PromoTheRobot Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 12/6/2023 at 5:39 AM, SoMAn said: summation I think we need to stop going "all in" on big names and build with younger players 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColoradoBills Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 11 hours ago, QCity said: This might be the most mindless cap breakdown I've ever seen. He's essentially just reading Spotrac to you. Every single team in the league can create cap space by restructuring 6 or 7 players, and then releasing another 10 players and pretending their replacements will cost nothing. If anyone is serious about learning more about cap management this is the last video you want to watch. It's nonsensical comfort food. Come on, just keep doing what the New Orleans Saints have been doing. You know that team who has missed the playoffs 3 straight years (in a weak division) and the same team that has won 1 playoff game in the last 5 years! It's brilliant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoMAn Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said: I think we need to stop going "all in" on big names and build with younger players Not sure what that means. Other than Von Miller, they've pretty much relied on players they've developed through the draft and 'prove it deal' free agents. Stef was effectively a draft pick, though the salary is too high to really look at it in that light. Von was a gamble, with the Bills believing they were close and he could be the missing piece of the D-line that would pressure the QB. Most of us were excited at the time by that anticipated impact. Otherwise, there hasn't been a lot of money thrown at free agents. It would be nice if they could find ways to re-sign players they've developed who are just starting to hit their stride. e.g. Epenesa, Rousseau, etc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 22 minutes ago, SoMAn said: Not sure what that means. Other than Von Miller, they've pretty much relied on players they've developed through the draft and 'prove it deal' free agents. Stef was effectively a draft pick, though the salary is too high to really look at it in that light. Von was a gamble, with the Bills believing they were close and he could be the missing piece of the D-line that would pressure the QB. Most of us were excited at the time by that anticipated impact. Otherwise, there hasn't been a lot of money thrown at free agents. It would be nice if they could find ways to re-sign players they've developed who are just starting to hit their stride. e.g. Epenesa, Rousseau, etc That's exactly what I meant. Rolling the dice on expensive veterans. How many times do we read posts here about going "all in" or " swing for the fences"? People fall in love with the idea of getting a superstar but ignore the real pitfalls like injury or a drop-off in performance because they are over 30. I feel chasing performance is a losing strategy. By that I mean signing someone who had a good year or two, betting they will continue to be that good with your team. I'd rather see us find the emerging gems on their way up. Can you scout for those players or is it all a crap shoot? Might be, but you'll be able to move on from those players easier if they don't work out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoMAn Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 46 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said: That's exactly what I meant. Rolling the dice on expensive veterans. How many times do we read posts here about going "all in" or " swing for the fences"? People fall in love with the idea of getting a superstar but ignore the real pitfalls like injury or a drop-off in performance because they are over 30. I feel chasing performance is a losing strategy. By that I mean signing someone who had a good year or two, betting they will continue to be that good with your team. I'd rather see us find the emerging gems on their way up. Can you scout for those players or is it all a crap shoot? Might be, but you'll be able to move on from those players easier if they don't work out. Right. Part of the Patriot’s strategy during their dynasty run was letting go of players with escalating salaries and declining impact, regardless of how much of a name they’d been in recent years. They were able to identify when a player had peaked and move on, rather than hope for more output. As a result they were often able to parlay their FA losses into compensation draft picks. They never got too emotionally attached to the point it became detrimental. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maine-iac Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 13 hours ago, pennstate10 said: Bills already did that. Signed KJ Hamler. good signing if injuries haven’t sapped his speed. You say already did that like I hadn't posted this weeks before they signed Hamler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NastyNateSoldiers Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I think we need to take our medicine next yr and not open up to much cap space just enough to get under the cap for the draft and cheap dust settle free agents. No need to double down on Diggs deal or anyone else this regime made there bed now they must sleep in it. Extensions would be fine for players that are still arrow up type guys but other then that we need to be frugal next season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said: I think we need to stop going "all in" on big names and build with younger players Agreed, especially for 2024. I was for taking the big swing on Von in 2022. It hasn't worked, and it's now time to take our medicine. It doesn't have to mean we are out of contention, but it's time for a youth movement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubanmist 1 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 On 12/5/2023 at 11:35 PM, Beck Water said: I dunno if the cap is a myth or the cap isn't a myth, but the Bills have said they want Hines to play for them next season. Hines has said he expects to play for the Bills next season. Hines didn't fight losing his salary of $2.5M and the Bills didn't try to recover his $500k signing bonus......Hines is getting basically, maximum PS money this season ($940k) I don't think it takes a dot-connecting genius to infer that Beane promised Hines he would be on the team next season in exchange for getting the cap relief with no negative PR/grievance filed this season. I think there's a bunch of other moves on Tompsett's list the Bills won't make, but the essential point is correct, there are moves to be made. I would release Hines. Dude will not be the same again. Terrible what happened to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NastyNateSoldiers Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 12 hours ago, SoMAn said: Right. Part of the Patriot’s strategy during their dynasty run was letting go of players with escalating salaries and declining impact, regardless of how much of a name they’d been in recent years. They were able to identify when a player had peaked and move on, rather than hope for more output. As a result they were often able to parlay their FA losses into compensation draft picks. They never got too emotionally attached to the point it became detrimental. This seems like one of the biggest problems with McBeane they overpay old vets and hang on to them way to long. Seems like they don't figure in age to much when it comes to free agency. Von Miller is a classic example of this. I wasn't surprised when he torn his ACL once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 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 … Edited January 25 by Aussie Joe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 On 12/5/2023 at 11:27 PM, DrDawkinstein said: Greg Tompsett is making the podcast rounds in the bye week this week and talking cap. Gave a pretty detailed plan on Cover1 and showed how the Bills could get themselves to about $72M UNDER the cap. Or $56M under without anything too crazy. Worth watching, or at least clicking around through, for anyone concerned with our cap situation next year. He was also on Locked On Bills to discuss our Free Agents and re-signing options As a little preview, the detailed plan to get to $72M... No Brainers - Cap Saved Restructure Josh - $23M Restructure Diggs - $13M Restructure Ed - $3M Release Hines - $5M Release Harty - $4M Total - $48M Being $29M OVER cap right now, these moves alone put us $19M UNDER. Tompsett's Preferred/Likely Moves - Cap Savings Extend Dawkins - $7M Extend Douglas - $6M Extend Johnson - $5M Release Siran Neal - $3M Release Sam Martin - $1M Restructure McGovern - $3M With these moves added to the above, the Bills would be $44M UNDER Painful but Possible - Cap Savings Release Poyer - $5.5M Release Tre - $6M Bills now $56M UNDER Prefer Not - Cap Savings Restructure Milano - $2.5M Restructure Knox - $6M Trade Elam - $165k Release Bates - $1.5M Release Morse - $5.5M Bills now $72M UNDER I type all that to once again reiterate, the cap is a myth. I'd say everything from No Brainers to Painful But Possible should be done save for Hines (Beane says he'll be here and it's pretty clear a deal was struck last season that includes him being on the roster in Training Camp) and Poyer (already losing Hyde, they're not going to want to start over from square one at the Safety position). With each Hines and Poyer, hopefully we can get that number down from some sort of restructure or pay cut (at least in Hines case). This should bring us close to $50 under. Though like last season, not every extension or restructure that makes sense will be done or able to be done. But we should be in a spot to fill a lot of spots with some decent guys. Probably no one super exciting though. Going to be a lot of 1 year deals with void years. Nothing over 5-6 mil guaranteed in Year 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Is there a way to add years to vons contract to lower the cap hit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finn Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Sacrilege coming. What about trading Diggs? Yes, you take a very big hit, but if it allows you to move up in the draft for a stud (and comparatively cheap) WR, it might be worth it. Even if it's a wash financially (you're paying him the same as if he were here), you replace a fading player with a young superstar (ideally). Every year, at least one or two are chosen in the first round: Chase, Lamb, Jefferson, Wilson, Waddle, Flowers, Collins... Yes, it's a crap shoot, but I've really lost confidence in Diggs. Shakir has outshone him with far less targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFan 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 … I was just about to post that his original video was overly optimistic about the Bills' cap situation. $45-50 million over seems to be the situation. The Bills might have to clear $70 million to pay their draft picks and sign cheap FAs to fill the roster spots from cut players. There is no way, even with restructuring contracts that the Bills are hitting FA with anything major. They are going to have to hit on 3-4 players in the draft year one and get lucky again on some cheap contract like Floyd this past season. I wish Beane the best of luck. Diggs is the one contract I wouldn't restructure. We need to be able to move on in two years and restructuring will just prolonging the inevitable. Tre White has to be at the top of the cut list, because Douglas is on the roster now. $6 mill in savings pre-June 1, $10 million after June 1. Morse if cut save 8.5. With Bates on the roster, I can see this happening, but I'd prefer to keep him given the strength of the line's play last season. Poyer would save 5.7, but I doubt he can be replaced for anywhere close to that number. Harty would save $4 mill, and will be gone. Hines saves 4.6. Neal saves 2.8 Gilliam saves 1.9 McGovern, Taron Johnson, Douglas, and Dawkins should all be extended which could create cap savings in 2024. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabden Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 On 12/6/2023 at 12:17 AM, Buffalo_Stampede said: I forget Hyde is a UFA. They probably keep Poyer and draft Hydes replacement. I would rather keep Hyde and draft Poyer’s replacement. Preferably: Resign Hyde to a 1 year deal. Keep Poyer. Both players retire as Bills in 2025 with the full grace and honor they deserve and hopefully with a Lombardi Trophy for their HOF resumes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 11 minutes ago, mabden said: Resign Hyde to a 1 year deal. Looks as though Hyde is retiring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) On 1/26/2024 at 12:51 AM, finn said: Sacrilege coming. What about trading Diggs? Yes, you take a very big hit, but if it allows you to move up in the draft for a stud (and comparatively cheap) WR, it might be worth it. Even if it's a wash financially (you're paying him the same as if he were here), you replace a fading player with a young superstar (ideally). Every year, at least one or two are chosen in the first round: Chase, Lamb, Jefferson, Wilson, Waddle, Flowers, Collins... Yes, it's a crap shoot, but I've really lost confidence in Diggs. Shakir has outshone him with far less targets. 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 Edited January 26 by Aussie Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) 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 … Gregg keeps saying this and I don't thin it is true. That move alone needs to be avoided at all costs. It is a death sentence. I absolutely cannot take any Bills cap summary seriously that says "Diggs has to be restructured just to get by". Cover 1 has some good content, but they aren't the authority on everything. Without extending anybody I got the Bills within $5M of the cap by: Restructuring Josh (I would prefer to do this with an extension to help alleviate future years) Cutting Tre Cutting Morse Cutting Harty Cutting Poyer Cutting Hines Cutting GIlliam The roster management page won't let me do stuff like extend Douglas, Dion, or Taron which saves a ton more money. 28 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 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. Edited January 26 by Mango word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said: I was just about to post that his original video was overly optimistic about the Bills' cap situation. $45-50 million over seems to be the situation. The Bills might have to clear $70 million to pay their draft picks and sign cheap FAs to fill the roster spots from cut players. There is no way, even with restructuring contracts that the Bills are hitting FA with anything major. They are going to have to hit on 3-4 players in the draft year one and get lucky again on some cheap contract like Floyd this past season. I wish Beane the best of luck. Diggs is the one contract I wouldn't restructure. We need to be able to move on in two years and restructuring will just prolonging the inevitable. Tre White has to be at the top of the cut list, because Douglas is on the roster now. $6 mill in savings pre-June 1, $10 million after June 1. Morse if cut save 8.5. With Bates on the roster, I can see this happening, but I'd prefer to keep him given the strength of the line's play last season. Poyer would save 5.7, but I doubt he can be replaced for anywhere close to that number. Harty would save $4 mill, and will be gone. Hines saves 4.6. Neal saves 2.8 Gilliam saves 1.9 McGovern, Taron Johnson, Douglas, and Dawkins should all be extended which could create cap savings in 2024. I probably should have read everything before I responded with a near identical post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.