To those who STILL want to cut moulds...

[JimBob2232]

Tell me this...

 

Clumping Platelets says we were 15 mil under the cap. After the signing of Davis, Tripplet and Royal, We are somewhere in the vicinity of 10 mil under the cap. We save an additional 5 mil by cutting EM.

 

So...who is it you want to sign to eat up this cap space? 15 mil is ALOT of money...but there just arent quality FAs out there (in positions of need) to justify spending all that cash.

 

I understand 10 mil is alot of room for moulds to occupy. But the benefit of cutting him is non-existant.

 

Again, the 15 million dollar question...who would you be comfortable paying 15 million dollars too this offseaosn?

[cantankerous]

I agree, there just isn't anyone out there that will bring to the table what EMO can. All along i've thought they'd reach a deal, and I think it's coming soon. I hope we go after a LG next...get Bennie's ass outta there.

[Brandon]

I probably wouldn't sign any big name/money FAs this offseason, but that money might very well be useful next year. Remember, that dead money comes off the cap in 07 if he's released or traded now.

[LabattBlue]

So instead of spending the money to improve other positions, you devote a huge chunk of cap space to a player whose production does not equal the pay he is receiving, just because you have the money.

[cantankerous]

I'd devote a chunk of space to EMO because he's a complete WR, and his production is phenomenal considering how sh------- our team was last season. The pieces are coming together, and EMO will be a HUGE piece. I can't wait for all you Moulds haters to shut your mouths when he's back in a Bills uniform in 9-06.

[BuffBills#1]

First off, we don't have nearly as much cap room as you think. We had about 15 million before free agency started. You think Tripplet, Royal, and Davis only count 5 mill. against the cap? It's probably somewhere between 7-8. That puts us at about 7.5 million left. We need somewhere between 3-4 million for the draft so that puts us at only 4 million under. We still have a bunch of holes to fill and 4 million isn't going to cut it. We still need a big run stuffer DT, and for now I'll say we won't have to sign a FA assuming we draft Ngata. In the 2nd round I'de assume we take a guard that will start from day one, either Joseph, Spencer, or Giles. You can't really rely on third rounders to be your starters in their first year, so the holes left to fill in free agency are SS, DE(possibly), RT,C, FB(possibly). 4 million dollars isn't going to get you all of that. We'll have no choice but to cut Moulds, and Bernie Anderson. That will get us close to 6.5 million more to spend.

[SonOfWade]

If a long term deal is reached with Clements, they could always front load the contract, eating up some of this years salary cap room, and leaving more space in future seasons. The Vikes did this with Winfield's contract.

[cantankerous]

Isn't every team allocated money specifically for signing rookies?

[LabattBlue]

Here is the other thing with Moulds. He does not want to play 2nd fiddle to Evans and his actions after the Miami game(wahhhhh!!! we need to run the ball more) when Evans went nuts, are evidence that the guy will not be happy here. In addition to this, the Bills have so many holes to fill, that this will probably be another rebuilding year.

 

 

Cut him loose, take the cap hit, use the money that is freed up to bring in other players and close the book on the Moulds era.

[JimBob2232]

Royal signed a 5 year 10 mil contract w/ 2.5 SB... Cap hit = 500k + base (probably 300k or so) = 1 roughly mil cap hit.

 

Tripplet signed 5 years / 18 mil, 5.5 SB. So his cap hit this year is 1.1mil + base salary for 06. Probably small. Lets say 2 mil cap hit for Tripplett.

 

I have not seen any numbers on Davis, but I cant imagine we paid more for him than tripplet. So lets say 2 mil for him.

 

Thats 5 mil for these 3 guys. I dont think my numbers are far off.

 

 

And LabattBlue, I understand your argument...but name names here. Tell me who you want, and tell me that getting them is better than keeping EM. I dont think I can make that argument.

 

Front loading a clements contract probably isnt a terrible idea...

[LabattBlue]

And LabattBlue, I understand your argument...but name names here.  Tell me who you want, and tell me that getting them is better than keeping EM.  I dont think I can make that argument.

 

625711[/snapback]

I'm not trying to say that UFA's like Finneran, Bradford, Gaffney or Bryant are better than Moulds, but they won't cost as much and if they sign with the Bills, they want to be a part of this team versus Moulds who wants out, as evidenced by the fact that he won't take a pay cut. There is also the possibility of another WR who may be cut somewhere between now and mini-camp. If this team was ready to make a deep run in the playoffs, I'd say find a way to keep Moulds, but I don't believe this to be the case at all.

[K-9]

Tell me this...

 

Clumping Platelets says we were 15 mil under the cap.  After the signing of Davis, Tripplet and Royal, We are somewhere in the vicinity of 10 mil under the cap.  We save an additional 5 mil by cutting EM.

 

So...who is it you want to sign to eat up this cap space?  15 mil is ALOT of money...but there just arent quality FAs out there (in positions of need) to justify spending all that cash.

 

I understand 10 mil is alot of room for moulds to occupy.  But the benefit of cutting him is non-existant. 

 

Again, the 15 million dollar question...who would you be comfortable paying 15 million dollars too this offseaosn?

625571[/snapback]

 

There's a HUGE benefit to cutting his selfish, diminishing skills, me-first, negative veteran infuence in the locker room ass: the other players on this team won't have to witness another classless act of quitting on your team during the FIRST QUARTER of a game against a division rival. Not to mention the extra 5.5 mil in cap space.

 

He's becom a whiner of the first degree. And like the Bills of the late 80s (Smerlas, Devlin, K Jones, etc.) it's time for a little addition by subtraction. Can't do that when the established vet is an A-hole. And that's what EM has turned into.

 

Get the F@$%^#K outta here, Moulds. And I don't care if he has a 2000 yard, 20 TD season with another team next year.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JimBob2232]

There's a HUGE benefit to cutting his selfish, diminishing skills, me-first, negative veteran infuence in the locker room ass: the other players on this team won't have to witness another classless act of quitting on your team during the FIRST QUARTER of a game against a division rival.

 

Get the F@$%^#K outta here, Moulds. And I don't care if he has a 2000 yard, 20 TD season with another team next year.

 

GO BILLS!!!

625739[/snapback]

 

 

I am all for cutting a guy for the reasons you outlined above. However, if Marv felt this was the case, EM would not be on the team right now. IF he gets cut it is strictly for financial reasons at this point.

 

The way I see it we have 3 options

1) Keep EM, go into season with 102 mil cap number

2) Cut EM, go into season with 97 mil cap number

3) Cut EM, spend more money than we should on marginal FAs and go into season with a 102 mil cap number

 

Option 1 is the only one that makes sense. Keep him, plug some FA holes, let other teams go crazy with the contracts this offseason, and wait a year and see whats available next year.

[BuffBills#1]

Royal signed a 5 year 10 mil contract w/ 2.5 SB... Cap hit = 500k + base (probably 300k or so) = 1 roughly mil cap hit.

 

Tripplet signed 5 years / 18 mil, 5.5 SB.  So his cap hit this year is 1.1mil + base salary for 06.  Probably small.  Lets say 2 mil cap hit for Tripplett.

 

I have not seen any numbers on Davis, but I cant imagine we paid more for him than tripplet.  So lets say 2 mil for him.

 

Thats 5 mil for these 3 guys.  I dont think my numbers are far off.

And LabattBlue, I understand your argument...but name names here.  Tell me who you want, and tell me that getting them is better than keeping EM.  I dont think I can make that argument.

 

Front loading a clements contract probably isnt a terrible idea...

625711[/snapback]

 

 

Do you have links to the contract hit for the first year?

[JimBob2232]

Do you have links to the contract hit for the first year?

 

No, thats why I was intentionally vague. I have heard the salaries reported in various locations, so i assume they are correct. Typically the first year is a very low salary, due to the large signing bonus recieved. Though with the glut of cap space every team has this year, this may be a poor assumption.

[SnakeOiler]

stupid question -- if they keep him, would 2006 be the last year of mould's contract? Wondering if we would be in this same predicament next year if he was kept this year. If so, might be better to take the cap hit now.

 

We could still use a safety, and a qb in free agency

[K-9]

I am all for cutting a guy for the reasons you outlined above.  However, if Marv felt this was the case, EM would not be on the team right now.  IF he gets cut it is strictly for financial reasons at this point. 

 

The way I see it we have 3 options

1) Keep EM, go into season with 102 mil cap number

2) Cut EM, go into season with 97 mil cap number

3) Cut EM, spend more money than we should on marginal FAs and go into season with a 102 mil cap number

 

Option 1 is the only one that makes sense. Keep him, plug some FA holes, let other teams go crazy with the contracts this offseason, and wait a year and see whats available next year.

625763[/snapback]

 

I'm sure you're right about Marv's view on the matter (he is afterall the coach who drafted him), but I'd still be surprised if EM is on the team next season at his current number. I'd like to see who the marginal FAs are before saying option 3 is not a good one. We need help in several areas and if we can add the value over a couple additional positions vs. just one WR slot, then I say do it. IMHO, he's just not THAT good a receiver anymore.

 

And I freely admit that my viewpoint has been bolstered by the disdain I have held for him since he quit on his team in Miami last year. He'd have to possess TO-like skill for me to overlook that. And he just doesn't anymore. He's not even a top 15 receiver in the league anymore.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Typical TBD Guy]

Tell me this...

 

Clumping Platelets says we were 15 mil under the cap.  After the signing of Davis, Tripplet and Royal, We are somewhere in the vicinity of 10 mil under the cap.  We save an additional 5 mil by cutting EM.

 

So...who is it you want to sign to eat up this cap space?  15 mil is ALOT of money...but there just arent quality FAs out there (in positions of need) to justify spending all that cash.

 

I understand 10 mil is alot of room for moulds to occupy.  But the benefit of cutting him is non-existant. 

 

Again, the 15 million dollar question...who would you be comfortable paying 15 million dollars too this offseaosn?

625571[/snapback]

 

We still have holes at C (Mawae or Flanagan?), T (Runyan?), DE (Abraham, Howard, Edwards?), DT (Bernard or Lewis?), and SS (Tank Williams?).....

Plus we have to sign our draft picks.

Plus we always carry about $1 million extra for injuries.

Plus I'm not sure if Clump's figure includes the Clements tag (it probably does).

 

So we could still keep Moulds, but the guy has to restructure. And the fact that he won't budge may mean that he doesn't even want to be here any more. As talented as Moulds may be, do you really want a player who doesn't want to be here?

 

Note: We could also cut Bennie, Posey, and Shelton to save a little more!

[Gambler]

I probably wouldn't sign any big name/money FAs this offseason,  but that money might very well be useful next year.  Remember,  that dead money comes off the cap in 07 if he's released or traded now.

625676[/snapback]

 

 

Finally the voice of reason speaks up. Well said.

 

The team is rebuilding. If you honestly believe Moulds will see the playoffs with Buffalo next year then there's nothing anybody can say to convince you that cutting Moulds is the smart move.

 

Brandon has it right - it's about next year's cap space. Moulds will also want a multi-year deal. Even if it is structured to be cap friendly up front, the cap hit will be pushed into the future long after he is gone. What's smart about that? Those were the kind of deals that got John Butler in trouble and why the Bills suffered for many years thereafter.

 

Moulds skills are declining with age. The stats back it up. The paradigm for handling vets like Moulds was typified by New England. You cut or trade the overpriced vets as their skills decline (i.e Milloy, Law,etc.) and you rebuild and renew your team consistently year by year.

 

Hanging on to overpriced vets for sentimental reasons is a formula for losers.

[Orton's Arm]

Isn't every team allocated money specifically for signing rookies?

625694[/snapback]

Not exactly. You have your total salary cap number, which is about $100 million. Of that $100 million, you're only allowed to spend maybe $4 million or so on rookies. (The exact number depends on where you draft.) But every dollar you spend on a rookie counts against your overall cap.

[JimBob2232]

 

Finally the voice of reason speaks up. Well said.

 

The team is rebuilding. If you honestly believe Moulds will see the playoffs with Buffalo next year then there's nothing anybody can say to convince you that cutting Moulds is the smart move.

 

Brandon has it right - it's about next year's cap space. Moulds will also want a multi-year deal. Even if it is structured to be cap friendly up front, the cap hit will be pushed into the future long after he is gone. What's smart about that? Those were the kind of deals that got John Butler in trouble and why the Bills suffered for many years thereafter.

 

Moulds skills are declining with age. The stats back it up. The paradigm for handling vets like Moulds was typified by New England. You cut or trade the overpriced vets as their skills decline (i.e Milloy, Law,etc.) and you rebuild and renew your team consistently year by year.

 

Hanging on to overpriced vets for sentimental reasons is a formula for losers.

 

This is a valid point...I would only counter to say that cutting moulds after next season results in a dead cap hit of only 1.6 mil. We already have 9 mil coming off the books in dead cap space next year. I dont think we should be too concerned with freeing up more space for next year.

 

IMO the real winners this offseason are going to be the teams who dont get into bidding wars and wait for next season or the season after. There are simply too many teams with too much money and too many holes and not enough players to fill them. Supply and Demand.

[Gambler]

This is a valid point...I would only counter to say that cutting moulds after next season results in a dead cap hit of only 1.6 mil.  We already have 9 mil coming off the books in dead cap space next year.  I dont think we should be too concerned with freeing up more space for next year.

 

IMO the real winners this offseason are going to be the teams who dont get into bidding wars and wait for next season or the season after.  There are simply too many teams with too much money and too many holes and not enough players to fill them.  Supply and Demand.

625824[/snapback]

 

 

Unfortunately for Buffalo, the Bills seem to overpay somewhat to attract free agents. As such, the Bills need as much free cap space as possible.

 

Moulds is like any veteran who is looking to maximize his pay as his career nears an end. I'm not blaming him per se. Although if he was so interested in the team, he would take a pay cut.

 

As a business and team rebuilding strategy, I feel it would be best for the Bills future to remove Moulds salary burden from the team as soon as possible.

 

The team needs to move on without Moulds. No malice intended.