WR trade candidates, who do you want?

[frostbitmic]

Hopkins and Adams sounds good... Git er dun Beane

[BillsFanForever19]

11 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

2.  How is Diggs a case in point for you?  You mention he is a $6M cap hit, which is exactly what I am talking about.  The ability to get an Aiyuk/Metcalf/D Adams/DHop at that price is what I think many don't realize could happen.   How does restructuring Diggs to $6M mean that the guys I outlined cap hits would be SO massive?  Kind of suggests the opposite to me.  The cap hit can be manipulated to future years.

 

Diggs' cap hit is a case in point to you saying "we don't take on cap in a trade". And it's just the Base salary. If that's the case, why would Diggs have a cap hit for the Texans at all?

 

And yes, they were able to get it down to 6m - after a massive restructure. But they had to take it as is first BEFORE they could get it down to 6m. Initially, when they did the trade, even after everything we took on - the hit for the Texans was still 19m at the time of the trade.

 

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/houston-texans/news/texans-salary-cap-stefon-diggs-trade/27b6c055d87953adfa5c01cb

 

And therein lies the problem. We have to be able to take on one of these WR's cap hit and the full terms of their current contract from the team we're trading with AS IS for the trade to be approved by the league. 

 

We can't say "well, we don't have it now but once the deal goes through, we'll make it work". We either have the money to take on the cap hit as is and the trade goes through or we don't and the trade doesn't go through.

 

Before the Offseason started, there was a long list of measures we could do as far as releases, extensions, and restructures to get out from under the massive hole we were in. Since then, we have done every single one on the list, save for two - a restructure of Oliver and a restructure of Milano.

 

So let's do some accounting....

 

After the signings of MVS and Dee Delaney and the release of Quintez Cephus, we're at about, we'll say, 1.75m under. Add in the 10.25 from Tre - that brings us to roughly 12. A restructure of Oliver can save us 3.9m and a restructure of Milano can bring us another 2.4m. That gives us around 18.3. That's the highest amount I see us possibly reaching.

 

BUT! Even if we do those two moves and don't spend a dime on anyone else - which I don't see happening as we never replaced Dane Jackson and we're currently going into the season with just Elam (still a massive question mark) and UDFA/PS players underneath the oft-injured Benford and Douglas - there's still a number of things we have no choice but to account for....

 

We haven't signed our Draft Picks. We have to be able to pay for the Practice Squad. And we need some money for the In Season Spending Pool. So from that possible 18.3 or so, you need to subtract around 8. And this is something that there's no way around.

 

That leaves us with roughly around 10-10.5, give or take - if we were to restructure Milano and Oliver and sign no one else. Now - let's look at the cap hits for the guys :

 

Deebo Samuel - 28.83m

DK Metcalf - 24.5m

Davante Adams - 24.35m

Tee Higgins - 21.816m

Brandon Aiyuk - 14.124m

 

You see the problem here, right? Even if the cap number comes down a little bit on most of these guys through a trade - it's not coming down to 10. The money simply isn't there and the means to come up with it has all been done already. It would take radical moves like re-structuring Josh again - which I don't see happening, he's never restructured someone twice in the same offseason and if he felt comfortable taking more from Josh, he would have done it then. He'd also have to restructure moves he just did, which he's also never done, and I just don't see him doing. 

 

*Maybe* Aiyuk could be done. Maybe there's a way that through the trade, his cap number would come down to around the 10 number we'd have. But, again, it would take re-structuring both Oliver and Milano - which he chose not to do when he was doing ALL the things he could to scrape up money and not signing anyone else at other positions.

 

11 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

4.  I thought there would be like minded people to me, that believes Beane is a top GM and a top GM will be making a move.  What that move is exactly was open for discussion.  We haven't been able to get that far.  Many feel the need to chime in and reiterate how in their opinion it can't/won't be done.  This has been highlighted by the step by step rebuttal of each of what I perceived to be signs ending with what I hope will be a not soon forgotten classic "there is literally a 0% chance".

 

There is never a literally 0% chance of anything. 

 

But it not being a 0% chance doesn't make it likely or logically feasible. And people pointing out the flaws in the likelihood of it happening doesn't mean these same people think we're in amazing shape or that these WR's you're mentioning wouldn't help or wouldn't be great to have.

 

I would be thrilled to land one of these guys. I wish we were in a scenario where I could say "yeah, I see that happening".

 

It's just when you really look at the scenarios of what it would take, what we could feasibly/realistically do, and what we've done already - it adds up to an *incredibly* unlikely scenario at this point. And that's where the disconnect is between you and the majority of posters on this thread. 

 

After Drafting Keon Coleman and signing Curtis Samuel, MVS, Mack Hollins, and Chase Claypool already - it seems even more unlikely that they'd add yet *another* WR, at this point. This one the most expensive of them all, after everything he's done already. Had we not acquired one or two of these WR's and not signed some of the people we had before, it'd be a more manageable situation right now. But those deals are done and they aren't just going to be ignored or thrown away.

 

We only kept 5 WR's total last season. And we've got 5 guys already that aren't going anywhere. There's a reason they signed MVS, after Drafting Coleman and signing Samuel and Hollins. And to me, it's because he recognizes he just can't feasibly or responsibly pull something like what you're suggesting off - comfortable enough to his management of the team.

Edited May 19 by BillsFanForever19

[Alphadawg7]

Breaking News:  Bills don't trade for big name WR

 

-Shocker (said no one ever)

 

Is it week 1 yet?  Can't wait to see Allen out there throwing to Justin Jefferson, Brandon Aiyuk, and DK Metcalf.  

[Einstein's Dog]

1 hour ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

Diggs' cap hit is a case in point to you saying "we don't take on cap in a trade". And it's just the Base salary. If that's the case, why would Diggs have a cap hit for the Texans at all?

 

And yes, they were able to get it down to 6m - after a massive restructure. But they had to take it as is first BEFORE they could get it down to 6m. Initially, when they did the trade, even after everything we took on - the hit for the Texans was still 19m at the time of the trade.

 

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/houston-texans/news/texans-salary-cap-stefon-diggs-trade/27b6c055d87953adfa5c01cb

 

And therein lies the problem. We have to be able to take on one of these WR's cap hit and the full terms of their current contract from the team we're trading with AS IS for the trade to be approved by the league. 

 

We can't say "well, we don't have it now but once the deal goes through, we'll make it work". We either have the money to take on the cap hit as is and the trade goes through or we don't and the trade doesn't go through.

 

Before the Offseason started, there was a long list of measures we could do as far as releases, extensions, and restructures to get out from under the massive hole we were in. Since then, we have done every single one on the list, save for two - a restructure of Oliver and a restructure of Milano.

 

So let's do some accounting....

 

After the signings of MVS and Dee Delaney and the release of Quintez Cephus, we're at about, we'll say, 1.75m under. Add in the 10.25 from Tre - that brings us to roughly 12. A restructure of Oliver can save us 3.9m and a restructure of Milano can bring us another 2.4m. That gives us around 18.3. That's the highest amount I see us possibly reaching.

 

BUT! Even if we do those two moves and don't spend a dime on anyone else - which I don't see happening as we never replaced Dane Jackson and we're currently going into the season with just Elam (still a massive question mark) and UDFA/PS players underneath the oft-injured Benford and Douglas - there's still a number of things we have no choice but to account for....

 

We haven't signed our Draft Picks. We have to be able to pay for the Practice Squad. And we need some money for the In Season Spending Pool. So from that possible 18.3 or so, you need to subtract around 8. And this is something that there's no way around.

 

That leaves us with roughly around 10-10.5, give or take - if we were to restructure Milano and Oliver and sign no one else. Now - let's look at the cap hits for the guys :

 

Deebo Samuel - 28.83m

Davante Adams - 24.35m

DK Metcalf - 24.5m

Tee Higgins - 21.816m

Brandon Aiyuk - 14.124m

 

You see the problem here, right? Even if the cap number comes down a little bit on most of these guys - the money simply isn't there. It would take radical moves like re-structuring Josh again - which I don't see happening, he's never restructured someone twice in the same offseason and if he felt comfortable taking more from Josh, he would have done it then. He'd also have to restructure moves he just did, which I just don't see him doing. 

 

*Maybe* Aiyuk could be done. Maybe there's a way that through the trade, his cap would fall to around the 10 number we'd have. But, again, it would take re-structuring both Oliver and Milano - which he chose not to do when he was doing ALL the things he could to scrape up money and not signing anyone else at other positions.

 

 

There is never a literally 0% chance of anything. 

 

But it not being a 0% chance doesn't make it likely or logically feasible. And people pointing out the flaws in the likelihood of it happening doesn't mean these same people think we're in amazing shape or that these WR's you're mentioning wouldn't help or wouldn't be great to have.

 

I would be thrilled to land one of these guys. I hope he could make something like this happen.

 

It's just when you really look at the scenarios of what it would take, what we could feasibly do, and what we've done already - it adds up to an incredibly unlikely scenario. And that's where the disconnect is between you and the majority of posters on this thread. 

 

After Drafting Keon Coleman and signing Curtis Samuel, MVS, Mack Hollins, and Chase Claypool already - it seems even more unlikely that they'd add yet *another* WR, at this point. This one the most expensive of them all, after everything he's done already. Had we not acquired one or two of these WR's and not signed some of the people we had before, it'd be a more manageable situation right now. But those deals are done and they aren't just going to be ignored or thrown away.

 

We only kept 5 WR's total last season. And we've got 5 guys already that aren't going anywhere. There's a reason they signed MVS, after Drafting Coleman and signing Samuel and Hollins. And to me, it's because he recognizes he just can't feasibly or responsibly pull something like what you're suggesting off - comfortable enough to his management of the team.

I think it would help to take a step back and look at the big picture.  It's Beane's job to know the cash requirements of getting a trade WR on board and then what salary he would want to reduce that to.  He knew/knows those numbers and has a plan to meet them.  That's what a top GM does.

 

Going into the specifics is difficult for us.  But it does seem reasonable to think it requires the $10M Tre money.  Then I think it would be about only $5Mish more needed to bring a big fish WR in before restructuring.  As you mention Aiyuk is $14.5..  And for Metcalf you list his $24.5 cap but aren't subtracting the bonus money (which is what oldmanfan's rules stated).  Metcalf had a $30M bonus so even if prorated for $10M, Metcalf could make it for the brief $15M cash on hand. 

 

You don't see Josh restructuring again, just because.  But I can see this as part of the plan all along.

 

[Dr. Who]

5 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I think it would help to take a step back and look at the big picture.  It's Beane's job to know the cash requirements of getting a trade WR on board and then what salary he would want to reduce that to.  He knew/knows those numbers and has a plan to meet them.  That's what a top GM does.

 

Going into the specifics is difficult for us.  But it does seem reasonable to think it requires the $10M Tre money.  Then I think it would be about only $5Mish more needed to bring a big fish WR in before restructuring.  As you mention Aiyuk is $14.5..  And for Metcalf you list his $24.5 cap but aren't subtracting the bonus money (which is what oldmanfan's rules stated).  Metcalf had a $30M bonus so even if prorated for $10M, Metcalf could make it for the brief $15M cash on hand. 

 

You don't see Josh restructuring again, just because.  But I can see this as part of the plan all along.

 

I think it's unlikely at this point. I'm not convinced Beane values the position in the manner you and I would prefer. 

I'll be happy if you are right, and I'm still holding out a glimmer of hope.

[BillsFanForever19]

6 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I think it would help to take a step back and look at the big picture.  It's Beane's job to know the cash requirements of getting a trade WR on board and then what salary he would want to reduce that to.  He knew/knows those numbers and has a plan to meet them.  That's what a top GM does.

 

Going into the specifics is difficult for us.  But it does seem reasonable to think it requires the $10M Tre money.  Then I think it would be about only $5Mish more needed to bring a big fish WR in before restructuring.  As you mention Aiyuk is $14.5..  And for Metcalf you list his $24.5 cap but aren't subtracting the bonus money (which is what oldmanfan's rules stated).  Metcalf had a $30M bonus so even if prorated for $10M, Metcalf could make it for the brief $15M cash on hand. 

 

You don't see Josh restructuring again, just because.  But I can see this as part of the plan all along.

 

His track record of moves and the fact that he's never done that (restructuring someone more than once in the same off season) in the 8 years and countless deals he's done as GM isn't "just because". It goes to how he operates and this isn't his normal operating procedure.

 

As for the Metcalf contract, here's an in depth look. The cap room we would need to make it happen Post 6/1 is 13m. We would not have enough after doing the two moves left we could theoretically do (Oliver and Milano restructures), factoring in our other expenses:

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2024/05/evaluating-dk-metcalfs-contract-situation-with-seahawks/

 

Overtures on Draft Day were rebuffed. I don't believe he's available. It'd be great to have him. But why would they move him at this point? They aren't tanking. Why would they now, Post Draft, and Post the WR FA market being picked through - choose to trade away one of their best players with no way of replacing him?

 

I fall in with the poster above me. Would it be great? Yes. But the stance of expecting it like you seem to or even thinking it's even so much as a 50/50 shot - I just don't see it. 

Edited May 19 by BillsFanForever19

[FireChans]

5 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

His track record of moves and the fact that he's never done that (restructuring someone more than once in the same off season) in the 8 years and countless deals he's done as GM isn't "just because". It goes to how he operates and this isn't his normal operating procedure.

 

As for the Metcalf contract, here's an in depth look. The cap room we would need to make it happen Post 6/1 is 13m. We would not have enough after doing the two moves left we could theoretically do (Oliver and Milano restructures), factoring in our other expenses:

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2024/05/evaluating-dk-metcalfs-contract-situation-with-seahawks/

 

Overtures on Draft Day were rebuffed. I don't believe he's available. It'd be great to have him. But why would they move him at this point? They aren't tanking. Why would they now, Post Draft, and Post the WR FA market being picked through - choose to trade away one of their best players with no way of replacing him?

 

I fall in with the poster above me. Would it be great? Yes. But the stance of expecting it like you seem to or even thinking it's even so much as a 50/50 shot - I just don't see it. 

We still left some meat on the bone when it comes to Josh’s restructure fwiw.

[dgrochester55]

If I had to Pick, I would say Aiyuk or Metcalf.  I don't think that it is happening.  Buffalo has been playing with the cap for years, and this is the year to pay the piper and eat some of that cap.  Restructuring more contracts kicks the can down the road and I would rather have more cap space in 2025.

 

In addition, I feel like we need more help at CB if we decide to spend on one more option.  After Douglas and Benford, we have Taron Johnson who is a good nickel dime package CB but gets beat a lot if starting and Elam who was so green and unprepared that McDermott preferred activating a years past their prime Josh Norman off the practice squad when there were injuries last year.

 

If injuries are an issue in the same way that they have been over the last two years,, I feel a lot less worried relying on Hollins, Claypool and Shorter as depth at WR than Elam and unproven street FA's at CB

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19 by dgrochester55

[Einstein's Dog]

5 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

His track record of moves and the fact that he's never done that (restructuring someone more than once in the same off season) in the 8 years and countless deals he's done as GM isn't "just because". It goes to how he operates and this isn't his normal operating procedure.

 

As for the Metcalf contract, here's an in depth look. The cap room we would need to make it happen Post 6/1 is 13m. We would not have enough after doing the two moves left we could theoretically do (Oliver and Milano restructures), factoring in our other expenses:

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2024/05/evaluating-dk-metcalfs-contract-situation-with-seahawks/

 

Overtures on Draft Day were rebuffed. I don't believe he's available. It'd be great to have him. But why would they move him at this point? They aren't tanking. Why would they now, Post Draft, and Post the WR FA market being picked through - choose to trade away one of their best players with no way of replacing him?

 

I fall in with the poster above me. Would it be great? Yes. But the stance of expecting it like you seem to or even thinking it's even so much as a 50/50 shot - I just don't see it. 

Once again you're going into the weeds of Beane's job.  As an overview though you can see how with a short term boost to around $15M allows Beane to bring on a top WR.  And this time your research has you conclude that, in fact, he could afford Metcalf if he had $15M, which would also be enough for Aiyuk and DHop - probably D Adams too.  We've seen how with a WR such as Diggs, a high priced WR can be restructured down to a cap hit of only $6M.  So it's just a short term boost and we can stop the reduction talks of how much draft picks are etc.  

 

Beane is getting $10M Tre money June 1st, all he needs is another $5M to bring a top WR on board.  Of course he can get that.   It's my contention that he has been planning on this since he moved Diggs out.  And while it may have never been done before the meat on the bone with Josh very well could have been his back up plan to make sure he has the funds to make this happen.  Seems logical to me, something a smart GM would do.  There is speculation (okay, it's me) that Beane made a gentleman's deal with the SF GM for Aiyuk prior to the draft.

 

I do seem to be the only one expecting such a move.  My logic has been this:  Beane is a great GM, a great GM does not have a pathetic WR room while Josh is in his prime.  Therefore this WR room is not done.

 

With the thought that the WR is not done, I've actually been pleased with several developments. I didn't want the Bills trading up for a top 3 WR.   I didn't want 2 WRs drafted, that would have meant to me that the FO was going through with a rebuild.  I didn't want to get a high priced FA WR, they weren't good enough.  The move I have hoping for was to get a good proven WR.

 

Everyone's fine or great if we get a good WR.  The difference seems to be if we don't get one.  For me, not getting one drastically reduces my opinion of Beane.  Terrible off-season out of him.  Having a bottom 5 WR group doesn't cut it in my book.

 

This WR move is the lynchpin of the evaluation of his offseason, with it - excellent transition to youth/reload, without it what a disappointment.   If Beane doesn't trade for a good WR, the other moves - not moving up, not drafting 2 WRs (like Franklin late), not getting a good better FA WR (like OBJ) - all moves I had rejoiced in - look like mistakes.

 

 

[Dr. Who]

12 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Once again you're going into the weeds of Beane's job.  As an overview though you can see how with a short term boost to around $15M allows Beane to bring on a top WR.  And this time your research has you conclude that, in fact, he could afford Metcalf if he had $15M, which would also be enough for Aiyuk and DHop - probably D Adams too.  We've seen how with a WR such as Diggs, a high priced WR can be restructured down to a cap hit of only $6M.  So it's just a short term boost and we can stop the reduction talks of how much draft picks are etc.  

 

Beane is getting $10M Tre money June 1st, all he needs is another $5M to bring a top WR on board.  Of course he can get that.   It's my contention that he has been planning on this since he moved Diggs out.  And while it may have never been done before the meat on the bone with Josh very well could have been his back up plan to make sure he has the funds to make this happen.  Seems logical to me, something a smart GM would do.  There is speculation (okay, it's me) that Beane made a gentleman's deal with the SF GM for Aiyuk prior to the draft.

 

I do seem to be the only one expecting such a move.  My logic has been this:  Beane is a great GM, a great GM does not have a pathetic WR room while Josh is in his prime.  Therefore this WR room is not done.

 

With the thought that the WR is not done, I've actually been pleased with several developments. I didn't want the Bills trading up for a top 3 WR.   I didn't want 2 WRs drafted, that would have meant to me that the FO was going through with a rebuild.  I didn't want to get a high priced FA WR, they weren't good enough.  The move I have hoping for was to get a good proven WR.

 

Everyone's fine or great if we get a good WR.  The difference seems to be if we don't get one.  For me, not getting one drastically reduces my opinion of Beane.  Terrible off-season out of him.  Having a bottom 5 WR group doesn't cut it in my book.

 

This WR move is the lynchpin of the evaluation of his offseason, with it - excellent transition to youth/reload, without it what a disappointment.   If Beane doesn't trade for a good WR, the other moves - not moving up, not drafting 2 WRs (like Franklin late), not getting a good better FA WR (like OBJ) - all moves I had rejoiced in - look like mistakes.

 

 

I agree with this about 90%, maybe more. Where I suspect I give a marginally better assessment is that I do think he brought in good depth at positions of need. That doesn't disappear, even if he botches the WR room, but I do agree it would objectively result in a lower grade of his quality as a GM.

Edited May 19 by Dr. Who

[oldmanfan]

41 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Once again you're going into the weeds of Beane's job.  As an overview though you can see how with a short term boost to around $15M allows Beane to bring on a top WR.  And this time your research has you conclude that, in fact, he could afford Metcalf if he had $15M, which would also be enough for Aiyuk and DHop - probably D Adams too.  We've seen how with a WR such as Diggs, a high priced WR can be restructured down to a cap hit of only $6M.  So it's just a short term boost and we can stop the reduction talks of how much draft picks are etc.  

 

Beane is getting $10M Tre money June 1st, all he needs is another $5M to bring a top WR on board.  Of course he can get that.   It's my contention that he has been planning on this since he moved Diggs out.  And while it may have never been done before the meat on the bone with Josh very well could have been his back up plan to make sure he has the funds to make this happen.  Seems logical to me, something a smart GM would do.  There is speculation (okay, it's me) that Beane made a gentleman's deal with the SF GM for Aiyuk prior to the draft.

 

I do seem to be the only one expecting such a move.  My logic has been this:  Beane is a great GM, a great GM does not have a pathetic WR room while Josh is in his prime.  Therefore this WR room is not done.

 

With the thought that the WR is not done, I've actually been pleased with several developments. I didn't want the Bills trading up for a top 3 WR.   I didn't want 2 WRs drafted, that would have meant to me that the FO was going through with a rebuild.  I didn't want to get a high priced FA WR, they weren't good enough.  The move I have hoping for was to get a good proven WR.

 

Everyone's fine or great if we get a good WR.  The difference seems to be if we don't get one.  For me, not getting one drastically reduces my opinion of Beane.  Terrible off-season out of him.  Having a bottom 5 WR group doesn't cut it in my book.

 

This WR move is the lynchpin of the evaluation of his offseason, with it - excellent transition to youth/reload, without it what a disappointment.   If Beane doesn't trade for a good WR, the other moves - not moving up, not drafting 2 WRs (like Franklin late), not getting a good better FA WR (like OBJ) - all moves I had rejoiced in - look like mistakes.

 

 

I will reiterate:

 

1.  One good WR is not a linchpin of anything.  The only single position that is truly a linchpin is QB and we have a great one.

 

2.  If you pick up a contract you have to cover the salary in place.  You keep making assumptions.  Assumptions that Beane can do so without understanding that, how much he has to allocate to rookies, how much he’ll have to pay in injury replacements, etc.   Assumptions are easy Ito make from the sidelines, not so easy when you are the guy having to do the job.

 

3.  I tend to believe Beane when he says things.  I also tend to not change my opinion on Beane from good to pathetic based on making or not making one trade.

 

 

[Einstein's Dog]

45 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I will reiterate:

 

1.  One good WR is not a linchpin of anything.  The only single position that is truly a linchpin is QB and we have a great one.

 

2.  If you pick up a contract you have to cover the salary in place.  You keep making assumptions.  Assumptions that Beane can do so without understanding that, how much he has to allocate to rookies, how much he’ll have to pay in injury replacements, etc.   Assumptions are easy Ito make from the sidelines, not so easy when you are the guy having to do the job.

 

3.  I tend to believe Beane when he says things.  I also tend to not change my opinion on Beane from good to pathetic based on making or not making one trade.

 

 

Fair enough.  And for me:

1.  The addition of a good WR changes dramatically the entire off-season moves.  It ties in everything he has done (and I was rooting for).  But it all hinges on his finishing it off.  The state of the WR room is hanging in the balance.

2.  Now you're adjusting your amateur capology to say you have to cover the salary.  Prior it was cap hit.  Some internet quote (you put in this thread) said cap hit minus bonus.  The linked article said the Steelers would need $13M to cover Metcalf (and that there could be a restructure done with no void years that would reduce his 2024 salary by almost $6M).  And you say I'm making assumptions?   Whatever, I'm confident Beane knows what it is and has planned for it.  Once again, it's his job.  And from the tidbits we have seen it is totally reasonable to think it can be done.

3.  What about when Beane said "we will never rebuild as long as Josh is my quarterback".  That's the Beane I choose to believe.

 

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Fair enough.  And for me:

1.  The addition of a good WR changes dramatically the entire off-season moves.  It ties in everything he has done (and I was rooting for).  But it all hinges on his finishing it off.  The state of the WR room is hanging in the balance.

2.  Now you're adjusting your amateur capology to say you have to cover the salary.  Prior it was cap hit.  Some internet quote (you put in this thread) said cap hit minus bonus.  The linked article said the Steelers would need $13M to cover Metcalf (and that there could be a restructure done with no void years that would reduce his 2024 salary by almost $6M).  And you say I'm making assumptions?   Whatever, I'm confident Beane knows what it is and has planned for it.  Once again, it's his job.  And from the tidbits we have seen it is totally reasonable to think it can be done.

3.  What about when Beane said "we will never rebuild as long as Josh is my quarterback".  That's the Beane I choose to believe.

 

I think you’re mistaking me with someone else about quoting an article.  The individual who did so I believe said you have to cover the existing contract terms if you make a trade, and  only then can you subsequently  renegotiate. Other folks wiser than me have pointed out cap implications but you choose to ignore them it appears.  
 

And there is nothing I can see that suggests a rebuild.  We got younger at some positions which we needed to do.  And to say it yet again, a Plus/minus on one WR is not pivotal.  It does not constitute a rebuild.

 

If he brings somebody in great.  If not then he’s saying he is OK with the WR room as is.  Which he has already said, I believe. 
 

So you have your take, I’ll keep mine.  I’m anxious for camp to start.

 

 

Edited May 19 by oldmanfan

[Einstein's Dog]

31 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I think you’re mistaking me with someone else about quoting an article.  The individual who did so I believe said you have to cover the existing contract terms if you make a trade, and  only then can you subsequently  renegotiate. Other folks wiser than me have pointed out cap implications but you choose to ignore them it appears.  
 

And there is nothing I can see that suggests a rebuild.  We got younger at some positions which we needed to do.  And to say it yet again, a Plus/minus on one WR is not pivotal.  It does not constitute a rebuild.

 

If he brings somebody in great.  If not then he’s saying he is OK with the WR room as is.  Which he has already said, I believe. 
 

So you have your take, I’ll keep mine.  I’m anxious for camp to start.

 

 

My apologies if I mistook you for other posters.

 

Please do not put much stock in these alleged wise posters who continue to change their cap/salary implications.  It is safe to say Beane has a much better grip on what it takes.  And a good GM would have positioned himself to meet the requirements (I believe he has).

 

For instance it seems quite safe to say that after June 1st there is the potential for a surge in funds that should be sufficient to bring in a top tier WR (Tre money + potential restructures + potentially another preplanned hit to Josh = > $15M).  The article above mentions $13M needed for Metcalf and Aiyuk looks to be about $14M.  The acquired WR can then have their contract restructured - much like Diggs had his restructured to a $6M cap hit.

 

Who cares if Beane says he is okay with the WR room?  That is just blather, what else is he supposed to say.  What matters is if he actually believes it, which is hard to believe any reasonable person would.  Only diehard Beane fans can twist the top three WRs of;  WR2/3 from Wash, a second round rookie, and last years WR3, as an acceptable WR room.  And I agree with you that that is not a rebuild- a rebuild would have been with 2 drafted WRs - right now it's just pathetic.  That's not what a good GM does.

 

It's okay to have different hopes/expectations.  You can be anxious for camp, I want to see what the first week of June brings.

[oldmanfan]

34 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

My apologies if I mistook you for other posters.

 

Please do not put much stock in these alleged wise posters who continue to change their cap/salary implications.  It is safe to say Beane has a much better grip on what it takes.  And a good GM would have positioned himself to meet the requirements (I believe he has).

 

For instance it seems quite safe to say that after June 1st there is the potential for a surge in funds that should be sufficient to bring in a top tier WR (Tre money + potential restructures + potentially another preplanned hit to Josh = > $15M).  The article above mentions $13M needed for Metcalf and Aiyuk looks to be about $14M.  The acquired WR can then have their contract restructured - much like Diggs had his restructured to a $6M cap hit.

 

Who cares if Beane says he is okay with the WR room?  That is just blather, what else is he supposed to say.  What matters is if he actually believes it, which is hard to believe any reasonable person would.  Only diehard Beane fans can twist the top three WRs of;  WR2/3 from Wash, a second round rookie, and last years WR3, as an acceptable WR room.  And I agree with you that that is not a rebuild- a rebuild would have been with 2 drafted WRs - right now it's just pathetic.  That's not what a good GM does.

 

It's okay to have different hopes/expectations.  You can be anxious for camp, I want to see what the first week of June brings.

I’m sorry, I swore to myself that we’d just agree to disagree, but calling the WR position pathetic based on just one desired player is way over the top.

[T master]

On 5/13/2024 at 8:31 AM, Einstein's Dog said:

A good number of our fans (including myself) are expecting a post June 1st trade for a WR.  This WR should be of at least the quality of the expected 2024 Diggs.  Listed below are who I feel are the top contenders:

 

1.  DK Metcalf - rumored to be on the market, salary $13M, age 27.  Big, fast, would be great addition.

2.  B Aiyuk - previously rumored to be on the market and would make sense because SF has a lot of high priced WRs and drafted one in Round 1.  Salary $14M, age 26.  Downside is looking for big payday.

3.  D Hopkins - Tenn has glut of WRs.  Salary around $13M (maybe less based on how the $8M salary + $4M roster bonus is distributed).  age 32.

4.  D Adams - Raiders are going to stink and have no QB,  Adams contract is such that this looks like his last year w $44M next year.  Salary $17M, age 32.

 

Dark Horse candidates

5.  DJ Moore - former Carolina pick, salary $16M, age 27

6.  C Kupp - salary $15M, age 31

7.  C Godwin - salary $20M, age 28

 

The combination of draft capital and salary needed to be given for each listed WR makes is hard to figure out which way to go.  Lets hope Beane makes one happen.

 

This must be a post for next season because i don't see any of those mentioned fitting in under the available cap this season .

[Warriorspikes51]

26 minutes ago, T master said:

 

This must be a post for next season because i don't see any of those mentioned fitting in under the available cap this season .

 

10 Million in cap space June 1st.   Fitting Metcalf or Aiyuk's cap hits is absolutely within reason  IF the Bills want to do so.   It may only require a restructure of Oliver or Milano 

 

Both players can be extended after acquiring as well

[Einstein's Dog]

2 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

 

10 Million in cap space June 1st.   Fitting Metcalf or Aiyuk's cap hits is absolutely within reason  IF the Bills want to do so.   It may only require a restructure of Oliver or Milano 

 

Both players can be extended after acquiring as well

I think Beane and the FO have done a great job of creating low expectations.  They've allowed, even promoted, the lowered expectations behind this cap problem while avoiding the criticism that this is an issue they created.

 

You're right, seems pretty easy at June 1st with the $10M Tre money and a couple restructures (which could potentially include Josh as well) that they would easily have over $15M which seems enough to afford either Metcalf or Aiyuk - who happen to be my top two hopes.

 

Look at the advantages of adding one of Metcalf/Aiyuk

     Entire offensive playmakers set for years - Josh 4+yrs, Metcalf/Aiyuk new contract 4+, Kincaid 4, K Coleman 4, Samuel 3, Shakir 2, Cook 2, Davis 4,Knox2

     All playmakers would be younger than Josh, easy to see Josh as the leader in Phase 2

     No worries about players aging out.  All players younger than Josh who is 28 (today, Happy Birthday Josh)

 

This addition makes a case for year over  year improvement:  Metcalf/Aiyul > Diggs,  C Samuel/K Coleman > G Davis, Shakir24 > Shakir23, Kincaid24>Kincaid23.   It all comes together.  It all makes sense.  It was Beane's plan all along (the guy is good).

     

[BillsFanForever19]

14 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I think Beane and the FO have done a great job of creating low expectations.  They've allowed, even promoted, the lowered expectations behind this cap problem while avoiding the criticism that this is an issue they created.

 

You're right, seems pretty easy at June 1st with the $10M Tre money and a couple restructures (which could potentially include Josh as well) that they would easily have over $15M which seems enough to afford either Metcalf or Aiyuk - who happen to be my top two hopes.

 

Look at the advantages of adding one of Metcalf/Aiyuk

     Entire offensive playmakers set for years - Josh 4+yrs, Metcalf/Aiyuk new contract 4+, Kincaid 4, K Coleman 4, Samuel 3, Shakir 2, Cook 2, Davis 4,Knox2

     All playmakers would be younger than Josh, easy to see Josh as the leader in Phase 2

     No worries about players aging out.  All players younger than Josh who is 28 (today, Happy Birthday Josh)

 

This addition makes a case for year over  year improvement:  Metcalf/Aiyul > Diggs,  C Samuel/K Coleman > G Davis, Shakir24 > Shakir23, Kincaid24>Kincaid23.   It all comes together.  It all makes sense.  It was Beane's plan all along (the guy is good).

     

 

This is the disconnect for me. It's one thing to say "I think he should make a trade". Or have hope that he does.

 

It's the definitive expectation that he will and claiming that a trade is "Beane's plan all along", that I disagree. You condemn other posters for thinking they know how Beane operates (based on historical evidence, no less)... and then claim to know how Beane is going to operate.

 

I think the plan was to specifically NOT have a high priced, big star WR with a "just give me the damn ball" attitide that Josh feels he needs to force it to or they're going to get upset. To not have 1 WR specifically that the Defense wants to take away. He spoke of wanting to create a room where week to week, the #1 could be interchangable. These are things, some of which, he said directly on the Chris Long Podcast:

 

I believe this year, he looks at the guys that the Offense was run through down stretch (Dalton Kincaid, Khalil Shakir, James Cook) as potentially still the top guys. It's about evaluating their progressions in Years 2 and 3 and seeing if they take a step forwards. He wants to see what Keon Coleman looks like as a Rookie and what Curtis Samuel brings - both long term investments.

 

If any of those guys (Kincaid, Coleman, Shakir, Samuel) step up to be a #1 Guy, than there's no need for a big name guy next year and wouldn't have been a need for one this year. So I don't see them investing in one before then, the earliest being mid season if it isn't working out or there's injuries. To do so now would be to limit reps on guys that he's evaluating as possibly being "the guy".

 

And ultimately, it boils down to what we lost and what he's done already. We lost 4 guys this offseason. We brought in 5 guys this offseason. And that doesn't even count 2023 Draft Pick Justin Shorter coming off his redshirt Rookie year, Futures, and UDFA additions.

 

We lost Deonte Harty. He was replaced (greatly) by Curtis Samuel. We lost Trent Sherfield. He was replaced by Mack Hollins. Going into the Draft, we needed replacements for Stefon Diggs and Gabe Davis. They spent their first pick on Keon Coleman to replace one.

 

Post Draft, the question I had was "does Keon Coleman replace Stef or Gabe?". If he replaces Gabe, we'd probably do something bigger. If he replaces Stefon, we'll probably sign a FA like MVS or Michael Thomas. Then we signed MVS and Beane called Coleman "The X" on the Podcast. Question answered, WR core finalized. 

 

To bring in a 6th roster worthy WR this offseason just seems unrealistic. There's 5 guys who are locked in already and we only carried 5 last season. As it is, guys like Claypool and Shorter are on the outside looking in. He's not 

 

Would I be opposed? No. But to say you expect it and it's "the plan"? I think you're definitely setting yourself up for disappointment. 

Edited May 21 by BillsFanForever19

[Einstein's Dog]

8 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

This is the disconnect for me. It's one thing to say "I think he should make a trade". Or have hope that he does.

It's the definitive expectation that he will and claiming that a trade is "Beane's plan all along", that I disagree. You condemn other posters for thinking they know how Beane operates (based on historical evidence, no less)... and then claim to know how Beane is going to operate.

 

I think the plan was to specifically NOT have a high priced, big star WR with a "just give me the damn ball" attitide that Josh feels he needs to force 

 

If any of those guys (Kincaid, Coleman, Shakir, Samuel) step up to be a #1 Guy, than there's no need for a big name guy next year

 

Post Draft, the question I had was "does Keon Coleman replace Stef or Gabe?". 

 

Would I be opposed? No. But to say you expect it and it's "the plan"? I think you're definitely setting yourself up for disappointment. 

I could very well be disappointed.  Judging from responses I'm in a very small minority (looking like just one at the moment).

 

The WR picked up does not have to have a "give me the damn ball" attitude.  They could get one of the younger ones that defer to Josh.  

Even if we have one WR step up to #1 level, you still need another to step up to #2 level - that level hasn't been met yet by the current crew.

K Coleman is not supposed to replace either Stef or Gabe, Coleman is a rookie who shouldn't be starting at the beginning of the season.

 

It seems like people are really stretching it to manufacture belief that this is an acceptable WR room.  All sorts of excuses and hopes.

 

I think Beane is one of the best GM's in the business.  The moves he has made this off-season are all in line with what I wanted.  But those moves only look genius level if they are accompanied with the trade for a good WR.  Otherwise I would have to retroactively go back and downgrade prior moves.  For instance - not double dipping at WR in the draft would look like a poor move, not getting a decent FA like OBJ would look like a mistake, even going back as far as not extending Gabe - mistake.  And in retrospect it will look like Beane got played by Diggs if this is the product he is trying to roll with.

 

Like I said I think Beane is a top GM.  I don't think Beane made a series of mistakes.  I think Beane had a plan.  I'm not saying "There's literally 100% chance" of a trade.  But I am saying my opinion of the job Beane is doing would be greatly affected by not doing this.  I still believe Beane is a top GM, so I believe this is going to happen.  I think I've narrowed it down to Aiyuk or Metcalf with the backup plan of D Adams or DHop.