MJS Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, PatsFanNH said: Is it plausible they told Diggs they wanted to restructure his contract so they could had the ability to sign a difference maker? Then they failed to sign said difference maker? Unlike what the other poster said they did need Diggs to agree to restructure his contract and they had to give him a good reason why or they gave him a crap load more money as a signing bonus to get him to agree and create more cap spce. That's not how restructuring works. They didn't need to give him a reason or give him a crap load more money. They accelerated his salary, converting it into a bonus which gives him all the money upfront and allows them to spread his contract out, lowering his cap hit. Players like it because it gives them their money sooner. Teams like it because it gives them cap flexibility. Owners have to write big checks, though. They don't sit down and negotiate anything. Diggs didn't do the Bills a favor by agreeing to restructure. It is a win-win for the player and the team. It is already expected to happen when these contracts are signed. Edited June 21, 2023 by MJS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Solomon Grundy said: A bumblebee?? No. He’s actually girls HS soccer player that was in a plane crash. A Yellow Jacket In other news, I see it’s that time of the month for Badol 🤣 Edited June 21, 2023 by NewEra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterStrategist Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 15 minutes ago, Beck Water said: So the tweet I saw said that Gabe had a 61.6% success rate vs man and a 57.1% success rate vs press. That’s 35th percentile? I found a free article from Harmon, stating the following: 1. Vs man coverage: Median approx 65% / 75th percentile approx 73% So while 35th percentile sounds horrible, seems to be a "tight band", fairly low differential in percentiles. All this to say, I'd love to see our collective teams slot #s against Zone last year (when Diggs aligned outside). I'd be willing to bet big $s we were a bottom 10 team, likely hovering around bottom 5. I've repeated this a million times since February, but that was our biggest issue LY (combined with poor IOL play, questionable playcalling, and some poor decision making by Josh). Seems to be fair that Beane likely agrees with some of this; given his offseason approach to acquisitions. Dorseys offense going to look alot more efficient (less volatile) IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 8 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: You are obviously a pretty casual NFL fan and probably don't know who half of those players are but their receiving options were a lot stronger than the Bills. Passive aggressive jerkiness is not your strong suit. Stick with direct jerkiness. If the Bills had drafted Skyy Moore in the 2nd and got the same results as the Chiefs you’d be on here proudly declaring how much smarter than Beane you are and listing a few guys that were better in 22. Instead he is on your wish list. It’s merely one of a trillion examples. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanNH Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 9 hours ago, MJS said: That's not how restructuring works. They didn't need to give him a reason or give him a crap load more money. They accelerated his salary, converting it into a bonus which gives him all the money upfront and allows them to spread his contract out, lowering his cap hit. Players like it because it gives them their money sooner. Teams like it because it gives them cap flexibility. Owners have to write big checks, though. They don't sit down and negotiate anything. Diggs didn't do the Bills a favor by agreeing to restructure. It is a win-win for the player and the team. It is already expected to happen when these contracts are signed. It’s a contract, they can’t change it without him agreeing to the change. That’s just the law you must get their sign off to do any changes even ones that are positive for the other party otherwise you could be considered in breach of contract. Besides that it’s just common sense you tell the person you’re changing the contract and most people (because we are people) give a reason why. Not every person runs it like BB and is as nice as sandpaper on sensitive skin. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 13 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said: It’s a contract, they can’t change it without him agreeing to the change. That’s just the law you must get their sign off to do any changes even ones that are positive for the other party otherwise you could be considered in breach of contract. Besides that it’s just common sense you tell the person you’re changing the contract and most people (because we are people) give a reason why. Not every person runs it like BB and is as nice as sandpaper on sensitive skin. The language is in the original contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillyG Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 50 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said: It’s a contract, they can’t change it without him agreeing to the change. That’s just the law you must get their sign off to do any changes even ones that are positive for the other party otherwise you could be considered in breach of contract. Besides that it’s just common sense you tell the person you’re changing the contract and most people (because we are people) give a reason why. Not every person runs it like BB and is as nice as sandpaper on sensitive skin. Partially correct and partially way off base. You are correct in saying they need him to agree to a CHANGE in the contract. A change would be things such as adding void years or straight up cuts in salary. It's not considered a change in contract to do a restructure as MOST contracts given these days have those permissions as part of the existing deal. The language is built in and agreed to upon signing the original deal. This would be the type of restructure you see most players receive. Conversion of salary to bonus to free up space. Now it would be a courtesy to mention it to a player or his representative before doing it. Especially if a GM has contact with a guy over the course of the off-season. But for a simple restructure it's not needed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyBills Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 Has this been posted?🤔 21 hours ago, Beck Water said: Dude: we get it that Gabe Davis is not Tee Higgins or Jalen Waddle. But can we agree there's a fair distance between those two guys, and a "bunch of crap"? Yeah, we want him to have fewer drops, and be thrown more catchable passes. But by a number of metrics, he's actually at the top of the #2s and a number of teams don't have a #1 with his production. Plus Sherfield, Harty and 2nd year Shakir are all upgrades over McKenzie who was our #3 last year. Kincaid should be a playmaker from day 1 as well. I like our weapons alot. Not wise to sign another 30+ yo WR unless it was a 1 or even 2 yr deal and I'm sure he wants 3-5 years at top dollar. Just wouldn't be a smart move imo for the long run 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 1 hour ago, MJS said: The language is in the original contract. Don’t stop him. He’s a Pats fan on a roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 31 minutes ago, JerseyBills said: Has this been posted?🤔 Plus Sherfield, Harty and 2nd year Shakir are all upgrades over McKenzie who was our #3 last year. Kincaid should be a playmaker from day 1 as well. I like our weapons alot. Not wise to sign another 30+ yo WR unless it was a 1 or even 2 yr deal and I'm sure he wants 3-5 years at top dollar. Just wouldn't be a smart move imo for the long run its not like Diggs is losing money on a restructure. Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said: its not like Diggs is losing money on a restructure. Weird. He did lose flexibility in that he can't be traded now. He did it (reportedly) so they could add Hopkins so teams would stop double teaming him and then the Bills didn't so now he feels duped. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Boo Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 12 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said: its not like Diggs is losing money on a restructure. Weird. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the restructure prolongs his time here, giving Stef and the team fewer avenues for an out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 8 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: He did lose flexibility in that he can't be traded now. He did it (reportedly) so they could add Hopkins so teams would stop double teaming him and then the Bills didn't so now he feels duped. 1 minute ago, Chicken Boo said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the restructure prolongs his time here, giving Stef and the team fewer avenues for an out. Reading the tea leafs, it seems as though at least part of the issue is that Stef would like to ask to leave, but cannot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWeatherMan Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 21 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the restructure prolongs his time here, giving Stef and the team fewer avenues for an out. Restructure isn’t an extension so it does not necessarily prolong anything. It makes his contract less tradable which might guarantee his stay in Buffalo. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaB Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 1 hour ago, JerseyBills said: Has this been posted?🤔 Plus Sherfield, Harty and 2nd year Shakir are all upgrades over McKenzie who was our #3 last year. Kincaid should be a playmaker from day 1 as well. I like our weapons alot. Not wise to sign another 30+ yo WR unless it was a 1 or even 2 yr deal and I'm sure he wants 3-5 years at top dollar. Just wouldn't be a smart move imo for the long run And last year heading into the season we would have taken McKenzie over all of them. Difference is McKenzie finally got his shot and failed and the others are looking for that opportunity. No one knows if it’s an upgrade or not yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, TheWeatherMan said: Restructure isn’t an extension so it does not necessarily prolong anything. It makes his contract less tradable which might guarantee his stay in Buffalo. Yeah it's been much discussed in WNY that he has said he would like to play with his brother at some point........and the way it lines up it would most likely be with Stef Diggs on a final contract with Dallas around when his bro is in his prime. The cap hit to move him now would be pretty absurd and makes that possibility in the near future very unlikely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Boo Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 49 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: He did lose flexibility in that he can't be traded now. He did it (reportedly) so they could add Hopkins so teams would stop double teaming him and then the Bills didn't so now he feels duped. More than that, I think Stef just wants to win. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Water Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 1 hour ago, JerseyBills said: Has this been posted?🤔 Plus Sherfield, Harty and 2nd year Shakir are all upgrades over McKenzie who was our #3 last year. Kincaid should be a playmaker from day 1 as well. I like our weapons alot. Not wise to sign another 30+ yo WR unless it was a 1 or even 2 yr deal and I'm sure he wants 3-5 years at top dollar. Just wouldn't be a smart move imo for the long run Yeah, it's been posted. Might or might not be one of the things Diggs is talking about here: I don't know that Sherfield, Harty and 2nd year Shakir are "all upgrades over McKenzie". I would like that to be true; I think 2 of the 3 have higher ceilings. Dunno if this will work: https://stathead.com/football/versus-finder.cgi?request=1&seasons_type=perchoice&player_id1=McKeIs00&p1yrfrom=2022&p1yrto=2022&player_id2=SherTr00&p2yrfrom=2022&p2yrto=2022&player_id3=HarrDe07&p3yrfrom=2021&p3yrto=2021 McKenzie had more receptions and more yards in 2 fewer games than Sherfield last season. Sherfield can play teams other than as PR/KR though Deonte Harty has been a first team all-Pro as a KR/PR and had a better season in 2021, but the question is "can he stay healthy?" So it's not a sure thing, but one would like to think that with 3 shots at it one will work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 2 hours ago, PatsFanNH said: It’s a contract, they can’t change it without him agreeing to the change. That’s just the law you must get their sign off to do any changes even ones that are positive for the other party otherwise you could be considered in breach of contract. Besides that it’s just common sense you tell the person you’re changing the contract and most people (because we are people) give a reason why. Not every person runs it like BB and is as nice as sandpaper on sensitive skin. No offense, but you are only demonstrating you don't actually know how it works and are basing your incorrect assumptions here based on what you think is "common sense" on what you assume to be true for all contracts with no regards for the actual language and contract law applied to NFL players contracts. The fact remains, the option to convert is in the original contract, and that clause is NOT executable by the player, and ONLY executable by the team and the team does NOT need to consult with said player, seek their permission, nor speak with them prior to doing it. That is the entire point to the clause. And since you want to refer to "common sense", if you applied common sense here it would be absolutely clear to you that is how it works, otherwise no GM would be able to sign players to these big contracts that are going to screw the cap without a restructure IF it was dependent on said player "agreeing" and signing off on the restructure. To be honest, this isn't up for interpretation, its 100% fact. Players do NOT ever have to approve, be consulted, or given a reason when it comes to a team exercising the restructure clause that is in their contract. PS: All cap words and the bolded was just to highlight key words, not yell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Otreply Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said: its not like Diggs is losing money on a restructure. Weird. It’s not like Diggs had a choice in the matter, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.