Bleeding Bills Blue Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, billsfan89 said: I think they franchise him then trade him, this has a Clowney situation written all over it. Have to agree... The only issue is tagging him costs 18+ million. Dareus and linder free up 28, leaving them with like 7 after tagging him (they currently are over the cap. So they'll either have to cut more people, or skip free agency while they try and trade him. Hayden, Campbell, Bouye, Lee, Jones - Any combination of those guys could be on the chopping block. I know you can always create cap space by pushing salary into bonuses and stuff - this isn't a team to do that. Flawed team in flux. I'd tag him and try and extend him - he's 24. Cut Hayden, Campbell, Lee and free up another 26 million so you can build out some depth. Target oline in FA, and try and build the defense in the draft? Edited February 6, 2020 by dneveu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan2313 Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 13 hours ago, Mark Vader said: Hello, Arik Armstead! He had 9 total sacks coming into this year. No thanks. I would rather just keep Shaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 36 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: No thanks. I think Shaq is a good player, but I’m not paying $10M per for a non-pass rusher. I wasn’t hot on paying it to Hughes, but understood the need for roster options. I think Campbell gets moved for a 5th—just a guess. And yeah, he’s a one-year stopgap, but with him/Hughes/Murphy/Edmunds you’ve got a very solid quartet of pass rushers without having to hope for Darryl Johnson to develop or a draft pick to light up the league. I'd do a 6th in a second for campbell. Guys played every game the last 5 years. Lead all linemen on the jags in snaps the last 3 years too. I don't think he's like - all-pro anymore but he's still a productive player. There's no long-term commitment either. If you want the cap space back you can just cut him, but I think he's a better player than anyone else we have at DE. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 calais would look great on our line. one year committment and leadership. sign me up for a fifth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, aristocrat said: calais would look great on our line. one year committment and leadership. sign me up for a fifth Yes. Take advantage of the desperation, and make st. dougs team worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 Doubt you could get Campbell for a 6th. Any team with the cap room will want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 Yannick is part 2 of the guys I don't want the Bills to sign (Amari Cooper thread was part 1). I have posted the stats elsewhere but on a per play basis Shaq had more sacks than Yannick. Shaq finished with 6.5 sacks and Yannick had 8. The difference in their contracts will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million a year apart. I don't think 1.5 sacks is worth 10 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Hap, just wanted to correct this, as I see it being used again and again the last week or so. That's not how you calculate money saved or spent. It's NOT CAP COST minus DEAD CAP. Doing it that way counts the dead cap money twice. The correct formula for a cut would be something like MONEY TO BE PAID THIS YEAR (generally salary plus roster bonus plus workout bonus plus any other bonuses) minus DEAD CAP. Dead cap money is counted twice in your equation there. A player's cap cost includes his unamortized signing bonus cost for that year. And of course that is also included in his dead cap money. But if they cut a guy, they don't save the unamortized bonus. Cutting Dareus will save 'em $17.5 mill. It's not just the MONEY TO BE PAID THIS YEAR. You have to add the unamortized portion of prior bonuses. In Dareus's case, there's still $2.5 million left from his restructuring bonus a few years back, and that needs to be counted against the cap this year no matter what. The dead cap takes all that into account. Dareus's 2020 cap amount is $20 million in cash that's due + $2.5 million accrual from a prior bonus = $22.5 million Thus, Jags will save $20 million of the projected 2020 cap by cutting Dareus. They also can't designate him as a post-June cut because this is the last year of his contract. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: Hap, just wanted to correct this, as I see it being used again and again the last week or so. That's not how you calculate money saved or spent. It's NOT CAP COST minus DEAD CAP. Doing it that way counts the dead cap money twice. The correct formula for a cut would be something like MONEY TO BE PAID THIS YEAR (generally salary plus roster bonus plus workout bonus plus any other bonuses) minus DEAD CAP. Dead cap money is counted twice in your equation there. A player's cap cost includes his unamortized signing bonus cost for that year. And of course that is also included in his dead cap money. But if they cut a guy, they don't save the unamortized bonus. Cutting Dareus will save 'em $17.5 mill. Just a note, @Thurman#1, that both Overthecap and Spotrac list the savings by cutting Darius at $20M https://overthecap.com/player/marcell-dareus/1830/ https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/jacksonville-jaguars/marcell-dareus-7718/ 1 hour ago, thebandit27 said: I think Campbell gets moved for a 5th—just a guess. And yeah, he’s a one-year stopgap, but with him/Hughes/Murphy/Edmunds you’ve got a very solid quartet of pass rushers without having to hope for Darryl Johnson to develop or a draft pick to light up the league. You normally have more educated guesses on value than many here, but a 5th sounds crazy low for Campbell unless another player is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Just a note, @Thurman#1, that both Overthecap and Spotrac list the savings by cutting Darius at $20M https://overthecap.com/player/marcell-dareus/1830/ https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/jacksonville-jaguars/marcell-dareus-7718/ You normally have more educated guesses on value than many here, but a 5th sounds crazy low for Campbell unless another player is involved. Hard to ask for more than that for a 34 year old DE whose numbers are declining, carries a $15M cap hit to his new team, and whose old team is going to cut him anyway. At least that’s the argument I’m making if I’m negotiating with them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Just a note, @Thurman#1, that both Overthecap and Spotrac list the savings by cutting Darius at $20M https://overthecap.com/player/marcell-dareus/1830/ https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/jacksonville-jaguars/marcell-dareus-7718/ You normally have more educated guesses on value than many here, but a 5th sounds crazy low for Campbell unless another player is involved. Don't forget what Jags gave Bills for a ProBowl DT who was much younger and had upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 14 hours ago, whatdrought said: Didn't it used to be that you could only use the tag if you intended to pursue a long term deal, and using it for a tag and trade was a faux pas? Teams are only supposed to use a tag with the intention of retaining the player, but there isn’t much to be done if the team makes an effort to do so. In this case the Jags clearly want to keep him even if he doesn’t want to be there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 30 minutes ago, GG said: Thus, Jags will save $20 million of the projected 2020 cap by cutting Dareus. They also can't designate him as a post-June cut because this is the last year of his contract. That is all correct. This year of the contract was obviously structured this was to force an extension before the season or let Dareus hit FA while he could still get one last big contract. Side note: Since this is the last year of the current CBA, the June 1st designation does not apply to any player - even those cut after 6/1. If a player is cut or traded it all hits this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wppete Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 They would be foolish not to Franchise him if they cant sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, whatdrought said: Meh, I take it with a grain of salt at this point. He has posted some things on social media that would indicate that he doesn't want to be there, and his agent may apply pressure. We'll see what happens. Also, I hate the franchise tag. What a stupid, unfair thing. How is it unfair? The players collectively bargained it. Same argument the Womens Soccer team made over pay. They collectively bargained it. How is it unfair when they accepted it? When you collectively bargain something you lose the ability to claim something is unfair. Don't sign the agreement then. Edited February 6, 2020 by matter2003 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 2 hours ago, BillsFan2313 said: He had 9 total sacks coming into this year. No thanks. I would rather just keep Shaq Yes, he didn't start producing until his contract year, but I think he would be a solid addition and not as expensive as Ngakoue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, matter2003 said: How is it unfair? The players collectively bargained it. Same argument the Womens Soccer team made over pay. They collectively bargained it. How is it unfair when they accepted it? When you collectively bargain something you lose the ability to claim something is unfair. Don't sign the agreement then. Maybe poor phrasing on my part. The implementation of it in it's current existence is fair because, as you stated, the players (or at least the union) agreed to it. I find it unfair on principle in it's essence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rc2catch Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Maybe poor phrasing on my part. The implementation of it in it's current existence is fair because, as you stated, the players (or at least the union) agreed to it. I find it unfair on principle in it's essence. I hope they do away with it in the next CBA. It’s a killer for some players, and it’s horrible press for everyone when these guys hold out or force trades. Negative press that the teams don’t need and the league doesn’t want. If they keep it I would rather see if modified. Maybe call it the temporary tag. Teams can temp tag a player for an extended period to negotiate a contract or facilitate a trade. If no deal is reached in that period player becomes a free agent. I’m sure there are pros and cons of doing it that way but the current tag is a hot mess every offseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenorthremembers Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 21 minutes ago, Rc2catch said: I hope they do away with it in the next CBA. It’s a killer for some players, and it’s horrible press for everyone when these guys hold out or force trades. Negative press that the teams don’t need and the league doesn’t want. If they keep it I would rather see if modified. Maybe call it the temporary tag. Teams can temp tag a player for an extended period to negotiate a contract or facilitate a trade. If no deal is reached in that period player becomes a free agent. I’m sure there are pros and cons of doing it that way but the current tag is a hot mess every offseason I like the idea of a temporary tag. However, I also dont love the idea of a player having essentially complete power to go where he wants. Something like this will not be good for small market teams, it turns the NFL into something like they have in the NBA where you know who will be in the Championship at the start of the year because stars end up pooling together in 2-3 markets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 18 hours ago, Mark Vader said: Hello, Arik Armstead! He’s on Twitter today arguing with 9er fans that want Clowney over him that they should shut up because they aren’t front office employees ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts