Jump to content

How Beane can create cap space without releasing anyone


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

can someone explain the disadvantage for the player from Field yates?  I wouldve thought the conversion becomes dead cap spread across the years.  So yes the cap number is higher but the dead cap number is higher too.  higher dead cap is a positive for the player with regards to him staying on the team (see Mario Addison).

If you're cap number is too high for the performance the team is receiving then they may be willing to take on some dead cap to release you. Maybe only saving a small amount of cap space. There is a risk, but very minimal. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is this some sort of Lamont 'The Shadow' Cranston deal of clouding men's minds? *

Yea, cover 1 did a great thing on the cap and mentioned Diggs in particular. Basically you convert his salary this season to a bonus, that converts $11M and Pro-rates it over the time left on his deal

Posted Images

It amazes me how many people want Brown gone. When healthy..he is worth every penny and definitely worth keeping if he'll restructure.

 

Never been a fan of judging players based on an injury plauged season. Most of our best offensive games were with Brown on the field.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

To free up 22 million in space to simply restructure Diggs, Tre and Dawkins would be amazing. Then you have Lee Smith who is an easy 2.25 million saved and then another two cuts in Vernon Butler(6.8 million saved 1 million dead cap) and Quinton Jefferson (6.5 million saved 1.5 million dead cap) which is another 24.3 million saved. Although I think they will attempt to restructure either Butler or Jefferson to a new deal taking a pay cut that puts one of them in the 4-5 million range. There also exists opportunities to cut John Brown (7.9 million saved) and restructuring the rather large contracts of Mitch, Addision, and Hughes. 

 

Overall if the Bills can somehow retain most of the key free agents and add a big time pass rusher and some depth/youth via the draft they will be in a very good position going forward.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

can someone explain the disadvantage for the player from Field yates?  I wouldve thought the conversion becomes dead cap spread across the years.  So yes the cap number is higher but the dead cap number is higher too.  higher dead cap is a positive for the player with regards to him staying on the team (see Mario Addison).

 

Depends the dead money to total hit ratio. So say they do what @Dkollidas suggests above. The hit to the Bills of cutting Diggs after the 2022 season would be $6.6m (the last year of the current deal plus two more years all with prorated bonus value of $2.2m) but the cap saving to cutting Diggs that year would be $12m. And if the two new years in that scenario are $20m per then you are basically looking at a saving of $16m the next year and a $4.4m hit. Essentially just doing that wouldn't quite seal the deal IMO because Diggs will likely want some more long term security. You probably have to do that deal but with an escalator where if Diggs is still on the roster on the 3rd day of the 2022 league year $5m of his 2023 salary automatically guarantees. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

do this, and cut some of the dead weight on the DL to get better production on the DL.  We really need impactful Edge rushers in FA, followed by TE.  Those seem to take time to develop.  My dream would be Hunter Henry, Yannick, and Watt.  Draft will fill out OL, LB, and RB. I think it's doable, just difficult.  

1 hour ago, StHustle said:

It amazes me how many people want Brown gone. When healthy..he is worth every penny and definitely worth keeping if he'll restructure.

 

Never been a fan of judging players based on an injury plauged season. Most of our best offensive games were with Brown on the field.

 

Yeah, I agree.  I think for most, it's not that they want to get rid of Brown, but they prefer a stud edge, etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

If the Bills want to get Diggs to restructure they will have to give him more new money up front (ie a pay rise). It think there is absolutely a way to do it where both parties get what they want. The Bills get some cap relief in 2021 and Diggs gets a pay rise to recognise he is a top 5 receiver and the 16th or 17th best which is how he is currently paid. 


A true restructure is simply converting salary into a signing bonus.  That should be very easy with Diggs.  Who wouldn’t want their money sooner?  In fact, many contracts with large salaries have clauses that allow the team to do a restructure like this at their discretion.  I don’t know if Diggs’ contract has that clause or not, but it should not be a problem regardless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:


A true restructure is simply converting salary into a signing bonus.  That should be very easy with Diggs.  Who wouldn’t want their money sooner?  In fact, many contracts with large salaries have clauses that allow the team to do a restructure like this at their discretion.  I don’t know if Diggs’ contract has that clause or not, but it should not be a problem regardless. 

 

The problem is Diggs is underpaid and the Bills are going to him and asking him to do something with his deal. That gives him leverage to say "sure I will do your restructure but you need to sweeten the pot a little because I am way better than the 17th best receiver in the league." 

 

I don't think he is going to demand a fortune. But I think the Bills might need to offer some new money as well as escalating the money he is already due by making it a bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not making space, just moving it.

 

And what happens when a player knows team cannot afford to cut player and decides to coast to save body for next contract?

 

And there are some players who do retire with large cap numbers and go to court not to repay.

 

IMO should only be done in rare cases.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem is Diggs is underpaid and the Bills are going to him and asking him to do something with his deal. That gives him leverage to say "sure I will do your restructure but you need to sweeten the pot a little because I am way better than the 17th best receiver in the league." 

 

I don't think he is going to demand a fortune. But I think the Bills might need to offer some new money as well as escalating the money he is already due by making it a bonus.

 

And it is another oportunity to reward excellence and performance. Players like Diggs and Allen are leaders. They deserve to be well compensated.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I don't think this lower cap will last long.  I think when a lot of vets are out of a job the NFLPA will fight to raise it.


Respectfully, that’s not how it works.  The cap is based on shared revenue, so if that goes up, the cap goes up.  There is a 10 year labor agreement, so at that point they have much more influence on what happens from the next contract.  What will influence sooner the cap is in 2022 if the tv contracts explode as several outlets are speculating.  My guess is these capologists are projecting they need to get through 2021, and then they can expect to manage these contracts.

 

Stinks for us this year whether the cap ends up at $180.5, $185, $190, and so on.  It would’ve been nice to make a run at a guy like Shaq Barrett, but that’s unlikely.  Beane and crew should be able to figure a way to extend their priorities.

 

Their may be more pay cuts by some players, but that’s still a minority.  As much as I love for example Milano, someone with serious space, will probably grab him, and we will lose on that one.

 

Someone shared a podcast that did a nice job articulating the cap, influences, restructure, pay cut, or cut and the implications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m as far from an armchair GM as you can get so I’m going to leave it to Beane and his staff. What I do know is that the Bills have a REALLY clear picture in front of them. They finally have a QB that they need to keep and have his #1 WR already locked up. So now you go through the roster looking to cut loose guys who UNDER performed. The days are gone when the Bills had to sell offseason slogans and retain long time fan favorites just to fill seats. 

Edited by SoCal Deek
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem is Diggs is underpaid and the Bills are going to him and asking him to do something with his deal. That gives him leverage to say "sure I will do your restructure but you need to sweeten the pot a little because I am way better than the 17th best receiver in the league." 

 

I don't think he is going to demand a fortune. But I think the Bills might need to offer some new money as well as escalating the money he is already due by making it a bonus.


That is possible but I doubt it would go down that way.  The Bills have other options to gain cap space so they don’t need Diggs to restructure.  It’d be nice, but they don’t have to have that space.  Also if and when Diggs wants his deal redone I am sure he would be letting the team know anyway.  I don’t think it’ll be this year though.  I would bet that it is a year away due to the cap decrease.  It’s going to bounce back big time so I’d think he’d want in on that gravy train when there’s plenty on hand for the Bills to spend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I don't think this lower cap will last long.  I think when a lot of vets are out of a job the NFLPA will fight to raise it.

A deal is a deal.....owners will use the formula.  The union taught them that trick.  now the union members will pay w salary reductions on average.  Life's a bear

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

The challenge here is that Allen will get an extension this summer. That won't have much of an impact in 2021 or 2022 but it will after that.  And that is when these converted salary to bonus money would hit the cap.

 

This is why I don't think this is a good idea.  Space is needed in future years when Allen's contract is going to hit, and also keep in mind that the new TV contracts are looming which will cause cap numbers to go up (as well as salaries)

 

I'd much rather extend some of these guys while frontloading the cap hit, and lock them in at "bargain" pricing.  Make room for that by cutting the fat on defense instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sullim4 said:

 

This is why I don't think this is a good idea.  Space is needed in future years when Allen's contract is going to hit, and also keep in mind that the new TV contracts are looming which will cause cap numbers to go up (as well as salaries)

 

I'd much rather extend some of these guys while frontloading the cap hit, and lock them in at "bargain" pricing.  Make room for that by cutting the fat on defense instead.

Front loading cap hits is not a good idea.  Rollover eliminates any benefit that could be gained.  It’s better to have flexibility and push cap hits into future years with higher caps so that they take up a smaller percentage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

 

 

Why would any player not agree with getting a bunch of money up front versus having to wait for it and potentially not see it?

1 hour ago, sullim4 said:

 

This is why I don't think this is a good idea.  Space is needed in future years when Allen's contract is going to hit, and also keep in mind that the new TV contracts are looming which will cause cap numbers to go up (as well as salaries)

 

I'd much rather extend some of these guys while frontloading the cap hit, and lock them in at "bargain" pricing.  Make room for that by cutting the fat on defense instead.

 

The cap will increase by a decent amount from the new MNF deal after next year and by a huge amount after the new deals for all the other contracts kick in after 2022. I wouldn't be too worried about it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Why would any player not agree with getting a bunch of money up front versus having to wait for it and potentially not see it?

 

 

Tax payers do it all the time giving interest free loans to IRS so they can collect rebate windfalls.

Maybe some want someone else holding their money because they cannot control spending of it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

You have to be certain that these players will be able to perform at a high level 3 years from now. The risk is there with any restructure like this but I think the risk is low with these players. 

 

The cap should also rise. With an Allen contract drafting becomes even more important because you will depend on draft picks to perform immediately on good teams. 

John Brown, Lee Smith, and 1 of Butler/Jefferson are likely cuts. After that I'm not sure. Beane could easily rebuild the DL next year and release Addison, Butler, and Jefferson. 

 

 

"The cap should also rise." Where did I hear that before? Oh, yeah, last year.

 

Let's stop kidding ourselves that we know what will happen with the coronavirus over the next year or so. We don't. There are millions, even tens of millions of people, nutbags really, who appear unwilling to get the vaccine. We don't know whether mutations will occur, or whether they might make the vaccine less useful or useless against the new strains. 

 

We just don't know. Nothing should be counted on.

 

So while kicking cans down the road makes sense in certain situations, it's not always a great idea and it's better in limited doses than it is as a widespread practice.

 

A bit of it this year would make a ton of apparent sense. The more you do, though, the riskier it gets and the more you hurt yourself down the road. It's not a cure-all. It is precisely like borrowing on a credit card ... use it wisely and it can be a useful tool, but unwisely used it can make things difficult for you for a long time.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

The cap will increase by a decent amount from the new MNF deal after next year and by a huge amount after the new deals for all the other contracts kick in after 2022. I wouldn't be too worried about it.

 

 

 

That certainly is one of the possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:


Respectfully, that’s not how it works.  The cap is based on shared revenue, so if that goes up, the cap goes up.  There is a 10 year labor agreement, so at that point they have much more influence on what happens from the next contract.  What will influence sooner the cap is in 2022 if the tv contracts explode as several outlets are speculating.  My guess is these capologists are projecting they need to get through 2021, and then they can expect to manage these contracts.

 

Stinks for us this year whether the cap ends up at $180.5, $185, $190, and so on.  It would’ve been nice to make a run at a guy like Shaq Barrett, but that’s unlikely.  Beane and crew should be able to figure a way to extend their priorities.

 

Their may be more pay cuts by some players, but that’s still a minority.  As much as I love for example Milano, someone with serious space, will probably grab him, and we will lose on that one.

 

Someone shared a podcast that did a nice job articulating the cap, influences, restructure, pay cut, or cut and the implications.

 

 

Latest best guess seems to be less than $185M, probably between $182 and $183M.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/21/salary-cap-most-likely-wont-hit-185-million/

 

The part I like about this article pretty well answers the question people keep asking about why wouldn't everyone want the cap raised high:

 

The teams that would have benefited from the chaos resulting from a $175 million cap aren’t thrilled by the fact that it will be higher. Most of those teams anticipated the financial losses early in the pandemic and planned accordingly for the impact on the 2021 cap. They believe that the teams that failed to properly plan shouldn’t be given an escape hatch.

 

Edited by Thurman#1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...