John from Riverside Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 What type of DT is he? I was just thinking that the Eagles would probably be a good suiter for Moulds.....now that we have Fowler I dont see us going aftr Faine.....so what could Hollis Thomas bring to us? If were able to do that we wouldn't need to take Ngata perhaps....allowing us to take the Vernon Davis in the 1st and a OG in the second.... Or even trade down for more picks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 What type of DT is he? I was just thinking that the Eagles would probably be a good suiter for Moulds.....now that we have Fowler I dont see us going aftr Faine.....so what could Hollis Thomas bring to us? If were able to do that we wouldn't need to take Ngata perhaps....allowing us to take the Vernon Davis in the 1st and a OG in the second.... Or even trade down for more picks..... 638895[/snapback] Thomas is a beefy specimen, but I dont know if they would trade him to us for Moulds. Besides we are going to trade down and draft Bunkley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 #78 Hollis Thomas I like the idea - if we can also get the Eagles' 2nd or 3rd round pick. Hollis is an 11 year vet, so I'd think the Bills would at least want a young prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 #78 Hollis Thomas I like the idea - if we can also get the Eagles' 2nd or 3rd round pick. Hollis is an 11 year vet, so I'd think the Bills would at least want a young prospect. 638929[/snapback] And Moulds is a 10 year vet with a giant contract. You would be very lucky to get the third round pick alone IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 thomas is a fat lard, hes so lazy that they had to replace him every other play with the "high motor" sam rayburn why do you think they've been looking for DT's the past few years? simon and thomas havent been getting it done, if you want to trade for a DT on that team lets get rayburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJPearl2 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 #78 Hollis Thomas I like the idea - if we can also get the Eagles' 2nd or 3rd round pick. Hollis is an 11 year vet, so I'd think the Bills would at least want a young prospect. 638929[/snapback] In a wonderful fantasy world, yes, this would be great. But if we get a 4th or 5th rounder for Moulds we should be happy. There is NO demand for Moulds because the league is smart enough to know that the Bills will eventually have to release him due to his contract and him not wanting to play. He will garner a lot of interest when he is release, but dont for a second think a blockbuster trade will happen with him. If the Bills were smart, they would publically say that they will not release Moulds and if they do not get proper trade value for him they will keep him. If he refuses to play, then refuse to pay - a la Terrell Owens last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Corey Simon would have been a nice pick....but Col. Tom Donahoe said he didn't have a high enough motor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 And Moulds is a 10 year vet with a giant contract. You would be very lucky to get the third round pick alone IMHO. 638982[/snapback] The contract doesn't matter. If traded, he will get a new (and substantially lower) contract from (instert team here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 In a wonderful fantasy world, yes, this would be great. But if we get a 4th or 5th rounder for Moulds we should be happy. There is NO demand for Moulds because the league is smart enough to know that the Bills will eventually have to release him due to his contract and him not wanting to play. He will garner a lot of interest when he is release, but dont for a second think a blockbuster trade will happen with him. If the Bills were smart, they would publically say that they will not release Moulds and if they do not get proper trade value for him they will keep him. If he refuses to play, then refuse to pay - a la Terrell Owens last year. 639004[/snapback] Saw an interview with Marv on the early news this morning - he's still maintaining that he wants to keep Moulds but that he'll have to take a pay cut, so Marv may just be trying to do exactly what you suggest. Right now, I still think there's some negotiating "though the media" going on here. Not sure I agree that there'll be no demand for EM in a trade - especially if the Bills hold tough and don't release him. A draft-day trade with the Eagles would not surpise me, and I'd be more interested in the draft pick than in Hollis Thomas - Marv could also ask for Thomas just to sweeten the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 If the Bills were smart, they would publically say that they will not release Moulds and if they do not get proper trade value for him they will keep him. If he refuses to play, then refuse to pay - a la Terrell Owens last year. 639004[/snapback] The new CBA, doesn't allow a team to not pay a guy because of his refusal to play. You cannot suspend or anything else. It pretty much limits a team to try and recoop signing bonus an cut a non-player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The new CBA, doesn't allow a team to not pay a guy because of his refusal to play. You cannot suspend or anything else. It pretty much limits a team to try and recoop signing bonus an cut a non-player. 639052[/snapback] Are you serious? A player can refuse to report, and the team is still required to pay his salary? Doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Are you serious? A player can refuse to report, and the team is still required to pay his salary? Doesn't seem right. 639065[/snapback] It was a TO addition. basically the player union didn't like how it was handled, so teams not can only try to recoop signing bonus, but cannot suspend players. I don't know all the details, and I am sure someone else with more can share, but pretty much, yeah. Cut him, get some money back, but that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Are you serious? A player can refuse to report, and the team is still required to pay his salary? Doesn't seem right. 639065[/snapback] Well, one could arrange to have his legs busted, then work out an injury settlement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan III Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/play...0327/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 In a wonderful fantasy world, yes, this would be great. But if we get a 4th or 5th rounder for Moulds we should be happy. There is NO demand for Moulds because the league is smart enough to know that the Bills will eventually have to release him due to his contract and him not wanting to play. He will garner a lot of interest when he is release, but dont for a second think a blockbuster trade will happen with him. If the Bills were smart, they would publically say that they will not release Moulds and if they do not get proper trade value for him they will keep him. If he refuses to play, then refuse to pay - a la Terrell Owens last year. 639004[/snapback] If teams will wait for a player to get cut rather then trade, how where we able to get a bunch of teams to bid on Travis Henry? He made it clear he wanted out and would not play in Buffalo anymore cause he wanted to be the #1 RB. We traded Peerless becuase he wanted out and didn't want to play for Buffalo anymore cause he wanted to be #1 WR. Why didn't teams just wait for them to get cut? There is a demand for top WR's right now as the best ones have been signed already, so a team looking for a guy to come in as a #1 or #2 to give them that final push next year would want Moulds as he is now the best player available for that position. That is why Buffalo holds the upper hand in these negotiations. it is very resionable that we could get a couple teams interested that would give us a #2 or #3 (maybe even low #1 like 25-32 pick) for Moulds so the would get the upper hand and be able to work on a revised contract rather then having to deal with other teams offering him contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 It was a TO addition. basically the player union didn't like how it was handled, so teams not can only try to recoop signing bonus, but cannot suspend players. I don't know all the details, and I am sure someone else with more can share, but pretty much, yeah. Cut him, get some money back, but that's it. 639077[/snapback] Still doesn't seem right. I understand the part where a team can't suspend a guy to avoid paying him, though that's not the scenario we're talking about with Moulds - we're talking about Moulds refusing to play. You're saying every player in the league can just refuse to report, and the teams still have to pay them their salaries? Haven't read the CBA, but that can't be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 The contract doesn't matter. If traded, he will get a new (and substantially lower) contract from (instert team here). 639024[/snapback] I don't know about a new one, but certainly a reworked one with an extension and signing bonus that will lower his cap hit over the next two years. He may also agree to take a pay cut as well for the right team, but it will be based on an extension and inclusion of healthy SB that can be amortized over the extended years. To get a new contract in the true sense, he would have to be released first, which would give him the option of singing with anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Still doesn't seem right. I understand the part where a team can't suspend a guy to avoid paying him, though that's not the scenario we're talking about with Moulds - we're talking about Moulds refusing to play. You're saying every player in the league can just refuse to report, and the teams still have to pay them their salaries? Haven't read the CBA, but that can't be true. 639178[/snapback] I think you're right. If Moulds refuses to make himself available to play when he is otherwise able to do so, HE is the one in breach of his contract and the Bills will not have to pay him while he is refusing to do so. In the case of TO, while he was being an AHole, he was still ready, willing and able to do so. I don't know if the CBA has anything as formal as a "Disqulified" List like MLB, but Soriano finally got some good advice: Play or you won't be paid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 If teams will wait for a player to get cut rather then trade, how where we able to get a bunch of teams to bid on Travis Henry? He made it clear he wanted out and would not play in Buffalo anymore cause he wanted to be the #1 RB. We traded Peerless becuase he wanted out and didn't want to play for Buffalo anymore cause he wanted to be #1 WR. Why didn't teams just wait for them to get cut? There is a demand for top WR's right now as the best ones have been signed already, so a team looking for a guy to come in as a #1 or #2 to give them that final push next year would want Moulds as he is now the best player available for that position. That is why Buffalo holds the upper hand in these negotiations. it is very resionable that we could get a couple teams interested that would give us a #2 or #3 (maybe even low #1 like 25-32 pick) for Moulds so the would get the upper hand and be able to work on a revised contract rather then having to deal with other teams offering him contracts. 639091[/snapback] It's because if you have at least two teams interested, it behooves one of them to make a deal that ensures that player will go to them without them having to get in a bidding war with at least the one other team. How much demand there is for Moulds remains to be seen, but all it takes is for two teams to be interested enough to be willing to part with a pick to ensure they are not competing with the each other or any other team to get him. Will the Bills get a first or even a second rounder? Highly unlikley. Could they get a 3rd or 4th, not so impossible. Hell, were it not for the fact that teams were aware of Henry's impending suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy, we might have had a better pick than we got for him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Still doesn't seem right. I understand the part where a team can't suspend a guy to avoid paying him, though that's not the scenario we're talking about with Moulds - we're talking about Moulds refusing to play. You're saying every player in the league can just refuse to report, and the teams still have to pay them their salaries? Haven't read the CBA, but that can't be true. 639178[/snapback] My understanding was that a team can still enforce disciplinary action, with a limited suspension, and up to 4 games IIRC, but what was eliminated was the trick of then de-activating the player to continue to not pay him. Yeah, it was modified due to the TO deal last year, but not completely eliminated. Someone else around here surely must have the actual details, but I vaguely recall hearing something about the changes on ESPN when the CBA was agreed to. What will happen will be more "behavioral" clauses built into contracts, especially the big money ones. It's reported that the deal TO signed with Dallas has a behavioral clauses in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts