Parsons traded to Green Bay, given $188 million contract

[BarleyNY]

10 minutes ago, DapperCam said:

So would an equivalent deal from the Bills be either:
- Rousseau + 2 first round picks
OR

- Oliver + 2 first round picks

And then adding either 15m to the cap this year in Rousseau's case or 10m to the cap this year in Oliver's case.

I'm not sure what levers Beane has to clear up that cap space, but I understand why the Bills didn't do the deal. We already have Allen on a big cap hit and adding another big cap hit would really hurt our depth. And then you lose your draft capital, which would be your best opportunity to backfill the loss in depth cheaply.

You can’t be justifying not acquiring a young difference maker at a premium position because that would “hurt our depth”. Let me be clear, the Bills made their decision on where to spend so Parsons wasn’t feasible. But if he’d come available prior to our spending spree, then not acquiring him at what he was traded for would be indefensible. 
It’s worth noting that Parsons would have been traded for substantially more if this had been done in March. That might have changed the calculation enough that it wouldn’t have been worth it. But championships are won with elite players - especially at premium positions. We have one and we have to play teams with more than one when we are in the playoffs. 

[Fan in Chicago]

6 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

You can’t be justifying not acquiring a young difference maker at a premium position because that would “hurt our depth”. Let me be clear, the Bills made their decision on where to spend so Parsons wasn’t feasible. But if he’d come available prior to our spending spree, then not acquiring him at what he was traded for would be indefensible. 
It’s worth noting that Parsons would have been traded for substantially more if this had been done in March. That might have changed the calculation enough that it wouldn’t have been worth it. But championships are won with elite players - especially at premium positions. We have one and we have to play teams with more than one when we are in the playoffs. 

I disagree on allocation of resources. If we were going to spend the money, I would have used it to acquire a stud WR. There have been way too many investments in the defense to further justify a $45 mm+ investment in a single defensive player. 

[Slippery Rubber Mats]

21 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

What’s “worth it” to you in this context? Seems like you’ve got a lot of wiggle room there. 

Intentionally 🤣

 

But for real, at the end of the deal I don't think they'll look back at it and say they would do it again. The price is too high. Obviously, if they win the super bowl I'll be wrong.

[BarleyNY]

7 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said:

I disagree on allocation of resources. If we were going to spend the money, I would have used it to acquire a stud WR. There have been way too many investments in the defense to further justify a $45 mm+ investment in a single defensive player. 

I’d have been happy with either as long as that player was elite and still comfortably in their prime. But that almost never happens so you gotta take what you can get when it’s available. There was no young, All Pro WR on the trading block. There was a young, elite Edge. So I’ll take that player. 

5 minutes ago, Slippery Rubber Mats said:

Intentionally 🤣

 

But for real, at the end of the deal I don't think they'll look back at it and say they would do it again. The price is too high. Obviously, if they win the super bowl I'll be wrong.

Way to go out on a limb. 

[BillsShredder83]

16 hours ago, bills6969 said:

Cowboys are definitely tanking for Archie

Theyre tanking in 2025 for the 2027 draft?  Sounds like a Jerry Jones move!

[QCity]

48 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Two late first round picks is very little draft capital relative to acquiring a young, All Pro caliber edge rusher. Clark doesn’t move the needle much. He is on a very expensive contract relative to his production. GB ate almost everything already this season so Dallas has him for $3M in 2025. But that’s it. He’s over $20M after that so he’ll be cut. 

 

What the hell are you talking about?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

It can be reasonably argued IMO that this trade is not great for either team. The Cowboys traded a young difference maker who they alienated. The Packers spent a ton of money on a non QB. The Cowboys could end up being better for it 3-4 years down the road. The Packers could win a Super Bowl-doubtful. All in all, it isn't a slam dunk for either team and has a ton of risk.

[RoscoeParrish]

59 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

The Packers are in a completely different situation. Since the 2020 draft the only two homegrown players they've given big extensions to are Jordan Love and Zach Tom. And it isn't because they were saving the money for something else, they just flat out haven't drafted well.

 

By comparison over the same time period we've extended Brown, Rousseau, Cook, Benford, Shakir, and Bernard. Say what you want about those players, they are much better than the likes of Eric Stokes, Quay Walker, and Devonte Wyatt. If Green Bay had drafted better they would have extended their young players too, like every team does.

 

Not to mention the QBs of the respective teams. Allen's cap hits the next few years compared to Love's:

 

2025 - $36.3M vs $29.7M

2026 - $56.4M vs $36.2M

2027 - $53.1M vs $42.5M

 

The Bills are tied to Allen through 2030 no matter what. The Packers can get out of Love's contract in 2028 with a measley $15M dead cap hit so even assuming they rework his contract and extend him that year he will not have Josh Allen-sized cap hits on his contract until 2029 at the very earliest.

 

The argument you're making would also apply to the Ravens and Chiefs. But they're in the same boat we are. When you've drafted well and you're paying a tier 1 QB, you can't just absorb a $47M AAV contract without warning. It was never realistic.

It’s not drafting well lol.

 

Knox, Samuel, and AJE have $10M more of a cap hit than Micah does this year.

 

We paid Diggs top end WR money and expected him to be here Josh through 2026. How were we planning to do that?

 

It’s frankly absurd at this point. We can’t afford DK, we can’t afford Micah. 
 

The reason we can’t afford any other stars that become available is because we prioritize spending that money on 4 quarters trying to make a dollar. We give guys like Larry O $10M.

 

And who knows. Maybe the Bills are right to do it that way.
 

But please stop pretending that was the only option.  

[chris heff]

This

I need to use the word “bloviating” more often.

 

Edited August 29 by chris heff

[Lost]

8 minutes ago, RoscoeParrish said:

It’s not drafting well lol.

 

Knox, Samuel, and AJE have $10M more of a cap hit than Micah does this year.

 

We paid Diggs top end WR money and expected him to be here Josh through 2026. How were we planning to do that?

 

It’s frankly absurd at this point. We can’t afford DK, we can’t afford Micah. 
 

The reason we can’t afford any other stars that become available is because we prioritize spending that money on 4 quarters trying to make a dollar. We give guys like Larry O $10M.

 

And who knows. Maybe the Bills are right to do it that way.
 

But please stop pretending that was the only option.  

 

Beane does have a habbit of bringing in a bunch of reduntant players and overpaying for mid talent.   Instead of bringing in 4 or 5 JAGS he could get that one elite guy.

[DapperCam]

43 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

You can’t be justifying not acquiring a young difference maker at a premium position because that would “hurt our depth”. Let me be clear, the Bills made their decision on where to spend so Parsons wasn’t feasible. But if he’d come available prior to our spending spree, then not acquiring him at what he was traded for would be indefensible. 
It’s worth noting that Parsons would have been traded for substantially more if this had been done in March. That might have changed the calculation enough that it wouldn’t have been worth it. But championships are won with elite players - especially at premium positions. We have one and we have to play teams with more than one when we are in the playoffs. 

It would have probably meant not extending 2 or 3 of Cook, Bernard, Shakir, Rousseau or Benford (and those in extended players likely walking at FA). It would also have meant no Hairston if we traded before the draft. So we’d be looking at Tre White/Rasul Douglas quality CB2 for the foreseeable future (i.e. a liability). How well did our pass rush do vs the Chiefs when Mahomes could just pass it quickly to whoever Elam was “covering”.
 

I think a deal for someone like Parsons only makes sense if you are in a 2 year “all in” window. Where you are pushing your chips in like the Rams did. Our roster is not close to good enough to make an “all in” move right now.

[BillsShredder83]

14 hours ago, Low Positive said:

No team would make that trade without an extension in hand, so if I had to guess, the trade market was limited to teams that could and would make him the highest-paid non-QB. That list included a bunch of scrub teams like NE with GB being the only contending team. Parsons did hold some cards and probably made the choice.

Crazy to think there weren't multiple contending teams willing to spend on a 26yr old at the 2nd most premium position in football.  Most contending teams already have a franchise QB.... none of these already contending teams ever have a realistic chance to draft a pass rusher like this because A- they're rare and B- they're off the board within the first 10 picks.

 

Salary cap is exploding exponentially year to year.  The money is a tough pill to swallow, but its fine

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, DapperCam said:

. Our roster is not close to good enough to make an “all in” move right now.

Im ok with not making the move for Parsons but you’re going to have to explain this statement to me.   
 

Best QB in the NFL (argue w a wall)

Elite OL

Above Average RB Room

Average TE Room with potential 

We’ll see what the WR Room is

Same for DL, but tons of investment

Top Tier Pair of LB’s

Top Tier Slot Corner

Top 12ish CB1 and a RD1 Pick at CB2

We’ll see about S

How is that “not close to good enough” for a team that was just in the AFC Championship Game and lost by a ball placement and/or dropped pass?

[BarleyNY]

32 minutes ago, QCity said:

 

What the hell are you talking about?

I can explain it again for you, but I can’t understand it for you. 

[Paup 1995MVP]

15 hours ago, Logic said:

"The defense sucks with this guy, so they might as well suck without him" is a bad argument.
 

 

 

No it’s not.  If I run a business, and we are not making a profit.  And one of my employees who thinks they are an amazing asset wants a lot more money to work for me. But we are not getting it done w them. And they are a bit too much about themselves instead of the team. Why would I want to pay that same person more money?

 

Rather I am letting him go to greener pastures, and getting a nice return in some new assets to try and turn things around make a better more profitable company.

 

i am not paying any defensive player that kind of money, especially one who is marginal against the run.  And especially in an era when football is an offensive game. 
 

I guarantee you the Lions will scheme him right out, to where he is not a factor.  And the Vikings will likely do the same.  
 

Kenny Clark was a big part of the Packers defense.  I wish the Bills had him. 

[BillsShredder83]

14 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I’d take Chris Jones at 31M every day of the week, over Parsons at 47M.

 

Actualy, i’d take Chris Jones at 31M every day of the week, even if Parsons was 31M too.

 

(Not that Jones is available, just making a point)

"I'd rather have Peyton Manning at 7years & $98m"

 

I agree with the sentiment, but how many biga$$ DL contracts have been handed out since then?  That market is long and gone, even in a year... which is why the $47m is just another regular contract

[BillsShredder83]

13 hours ago, Magox said:

At $47M a year, it's really hard to justify that kind of money for a non-QB. Getting to $40M was already a big leap, but now pushing toward $50M — especially when you're already paying top-tier contracts to CeeDee Lamb and Dak Prescott — it's just not sustainable. And let’s be honest, the current formula wasn’t working anyway.

I’ve felt for over a year now that this team needs to rebuild. They should seriously consider trading Dak after this season and start fresh. Micah is an elite pass rusher and letting go of playmakers is never easy, but there’s a point where the price is just too high. When you’ve got $155M+ AAV tied up in just three players, it’s nearly impossible to build a complete roster.

 

As a Dallas fan, yeah, it sucks to see a guy like Micah walk. But sometimes you have to do what’s best for the organization long-term. Jerry’s handling of this was clumsy and it’s going to spark a lot of backlash — especially with Micah gone — but I honestly think it was the right move.

This is a dumb kid not knowing how to spend his allowance problem.  I absolutely wouldnt have paid black Kirk Cousins what they did... especially when they could've got a haul like this by trading Dak.  That lowers cap hit, gets you return resources, and gets you out of QB purgatory.

 

Lamb I can wrap my head around paying, but they screwed themselves waiting till last minute.

 

Two dumb financial decisions, doesnt make a third one a smart call LOL

[RoscoeParrish]

1 minute ago, BillsShredder83 said:

This is a dumb kid not knowing how to spend his allowance problem.  I absolutely wouldnt have paid black Kirk Cousins what they did... especially when they could've got a haul like this by trading Dak.  That lowers cap hit, gets you return resources, and gets you out of QB purgatory.

 

Lamb I can wrap my head around paying, but they screwed themselves waiting till last minute.

 

Two dumb financial decisions, doesnt make a third one a smart call LOL

Teams with Pro Bowl QBs don’t trade them away because they aren’t Josh Allen.

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Crazy to think there weren't multiple contending teams willing to spend on a 26yr old at the 2nd most premium position in football.  Most contending teams already have a franchise QB.... none of these already contending teams ever have a realistic chance to draft a pass rusher like this because A- they're rare and B- they're off the board within the first 10 picks.

 

Salary cap is exploding exponentially year to year.  The money is a tough pill to swallow, but its fine

 

It's the late-August timing. Had they made him available in March/April, they would have had teams lining up and brought in likely twice as much as they got in this trade.

 

If Jones opens the Cowboys up to trade talks in March/April, before we signed Bosa, Hoecht, Ogunjobi and spent 4 picks on DL and extended Rousseau, we would've been first in line. I'm sure there are more than a few teams that would say the same.

 

It's just Jerry's ridiculous timing by not having any type of plan or competency.

[BillsShredder83]

12 hours ago, julian said:

 If the Cowboys have a top 10 pick next year they will now have the ammo to move into the 1 spot to get Arch Manning.

 

 They have to hope the Titans have the worst record in football this year, if they do then the Titans will 100% move outta that spot to get extra 1st round pick(s) and only have to slide down a few spots, Titans took Cam Ward this year so they could cash in on the Manning golden ticket.

In 2027?  Maybe?  We've seen two games of Arch.... so NFL franchises are making 2025 decisions about 2027, based on high school recruits LOL

 

Not to mention if Arch is the type of NFL prospect (2 seasons away) we think he will be, whos moving out of that #1 overall spot?  Nobody!!!