The Salary Cap Fallacy

[Kirby Jackson]

There has been a lot of talk since the trades about "signability." It is something that a lot of people have just accepted as a reality. "We wouldn't have been able to sign Watkins." I ask, "why not?" What was preventing the Bills from keeping him? The answer is they CHOSE not to re-sign Sammy. The FO evaluated the situation and said, "he isn't worth what he will receive on the open market. We do not value him enough to prevent him from hitting the open market."

 

In terms of the salary cap we blindly believe that it is hindering our ability to put together a roster. When was the last time the Bills were FORCED to let a player walk? It's been over a decade. The rising cap has allowed teams a lot of flexibility in manipulating the cap. There isn't a team in the NFL that's restricted by the cap. Some teams do a better job of manipulating it than others but any team can pretty much sign any guy. As an example, the Bills had restructures for Dareus and Glenn sitting there if they wanted. They could have opened a boatload of cap space for this year. They push the cap hits into a future year, when the cap rises and it isn't that big of a deal. Teams have figured out ways to work the cap and it is no longer the hinderance that it once was.

 

Just thought that it was important to have this discussion. I'd be curious to hear from Dibs (if he's around) or MAjBobby. They have been really good contributors on the cap.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Wayne Cubed]

Yea I think some fans hear $13m a year average for a WR and think that's a lot of cap space, forgetting that the salary cap now rises.

 

This isn't years past where you only had $120m to spend on the whole team.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

There has been a lot of talk since the trades about "signability." It is something that a lot of people have just accepted as a reality. "We wouldn't have been able to sign Watkins." I ask, "why not?" What was preventing the Bills from keeping him? The answer is they CHOSE not to re-sign Sammy. The FO evaluated the situation and said, "he isn't worth what he will receive on the open market. We do not value him enough to prevent him from hitting the open market."

 

In terms of the salary cap we blindly believe that it is hindering our ability to put together a roster. When was the last time the Bills were FORCED to let a player walk? It's been over a decade. The rising cap has allowed teams a lot of flexibility in manipulating the cap. There isn't a team in the NFL that's restricted by the cap. Some teams do a better job of manipulating it than others but any team can pretty much sign any guy. As an example, the Bills had restructures for Dareus and Glenn sitting there if they wanted. They could have opened a boatload of cap space for this year. They push the cap hits into a future year, when the cap rises and it isn't that big of a deal. Teams have figured out ways to work the cap and it is no longer the hinderance that it once was.

 

Just thought that it was important to have this discussion. I'd be curious to hear from Dibs (if he's around) or MAjBobby. They have been really good contributors on the cap.

 

....understand your comments...at the same time, it sounds like Overdorf is doing his job, yet how many finger HIM as a problem that Pegula needs to get rid of?....interesting............

[BringBackOrton]

There has been a lot of talk since the trades about "signability." It is something that a lot of people have just accepted as a reality. "We wouldn't have been able to sign Watkins." I ask, "why not?" What was preventing the Bills from keeping him? The answer is they CHOSE not to re-sign Sammy. The FO evaluated the situation and said, "he isn't worth what he will receive on the open market. We do not value him enough to prevent him from hitting the open market."

 

In terms of the salary cap we blindly believe that it is hindering our ability to put together a roster. When was the last time the Bills were FORCED to let a player walk? It's been over a decade. The rising cap has allowed teams a lot of flexibility in manipulating the cap. There isn't a team in the NFL that's restricted by the cap. Some teams do a better job of manipulating it than others but any team can pretty much sign any guy. As an example, the Bills had restructures for Dareus and Glenn sitting there if they wanted. They could have opened a boatload of cap space for this year. They push the cap hits into a future year, when the cap rises and it isn't that big of a deal. Teams have figured out ways to work the cap and it is no longer the hinderance that it once was.

 

Just thought that it was important to have this discussion. I'd be curious to hear from Dibs (if he's around) or MAjBobby. They have been really good contributors on the cap.

Good topic Kirby!

 

This may be a little off-topic, but when discussing the cap, we also need to talk replacement cost. Lots of "we can't afford to pay Sammy $13M" talk going around, but Matthews is looking at $10M next year to preemptively replace Watkins. We DO need to have a #1 receiver now that there's a hole.

 

That's why I find, "we could sign two or 3 good players for that," arguments so frustrating. Sure, you could. You could sign a serviceable LB, 3rd CB, or vet OL for that money. But then how do you pay your #1 WR that you are going to need? The guys that hit FA are gonna be asking for $15M. Our odds of drafting a top 15 WR talent are not good.

 

You don't win in the NFL losing a star over a few cap dollars and paying a few serviceable players instead. 53 Jordan Matthews caliber athletes isn't a Super Bowl team.

 

Case in point, Gilmore. Who did we sign when Gilmore walked that we really need? We could've afforded Hyde still. Vlad Ducasse? Andre Holmes? Dimarco? Is there any doubt, on today of all days, that letting Gilmore walk for a FB and a couple backups, along with trading Sammy for picks and "adequate" players show a flawed team-building strategy?

 

With the money we save from not keeping Sammy, we will end up signing Jordan Matthews and a backup OG/C who sees some ST snaps. That is NOT a recipe for success.

Edited August 13, 2017 by jmc12290

[Wayne Cubed]

Good topic Kirby!

 

This may be a little off-topic, but when discussing the cap, we also need to talk replacement cost. Lots of "we can't afford to pay Sammy $13M" talk going around, but Matthews is looking at $10M next year to preemptively replace Watkins. We DO need to have a #1 receiver now that there's a hole.

 

That's why I find, "we could sign two or 3 good players for that," arguments so frustrating. Sure, you could. You could sign a serviceable LB, 3rd CB, or vet OL for that money. But then how do you pay your #1 WR that you are going to need? The guys that hit FA are gonna be asking for $15M. Our odds of drafting a top 15 WR talent are not good.

 

You don't win in the NFL losing a star over a few cap dollars and paying a few serviceable players instead. 53 Jordan Matthews caliber athletes isn't a Super Bowl team.

 

Case in point, Gilmore. Who did we sign when Gilmore walked that we really need? We could've afforded Hyde still. Vlad Ducasse? Andre Holmes? Dimarco? Is there any doubt, on today of all days, that letting Gilmore walk for a FB and a couple backups, along with trading Sammy for picks and "adequate" players show a flawed team-building strategy?

 

With the money we save from not keeping Sammy, we will end up signing Jordan Matthews and a backup OG/C who sees some ST snaps. That is NOT a recipe for success.

I don't even think they'll spend the money on Matthews, with the whole "good teams build through the draft" mantra. They've said they won't be spenders in FA normally.

 

Well good teams also resign their home grown talent that they spent draft picks on.

 

The new Bills FO will attempt to replace Watkins through the draft.

[Kirby Jackson]

Good topic Kirby!

 

This may be a little off-topic, but when discussing the cap, we also need to talk replacement cost. Lots of "we can't afford to pay Sammy $13M" talk going around, but Matthews is looking at $10M next year to preemptively replace Watkins. We DO need to have a #1 receiver now that there's a hole.

 

That's why I find, "we could sign two or 3 good players for that," arguments so frustrating. Sure, you could. You could sign a serviceable LB, 3rd CB, or vet OL for that money. But then how do you pay your #1 WR that you are going to need? The guys that hit FA are gonna be asking for $15M. Our odds of drafting a top 15 WR talent are not good.

 

You don't win in the NFL losing a star over a few cap dollars and paying a few serviceable players instead. 53 Jordan Matthews caliber athletes isn't a Super Bowl team.

 

Case in point, Gilmore. Who did we sign when Gilmore walked that we really need? We could've afforded Hyde still. Vlad Ducasse? Andre Holmes? Dimarco? Is there any doubt, on today of all days, that letting Gilmore walk for a FB and a couple backups, along with trading Sammy for picks and "adequate" players show a flawed team-building strategy?

 

With the money we save from not keeping Sammy, we will end up signing Jordan Matthews and a backup OG/C who sees some ST snaps. That is NOT a recipe for success.

That's a good point. I am thinking that Sammy gets about an average of $12M and Matthews around $10M. Is that worth it?!? https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver/

 

....understand your comments...at the same time, it sounds like Overdorf is doing his job, yet how many finger HIM as a problem that Pegula needs to get rid of?....interesting............

Yep, there is a general lack of understanding on the topic. Teams hide behind the cap when they don't want to do something. What they are telling us isn't necessarily the truth.

[BringBackOrton]

I don't even think they'll spend the money on Matthews, with the whole "good teams build through the draft" mantra. They've said they won't be spenders in FA normally.

 

Well good teams also resign their home grown talent that they spent draft picks on.

 

The new Bills FO will attempt to replace Watkins through the draft.

They will re-sign Matthews to make the trade a "success." I believe Kirby said this earlier, and I agreed 100%. Trading for Matthews, touting him as a good replacement player, then letting him walk would look awful.

[Wayne Cubed]

They will re-sign Matthews to make the trade a "success." I believe Kirby said this earlier, and I agreed 100%. Trading for Matthews, touting him as a good replacement player, then letting him walk would look awful.

They might, I'm not so sure.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

That's a good point. I am thinking that Sammy gets about an average of $12M and Matthews around $10M. Is that worth it?!? https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver/

Yep, there is a general lack of understanding on the topic. Teams hide behind the cap when they don't want to do something. What they are telling us isn't necessarily the truth.

 

 

.....although many have tabbed Pegula as a "clueless owner", if the consensus was Overdorf was a failed capologist, couldn't TP go out and hire the best in the land?.....he certainly opened up the checkbook for Beane and his hires, which include several former club VP's as well as Personnel Directors, right?.....oh wait, they ALL came to Buffalo as a last gasp for NFL employment versus unemployment and soup kitchen lines....we only attract THE worst....go figure..............

[NoSaint]

Yea I think some fans hear $13m a year average for a WR and think that's a lot of cap space, forgetting that the salary cap now rises.

 

This isn't years past where you only had $120m to spend on the whole team.

It's growing so much faster than most can keep up with. It went from 40 to 80 in 8 years and 80 to 167 in like 12(?)

 

You have to look at percentage of cap as an anchor but no sports news sources have dealt in this for benchmarking as outrageous sounding numbers get more clicks.

[JaCrispy]

I totally agree...they CHOSE not to resign Sammy...

 

In addition, though, I have always said that, with the salary cap, because guys are contracted for only a period of time, constructing a roster is all about timing imo...there is a theory that if you don't have your franchise QB, it doesn't really make a ton a of sense signing guys to massive contracts, and, in the process, limiting your ability to maneuver around, and adding as much talent as you can. (This is why Whaley was fired imo...in addition to never acquiring a franchise QB, he kept giving out big contracts, which limited the amount of talent the team could accumulate, keeping the Bills in perpetual mediocrity.)

 

Is Watkins a great talent? Of course...but the timing of extending him without having a franchise QB to throw him the ball (in addition to the injury concern) is the reason the team decided to do what they did imo, based on what Beane said...it's almost like if he had a good year and the team resigned him to a $100 million contract, that they were making the same mistake that they made when they surrendered two 1st round picks and a 4th rounder to help EJ Manuel out- the timing was off to make that kind of move.

 

As much as I hate to see Sammy go, I agree with the reasoning about timing and roster construction.

Edited August 13, 2017 by JaCrispy

[T-Bomb]

I think what the Bills meant when they said signability is that they either didn't want Watkins, or he didn't want the Bills. So this was Watkins' last season anyways. May as well get something for him as opposed to letting him walk.

[Geo in Pa]

Should have picked up the 5th yr option, it would have given them more time to see if he could shake the injury bug, they painted themselves in a corner.

[Kirby Jackson]

I think what the Bills meant when they said signability is that they either didn't want Watkins, or he didn't want the Bills. So this was Watkins' last season anyways. May as well get something for him as opposed to letting him walk.

He didn't have a choice. They are the only ones with a choice. They could have tagged him.

[WhoTom]

There has been a lot of talk since the trades about "signability." It is something that a lot of people have just accepted as a reality. "We wouldn't have been able to sign Watkins." I ask, "why not?" What was preventing the Bills from keeping him? The answer is they CHOSE not to re-sign Sammy. The FO evaluated the situation and said, "he isn't worth what he will receive on the open market. We do not value him enough to prevent him from hitting the open market."

 

I agree, but I would add a qualifier: We didn't value him enough to spend that much of our salary cap on him.

 

You're right that they could have restructured other guys, etc., but the bottom line is that they felt he wasn't worth that much of a cap hit. If the cap didn't exist, they may have kept him. We don't know for sure, but it's not a fallacy to say that the cap had an impact on this decision.

Edited August 13, 2017 by WhoTom

[Simon Says]

Howmuch of a home iscount are the Pats getting for Brady? He takes way less than market value,so Pats are extremely blessed..something else...rather than worry about spending 10,13 million on a a free agent Watkins "replacement"..wouldnt it be great to DRAFT one? Maximum production and be willing to let (some) guys walk after rookie deal

Edited August 13, 2017 by Pablocruise

[oldmanfan]

He didn't have a choice. They are the only ones with a choice. They could have tagged him.

True. But I suspect that McD and Beane would not want an unhappy guy on their roster.

Should have picked up the 5th yr option, it would have given them more time to see if he could shake the injury bug, they painted themselves in a corner.

Then they'd gave been stuck if he was still injured.

 

I question the trade. Didn't like it. But there were a ton of things to consider.

[Thurman#1]

There has been a lot of talk since the trades about "signability." It is something that a lot of people have just accepted as a reality. "We wouldn't have been able to sign Watkins." I ask, "why not?" What was preventing the Bills from keeping him? The answer is they CHOSE not to re-sign Sammy. The FO evaluated the situation and said, "he isn't worth what he will receive on the open market. We do not value him enough to prevent him from hitting the open market."

 

In terms of the salary cap we blindly believe that it is hindering our ability to put together a roster. When was the last time the Bills were FORCED to let a player walk? It's been over a decade. The rising cap has allowed teams a lot of flexibility in manipulating the cap. There isn't a team in the NFL that's restricted by the cap. Some teams do a better job of manipulating it than others but any team can pretty much sign any guy. As an example, the Bills had restructures for Dareus and Glenn sitting there if they wanted. They could have opened a boatload of cap space for this year. They push the cap hits into a future year, when the cap rises and it isn't that big of a deal. Teams have figured out ways to work the cap and it is no longer the hinderance that it once was.

 

Just thought that it was important to have this discussion. I'd be curious to hear from Dibs (if he's around) or MAjBobby. They have been really good contributors on the cap.

 

 

 

Kirby, saying that they chose not to sign Sammy is correct. But it is still very reasonable to think that paying what it would've cost to re-sign him would have put the team in an uncomfortable position, forcing them to not sign other people they would like to keep. Yeah, they chose not to sign him, but their unwillingness to pay him the huge money he would have received - maybe a year later but sooner or later - if he'd stayed healthy and was dominant was very likely a big factor, probably one of the two primary factors in terms of why they didn't sign him.

 

And the idea that they haven't been "forced" to let someone go in a decade is misleading. Sure, there hasn't been a case where if they hadn't let someone go the league would have penalized them for going over the cap. But the reason that they haven't been forced to let someone go this very year is that they shed salaries like crazy.

 

It's like saying that since a guy hasn't had his house foreclosed on and sold he must be OK financially ... ignoring the fact that he sold his car, his TV, all the furniture and broke into his 501K to make the payments.

 

And yeah, they could have re-structured Dareus and Glenn ... same as a guy could take out a second mortgage to have extra money to pay the first. But it's not prudent either way. It's just putting today's expenses on tomorrow's salary cap, not something financially intelligent teams do.

 

There's no guarantee that the cap will rise forever. Good teams don't make that assumption. Teams can't sign anyone they want. They're balancing the value of different guys and different positions in their scheme and how many guys they can make their eight to twelve "core" guys and a million other factors. And those decisions get harder the closer you are to the cap, and we were very close to the cap this off-season until we let a bunch of guys we might well have like to keep hit the road. Thanks to the fiscal conservatism they showed in NOT re-structuring anyone (and in letting Sammy go), our cap situation has gotten brighter.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

By restructuring Glenn and dareus ur giving them more money up front. for the guy who's ankle is always hurt, and the guy who keeps screwing up

[Simon Says]

Howmuch of a homendiscount are the Pats getting for Brady? He takes way less than market value,so Pats are extremely blessed..something else...rather than worry about spending 10,13 million on a a free agent Watkins "replacement"..wouldnt it be great to DRAFT one? Maximum prouction and be willing to let (some)

guys walk after rookie deal