James Cook absent from OTA's

[Billsfed1]

11 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Yes, I agree. At 31 yrs old.

I think so too, certainly wont be elite anyways

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes but you make year 3 a largely unguaranteed big number... like $19m plus that he is never going to play on. If he is still a stud at that point you extend him.and lower that number. If he is washed you cut him. 

 

I had a model worked out the other day where you do a 3yr $45m extension and his salary cap numbers are basically:

 

25 - 5m

26 - 9m

27 - 13.5m

 

Then 28 was a big number but it isn't real money. I did have one void year but not a ton in it. Like $4m. I think I had him cuttable for like $7m in dead cap after the 2027 season. If I get time this weekend I'll dig my workings out and post it. 

 

I thought it had wins for him and his agent (let them claim they got the number they wanted) and wins for the Bills.

 

There's so much fan reaction to this situation that I just dont get. 

 

Besides the manufactured outrage over the innocuous social media posts, this idea that somehow a short-term $15M/yr avg contract will somehow cripple the team and put us in cap hell just doesnt add up. Especially when any of us amateurs can structure a reasonable and team-safe deal with minimal effort.

 

I understand Beane's measured approach and pinching pennies on early extensions where he is gifting guys a good, guaranteed payday before their rookie deal ends. But that approach also (should) provide the wiggle room to go closer to market value if/when needed.
 

That's why I think a deal will get done, but closer to Cook hitting FA. No point in negotiating with market value numbers now when Beane is only negotiating against himself. But we can (and hopefully will) bump up the offer when Cook earns it with another year of top production. I just hope by then it isnt too late because if he does produce, his number only goes up.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

There's so much fan reaction to this situation that I just dont get. 

 

Besides the manufactured outrage over the innocuous social media posts, this idea that somehow a short-term $15M/yr avg contract will somehow cripple the team and put us in cap hell just doesnt add up. Especially when any of us amateurs can structure a reasonable and team-safe deal with minimal effort.

 

I understand Beane's measured approach and pinching pennies on early extensions where he is gifting guys a good, guaranteed payday before their rookie deal ends. But that approach also (should) provide the wiggle room to go closer to market value if/when needed.
 

That's why I think a deal will get done, but closer to Cook hitting FA. No point in negotiating with market value numbers now when Beane is only negotiating against himself. But we can (and hopefully will) bump up the offer when Cook earns it with another year of top production. I just hope by then it isnt too late because if he does produce, his number only goes up.

 

 

I'd rather use the money to extend Edwards and/or McGovern right now.  See if Cook can replicate last year and then either let him walk for a comp pick or put the non exclusive franchise tag on him guaranteeing he'll be here until his age 27 season is up.  He'd still cost less than $13.2m I believe on a RB franchise tag.  

 

By not extending him now they also could trade for a truly elite RB like Jonathan Taylor next year if the Colts are in rebuild mode as he enters the last year of his contract.  Replicate what the Eagles and Ravens were able to do with Barkley/Henry.  There's other unexpected opportunities that could open as well.  The point being there shouldn't be a rush to re-sign him this year as it could prohibit a lot of possibilities next off-season.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

I'd rather use the money to extend Edwards and/or McGovern right now.  See if Cook can replicate last year and then either let him walk for a comp pick or put the non exclusive franchise tag on him guaranteeing he'll be here until his age 27 season is up.  He'd still cost less than $13.2m I believe on a RB franchise tag.  

 

By not extending him now they also could trade for a truly elite RB like Jonathan Taylor next year if the Colts are in rebuild mode as he enters the last year of his contract.  Replicate what the Eagles and Ravens were able to do with Barkley/Henry.  There's other unexpected opportunities that could open as well.  The point being there shouldn't be a rush to re-sign him this year as it could prohibit a lot of possibilities next off-season.

 

We can still extend everyone on the OL.

 

The post you quoted is based entirely on the premise that we arent extending him right now and waiting until after the season.

 

Cook >>> Taylor, and Taylor already has a higher price tag than Cook. That idea makes no sense.

[Doc Brown]

12 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

We can still extend everyone on the OL.

 

The post you quoted is based entirely on the premise that we arent extending him right now and waiting until after the season.

 

Cook >>> Taylor, and Taylor already has a higher price tag than Cook. That idea makes no sense.

I read it as middle of the season.  My mistake.  Taylor's a much more complete back that's only 8 months older that we'd only have to commit to for the last year of his contract.  Regardless, at least we can agree that it's not good business to extend Cook now unless he significantly lower's his asking price.

Edited Saturday at 07:17 PM by Doc Brown

[17islongenough]

For anyone wondering Cook is currently playing poker.  Well he was. He isn't any good at it

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:46 AM by 17islongenough

[DJB]

 

Where does he fit in this list?

[balln]

10 minutes ago, DJB said:

 

Where does he fit in this list?

Not based on what players were. Currently. With age and mileage factored in. He’s right under Jonathon Taylor. 

[RoscoeParrish]

23 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes but you make year 3 a largely unguaranteed big number... like $19m plus that he is never going to play on. If he is still a stud at that point you extend him.and lower that number. If he is washed you cut him. 

 

I had a model worked out the other day where you do a 3yr $45m extension and his salary cap numbers are basically:

 

25 - 5m

26 - 9m

27 - 13.5m

 

Then 28 was a big number but it isn't real money. I did have one void year but not a ton in it. Like $4m. I think I had him cuttable for like $7m in dead cap after the 2027 season. If I get time this weekend I'll dig my workings out and post it. 

 

I thought it had wins for him and his agent (let them claim they got the number they wanted) and wins for the Bills.

This isn’t really different than what everyone else does.

 

Taylor signed 3 for $42M and can be cut in year 3 for 2.5M in dead cap and $13M in savings.

 

I guess I’m really failing to understand all these “unique” ways to make Cook’s contract demands seem better that are really just industry standards.

 

I like Cook a lot. I agree he’s very valuable to Buffalo. I won’t get bent out of shape if he signs for 3 for $45M. 
 

But if he signs for 3 for $45M, it’s 3 for $45M. It’s not secretly a 4 year deal or a super unique savvy 2 for 37M with a cuttable dead cap number after 2027. That’s just spin. All that matters is his years, his average, and his guarantees. 

Edited 18 hours ago by RoscoeParrish

[GunnerBill]

43 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:

This isn’t really different than what everyone else does.

 

Taylor signed 3 for $42M and can be cut in year 3 for 2.5M in dead cap and $13M in savings.

 

I guess I’m really failing to understand all these “unique” ways to make Cook’s contract demands seem better that are really just industry standards.

 

I like Cook a lot. I agree he’s very valuable to Buffalo. I won’t get bent out of shape if he signs for 3 for $45M. 
 

But if he signs for 3 for $45M, it’s 3 for $45M. It’s not secretly a 4 year deal or a super unique savvy 2 for 37M with a cuttable dead cap number in 2027. That’s just spin. All that matters is his years, his average, and his guarantees. 

 

I agree it isn't different to what others do. But I disagree that 3 for $45m is 3 for $45m. That's only true if the contract is fully guaranteed. And Cook's won't be. There are ways to give him and his agent the win in terms of a headline number while making that contract a team friendly one. It's not unique it is just good cap management. 

[RoscoeParrish]

43 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree it isn't different to what others do. But I disagree that 3 for $45m is 3 for $45m. That's only true if the contract is fully guaranteed. And Cook's won't be. There are ways to give him and his agent the win in terms of a headline number while making that contract a team friendly one. It's not unique it is just good cap management. 

Right.

 

But everyone does this.

 

Cook and his agent will surely negotiate for all of year one and probably most of year two being guaranteed. Otherwise, they won’t accept a completely silly fake contract.

 

My suspicion is that they would sign 3 for $45M with 28M+ guaranteed today. We can manipulate the cap number from there, but that would still be the contract.

Edited 16 hours ago by RoscoeParrish

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:

Right.

 

But everyone does this.

 

Cook and his agent will surely negotiate for all of year one and probably most of year two being guaranteed. Otherwise, they won’t accept a completely silly fake contract.

 

My suspicion is that they would sign 3 for $45M with 28M+ guaranteed today. We can manipulate the cap number from there, but that would still be the contract.

 

I think the guarantee will be less than that. I think somewhere around $21/22m.

[DrDawkinstein]

29 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:

Right.

 

But everyone does this.

 

Cook and his agent will surely negotiate for all of year one and probably most of year two being guaranteed. Otherwise, they won’t accept a completely silly fake contract.

 

My suspicion is that they would sign 3 for $45M with 28M+ guaranteed today. We can manipulate the cap number from there, but that would still be the contract.

 

That's kinda our point. Everyone does this. It isnt rocket surgery. So there is no (far less) reason for fans to be up in arms with that $15M/yr avg number.

 

All the agent and player really care about when it is all said and done is Guaranteed Money. The "average" and advertised contract number is just about bragging rights and "respect", and is secondary.

 

We all can agree there are lots of ways to manipulate the contract payouts, that are already standard procedures, that mitigate the hits.

 

Even your example of 3/$45M with lets say $30M guaranteed is essentially a 3/$30M contract for those worried about dead money.

 

So why are people gnashing their teeth over a comment of "15 mil year"?

Edited 16 hours ago by DrDawkinstein

[RoscoeParrish]

51 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

That's kinda our point. Everyone does this. It isnt rocket surgery. So there is no (far less) reason for fans to be up in arms with that $15M/yr avg number.

 

All the agent and player really care about when it is all said and done is Guaranteed Money. The "average" and advertised contract number is just about bragging rights and "respect", and is secondary.

 

We all can agree there are lots of ways to manipulate the contract payouts, that are already standard procedures, that mitigate the hits.

 

Even your example of 3/$45M with lets say $30M guaranteed is essentially a 3/$30M contract for those worried about dead money.

 

So why are people gnashing their teeth over a comment of "15 mil year"?

I can’t speak for anyone, but I think you guys are disagreeing with a lot of folks is because you painting a moving target.

 

First, it’s “we can bring his cap number down in 2025”

 

Then, its “3 for $45M is barely more than Taylor’s contract”

 

Then, it’s “if we structure it like JT’s contract, we can avoid dead money”

 

Then, it’s “if we manipulate the cap numbers, and add a void year, we can cut him 3 years from now and only be on the hook for 2 years and $30ish million”

 

The reason why AAV and guarantees are used for shorthand e v a l of contracts is because they aren’t THAT different from team to team. Some contracts are more team-friendly than others, sure. But if I don’t think Cook is worth $15M AAV in this climate, then “if we structure it like Taylor’s it’s really only 3 for $30M but we have to cut him in 2 years” isn’t super compelling imo.

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, RoscoeParrish said:

I can’t speak for anyone, but I think you guys are disagreeing with a lot of folks is because you painting a moving target.

 

First, it’s “we can bring his cap number down in 2025”

 

Then, its “3 for $45M is barely more than Taylor’s contract”

 

Then, it’s “if we structure it like JT’s contract, we can avoid dead money”

 

Then, it’s “if we manipulate the cap numbers, and add a void year, we can cut him 3 years from now and only be on the hook for 2 years and $30ish million”

 

The reason why AAV and guarantees are used for shorthand e v a l of contracts is because they aren’t THAT different from team to team. Some contracts are more team-friendly than others, sure. But if I don’t think Cook is worth $15M AAV in this climate, then “if we structure it like Taylor’s it’s really only 3 for $30M but we have to cut him in 2 years” isn’t super compelling imo.

 

But all of those statements are true together or stated separately. We're only painting a moving target based on the arguments made every time we present a solution. Believe me it's annoying on this side as well that every time we show how doable it is, someone comes with a "yeah but..." that isnt even a problem, or that teams have already been solving for years.

 

And no is saying you have to cut him after 2 years. You can always restructure and/or extend if things are going well. The entire "you can cut after 2 years" is just to placate the people that are convinced he will fall off a cliff in 2 years. We're showing that all the bases can be covered.

 

Bottom line, regardless of the examples and details, is that in the modern NFL, a short-term $15M/yr avg contract is not a big deal or a franchise killer. Especially for your best skills player on a top offense. Regardless of how many snaps or downs he plays.

[BillsFan130]

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/james-cook-potential-holdout-not-something-i-want-to-talk-about-right-now

 

Going to be interesting to see if Cook holds out or not. (I can't see how it would make any sense from his side)

[Returntoglory]

8 hours ago, DJB said:

 

Where does he fit in this list?

My God! Derrick Henry at 8 Mil? Cook's definitely on crack...

[BillsFanForever19]

4 hours ago, Returntoglory said:

My God! Derrick Henry at 8 Mil? Cook's definitely on crack...

 

Derrick Henry was over 30 years old with recurring foot issues. He also had already made his big money from Tennessee and took less than he could have from other teams to play for a contender. On top of that, the contract market is reset on a yearly basis with the rise in salary cap. 

 

The situations are completely different and not really comparable. To focus only on that and ignore the names and prices above that, like 30 year old Aaron Jones at 10m, Josh Jacobs at 12m, 29 year old Alvin Kamara at 12.5, without taking into account the insane numbers cut off at the top - is cherry picking.

[BillsFanForever19]

13 hours ago, DJB said:

 

Where does he fit in this list?

 

At least above Kamara at 12.5 at 29 and those numbers rise with the rise in Salary Cap.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, BillsFan130 said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/james-cook-potential-holdout-not-something-i-want-to-talk-about-right-now

 

Going to be interesting to see if Cook holds out or not. (I can't see how it would make any sense from his side)

“I necessarily don’t want to talk about it right now, because it’s like, it’s something I want to hold in to myself . . . just let the business take care of the business,” Cook said,

 

He is aware that people can see stuff he posts online.  I assume.