30dive Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 After reading the Buffalo News this morning, I really do not see the benefit in keeping EMoulds. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. But when you consider that if we keep him (present numbers), with all numbers applied we will be $4.7 million under the cap, if we set him free we will be $10 million under the cap, the Bills could get a whole lot done with an addtional $5.3 million in cap space, and most likely bring in a great deal more impact for 2006 and beyond, certainly more impact than EMoulds will offer in 2006 and beyond. I see no "football" reason to keep him. Let him hook up with a team that might make a serious run at XLI. He has been a great Bill, but in light of the money and the fact that he has been a loyal hardworking Bill I just think it makes the most sense to let him go, it would be the right thing for all invovled. Thanks for everything Eric! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 It's not the money...Eric wants out of Buffalo. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 After reading that same article I have changed my mind on him. I was one of the few that didn't care what kind of money we would save by cutting him, I thought he was a valuable part to this team, but now after hearing him and his agent complaining he won't take a pay cut at all to help the team, I say cut his @ss, and I hope only the cardinals come to you with an offer and the rest of your carreer takes the same path as Peerless Price's when he left (straight DOWN) This is not a guy that wants to finish his career in Buffalo like his agent says. He wants the money. I want guys on this team who WANT to play for this team and see it suceed, not guys who are just looking for the big payout. I don't care what you have done for the bills in the past anymore, right now I'd rather have Roscoe as our #1 receiver then you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 His work is done here. Cut him and lets all move on. Lets build a good, younger team that wants to be here and win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 It's not the money...Eric wants out of Buffalo. PTR 617293[/snapback] It is the money. He has to pay for all of them babies somehow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 She, I mean He, wants what he wants. That's the problem............even if we keep him................he'll cry all year and cause problems..cut him now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
destro32 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I think Mould's agent is Jerry McGwire.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 It's not the money...Eric wants out of Buffalo. PTR 617293[/snapback] You are dead on Promo. He is going to play for a contender for far less than even the restructured deal that we would offer him. His agents second proposal was a "hey look we tried our best to stay in Buffalo" ploy. I can't say that I blame him. He probably only has 2 or 3 good seasons left in him. If he is going to start over again, like he is here for the 5th time in his career, he might as well go someplace where he can win a title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 To bad most of the "Contendors are too busy cutting guys like him to get under the cap. AFC playoff teams -Pats don't usually overspend for a name player like moulds -Broncos look to be leading the way for T.O. -Colts just gave a ridiculous contract to their WR -Steelers and Bengals I don't seem to think would have any interest -Chargers might not have the cap space if they keep Brees (and I doubt they'll be contendors if they start Rivers) NFC PLayoff teams -Eagles maybe if they have the cap space -Giants are a maybe too but they went out last year for a new #1 and have a young QB who moulds might not wanna play for -Bucs also if they have cap room -Bears probably not since they already picked up their #1 WR last year -Panthers only if they have the cap room -Seattle will not be a contendor if they don't resign Alexander who will break their cap room so no to them Teams with cap room that could give him the cash do not look like they are going to be any more likely than Buffalo to make the playoffs Like - San Francisco, Houston, Arizona, Green Bay (could be contendors but probably not) Minnesota seems most likely as they have grabbed the last couple big name Bills on the market and look to have some cap room and need a #1 WR. But I don't know if they are going to be contendors for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 To bad most of the "Contendors are too busy cutting guys like him to get under the cap. AFC playoff teams -Pats don't usually overspend for a name player like moulds -Broncos look to be leading the way for T.O. -Colts just gave a ridiculous contract to their WR -Steelers and Bengals I don't seem to think would have any interest -Chargers might not have the cap space if they keep Brees (and I doubt they'll be contendors if they start Rivers) NFC PLayoff teams -Eagles maybe if they have the cap space -Giants are a maybe too but they went out last year for a new #1 and have a young QB who moulds might not wanna play for -Bucs also if they have cap room -Bears probably not since they already picked up their #1 WR last year -Panthers only if they have the cap room -Seattle will not be a contendor if they don't resign Alexander who will break their cap room so no to them Teams with cap room that could give him the cash do not look like they are going to be any more likely than Buffalo to make the playoffs Like - San Francisco, Houston, Arizona, Green Bay (could be contendors but probably not) Minnesota seems most likely as they have grabbed the last couple big name Bills on the market and look to have some cap room and need a #1 WR. But I don't know if they are going to be contendors for a while. 617413[/snapback] I think if Moulds gets cut the two best guesses on where he will sign will be Phili or Minnesota. If he wants a super bowl right away maybe Seattle will make an offer for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30dive Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 I really think he hooks up with a playoff caliber team. He will give away the money to play for a "winner" I think most of us will agree, that he wants out. With that said, what is best for the Bills? And EMoulds IMHO is not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I hope he ends up in the NFC, somewhere like Atlanta (they like our old receivers) and he can complain to Vick that he should get more passes. Or finds out no one is going to pay what he thinks he deserves so he goes to the CFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The Philadelphia Eagles seem to be the best bet given their needs, playoff possibilities and available monies. I'm not ready to give up on our getting him to stay in Buffalo when all is said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 EM and his agent(s) aren't being smart here. This is NOT the off-season to be pulling this, as he is NOT going to make even as much money elsewhere. Of course, we don't know how much the Bills may be trying to low-ball him, but if he is saying that taking any kind of paycut whatsoever is out of the question... well, then he needs to be out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Not a single player on this team has done much over the past 2 years to warrant keeping them at all cost, imo. So, I say if cutting him or anyone gives us more money to build a team, then do it and do it without hesitation. Right now the needs of the team far out wiegh the needs of a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Right now the needs of the team far out wiegh the needs of a player. SPOCK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 But when you consider that if we keep him (present numbers), with all numbers applied we will be $4.7 million under the cap, if we set him free we will be $10 million under the cap, the Bills could get a whole lot done with an addtional $5.3 million in cap space 617243[/snapback] The Bills would actually have over $7 million in additional cap space by cutting Moulds. There are two things that would happen if the Bills kept Moulds: 1. Over $7 million of additional cap burden would be created because Moulds would be paid over $7 million in new money for 2006. 2. $1.7 million of existing cap burden (from money already paid to Moulds) would be pushed to 2007 instead of 2006. Let's say the Bills wanted #2 but not #1. They could talk to, say, London Fletcher, and ask him to convert the bulk of his 2006 salary into a signing bonus. It's no skin off London's back, because he'd be getting the same money, and he'd be getting it a few months sooner. Do this with enough players, and you've pushed $1.7 million of cap hit into 2007. The point I'm getting at is that it's the new money the Bills would have to pay Moulds--over $7 million--that determines his salary cap burden. No way is Moulds worth $7 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 The Bills would actually have over $7 million in additional cap space by cutting Moulds. There are two things that would happen if the Bills kept Moulds: 1. Over $7 million of additional cap burden would be created because Moulds would be paid over $7 million in new money for 2006. 2. $1.7 million of existing cap burden (from money already paid to Moulds) would be pushed to 2007 instead of 2006. Not correct. Assuming there's no new CBA, if they cut Moulds, ALL of his unamortized bonus hits the 2006 cap, regardless of when he's cut. With a new CBA, they'd have to wait until after June 1st. So the Bills save anywhere from $4.5-5.5M with his release as things stand right now. Let's say the Bills wanted #2 but not #1. They could talk to, say, London Fletcher, and ask him to convert the bulk of his 2006 salary into a signing bonus. It's no skin off London's back, because he'd be getting the same money, and he'd be getting it a few months sooner. Do this with enough players, and you've pushed $1.7 million of cap hit into 2007. This is the last year of Fletcher's contract, so unless he agreed to an extension, the Bills can't do much with his contract. The Bills can and SHOULD do this with other players (Schobel, Evans, etc.) though. The point I'm getting at is that it's the new money the Bills would have to pay Moulds--over $7 million--that determines his salary cap burden. No way is Moulds worth $7 million. I agree. He's not worth $7M in new, i.e. Ralph's, money. Hell I don't even know if he's worth $4.3M in new money, which is what the Bills are offering him. And if there's no new CBA, there's no way he gets more than $2.5M this year from another team, and he's got a 1/32 chance of picking a SB-winning one. Good luck, Eric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 The Bears have an interest in him according to their message boards. I imagine after shelling out for Muhammed last year they cannot committ that many dollars to one position. Moulds will not command any more than 3M a year if he's lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 The Philadelphia Eagles seem to be the best bet given their needs, playoff possibilities and available monies. I'm not ready to give up on our getting him to stay in Buffalo when all is said and done. 617601[/snapback] Philly is a team that many mention as a place for Moulds, but Reid seems to be more of the mindset to dump players when their best years are behind them, and let other teams overpay for these guys (Vincent comes to mind). If we dump Eric, I suspect that he, his agent, and his entourage are going to be shocked at the lack of interest for washed up, whining, malcontent receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts