$23,661,443 in Dead Money

[4BillsintheBurgh]

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?

No, it means the same head coach is in his third year.

 

Does anyone know if we still follow "cash-to-cap"? Assuming we do of course, until the new owner may change that philosophy.

[Dibs]

No, it means the same head coach is in his third year.

 

Does anyone know if we still follow "cash-to-cap"? Assuming we do of course, until the new owner may change that philosophy.

 

Do you know what C2C is? Are you aware that it is a guideline that a vast majority of teams follow?

[The Dean]

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.

 

So, they could have paid more than required for certain players? They could have given Byrd an unreasonably high contract in order to keep him (and then when he decided to hold out, cut him and eat an even bigger dead cap amount)? It's hard to use basic economic principles with respect to the NFL, which has it's own set of rules and culture. (For example, most business don't require you to spend a specific amount of $$ on one aspect of the business--in this case 90% of the cap on labor).

 

All of that dead money could have had a debilitating impact on the team, had they been in a position to make a huge FA signing (for example) and not been able to do it. As it turned out, I don't think it actually impacted any decisions.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

Do you know what C2C is? Are you aware that it is a guideline that a vast majority of teams follow?

I have a rough idea. I know if we actually find a franchise qb it will be almost impossible to have both.

[The Dean]

I have a rough idea. I know if we actually find a franchise qb it will be almost impossible to have both.

 

Both? QB and what else?

[K-9]

What's better: dead money or keeping players that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer part of your plans?

 

If the goal is zero in dead money, you better be 100% correct on all personnel decisions. That has never and will never happen.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[4BillsintheBurgh]

Both? QB and what else?

cash to cap.

[The Dean]

cash to cap.

 

I believe most teams with "franchise QBs" are indeed cash-to-cap.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

What's better: dead money or keeping players that have outlived their usefulness and are no longer part of your plans?

 

If the goal is zero in dead money, you better be 100% correct on all personnel decisions. That has never and will never happen.

 

GO BILLS!!!

As I alluded to above, it will be less when we have a coach for an extended period of time. It is difficult to have correct personnel decisions when the requirements change.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Hey Dibs,

 

I know you follow the salary cap rules pretty closely, and I haven't looked at them in a while. Is it clear that dead cap money (i.e., money actually spent by the team in an earlier year but that does not count against the salary cap until this year) qualifies as money to meet the cap floor requirement imposed by the new CBA?

 

Stated differently, is there any CBA requirement that the [rolling 4 year average ?] floor must be exceeded with cash actually spent during the 4 year period, as opposed to including dead cap money that may actually have been spent before the 4 year period started?

 

By choosing to take portions of the Fitz cap hit in two different years rather than all at once, does the front office get to count more of the "hit" in a year where the CBA requires the team to spend above a floor (albeit over a 4 year period)? Could that explain why Fitz's cap hit wasn't taken all at once? I don't remember which year the first rolling 4 year "floor" period starts.

 

Thanks.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

I believe most teams with "franchise QBs" are indeed cash-to-cap.

I'm not so sure, NO and Pit come to mind as not. I found it ironic that NO "found" money for an over-priced play making safety when it didn't look like they were a lock to resign Graham, although NoSaint had it figured out that they would.

Edited August 25, 2014 by 4BillsintheBurgh

[TXBILLSFAN]

The issue with the DEAD MONEY is:

 

1- It's symptomatic of an inefficient and ineffective front office

2- It's higher than all other teams

3- That money could have been used to resign other players now that aren't here --- OR --- resign players that are here so we don't have to spend as much later -- in other words, we could extend CJ and pay him more in 2014 so we can pay him less in 2015 and 2016, so we could sign other guys to new contracts in those years

 

In a cap, there is a fixed amount of money, the more efficient you can spend the better off you'll be over the long term

Edited August 25, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[Dibs]

So, they could have paid more than required for certain players? They could have given Byrd an unreasonably high contract in order to keep him (and then when he decided to hold out, cut him and eat an even bigger dead cap amount)? It's hard to use basic economic principles with respect to the NFL, which has it's own set of rules and culture. (For example, most business don't require you to spend a specific amount of $$ on one aspect of the business--in this case 90% of the cap on labor).

 

All of that dead money could have had a debilitating impact on the team, had they been in a position to make a huge FA signing (for example) and not been able to do it. As it turned out, I don't think it actually impacted any decisions.

 

Sorry The Dean, I am going to harp on about this because people are arguing a moot issue.

 

The argument can't be about the dead money. The only way for this argument to work is for it to be about the restructuring of Fitzpatrick.

 

We have the dead money from Fitz($10M...$3M from 2013, $7M from 2014....rollover effects 2014 by $10M). Had we not cut him we would have had roughly a $10M cap hit for him in 2013 and a $10M cap hit in 2014......coming to $20M less in 2014 due to rollover.

 

Our dead hit is $23M.....$26M including Fitz's $3M from 2013. Had we not cut him we would have spent $20M on him under the cap(s) leaving a massive difference of $6M. Even ignoring the SJ situation, a $6M difference in cap space is not the sort of level worth arguing about.

 

Personally I think it a bit futile to go back and argue about whether we should/shouldn't have restructured Fitz.

[The Dean]

The issue with the DEAD MONEY is:

 

1- It's symptomatic of an inefficient and ineffective front office

2- It's higher than all other teams

3- That money could have been used to resign other players now that aren't here --- OR --- resign players that are here so we don't have to spend as much later -- in other words, we could extend CJ and pay him more in 2014 so we can pay him less in 2015 and 2016, so we could sign other guys to new contracts in those years

 

In a cap, there is a fixed amount of money, the more efficient you can spend the better off you'll be over the long term

 

Much of this is true. But Spiller still doesn't have an agent, so I doubt anything is getting done there for awhile. Again it could have played a roll this year, but it looks like it did not. And think, next year, with a very low dead cap number, you can RAVE about how well the Bills manage their $$. (Somehow I doubt you will do that, though.)

[Kelly the Dog]

The issue with the DEAD MONEY is:

 

1- It's symptomatic of an inefficient and ineffective front office

2- It's higher than all other teams

3- That money could have been used to resign other players now that aren't here --- OR --- resign players that are here so we don't have to spend as much later -- in other words, we could extend CJ and pay him more in 2014 so we can pay him less in 2015 and 2016, so we could sign other guys to new contracts in those years

 

In a cap, there is a fixed amount of money, the more efficient you can spend the better off you'll be over the long term

If we want to extend Spiller we can, we easily have the money. Spiller, however, is not likely to get an extension this year. The team is going to want to see how he performs. But if they want to extend him now, for any money they want to give him now, they can.

[The Dean]

 

Sorry The Dean, I am going to harp on about this because people are arguing a moot issue.

 

The argument can't be about the dead money. The only way for this argument to work is for it to be about the restructuring of Fitzpatrick.

 

We have the dead money from Fitz($10M...$3M from 2013, $7M from 2014....rollover effects 2014 by $10M). Had we not cut him we would have had roughly a $10M cap hit for him in 2013 and a $10M cap hit in 2014......coming to $20M less in 2014 due to rollover.

 

Our dead hit is $23M.....$26M including Fitz's $3M from 2013. Had we not cut him we would have spent $20M on him under the cap(s) leaving a massive difference of $6M. Even ignoring the SJ situation, a $6M difference in cap space is not the sort of level worth arguing about.

 

Personally I think it a bit futile to go back and argue about whether we should/shouldn't have restructured Fitz.

 

Yes, but had we kept Fitz, and Stevie, it wouldn't be dead cap $. The all those complaining would be very happy. Right?

[K-9]

Do you know what C2C is? Are you aware that it is a guideline that a vast majority of teams follow?

 

And have been since 2009.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Green Lightning]

 

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.

 

Some of that over-paying is likely a "Buffalo" fee for either playing in a small market or for a losing franchise. So I get that. Hopefully the new owner has the right people in place to end our history of missteps. Whaley may be the guy, although the Chris Williams contract looks mighty suspect.

[Heitz]

The issue with the DEAD MONEY is:

 

2- It's higher than all other teams

 

In a cap, there is a fixed amount of money, the more efficient you can spend the better off you'll be over the long term

 

If it wasn't higher (than most, not all) I bet there wouldn't be a four page thread on it

[Dibs]

Hey Dibs,

 

I know you follow the salary cap rules pretty closely, and I haven't looked at them in a while. Is it clear that dead cap money (i.e., money actually spent by the team in an earlier year but that does not count against the salary cap until this year) qualifies as money to meet the cap floor requirement imposed by the new CBA?

 

Stated differently, is there any CBA requirement that the [rolling 4 year average ?] floor must be exceeded with cash actually spent during the 4 year period, as opposed to including dead cap money that may actually have been spent before the 4 year period started?

 

By choosing to take portions of the Fitz cap hit in two different years rather than all at once, does the front office get to count more of the "hit" in a year where the CBA requires the team to spend above a floor (albeit over a 4 year period)? Could that explain why Fitz's cap hit wasn't taken all at once? I don't remember which year the first rolling 4 year "floor" period starts.

 

Thanks.

 

In theory there can be some juggling that can occur in regards to this going from one 4 year period to another(though with rollover I can't foresee any team doing this)......but in the case of Fitz, the 2013 & 2014 years are in the same 4 year period(both years were over the floor irrelevant to the Fitz money btw....and yes, dead money counts).

 

As having the money split....or having it all in the first year has the exact same effect on the second year's cap space, I figure they did it the way they did to provide extra cap room in 2013(just in case). It seems to come down to "Why wouldn't you give yourself more cap room in year one when it will make no difference to the cap room in year two?".

 

Yes, but had we kept Fitz, and Stevie, it wouldn't be dead cap $. The all those complaining would be very happy. Right?

 

Hahaha.....wrong. They would be complaining that we have a bad GM because we have no cap space.