Salary Cap - Is Whaley Allowed to Spend It All?

[Buffalo Barbarian]

I did some research on the Bills salary cap figures over the past few seasons.

 

> In 2012, we started the league year (March) with about $23 million in cap space. After free agency and draft signings were completed, we started the season (September) with about $13-14 million in cap space.

 

> In 2013, we started the league year with about $17-18 million in cap space. We started the season with about $9 million.

 

> We currently (January 2014), sit at about $18 million in cap space.

 

 

I've heard the excuse over and over. We couldn't sign "X" player to a new contract, because we need to save the money for "Y" player next year. This excuse is already being thrown around on why we can't muster up another $1-2 million to bring back Jairus Byrd (because we need the money for Marcel Dareus, CJ Spiller or Jerry Hughes next year).

 

It's a total bullcrap excuse. This team is never in salary cap trouble. Even after making Mario Williams the highest paid defensive player in football, we still went into the 2012 season with a comfortable cushion of more than $10 million!!!

 

So my question is... Does Doug Whaley have the permission from his superiors (Russ Brandon, Jim Overdorf, Ralph Wilson, etc.) to spend up to the maximum of the salary cap? Because if he DOES, then why are we squabbling about re-signing a 3x Pro Bowler?

 

The Saints currently sit at about $640 THOUSAND over the salary cap, but you better believe they will find a way to keep Jimmy Graham on that roster. Why can't things work like that around here?

 

AMEN! (Russ is cheap)

[thebandit27]

difference being the Pats and Steelers retain their top FA's. (Big Ben, Antonio Brown, Troy Polomilau, etc.)

 

 

 

Actually, your chart proves just the opposite. With the exception of the Chargers (who got into the playoffs by referee error/missed FG) no team at the Bills level or below made the Playoffs last season. You don't have to be the biggest spender, but there is some minimal level of spending that is necessary to field a competitive team.

 

Are you referring to cap space or cash spending?

 

If it's cash spending, then you're ignoring Carolina, who spent a good 20% less than Buffalo and was the #2 seed in the NFC. You're also throwing out Arizona, who went 10-6 in the best division in football. It's also worth noting that 7 of the top 10 cash spenders didn't make the playoffs.

 

If it's cap spending, well, I'm not sure you read the chart properly...only 1 of the 12 teams that spent closest to the salary cap for 2013 made the playoffs (Indy).

 

The above support, quite conclusively, my point that there's no correlation between spending (cap-wise or cash-wise) and winning.

 

You guys are dreamers, and keep forgetting who owns this team.

 

You mean the guy that twice in three years during the mid-2000's spent among the top 5 teams in both cash and cap space and didn't produce a playoff team? I'll say it again: spending more does not equate to winning; spending wisely equates to winning.

 

I haven't studied it fully.....but I don't tend to think so.

 

Looking at cap space for teams in 2013.....

(Cap space is a better indicator of spending IMO as it shows a greater spend over the last couple of seasons rather than just the 2013 season)

 

Least cap space is the Rams, Giants then Saints.

Broncos, Seahawks, Patriots & 49ers are 11th, 15th, 13th & 16th respectively with cap space.

There looks to be a little bit of correlation at the bottom end with the Browns, Jags, Bills, Dolphins & Eagles all having large cap space......but last season the Seahawks would have been in this group which firms my belief that cap spending is more situational(more dependent on the players at hand as well as the perceived view to be able to improve to the next level).

 

http://www.overtheca...e.php?Year=2013

 

It seems to me that when things come together in a team(totally unrelated to cap spending, usually meaning they find a good QB)......they start winning. I say totally unrelated to cap spending as it seems clear that simply spending money does not relate to winning.

 

Spending an extra $12m/year on a player will typically raise a teams cap spending(close to their limit).....but usually doesn't translate to any extra wins. That one additional player(who raises the cap number) might get injured(Percy Harvin), under perform in the new team(Mike Wallace), or simply not provide enough bang for ones buck.

 

 

It seems to me that when things do start to fall into place in any given team(where they feel they have a shot at the SB), they will then start to spend into future cap years(mortgaging the future) to achieve a SB win(ala Saints). Even this though is dependent on the legitimacy of said teams belief that their "window" is open(see Cowboys as mistake made in this regard).

 

With so many teams spending close to their cap limits in 2013......and most of those teams being quite uncompetitive.....it is fairly clear that spending the money available does not directly correlate to wins.

 

Yes indeed Dibs; it's about smart spending and recognizing the talent/value relationship. The evidence supporting this is overwhelming.

[TXBILLSFAN]

 

 

Actually, the commissioner of the NFL recommended that Buffalo renovate the Ralph as opposed to building a new stadium.

 

http://www.buffaloru...m-roger-goodell

 

Despite the changes he foresees in Orchard Park, Goodell does not think the Bills need a brand new stadium. When talking with fans, he pointed out that he was sitting in the stands in Buffalo for a reason.

"It’s a great stadium to watch a game," said Goodell. "One of the reasons I picked this game to sit out in the stands is because I think it’s a great experience to be here with the Bills fans and the sight lines are great."

 

And as many have told you before--willingness to spend has NEVER been an issue. It's been the poor choices of who to spend money on that's brought the team to where they are now.

 

It's not about spending to the cap-- EDIT: many teams practices cash-to-cap principles now. It's about making sure you keep your best players without paying over-inflated contracts.

 

 

 

It's not Ralph's decision at this point--however, as noted above, EDIT: many teams follow cash to cap nowadays.

 

 

 

Byrd can't just walk...the team can franchise him for $8.3M if they want to...

 

Also, it's worth noting that there's zero correlation between teams that spend the most cash and teams that have success.

 

http://overthecap.com/nfl-cash-space.php?Year=2013

 

Bandit -- I agree that you can spend all the money in the world and still suck, BUT, others things being equal, if you spend more you will win more. The decisions you make with your money are inherently more important, but being willing to spend the money to support good decisions is critical. This is a game of inches and having smart football people and giving them $120M to spend and having smart football people and giving them $100M to spend, I'll bet on the guys with the extra $20M EVERY TIME. The Bills DO NOT spend to win ! This is not a debate, this is a fact. The Bills set a budget based on ensuring they make a certain profit and that budget is BELOW the cap. Do I know this for a fact ? NO. But, ALL the evidence points to that as accurate.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Yes indeed Dibs; it's about smart spending and recognizing the talent/value relationship. The evidence supporting this is overwhelming.

 

Right, it's about creating value but if one guy is working with 10% more resources than the other and both are equally talented gms I think you'd be hardpressed to make an argument that having an extra 10m to spend smartly isn't an advantage.

[TXBILLSFAN]

 

 

Bandit -- I agree that you can spend all the money in the world and still suck, BUT, others things being equal, if you spend more you will win more. The decisions you make with your money are inherently more important, but being willing to spend the money to support good decisions is critical. This is a game of inches and having smart football people and giving them $120M to spend and having smart football people and giving them $100M to spend, I'll bet on the guys with the extra $20M EVERY TIME. The Bills DO NOT spend to win ! This is not a debate, this is a fact. The Bills set a budget based on ensuring they make a certain profit and that budget is BELOW the cap. Do I know this for a fact ? NO. But, ALL the evidence points to that as accurate given the Bills have under spent to the cap for several years.

 

 

 

Right, it's about creating value but if one guy is working with 10% more resources than the other and both are equally talented gms I think you'd be hardpressed to make an argument that having an extra 10m to spend smartly isn't an advantage.

+1. It's a nonsense argument to argue that having less money is good. Can you win with less money, of course, but it is HARDER. Why is that so difficult to comprehend ? Edited January 24, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[thebandit27]

Bandit -- I agree that you can spend all the money in the world and still suck, BUT, others things being equal, if you spend more you will win more. The decisions you make with your money are inherently more important, but being willing to spend the money to support good decisions is critical. This is a game of inches and having smart football people and giving them $120M to spend and having smart football people and giving them $100M to spend, I'll bet on the guys with the extra $20M EVERY TIME. The Bills DO NOT spend to win ! This is not a debate, this is a fact. The Bills set a budget based on ensuring they make a certain profit and that budget is BELOW the cap. Do I know this for a fact ? NO. But, ALL the evidence points to that as accurate.

 

Actually, if you look at the numbers in my last post, there's absolutely no correlation between spending and winning.

 

As for the bold statement, I'm sorry, that's not a fact. They spent more cash than the cap in 2013, as the link I provided illustrated. They spent like wildmen back in the mid 2000's; they didn't win. They spent $150M dollars in contracts for Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Chris kelsay, and Aaron Schobel in one off-season.

 

As I've told you many times now, it's not an issue of not spending; it's an issue of not spending wisely.

 

Right, it's about creating value but if one guy is working with 10% more resources than the other and both are equally talented gms I think you'd be hardpressed to make an argument that having an extra 10m to spend smartly isn't an advantage.

 

The above is absolutely true and I don't argue it; the issue I take is that it doesn't apply to Buffalo. Whaley (and Nix before him) don't have a limited budget.

 

+1. It's a nonsense argument to argue that having less money is good. Can you win with less money, of course, but it is HARDER. Why is that so difficult to comprehend ?

 

Nobody said that...you're arguing a straw man.

[Dawgg]

I did some research on the Bills salary cap figures over the past few seasons.

 

> In 2012, we started the league year (March) with about $23 million in cap space. After free agency and draft signings were completed, we started the season (September) with about $13-14 million in cap space.

 

> In 2013, we started the league year with about $17-18 million in cap space. We started the season with about $9 million.

 

> We currently (January 2014), sit at about $18 million in cap space.

 

 

I've heard the excuse over and over. We couldn't sign "X" player to a new contract, because we need to save the money for "Y" player next year. This excuse is already being thrown around on why we can't muster up another $1-2 million to bring back Jairus Byrd (because we need the money for Marcel Dareus, CJ Spiller or Jerry Hughes next year).

 

It's a total bullcrap excuse. This team is never in salary cap trouble. Even after making Mario Williams the highest paid defensive player in football, we still went into the 2012 season with a comfortable cushion of more than $10 million!!!

 

So my question is... Does Doug Whaley have the permission from his superiors (Russ Brandon, Jim Overdorf, Ralph Wilson, etc.) to spend up to the maximum of the salary cap? Because if he DOES, then why are we squabbling about re-signing a 3x Pro Bowler?

 

The Saints currently sit at about $640 THOUSAND over the salary cap, but you better believe they will find a way to keep Jimmy Graham on that roster. Why can't things work like that around here?

 

LOL if you actually think Whaley is the decision maker here, you're dreaming.

[Sisyphean Bills]

LOL if you actually think Whaley is the decision maker here, you're dreaming.

 

Within the structure of the shreadsheet, I'm sure he has quite a bit of decision making power.

[thebandit27]

 

 

LOL if you actually think Whaley is the decision maker here, you're dreaming.

 

On the football side, he is...this is not up for debate

[TXBILLSFAN]

Actually, if you look at the numbers in my last post, there's absolutely no correlation between spending and winning.

 

As for the bold statement, I'm sorry, that's not a fact. They spent more cash than the cap in 2013, as the link I provided illustrated. They spent like wildmen back in the mid 2000's; they didn't win. They spent $150M dollars in contracts for Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Chris kelsay, and Aaron Schobel in one off-season.

 

As I've told you many times now, it's not an issue of not spending; it's an issue of not spending wisely.

 

 

 

The above is absolutely true and I don't argue it; the issue I take is that it doesn't apply to Buffalo. Whaley (and Nix before him) don't have a limited budget.

 

 

 

Nobody said that...you're arguing a straw man.

You are missing my point. I will try and be clear. First, I said you need smart football people AND money. The former is more important than the later. Of course you can find teams that spend and don't win and visa versa. Looking at the correlation is irrelevant, all that proves is that there are a lot of teams that spend and don't make good decisions, I'll acknowledge that. What I am saying is you need to do both to win consistently because there are several other teams that actually do both and those are the ones that consistently win. I don't care if the cash to cap was high, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making which is that the Bills don't maximize the spending they are allowed to make under the CBA. They self limit their spend and fail to optimize. Again, decisions are critical, but, the Bills hamstringing their football department by not allowing them to spend to the cap puts them at a disadvantage. The Bills made horrible football decisions and spent a lot of money 7-8 years ago, no debate. Right now, it appears they are making some good football decisions and failing to spend, not good either. Edited January 24, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[NoSaint]

 

The above is absolutely true and I don't argue it; the issue I take is that it doesn't apply to Buffalo. Whaley (and Nix before him) don't have a limited budget.

 

 

i go a little back and forth on it. while i dont think we are the bottom dwellers that some portray monetarily, i would love to see us push the limits and i dont remember off hand the last time that we really were close to being at the ceiling.

[papazoid]

Is there a correlation between spending to the cap and winning?

 

teams with most cap space ( $ mil):

 

#1- CLE - $24.5

#2- JAX - $19.6

#3- BUF - $18.1

#4- MIA - $18.0

#5- PHI - $17.1

#6- GB - $9.8

#7- CIN - $9.1

#8- TEN - $6.9

#9- TB - $6.7

#10- DEN - $6.4

 

https://www.nflplayers.com/reports/RunPublicReport.aspx?report=top51

Edited January 24, 2014 by papazoid

[TXBILLSFAN]

BTW, anyone who wants to continue to argue the point that it is okay or irrelevant to under spend the cap and win in the NFL, I'll set up an ESPN Fantasy Football Auction League next fall and be happy to allocate all of you 25% less money to bid on players

Edited January 24, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[papazoid]

BTW, anyone who wants to continue to argue the point that it is okay or irrelevant to under spend the cap and win in the NFL, I'll set up an ESPN Fantasy Football Auction League next fall and be happy to allocate all of you 25% less money to bid on players

 

can we carryover to the following year ?

[thebandit27]

You are missing my point. I will try and be clear. First, I said you need smart football people AND money. The former is more important than the later. Of course you can find teams that spend and don't win and visa versa. Looking at the correlation is irrelevant, all that proves is that there are a lot of teams that spend and don't make good decisions, I'll acknowledge that. What I am saying is you need to do both to win consistently because there are several other teams that actually do both and those are the ones that consistently win. I don't care if the cash to cap was high, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making which is that the Bills don't maximize the spending they are allowed to make under the CBA. They self limit their spend and fail to optimize. Again, decisions are critical, but, the Bills hamstringing their football department by not allowing them to spend to the cap puts them at a disadvantage. The Bills made horrible football decisions and spent a lot of money 7-8 years ago, no debate. Right now, it appears they are making some good football decisions and failing to spend, not good either.

 

Here's where I get hung up: you say this, but I don't see any evidence that those are the teams that win. Looking at the numbers, the correlation just isn't there.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Here's where I get hung up: you say this, but I don't see any evidence that those are the teams that win. Looking at the numbers, the correlation just isn't there.

 

im not sure that a single years cap number, or single years cash spent number answers it.... perhaps some sort of running average or something.... but even then, you have to have the right person in charge. as we agree, i think, mickey loomis with 110m isnt going to typically field as good a team as mickey loomis with 120m. any given year injuries, fluke plays, or even a bad signing may change that but 120m, should beat 110m say 6-7 times out of 10.

[thebandit27]

im not sure that a single years cap number, or single years cash spent number answers it.... perhaps some sort of running average or something.... but even then, you have to have the right person in charge. as we agree, i think, mickey loomis with 110m isnt going to typically field as good a team as mickey loomis with 120m. any given year injuries, fluke plays, or even a bad signing may change that but 120m, should beat 110m say 6-7 times out of 10.

 

I've posted the historical data a few times on this board...there's no correlation.

 

USA Today tracked spending up through 2009, then for some reason stopped. Here's the link:

 

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/2008

 

From year-to-year, no real correlation.

 

Here's the source I used for 2011 and 2012 (can't find one for 2010):

 

http://www.osmguy.com/2012/09/2012-nfl-salaries-by-team/

http://www.osmguy.com/2011/12/2011-nfl-payrolls-by-team/

 

You just don't see teams like New England, Indianapolis, Denver, Seattle, etc. showing up as top spenders on a year-to-year basis...occasionally one of them pop into the top 10 for a year; that's my point. They most certainly aren't the teams that spend the most from year-to-year.

[TXBILLSFAN]

I've posted the historical data a few times on this board...there's no correlation.

 

USA Today tracked spending up through 2009, then for some reason stopped. Here's the link:

 

http://content.usato...aries/team/2008

 

From year-to-year, no real correlation.

 

Here's the source I used for 2011 and 2012 (can't find one for 2010):

 

http://www.osmguy.co...laries-by-team/

http://www.osmguy.co...yrolls-by-team/

 

You just don't see teams like New England, Indianapolis, Denver, Seattle, etc. showing up as top spenders on a year-to-year basis...occasionally one of them pop into the top 10 for a year; that's my point. They most certainly aren't the teams that spend the most from year-to-year.

This is great information (I don't have the patience to analyze and digest it all) so, let me offer another hypothesis on whether there is a correlation or not -- take Seattle, this year, most analysts have said that they have a short window, because several of their key players are over-performing their contracts (Wilson, Sherman the most obvious) and once they have to pay those guys, they will have cap issues. Take a look at Dallas, spent a lot and made poor football decisions now they are $25M+ over the cap and will have casualties. A lot of times teams win and then have to spend to keep the core group together, perhaps that clouds the data. I will also say that teams that win consistently spend efficiently. That is critical. I would never suggest the Bills do another Dockery/Walker/Kelsay/Schobel type of off-season. The Patriots seem the best at efficient spending and knowing when not to extend a guy or trade someone right before the downside hits. What I am suggesting for the Bills (this is a clarified position) is for them to OPTIMIZE their spending. Spend smart, on the right people at the right time. I don't want this team to give Fred a 5-year extension or throw big money at a backup QB. I would also hope (and I know Bandit insists it was the case) that the Bills spare no expense to hire the best football people to make those critical decisions.

[thebandit27]

This is great information (I don't have the patience to analyze and digest it all) so, let me offer another hypothesis on whether there is a correlation or not -- take Seattle, this year, most analysts have said that they have a short window, because several of their key players are over-performing their contracts (Wilson, Sherman the most obvious) and once they have to pay those guys, they will have cap issues. Take a look at Dallas, spent a lot and made poor football decisions now they are $25M+ over the cap and will have casualties. A lot of times teams win and then have to spend to keep the core group together, perhaps that clouds the data. I will also say that teams that win consistently spend efficiently. That is critical. I would never suggest the Bills do another Dockery/Walker/Kelsay/Schobel type of off-season. The Patriots seem the best at efficient spending and knowing when not to extend a guy or trade someone right before the downside hits. What I am suggesting for the Bills (this is a clarified position) is for them to OPTIMIZE their spending. Spend smart, on the right people at the right time. I don't want this team to give Fred a 5-year extension or throw big money at a backup QB. I would also hope (and I know Bandit insists it was the case) that the Bills spare no expense to hire the best football people to make those critical decisions.

 

Yes, optimization is the key...totally agree.

 

As for your hope, what I can tell you is that the folks in charge certainly believe that they've put the right talent evaluators in place irrespective of the costs associated to put them there.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I've posted the historical data a few times on this board...there's no correlation.

 

USA Today tracked spending up through 2009, then for some reason stopped. Here's the link:

 

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/2008

 

From year-to-year, no real correlation.

 

Here's the source I used for 2011 and 2012 (can't find one for 2010):

 

http://www.osmguy.com/2012/09/2012-nfl-salaries-by-team/

http://www.osmguy.com/2011/12/2011-nfl-payrolls-by-team/

 

You just don't see teams like New England, Indianapolis, Denver, Seattle, etc. showing up as top spenders on a year-to-year basis...occasionally one of them pop into the top 10 for a year; that's my point. They most certainly aren't the teams that spend the most from year-to-year.

 

ill say i appreciate the links, but i think that this is far to surface level to simply link the yearly spend and say good team, bad team, and then declare no correlation simply because its not immediately seen. that said, i dont care to do any type of statistical analysis on it, and will stick by "efficiently spending more money will more often beat efficiently spending less money" even if you think theres no correlation.