Dibs Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) While this suggests mis-management at some point (or would if it wasn't the NFL), I fail to see how this is relevant this season. The team still has plenty of cap room to sign someone should it need to. Most of that dead cap goes away at the end of the season. What's the big deal here? An owner might object to wasting money (fans shouldn't really care, IMO) but that's not an issue right now for the Bills. I suppose this happened at the perfect time, actually. I agree. I was responding to a post stating that we should clean house because of the decisions that caused the dead money. In regards to the wasting money/owner comment.....it has become moot. With the cap rollover rules, any money left under the cap will be rolled over onto the following year's cap(and so on). Though this doesn't mean that the money will have to be spent, I can't see a situation where a team has $50M+ in cap room that is growing each year won't eventually be pressured by fans/media to spend it. Effectively the new CBA......though strictly only enforcing a 90%(rough) spend of cap, is ensuring that pretty much close to 100% will eventually be spent. Edited August 25, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Oh, you mean resign or extend them before FA beckons them? Wouldn't want to that. Let's pay more for them at the last minute or lose them altogether. Reading comprehension is an art, I know. But let me try to explain this further. Most players in the final year of their contracts sign extensions added on to their current contracts rather than re-negotiating the terms of their final year with the new deal. This means that the money paid to them this season is not affected at all. This dead money will be gone next season. If we signed any of those players to an extension nothing would change until next season when the dead money is off the books. Thus, it is irrelevant. Try some understanding before being such a smart _ _ _. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Can someone explain why there is dead $ for Stevie? He was traded, not cut, so wouldn't his contract go on SF's books? Just click the 2015 tab. There is a $1.5M in Dead Money in 2015. The only criticism is that OBD could have taken Fitzy off the books last year but chose to spread to 2013 and 2014 which we don't get but they thought was better. At the end of the day. OBD is going to cut some very talented players to get to 53 and most of that is not related to the Salary Cap. The Bills have a very young team on rookie contracts. When they start coming up for extensions is when this Dead Money is going to be important, not in 2014. So unless Mario Williams is cut to get down to the 53 man roster. There likely won't be a huge Dead Money hit in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Reading comprehension is an art, I know. But let me try to explain this further. Most players in the final year of their contracts sign extensions added on to their current contracts rather than re-negotiating the terms of their final year with the new deal. This means that the money paid to them this season is not affected at all. This dead money will be gone next season. If we signed any of those players to an extension nothing would change until next season when the dead money is off the books. Thus, it is irrelevant. Try some understanding before being such a smart _ _ _. Just to quibble..... The signing bonus portion for the current year is added to this years cap.....but apart from that you are correct in that most contract re-signings don't add anything on to this season's cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 None of the dead cap issue really affects the Bills this year though. They have enough to sign anyone available or re-sign anyone they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) ... The only criticism is that OBD could have taken Fitzy off the books last year but chose to spread to 2013 and 2014 which we don't get but they thought was better. ..... Rollover rules. It made no difference whatsoever putting $7M in 2014 and not taking the full $10M hit last season. Taking only a $3M cap hit last season for Fitz(instead of $10M) meant that we could carry over(and did carry over) an extra $7M(countering the $7M dead money this season). Edited August 25, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Reading comprehension is an art, I know. But let me try to explain this further. Most players in the final year of their contracts sign extensions added on to their current contracts rather than re-negotiating the terms of their final year with the new deal. This means that the money paid to them this season is not affected at all. This dead money will be gone next season. If we signed any of those players to an extension nothing would change until next season when the dead money is off the books. Thus, it is irrelevant. Try some understanding before being such a smart _ _ _. Gosh you're right. $23 mil in dead money means nothing and it couldn't have gone to any good use, like say, using it for future contracts. Money is fungible, unless it's spent - in this case on bad contracts. Your knowledge of football financial gymnastics is considerable and you should certainly feel smug about it. You have a fine future in Government finances and can explain why increasing spending is actually a budget cut. At the end of the day it's $23 mil spent on nothing that could have been spent on something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Gosh you're right. $23 mil in dead money means nothing and it couldn't have gone to any good use, like say, using it for future contracts. Money is fungible, unless it's spent - in this case on bad contracts. Your knowledge of football financial gymnastics is considerable and you should certainly feel smug about it. You have a fine future in Government finances and can explain why increasing spending is actually a budget cut. At the end of the day it's $23 mil spent on nothing that could have been spent on something else. Leaving out the collective snark that seems to have entered into certain posts......I don't think anybody is arguing that the initial decisions in signing the contracts that ended up causing the dead cap hit were not mistakes. I think the point being made is that the dead money has not had an obvious detrimental effect on the team......with a secondary point that the mistakes were made some years back(under a different regime) and it is better for long term cap management to suffer a smaller dead cap hit now rather than a much larger salary hit in the years to follow(if the cut players were retained). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Rollover rules. It made no difference whatsoever putting $7M in 2014 and not taking the full $10M hit last season. Taking only a $3M cap hit last season for Fitz(instead of $10M) meant that we could carry over(and did carry over) an extra $7M(countering the $7M dead money this season). Nice Work. Well there is your reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 But who cares? Who are they going to add to the roster between now and Jan 1, 2015 that they couldn't because of it? Who could they have added that they didn't? It's 23.6M in dead money. Deflecting from that point still doesn't remove the fact they've got nearly 1/6th of their total cap space for 2014 tied up in players not with the team anymore. Combined with the unused cap space for 2014, it's more than 1/5 of their cap dollars not paying going toward players on the 2014 roster. http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/ If you look at the other teams situated around Buffalo, it's not exactly a who's who of NFL GM talent either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Ralph and his Trust are spendthrifts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Gosh you're right. $23 mil in dead money means nothing and it couldn't have gone to any good use, like say, using it for future contracts. Money is fungible, unless it's spent - in this case on bad contracts. Your knowledge of football financial gymnastics is considerable and you should certainly feel smug about it. You have a fine future in Government finances and can explain why increasing spending is actually a budget cut. At the end of the day it's $23 mil spent on nothing that could have been spent on something else. The only important fact is can they sign or re-sign anyone they want to and the answer is yes. So the dead money is not a hindrance in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Ralph and his Trust are spendthrifts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 It's 23.6M in dead money. Deflecting from that point still doesn't remove the fact they've got nearly 1/6th of their total cap space for 2014 tied up in players not with the team anymore. Combined with the unused cap space for 2014, it's more than 1/5 of their cap dollars not paying going toward players on the 2014 roster. http://overthecap.co...lary-cap-space/ If you look at the other teams situated around Buffalo, it's not exactly a who's who of NFL GM talent either. What happens in 2015 when they will have one of the lowest Dead Money number in the NFL, does that mean they then have a good GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 It's 23.6M in dead money. Deflecting from that point still doesn't remove the fact they've got nearly 1/6th of their total cap space for 2014 tied up in players not with the team anymore. Combined with the unused cap space for 2014, it's more than 1/5 of their cap dollars not paying going toward players on the 2014 roster. .... Yes, it is a fact. But what is the point that people are making on it? Mistakes were made.......dead cap is what you get when you rectify those mistakes. The saying crying over spilled milk perhaps applies here. What happens in 2015 when they will have one of the lowest Dead Money number in the NFL, does that mean they then have a good GM? IMO yes......and since we have a young team moving into contract renegotiation with several future stars, I'd say that having the high dead cap numbers now rather than later show that the GM has been good this year(and last year also). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 It's 23.6M in dead money. Deflecting from that point still doesn't remove the fact they've got nearly 1/6th of their total cap space for 2014 tied up in players not with the team anymore. Combined with the unused cap space for 2014, it's more than 1/5 of their cap dollars not paying going toward players on the 2014 roster. http://overthecap.co...lary-cap-space/ If you look at the other teams situated around Buffalo, it's not exactly a who's who of NFL GM talent either. Okay. So what? You didn't answer my question(s). What could they have done with that money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Leaving out the collective snark that seems to have entered into certain posts......I don't think anybody is arguing that the initial decisions in signing the contracts that ended up causing the dead cap hit were not mistakes. I think the point being made is that the dead money has not had an obvious detrimental effect on the team......with a secondary point that the mistakes were made some years back(under a different regime) and it is better for long term cap management to suffer a smaller dead cap hit now rather than a much larger salary hit in the years to follow(if the cut players were retained). I get it. The dead money has been managed in a way as to not affect our ability to sign players, etc within the cap structure. My point is $23 million in wasted money is brushed off as an accounting exercise as if there are no consequences. Money is fungible and there are other places the team could have used it. We talk about $23 mil like it was lunch money. Whatever, I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Okay. So what? You didn't answer my question(s). What could they have done with that money? Reasons? We don't need no stinking reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Okay. So what? You didn't answer my question(s). What could they have done with that money? We wouldn't have had the money. Not unless we are talking of not signing SJ & Fitz to those contracts in the first place. Had we not cut/traded them(thus causing the dead cap hit), their salaries etc(with rollover) would have pretty much covered the dead hit. There would be no extra money. I get it. The dead money has been managed in a way as to not affect our ability to sign players, etc within the cap structure. My point is $23 million in wasted money is brushed off as an accounting exercise as if there are no consequences. Money is fungible and there are other places the team could have used it. We talk about $23 mil like it was lunch money. Whatever, I get it. I don't think you do exactly. Similar to my previous post to BigC above.......unless you are talking about not signing Fitz/SJ to the contracts in the first place, there would have been no extra money due to their contract costs......and furthermore, less money in each of the next bunch of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) I get it. The dead money has been managed in a way as to not affect our ability to sign players, etc within the cap structure. My point is $23 million in wasted money is brushed off as an accounting exercise as if there are no consequences. Money is fungible and there are other places the team could have used it. We talk about $23 mil like it was lunch money. Whatever, I get it. Every year. On every team in the NFL there are approximately one third of the players that make way less than they are worth, one third that make approximately what they are worth, and one third that make way more than they are worth. That's just the way it goes in a league, like most others, that rewards contracts for projected possible outcomes. Surely some teams and personnel guys are better at contract negotiations. And the Bills have notoriously paid the wrong players money over the last 20 years, and many times before that. It's an inexact science and fluctuates year to year. Edited August 25, 2014 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts