Bills #6 on List of Best Cap Situations

[uncle flap]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24379050/agents-take-raiders-top-list-of-teams-with-best-2014-cap-situation

 

Another franchise tag could be in store for Jairus Byrd. (USATSI)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Buffalo Bills

Salary cap room: $28,667,038

Adjusted salary cap: $145,250,531

Resolving Jairus Byrd's situation is of the utmost importance. His relationship with the Bills became acrimonious when the team refused to sign him to a multiyear contract in line with the top of the safety market after designating him as a franchise player. Dashon Goldson'sfive-year, $41.25 million contract ($22 million guaranteed and $26 million in the first three years) with the Buccaneers is the most recent salary benchmark.

Byrd missed a majority of the preseason in a contract dispute before signing his $6.916 million franchise tender. There has been some speculation that with a long-term deal he may have played through the plantar fasciitis in his feet that kept him out of Buffalo's first five games. If Byrd isn't in Buffalo's long-range plans, he could be franchised for a second time at $8,299,200 for trade purposes. The New England Patriots used this tactic with Matt Cassel in 2009 when he was dealt to the Kansas City Chiefs as a franchise player.

 

Now, I'm confused. Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the adjusted cap figures and the rollover process, I anticipated the Bills' adjusted cap to be around $134-138 million, leaving them with approximately $24-28 million in space.

 

Of course I would defer to this guy as he's the expert former agent, but what am I missing here? Is the 145 a typo and it should really be 135? Because then my estimations would line up a little more closely, although if that were the case, I'd expect there to be approximately $25 million in space rather than $28 million.

 

Can anyone explain why this doesn't seem to add up? Am I missing something totally obvious?

[BuffaloBill]

There is some level of carryover allowed year to year so the Bills are advantaged in this way. The analysis also does not take into account offseason roster moves that will move cap dollars out through trades, cuts or renegotiation of existing deals. I believe the Bills also benefit because they have very little dead cap expense and a relatively young roster.

[Pete]

nice. Lock in Byrd. And we need oline. WR, TE and LB. Address those through Free agency and the draft.

[clearwater cadet]

ej

[Big Turk]

We can improve A LOT over this off-season with a few good FA signings and another strong draft...

[frogger]

nice. Lock in Byrd. And we need oline. WR, TE and LB. Address those through Free agency and the draft.

 

Linemen yes. If N.O. is dumb enough to let Graham talk to Buffalo they should give him Gronk money with more guaranteed.

But if buffalo leaves with Slauson (3rd highest PFF grade among all LG) & Strief (top grade among RT and played under Marrone)

Just to give you an idea of the kind of improvement

Strief +23.7 vs Pear -2

Matt Slauson +17.9 vs Doug Legursky -8.9

Just FYI

Urbik +10.2

Glenn +22.0

Wood -4.8...I thought he played better than this.

Edited December 24, 2013 by frogger

[Dibs]

http://www.cbssports...4-cap-situation

 

 

 

Now, I'm confused. Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the adjusted cap figures and the rollover process, I anticipated the Bills' adjusted cap to be around $134-138 million, leaving them with approximately $24-28 million in space.

 

Of course I would defer to this guy as he's the expert former agent, but what am I missing here? Is the 145 a typo and it should really be 135? Because then my estimations would line up a little more closely, although if that were the case, I'd expect there to be approximately $25 million in space rather than $28 million.

 

Can anyone explain why this doesn't seem to add up? Am I missing something totally obvious?

 

The numbers in that article seem a little different to what I would figure.....

 

Using the 2014 cap numbers from these two sites(both have the same figures)....

http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/

http://www.overtheca...Bills&Year=2014

 

We get a cap expenditure of around $110m. ($98m cap hit + 12m dead cap hit).

With a $126m cap level for next season, that leaves us with $16m in cap space.

 

Added to that is the rollover dollars.

Though I am fairly certain that a team cannot re-roll rollover monies into subsequent years, I am still uncertain on this....

 

The rollover amount will be $8m(if re-roll not allowed) or $18m(if re-roll is allowed).

 

This means our cap space will be $24m(if re-roll not allowed) and $34m(with re-rollover allowed).

 

Like I said, I'm fairly certain that re-roll monies are not allowed so running from there......

I figure that the Bills 2014 adjusted cap will be $134m......with $24m in cap space.

 

 

This does not take into consideration Branch's new deal which would not only directly effect the 2014 cap......but will effect the rollover amount from 2013(signing bonus and possibly salary increase). It also obviously doesn't include a Byrd figure.

 

......I believe the Bills also benefit because they have very little dead cap expense and a relatively young roster.

 

No.....$12m in dead cap for 2014.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Dibs

[uncle flap]

The numbers in that article seem a little different to what I would figure.....

 

Using the 2014 cap numbers from these two sites(both have the same figures)....

http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/

http://www.overtheca...Bills&Year=2014

 

We get a cap expenditure of around $110m. ($98m cap hit + 12m dead cap hit).

With a $126m cap level for next season, that leaves us with $16m in cap space.

 

Added to that is the rollover dollars.

Though I am fairly certain that a team cannot re-roll rollover monies into subsequent years, I am still uncertain on this....

 

The rollover amount will be $10m(if re-roll not allowed) or $18m(if re-roll is allowed).

 

This means our cap space will be $26m(if re-roll not allowed) and $34m(with re-rollover allowed).

 

Like I said, I'm fairly certain that re-roll monies are not allowed so running from there......

I figure that the Bills 2014 adjusted cap will be $136m......with $26m in cap space.

 

 

This does not take into consideration Branch's new deal which would not only directly effect the 2014 cap......but will effect the rollover amount from 2013(signing bonus and possibly salary increase). It also obviously doesn't include a Byrd figure.

 

 

 

No.....$12m in dead cap for 2014.

 

I am also operating on the assumption that they cannot "re-roll," so you and I have the same figures. I left some wiggle room bc the article states that the 2014 is likely $126 million, but could be higher. That and I was rounding a bunch of figures.

 

What I don't get is if they can re-roll, or if the author is erroneously re-rolling, that would mean they have around $144 million as an adjusted cap figure. He writes $145 million so that's definitely in the same ballpark. But if that is the case, wouldn't he also write that they have $34 million in space instead of $28 million?

Edited December 24, 2013 by uncle flap

[Dibs]

I am also operating on the assumption that they cannot "re-roll," so you and I have the same figures. I left some wiggle room bc the article states that the 2014 is likely $126 million, but could be higher. That and I was rounding a bunch of figures.

 

What I don't get is if they can re-roll, or if the author is erroneously re-rolling, that would mean they have around $144 million as an adjusted cap figure. He writes $145 million so that's definitely in the same ballpark. But if that is the case, wouldn't he also write that they have $34 million in space instead of $28 million?

 

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to me.....but I've noticed that the situation(erroneous figures) is not uncommon with most articles involving cap numbers. I would think that there are not many sports writers who have good abilities in mathematics.

 

I know I'm a little weird but I'm actually really looking forward to when the new NFL year starts so that I can find the definitive answer to the re-roll question.....and then confidently look at the 2014 cap for the Bills(and other interesting teams like Dallas & NO).

[uncle flap]

I just took another look at the article and now I am wondering if this statement explains the discrepancy:

 

Unlike most projections of cap room (which usually only include carryover amounts), the fourth-year proven performance escalators earned by third- through seventh-round picks under the 2011 collective bargaining agreement's rookie wage scale, tenders for restricted free agents and exclusive-rights players with expiring contracts, voidable contract years and futures contracts for practice squad players are taken into account to give a more complete cap picture.

 

Still, I'm curious where those mysterious dollars reside/disappear from on the Bills payroll.

 

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to me.....but I've noticed that the situation(erroneous figures) is not uncommon with most articles involving cap numbers. I would think that there are not many sports writers who have good abilities in mathematics.

 

I know I'm a little weird but I'm actually really looking forward to when the new NFL year starts so that I can find the definitive answer to the re-roll question.....and then confidently look at the 2014 cap for the Bills(and other interesting teams like Dallas & NO).

 

FWIW, the author is a former agent. So I would like to think he has a better grasp of the figures and accounting than a typical sports writer. Unless you're referring to spotrac and overthecap. I never had a reason to doubt those sites, as they seem to be consistent with figures I've seen reported by more mainstream outlets.

[Dibs]

I just took another look at the article and now I am wondering if this statement explains the discrepancy:

 

 

 

Still, I'm curious where those mysterious dollars reside/disappear from on the Bills payroll.

 

 

 

FWIW, the author is a former agent. So I would like to think he has a better grasp of the figures and accounting than a typical sports writer. Unless you're referring to spotrac and overthecap. I never had a reason to doubt those sites, as they seem to be consistent with figures I've seen reported by more mainstream outlets.

 

Yeah, I'm thinking that most of that would only reduce the amount of cap room(increase the amount spent). Only the voidable years would increase the amount of cap room(of which we don't have any this year to my knowledge).

 

Whatever the case, we certainly will have enough to sign Byrd and do some early 2014 re-signings of several of our young players if we want to(Dareus, Spiller, A.Williams, Hughes).

[ganesh]

No.....$12m in dead cap for 2014.

 

And the Bills will add more dead money, if they chose to cut/trade Stevie Johnson.

[Dibs]

And the Bills will add more dead money, if they chose to cut/trade Stevie Johnson.

 

If they do though, due to the rollover rules, it will likely only effect the 2015 cap(which is due for a large increase.....10% maybe).

 

If SJ is not seen as a desired player in the long term future of the Bills, I personally would rather him be cut after this season than after the 2014 season.

 

My reasoning on that is that the cap hit difference between cutting him at those two points is 5.675m. Effectively SJ playing in 2014 will cost us $5.675m in cap room in 2015(plus a large chunk of cash)......which is a lot of extra cap hit for that one year of play. Rather take your lumps early($8.475 dead hit) than pay $14.15m in cap room(plus large amount of cash) IMO. Of course this is only under the proviso that SJ is not part of the long term plans for the Bills.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Dibs

[BADOLBILZ]

The numbers in that article seem a little different to what I would figure.....

 

Using the 2014 cap numbers from these two sites(both have the same figures)....

http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/

http://www.overtheca...Bills&Year=2014

 

We get a cap expenditure of around $110m. ($98m cap hit + 12m dead cap hit).

With a $126m cap level for next season, that leaves us with $16m in cap space.

 

Added to that is the rollover dollars.

Though I am fairly certain that a team cannot re-roll rollover monies into subsequent years, I am still uncertain on this....

 

The rollover amount will be $8m(if re-roll not allowed) or $18m(if re-roll is allowed).

 

This means our cap space will be $24m(if re-roll not allowed) and $34m(with re-rollover allowed).

 

Like I said, I'm fairly certain that re-roll monies are not allowed so running from there......

I figure that the Bills 2014 adjusted cap will be $134m......with $24m in cap space.

 

 

This does not take into consideration Branch's new deal which would not only directly effect the 2014 cap......but will effect the rollover amount from 2013(signing bonus and possibly salary increase). It also obviously doesn't include a Byrd figure.

 

 

 

No.....$12m in dead cap for 2014.

 

 

It is my understanding that you can't roll the same extra room twice as well.

 

Both because I had heard that explanation and because it simply makes sense.

 

In theory, a one-time opportunity to rollover that salary cap space encourages the team to NOT leave unused cap space the following year since the last cap space touched is the rollover.

 

That being the case, the Bills appear quite satisfied to eat last years rollover. Pushing Fitz' money forward was the first indication that was going to be the case. They will almost certainly have rollover cap room going into next year and there is a chance they will never touch that either.

 

Of course maybe they just find last years rollover money useless.......since it is from 2012.

 

My understanding is that the 89% rule applies to the average cap spendings over the 4 year period from 2013-2016.

 

Pushing Fitz money into 2014 all but guarantees that the Bills won't touch that extra 2012 space that won't count against their objective to reach the salary floor from 2013-2016.

 

From a fan's perspective that is neither a wash......as you say........or a positive.

 

I am not saying it is a negative for certain........the cap is going to jump considerably when the new tv deal money comes in and that will be before 2016...........and they could manipulate the cap the old fashioned way late in that 4 year period if the plan backfires and they need more cap room than they have.............but it has the distinct look of the team thinking about the salary FLOOR more than the cap.

[Dibs]

It is my understanding that you can't roll the same extra room twice as well.

 

Both because I had heard that explanation and because it simply makes sense.

 

In theory, a one-time opportunity to rollover that salary cap space encourages the team to NOT leave unused cap space the following year since the last cap space touched is the rollover.

 

That being the case, the Bills appear quite satisfied to eat last years rollover. Pushing Fitz' money forward was the first indication that was going to be the case. They will almost certainly have rollover cap room going into next year and there is a chance they will never touch that either.

 

Of course maybe they just find last years rollover money useless.......since it is from 2012.

 

My understanding is that the 89% rule applies to the average cap spendings over the 4 year period from 2013-2016.

 

Pushing Fitz money into 2014 all but guarantees that the Bills won't touch that extra 2012 space that won't count against their objective to reach the salary floor from 2013-2016.

 

From a fan's perspective that is neither a wash......as you say........or a positive.

 

I am not saying it is a negative for certain........the cap is going to jump considerably when the new tv deal money comes in and that will be before 2016...........and they could manipulate the cap the old fashioned way late in that 4 year period if the plan backfires and they need more cap room than they have.............but it has the distinct look of the team thinking about the salary FLOOR more than the cap.

 

If one cannot re-roll money(as you and I both believe is likely the situation), then if one goes over the base cap level in any given year(into the rollover monies from the previous year) then there will be no rollover money for the following year(as one has gone over the base cap number).

 

I am thinking that the Bills wanted to have additional money for the 2014 cap year(very little increase in base cap).......and that is why they kept the spending below the base cap in 2013. In 2014 we will likely want to rework Dareus, Spiller, Hughes and A.Williams(as we did with Woods and Branch this year). Had we spent into 2012s rollover money, there would have been no extra monies for 2013(to achieve the re-signings)......plus the money spent in 2013 would most likely be on salaries that would further reduce the 2014 cap amount.

 

Levitre is a great example of this. Had we signed him to the exact same deal as he got with the Titans, it would have reduced the 2014 cap by $13.2m ($4.6m in lost rollover from 2013 & $8.6m in 2014 cap hit).

 

 

In regards to Fitz......the Bills actions did not effect the 2014 cap at all.

Here is my now standard explanation of the Fitz situation.....I have it saved now and cut and paste it, as I have had to explain it many times over the past year to people....

 

The Fitz situation made no difference to the 2014 cap by putting the dead hit in 2014 rather than in 2013.

 

I'll draw a fictional example.....simplified.

 

Team A has 25M cap room in 2013.

They have a scheduled 20M cap room in 2014.

They have a dead cap hit from a player of 10M that they can either put in 2013 or 2014.

 

If they put the 10M into 2013.....that will leave 15M in cap room which they can roll over into 2014.....which makes the 2014 cap 35M(20M + 15M).

If they put the 10M into 2014.....that will leave 25M in cap room which they can roll over into 2014.....which makes the 2014 cap 35M(20M + 25M - 10M).

 

 

The question shouldn't be "Why did the Bills put the dead Fitz money into 2014 rather than 2013?". The question really should be "Why wouldn't you put the money into the next year if you have the opportunity to do so?"(considering that it has no effect on that following years cap figure). There is no benefit in putting it in the first year unless you plan on spending over the base cap level(into the previous years rollover)........and as I explained, doing this means that there will be no rollover for the following year(which in this case it certainly looks like we will want to use).

 

I could be wrong(I hope I'm not), but it really seems to me that the Bills have planned very well for the low increased 2014 cap considering the young players we may want to re-sign that year.

[BADOLBILZ]

If one cannot re-roll money(as you and I both believe is likely the situation), then if one goes over the base cap level in any given year(into the rollover monies from the previous year) then there will be no rollover money for the following year(as one has gone over the base cap number).

 

I am thinking that the Bills wanted to have additional money for the 2014 cap year(very little increase in base cap).......and that is why they kept the spending below the base cap in 2013. In 2014 we will likely want to rework Dareus, Spiller, Hughes and A.Williams(as we did with Woods and Branch this year). Had we spent into 2012s rollover money, there would have been no extra monies for 2013(to achieve the re-signings)......plus the money spent in 2013 would most likely be on salaries that would further reduce the 2014 cap amount.

 

Levitre is a great example of this. Had we signed him to the exact same deal as he got with the Titans, it would have reduced the 2014 cap by $13.2m ($4.6m in lost rollover from 2013 & $8.6m in 2014 cap hit).

 

 

In regards to Fitz......the Bills actions did not effect the 2014 cap at all.

Here is my now standard explanation of the Fitz situation.....I have it saved now and cut and paste it, as I have had to explain it many times over the past year to people....

 

The Fitz situation made no difference to the 2014 cap by putting the dead hit in 2014 rather than in 2013.

 

I'll draw a fictional example.....simplified.

 

Team A has 25M cap room in 2013.

They have a scheduled 20M cap room in 2014.

They have a dead cap hit from a player of 10M that they can either put in 2013 or 2014.

 

If they put the 10M into 2013.....that will leave 15M in cap room which they can roll over into 2014.....which makes the 2014 cap 35M(20M + 15M).

If they put the 10M into 2014.....that will leave 25M in cap room which they can roll over into 2014.....which makes the 2014 cap 35M(20M + 25M - 10M).

 

 

The question shouldn't be "Why did the Bills put the dead Fitz money into 2014 rather than 2013?". The question really should be "Why wouldn't you put the money into the next year if you have the opportunity to do so?"(considering that it has no effect on that following years cap figure). There is no benefit in putting it in the first year unless you plan on spending over the base cap level(into the previous years rollover)........and as I explained, doing this means that there will be no rollover for the following year(which in this case it certainly looks like we will want to use).

 

I could be wrong(I hope I'm not), but it really seems to me that the Bills have planned very well for the low increased 2014 cap considering the young players we may want to re-sign that year.

 

I have seen your argument and it has at no point been convincing because it lacks any motive whatsoever.

 

I am wondering when it will dawn on you that under your scenario there is no salary cap advantage to rolling dead money into 2014.

 

Fitz' dead money comes out of either the rollover or the base cap one way or another.

 

That doesn't give them any "additional money for the 2014 cap year" any way you shake it.

 

It does help prevent them from using cap space that doesn't count toward the 4 year 89% salary "floor" period of 2013-2016.

[Dibs]

I have seen your argument and it has at no point been convincing because it lacks any motive whatsoever.

 

I am wondering when it will dawn on you that under your scenario there is no salary cap advantage to rolling dead money into 2014.

 

Fitz' dead money comes out of either the rollover or the base cap one way or another.

 

That doesn't give them any "additional money for the 2014 cap year" any way you shake it.

 

It does help prevent them from using cap space that doesn't count toward the 4 year 89% salary "floor" period of 2013-2016.

 

I didn't realize that I was arguing anything, merely discussing cap stuff.

 

I have never claimed that there is an advantage to rolling the dead money into 2014......I don't know where you got that from. I have always stated that it made no difference to the 2014 cap either way.......and it is always in response to somebody stating that the 2014 cap is worse off for the Bills to put it there rather than in the 2013 cap(which is simply incorrect).

 

 

The 89% minimum spend(which will be going up to 90% starting next season if I recall correctly) really isn't much of an issue at all. People may really want to perceive the Bills as being cheap.....but there is no likelihood at all that the Bills wouldn't cover the minimum spend in 2014 even without the $7m Fitz hit.

 

Assuming the 2014 cap will be $126m, this means the minimum spend will need to be $113.4m. The Bills have already committed to $98m plus $5m in dead cap hit(having removed the $7m Fitz money). This makes $103m. Add to that the Branch hit....no idea....let's say a simple $4m.....brings us to $107m. Byrd? If we sign him for an $8m 2014 cap hit we are now over the minimum spend......plus we will need further money for rookies, punter, re-signing Carrington maybe.....and hopefully reworking of the 4 young players that I mentioned earlier.

 

To somehow think that the Bills handled the Fitz money the way they did in order to spend as little as possible in 2014 is not only illogical but smacks of overt pessimism.

 

 

Essentially, the low increase in the 2013 and 2014 caps has made the 2014 cap year very tight. Had the Bills spent over the cap this season(going into 2012s rollover money), we would be in a very rough cap situation next year.

 

To highlight this, let's say that all the Bills did differently was to sign Levitre to the Titans deal......and sign Byrd to 9m/year.....we should now also chuck the $7m Fitz money into 2013 as well(as it would now make sense to do it as we do not expect any rollover monies for 2014).

 

This would reduce the 2013 cap space from the current $18m down to $4.3m(minus any branch factor).

There would now be no rollover so the cap for us in 2014 would be the base $126m.

We have $98m committed...

plus $5m dead = $103m

plus $8.6m for Levitre = $111.6m

plus $9m for Byrd = $120.6m

plus $4m(?) for Branch = 124.6m

 

Now we have only $1.4m to pay the rookies and a punter......and have no money left to re-sign anybody else(Carrington) nor do some early reworking of Dareus, Spiller, Hughes or A.Williams.

 

Like I said......IMO the Bills have been extremely wise in how they have managed the cap situation this year.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Dibs

[MDH]

I didn't realize that I was arguing anything, merely discussing cap stuff.

 

I have never claimed that there is an advantage to rolling the dead money into 2014......I don't know where you got that from. I have always stated that it made no difference to the 2014 cap either way.......and it is always in response to somebody stating that the 2014 cap is worse off for the Bills to put it there rather than in the 2013 cap(which is simply incorrect).

 

 

The 89% minimum spend(which will be going up to 90% starting next season if I recall correctly) really isn't much of an issue at all. People may really want to perceive the Bills as being cheap.....but there is no likelihood at all that the Bills wouldn't cover the minimum spend in 2014 even without the $7m Fitz hit.

 

Assuming the 2014 cap will be $126m, this means the minimum spend will need to be $113.4m. The Bills have already committed to $98m plus $5m in dead cap hit(having removed the $7m Fitz money). This makes $103m. Add to that the Branch hit....no idea....let's say a simple $4m.....brings us to $107m. Byrd? If we sign him for an $8m 2014 cap hit we are now over the minimum spend......plus we will need further money for rookies, punter, re-signing Carrington maybe.....and hopefully reworking of the 4 young players that I mentioned earlier.

 

 

Essentially, the low increase in the 2013 and 2014 caps has made the 2014 cap year very tight. Had the Bills spent over the cap this season(going into 2012s rollover money), we would be in a very rough cap situation next year.

 

To highlight this, let's say that all the Bills did differently was to sign Levitre to the Titans deal......and sign Byrd to 9m/year.....we should now also chuck the $7m Fitz money into 2013 as well(as it would now make sense to do it as we do not expect any rollover monies for 2014).

 

This would reduce the 2013 cap space from the current $18m down to $4.5m(minus any branch factor).

There would now be no rollover so the cap for us in 2014 would be the base $126m.

We have $98m committed...

plus $5m dead = $103m

plus $8.6m for Levitre = $111.6m

plus $9m for Byrd = $120.6m

plus $4m(?) for Branch = 124.6m

 

Now we have only $1.4m to pay the rookies and a punter......and have no money left to re-sign anybody else(Carrington) nor do some early reworking of Dareus, Spiller, Hughes or A.Williams.

 

Like I said......IMO the Bills have been extremely wise in how they have managed the cap situation this year.

 

The proof will be in the pudding. If they actually use the cap space this year to re-up players and sign a few select FAs then yeah, they handled it wisely. If they sit on $20M in cap space again it'll be what Bado contends - a team trying to hit the floor or a little above the floor to make it look better. If I were a betting man I'd say they'll get nowhere near the cap but hopefully you're right.

 

And I'd be perfectly content with letting Spiller walk and paying Byrd instead. Both positions can be filled with mid round draft picks but if you're going to pay someone you pay the guy who performs year in year out on Sundays.

[Dibs]

The proof will be in the pudding. If they actually use the cap space this year to re-up players and sign a few select FAs then yeah, they handled it wisely. If they sit on $20M in cap space again it'll be what Bado contends - a team trying to hit the floor or a little above the floor to make it look better. If I were a betting man I'd say they'll get nowhere near the cap but hopefully you're right.

 

And I'd be perfectly content with letting Spiller walk and paying Byrd instead. Both positions can be filled with mid round draft picks but if you're going to pay someone you pay the guy who performs year in year out on Sundays.

 

 

I think you missed the final numbers a little there. Had we signed Levitre and Byrd we would have only $1.4m left in 2014 to work with. You can let Spiller walk in 2015 if you want.....but what about A.Williams, or Dareus, or Hughes? What about a punter, or re-signing other players? What about the rookies?

 

It's easy to look at the $18m($17m assumed) this year and grumble.......but it needed to be done so that we have some room next year.

 

Looking at the 2014 cap situation as it stands....we likely will have $19m to play with(This includes a guessed $1m reduction to rollover for Branch deal & a guessed $4m 2014 cap hit for him.) Pay Byrd $9m and we are down to $10m. Pay the rookies($4m?).....and we have only $6m left. Already we are getting close to the edge, even if we do indeed want to do anything more with the money.

 

Of course if we don't sign Byrd we will be back to $15m......but I fully expect we would then spend the money elsewhere. Did the signing of Mario and reworking of SJ, Wood & Branch give nobody else pause to reflect on their long held views that the Bills won't spend money?

Edited December 24, 2013 by Dibs

[uncle flap]

 

 

It's easy to look at the $18m($17m assumed) this year and grumble.......but it needed to be done so that we have some room next year.

 

 

 

Also, people have already forgotten where the Bills stood going in to last year's offseason. If they took the Fitz and Anderson's hits all at once in the first year, instead of spreading it out (as some have suggested that they should've since they didn't spend the surplus), they would have left themselves with around $15 million to go after FAs, of which they spent about $7 million (on Kolb, Lawson, Leonhard, Leodis, Branch, and Legursky).

 

Since they didn't spend it all, or more of it, they seem cheap. But I'm not going to fault them for doing so. They needed to sign a vet QB, an LB or two, a TE, and a couple O linemen. Just because they didn't get Fred Davis nor another TE, nor a pricier QB than Kolb, nor a more expensive LB than Lawson, nor an additional LB, nor a better G than Legursky, nor any other O line help, doesn't mean that they were necessarily being cheap. Perhaps they were, but it is just as likely that they had their sights set on better (read: more expensive) players and/or additional players, and just couldn't get them signed for whatever reason.

 

McKelvin's status was up in the air and they got him relatively cheap. If he didn't re-sign, they would've had to throw more money at another corner too.

 

If the Bills ate all that dead money from Fitz and Anderson at once, they would've had only approximately $15 million to upgrade 7 (or more) positions. With the benefit of hindsight it appears that there's no difference in the spreading out Fitz's hit, but looking back to where they stood in relation to the cap, it seems like a prudent move to have an extra $10 million to play with. They didn't take advantage of it for whatever reason, and now it evaporates, but I contend they made the right decision.

 

If they had spent more, as I believe they were prepared to do, they would still have much if not all of the approximately $8 million that they can rollover to next year. If they didn't spread the hits, and were only left with the hypothetical $15 million AND wound up spending more, that would've eaten into next year's space, and not left the Bills with the preferable cap situation that they have now.

 

Another thing to remember, is that despite having all that space there are quite a few contracts expiring the next two years, in addition to the positions we'd like to see upgraded. That space could be used up rather quickly, especially if Byrd winds up playing under the second year franchise tag.