finn Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 29 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said: I think the hit is too big to overcome this offseason to trade him … Thompsett is saying that they actually need to restructure him again to save additional money to overcome the $50m hole they are in now … they need to also have some surplus to sign bargain basement players to replace the ones they are cutting/leaving ,,,and pay the rookies I never understood the hit you describe. I think you're right, or at least I've heard this explanation, but if the trading partner is paying his salary, where is the hit coming from? If it's guaranteed money, can't the trading partner agree to pay it, given they really want Diggs? For example, say we trade Diggs to a team with a lot of cap room for a second rounder on the condition that the other team takes the entire hit. Would that be legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 On 1/25/2024 at 3:12 AM, Aussie Joe said: Greg has just released another one of these… Bad news is that the projected 2024 NFL salary cap number is going to be lower than expected… so the Bills are going to start $50M in the red … Also says that they will have to restructure Diggs again to free up enough money to get under the cap next year … Yeah I started listening to it on my way into work today. The upshot is what I had been expecting: the Bills can claw their way into positive cap space with enough for draft picks and for the typical sundry pickups you need to bring in street free agents for depth and do so entirely with restructure and extensions for: Allen (no brainer, and by math 100% necessary) Dawkins (do you keep around a Pro Bowl left tackle?) Taron Johnson (2nd team All Pro) Rasul Douglas (currently our best CB on the roster) and (braces himself) Diggs. Now, we can avoid the last one. If we hit every single other way to squeeze nickels and dimes out of the roster. But if you want this team anywhere close competing, you're going to need to do it. I know some people here would prefer their eyes gouged out with shellfish forks, but that's the situation. 9 minutes ago, finn said: I never understood the hit you describe. I think you're right, or at least I've heard this explanation, but if the trading partner is paying his salary, where is the hit coming from? If it's guaranteed money, can't the trading partner agree to pay it, given they really want Diggs? For example, say we trade Diggs to a team with a lot of cap room for a second rounder on the condition that the other team takes the entire hit. Would that be legal? Short answer: no It is money that we already paid in the form of signing bonuses and previous restructures. If he is cut or traded it is immediately applied to the cap. It's like how everyone said Rodgers would be back, because the Jets literally cannot afford to cut him at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Mango said: Trading him costs the team an extra $3M. That is it. On the roster he costs the team $28M. Off the roster he costs us $31M. The delta is $3M. If the Bills want to move on or Stef wants to move on, they certainly can. So why won’t they do it? it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to swallow a cap hilt of $31 m on top of the $50m they have now for him to play elsewhere … particularly with other WR issues … I think you cross your fingers and hope he returns to early season form in 2024 24 minutes ago, finn said: I never understood the hit you describe. I think you're right, or at least I've heard this explanation, but if the trading partner is paying his salary, where is the hit coming from? If it's guaranteed money, can't the trading partner agree to pay it, given they really want Diggs? For example, say we trade Diggs to a team with a lot of cap room for a second rounder on the condition that the other team takes the entire hit. Would that be legal? It’s money they have already paid him for past play that they have kicked down the road … I’m not sure this can be picked up by another team … but why would they choose to ? His future payments only seem overvalued based on his play the past couple of months Edited January 26 by Aussie Joe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 8 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: Yeah I started listening to it on my way into work today. The upshot is what I had been expecting: the Bills can claw their way into positive cap space with enough for draft picks and for the typical sundry pickups you need to bring in street free agents for depth and do so entirely with restructure and extensions for: Allen (no brainer, and by math 100% necessary) Dawkins (do you keep around a Pro Bowl left tackle?) Taron Johnson (2nd team All Pro) Rasul Douglas (currently our best CB on the roster) and (braces himself) Diggs. Now, we can avoid the last one. If we hit every single other way to squeeze nickels and dimes out of the roster. But if you want this team anywhere close competing, you're going to need to do it. I know some people here would prefer their eyes gouged out with shellfish forks, but that's the situation. Yeah … I didn’t want them to do it at first … but looks like they realistically don’t have much of a choice if they want at least some room to manoeuvre on the FA market … similar to what they had last year perhaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) On 12/5/2023 at 8:27 PM, DrDawkinstein said: I type all that to once again reiterate, the cap is a myth. No disrespect, you are a great poster, but this is just flat out incorrect. You can't tell PART of a story to say something is a myth. You have completely left out the future ramifications of many of these moves that kick the can down the road. The cap is a now and future impact...only focusing on what you can do for ONE year doesn't tell anything close to the whole story. Secondly, you are conveniently leaving off the fact that the Bills have 23 Free Agents this year, 1 player away from half their roster. Thridly, in this cap fix situation you are releasing 2 more in your No Brainers, 2 more in your Preferred one, 2 more in your Painful, and 3 more in your Prefer not. So that means in every scenario the Bills have OVER half the roster to replace because you are cutting 2 to 9 more players depending how far they were to go in your 4 options above. And many of the FA's are starters or significant role players on defense and many of your cuts are key starters as well on both sides of the ball. So yay...you got under the cap, but your team is completely gutted, you still need money held over to pay your rookies, you pushed a bunch of cap hell down the road, and you don't really have very much money to replace nearly 30 players, about 20 of which were starters or relevant rotational players. Again no disrespect, but I hard disagree with your "cap is a myth" which is just false and unfortunately this post does nothing to prove it is a myth. The cap is VERY much impacting this team and is going to result in us losing good players we cant retain in FA and possibly making some tough cuts too. Then we need to find all those replacements in one offseason for a team that still wasn't good enough to get past KC before all that roster turnover. Reality is, this team is going to be VERY young this year as we will need a lot of our 10 draft picks to probably start as rookies or play heavy roles because of our cap. Cap is not a myth. Edited January 26 by Alphadawg7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 minute ago, Aussie Joe said: So why won’t they do it? Either they want to keep him and/or Stef wants to stay. It doesn't change the fact that the per June 1 salary cap delta with and without him on the roster is $3M, and $3M isn't holding any team back from from doing anything if they think it is valuable. Post June changes some things. The Bills can save $19M of cap space this season (2024) by cutting/trading Diggs after June 1. But they take a $22M dead cap hit the following year. That said, Diggs cap number on the roster in 2025 is $27M, so the net is still in the Bills favor at +$5M in cap space. Either way Greg is totally wrong about the Bills options with Diggs. My guess is that the Bills play this season with Diggs contract on the roster as-is, and trade him next offseason pre-draft. His cap hit for the receiving team is only $18M, which as of today is middling WR cap money. But the best part is the receiving team can cut him with next zero cap ramifications since the Bills eat all the signing bonus money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) Marino was discussing how it is practically impossible to cut Tre, Knox, Digss and Elam. I dont quite understand. He said they would count more against the cap if cut. Can someone explain this? Edited January 26 by nedboy7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 1 minute ago, nedboy7 said: Marino was discussing how it is practically impossible to cut Tre, Knox and Elam. I dont quite understand. He said they would count more against the cap if cut. Can someone explain this? Not Tre but yes on the other 2. Tre saves $6 million. Knox is likely going to be a very expensive part time player. Edited January 26 by Buffalo_Stampede 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: Marino was discussing how it is practically impossible to cut Tre, Knox, Digss and Elam. I dont quite understand. He said they would count more against the cap if cut. Can someone explain this? Its not that its “impossible “ … but impractical as with the Diggs example above ..given past money already paid to these players which they have not put on the salary cap (kicked down the road) … this triggers when the player is traded … so you end up paying more for the player on the 2024 salary cap not to play for you then if he remained on the team Edited January 26 by Aussie Joe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 minute ago, Aussie Joe said: Its not that its “impossible “ … but impractical as with the Diggs example above ..given past money already paid to these players which they have not put on the salary cap (kicked down the road) … this triggers when the player is traded … so you end upon paying more for the player on the 2024 salary cap not to play for you then if he remained on the team Thank you. Makes total sense. So what about "restructuring" deals. How does that work and when does it become a problem in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Just now, nedboy7 said: Thank you. Makes total sense. So what about "restructuring" deals. How does that work and when does it become a problem in the future. Restructuring is a way to kick more money down the road whilst the player keeps playing for you…it’s what they have done with Diggs and Miller previously which is making it difficult to move on from them when their form dips .. It cost you more money to move on from them then to have them play for you… but eventually you might have to take your medicine and do it so you can move on .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said: No disrespect, you are a great poster, I stopped reading right here anyways. While I appreciate the detailed response, it's mostly a joke line to illustrate the complex mechanics behind the cap and the crazy amount of options and levers GMs have to clear up space. Of course those run out at some point or only make matters worse down the road. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 How much of a dead cap hit is there for Diggs & Miller if cut this off-season? Also is it just a dead cap hit for 2024, or multiple years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 minutes ago, LabattBlue said: How much of a dead cap hit is there for Diggs & Miller if cut this off-season? Also is it just a dead cap hit for 2024, or multiple years? It’s too much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerBillsFan Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 We do not need to extend Diggs to get under the cap or have cap room. And I pray the Bills do NOT convert any money of his and move to future years. He will be here this season because of his contract unless we make other cap adjustments. But I think we keep him on the 24' roster as #2 or 1a. I agree with cossell he isn't a #1 anymore. 1 hour ago, John from Riverside said: It’s too much Not really, but Beane won't cut either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFan Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/ 2024 Diggs - Cap Hit - $27,895,400; Dead Cap if cut - $31,096,000 2025 Diggs - Cap Hit - $27,354,000; Dead Cap if cut - $22,247,000 2026 Diggs - Cap Hit - $28,446,000; Dead Cap if cut - $13,398,000 2024 Miller - Cap Hit - $23,784,000; Dead Cap if cut - $32,501,000 2025 Miller - Cap Hit - $23,874,000; Dead Cap if cut - $15,417,000 2026 Miller - Cap Hit - $26,374,000; Dead Cap if cut - $9,043,000 If it's possible to restructure these deals to move some cap to 2026 without making it too big a hit to cut them in 2026, this may be a helpful way to save some cap in 2024. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephilim17 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 4 hours ago, Aussie Joe said: Its not that its “impossible “ … but impractical as with the Diggs example above ..given past money already paid to these players which they have not put on the salary cap (kicked down the road) … this triggers when the player is traded … so you end up paying more for the player on the 2024 salary cap not to play for you then if he remained on the team Also, this needs to be factored in: When you cut a guy, you have to replace him and his production. So let's Steph's prodcution is "only" worth $12 million at this point in his career. If we are already three million in the hole, signing a $12 million player to replace him means we're spending an extra $15 million to replace the production we would have had if we just kept him. So, it's not just about saving money — or even eating a bit extra because you really want a guy and his contract off your team — you have to factor in replacement costs too. That said, I'm possibly good if we do a post-June cut as @Mango said as we save a bunch this year and $5 million next. But even if we draft a stud #1 (no guarantees) are we gonna spend $8 or $10 or $12 million to find a capable number 2? Lots to consider. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 9 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said: I stopped reading right here anyways. While I appreciate the detailed response, it's mostly a joke line to illustrate the complex mechanics behind the cap and the crazy amount of options and levers GMs have to clear up space. Of course those run out at some point or only make matters worse down the road. Hahaha well that’s was a good place to stop And I get what you’re trying to say, just I think the whole “cap is a myth” thing gets over used because it’s just not accurately accounting for all the turnover we have to entail and future ramifications. Yes, it’s always possible to get back under, it’s just people seem to forget that still comes with a cost of losing players and causing future cap issues to mitigate. If it was truly a myth, it wouldn’t cost us players, or keep us from resigning FA’s nor cause future cap implications. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NastyNateSoldiers Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 11 hours ago, finn said: I never understood the hit you describe. I think you're right, or at least I've heard this explanation, but if the trading partner is paying his salary, where is the hit coming from? If it's guaranteed money, can't the trading partner agree to pay it, given they really want Diggs? For example, say we trade Diggs to a team with a lot of cap room for a second rounder on the condition that the other team takes the entire hit. Would that be legal? They can take the entire base salary but the guarantees already paid out to him previously will be a cap hit for us. It's not douable McBeane has really put us in a bind with these horrible contracts. Von, Diggs, Knox , Bass and to an extent Tre deals are prohibiting us from having flexibility. McBeane has put us in a worse spot cap wise then Whaley and they used to always clown Whaley for that. Now who's the clowns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayjent Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/4/2024 at 11:56 AM, DrDawkinstein said: In general agree, but we have too many holes to fill and not enough high picks to fill them to spend another pick that high on double dipping. Bills currently have 10 picks. 1st 2nd 4th 5th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th I believe we're expecting to get a 3rd for Edmunds as well. Giving us 11. I could see Beane using a couple of those 6th to package with a 5th or 4th and moving up in those rounds. So maybe a 2nd WR there if the right guy falls. But it will take some luck and finagling. Go Bills They need to use all of those picks to replenish the roster. The draft has a lot of depth in the positions the Bills need to fill. The more at bats the more chances at a home run. 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.