average talent and bad talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The Bills problem with spending isn’t that they don’t spend enough, its that they spend it on stupid players. Guys like Kelsay Maybin who suck are paid like superstars and guys like Donte who are average at best make crazy amounts of coin. A higher salary floor will just mean more of the same in Buffalo, overpaying for average talent and bad talent. How about Fowler, Dockery and Walker. The Bills spent wads of cash on three players which were going to ensure solid line play for the years. Instead all 3 guys are gone within three years (I believe, could be off a year) and no production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. PTR Edited June 24, 2011 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/ Bills #13 in total salary last year... 1. I'm late to the party because I've just spent a little over a week "off the grid" hiking in Glacier National Park - - good for both the body and the soul!! 2. The USA Today database seems to be pretty fact-based if you read the internal link at that site about how they come up with their data. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if I am interpreting the explanatory note that accompanies the chart correctly, for years after 2001 USA Today lumps signing bonuses actually paid in a given year and the base salary actually paid to that player in the same year together, and uses the combined bonus and salary figure in preparing the chart for that year. Conversely, for salary cap calculation purposes, signing bonuses get amortized over the length of the contract. This may explain why the USA Today numbers don't match some figures used elsewhere. 3. After reading the entire thread, there's one aspect of the potential new salary cap rules that I've not seen discussed yet. One of the links above showed that Dallas and Washington (if I remember the teams correctly) paid signing bonuses in 2010 - - an uncapped year - - that made their total payments to players in 2010 exceed estimates of what the salary cap WOULD have been in 2010 if the owners had not opted out of the old CBA. In any other year, those large 2010 signing bonuses would have been required to be amortized over the entire term of the contracts for each player involved. This tends to maintain competitive balance, because Dallas and Washington would have less money left that they could spend in future years before they reached the spending cap limit. But with no salary cap rules in place for 2010, have Washington and Dallas gained a FUTURE advantage, by locking up current talent with 2010 signing bonuses, yet having the same amount of money to spend in any future capped year as everybody else? 4. How will the new salary cap rules account, for example, for a $5 million signing bonus paid in 2009 (the last capped year) on a 5 year contract? Under the old CBA (pre opt-out), $1 million of that signing bonus gets amortized against the salary cap in each year of the 5 year contract. But what happens under a new CBA? Would there still be an as yet unamortized $3 million that will have to count against future capped years? Or would all previously paid but as yet unamortized portions of prior signing bonuses be wiped out by the uncapped year? 5. It sure would be nice if we had some actual football to talk about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I can't belive they haven't spent more on their players in FA!!! D. Synder Notice the Buffalo Bills are not mentioned, because they are actually in the middle of the road as far as spending goes. It's not that the Bills didn't spend money, its that they didn't know how to spend money. Wrong, they aren't mentioned because the Bills are irrelevant. Hell even at the draft ESPN kept going to commercial everytime the Bills were on the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downunderbill Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Wrong, they aren't mentioned because the Bills are irrelevant. Hell even at the draft ESPN kept going to commercial everytime the Bills were on the clock. yeah that must be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 1. I'm late to the party because I've just spent a little over a week "off the grid" hiking in Glacier National Park - - good for both the body and the soul!! Awesome! (I'm envious....) 2. The USA Today database seems to be pretty fact-based if you read the internal link at that site about how they come up with their data. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if I am interpreting the explanatory note that accompanies the chart correctly, for years after 2001 USA Today lumps signing bonuses actually paid in a given year and the base salary actually paid to that player in the same year together, and uses the combined bonus and salary figure in preparing the chart for that year. Conversely, for salary cap calculation purposes, signing bonuses get amortized over the length of the contract. This may explain why the USA Today numbers don't match some figures used elsewhere. 3. After reading the entire thread, there's one aspect of the potential new salary cap rules that I've not seen discussed yet. One of the links above showed that Dallas and Washington (if I remember the teams correctly) paid signing bonuses in 2010 - - an uncapped year - - that made their total payments to players in 2010 exceed estimates of what the salary cap WOULD have been in 2010 if the owners had not opted out of the old CBA. In any other year, those large 2010 signing bonuses would have been required to be amortized over the entire term of the contracts for each player involved. This tends to maintain competitive balance, because Dallas and Washington would have less money left that they could spend in future years before they reached the spending cap limit. But with no salary cap rules in place for 2010, have Washington and Dallas gained a FUTURE advantage, by locking up current talent with 2010 signing bonuses, yet having the same amount of money to spend in any future capped year as everybody else? 4. How will the new salary cap rules account, for example, for a $5 million signing bonus paid in 2009 (the last capped year) on a 5 year contract? Under the old CBA (pre opt-out), $1 million of that signing bonus gets amortized against the salary cap in each year of the 5 year contract. But what happens under a new CBA? Would there still be an as yet unamortized $3 million that will have to count against future capped years? Or would all previously paid but as yet unamortized portions of prior signing bonuses be wiped out by the uncapped year? Yeah, I've thought of that too, and am having a hard time wrapping my head around the cap being "cash-based" in the new arrangement. If that's true, and to your points above, there would need to be at least a starting equalization across clubs. I have a hard time imagining that the bonuses will all need to count in the year they are paid. That just doesn't sound right and would push clubs to shift to yearly (roster) bonuses instead of up front signing bonuses, something the players wouldn't want. I read that one issue was clubs were adding unusual incentive clauses, supposedly to reach the cap minimum, that were never met nor paid. Perhaps the "cash" part of the new cap just means counting only money that is actually paid, and nothing that is not reached (or may not be reached). I think it would be fair to count the money paid/guaranteed a given year (at the start of the season) then add any incentives paid by end of year to the next year's total. It still seems like there needs to be some proration of bonuses though. 5. It sure would be nice if we had some actual football to talk about! Hallelujah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts