jahnyc Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Any money saved by trading or releasing Moulds needs to be used for free agent acquisitions or extensions for current players. Otherwise, assuming the Bills could have afforded to pay Moulds' salary, trading/releasing Moulds makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
port allegany Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The real benefit of trading Moulds is he won't be a cap number next year. I'm not very educated on the NFL but it would seem that if we TRADE a player and the PLAYER reworks his contract, then we should be done with him cap-wise. In Moulds' case that's $10Million or so. Plus Fletcher, who I do like, is also done next year I believe and he has a huge contract that can be released for more savings. And Vincent's contract may be droppable as well. We're talking real money here that will be freed up. If this year's draft can produce 3-4 eventual starters and we develop our young players - especially the QB, then we should be in good financial position for next year's free agency. We'd actually be a pretty young team (Lee, Parrish, Reed, Everett, Schoebel, McGee, Clements, Trippett, etc.) and be in position where another good draft of 2-3 eventual starters might make this a very good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nope, not hte way it works. The Bills will still take a cap hit for his un-amortized signiong bonus which I believe is around $5 mil. So we'll still have a $5 mil cap hit this year for Moulds. The real benefit of trading Moulds is he won't be a cap number next year. I'm not very educated on the NFL but it would seem that if we TRADE a player and the PLAYER reworks his contract, then we should be done with him cap-wise. In Moulds' case that's $10Million or so. Plus Fletcher, who I do like, is also done next year I believe and he has a huge contract that can be released for more savings. And Vincent's contract may be droppable as well. We're talking real money here that will be freed up. If this year's draft can produce 3-4 eventual starters and we develop our young players - especially the QB, then we should be in good financial position for next year's free agency. We'd actually be a pretty young team (Lee, Parrish, Reed, Everett, Schoebel, McGee, Clements, Trippett, etc.) and be in position where another good draft of 2-3 eventual starters might make this a very good team. 647868[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahnyc Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 We may have significant cap room next year, but will we spend the money? The Bills could have attempted to sign som big name free agents but they chose not to. The Bills are not alone. I look at many of the teams with cap room and would note that many have been relatively inactive (i.e., the Pats). I hope we some of the savings (if Moulds is released or traded) to lock up Clements to a long term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out what Marv plans to do with all that extra cap space. Who's left out there that's worth signing? Is Marv targeting the June 1st cuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nope, not hte way it works. The Bills will still take a cap hit for his un-amortized signiong bonus which I believe is around $5 mil. So we'll still have a $5 mil cap hit this year for Moulds. 647873[/snapback] Depends on how you look at it. As soon as we trade Moulds, our cap decreases by 5.5 million, not increases. We get a cap savings not cap hit. He is already on the books for 10.8 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I hope we some of the savings (if Moulds is released or traded) to lock up Clements to a long term contract. 647880[/snapback] Well, I don't think we need any of that Moulds $$$ to re-sign Nate, at least as far as this year's cap goes. Right now, Nate's franchise tag hit is pretty hefty (up from the original $5.5M)... with a new contract, this year's hit should go way down due to the bonus being spread out over multiple years & the typical lower 1st-year base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Well, I don't think we need any of that Moulds $$$ to re-sign Nate, at least as far as this year's cap goes. Right now, Nate's franchise tag hit is pretty hefty (up from the original $5.5M)... with a new contract, this year's hit should go way down due to the bonus being spread out over multiple years & the typical lower 1st-year base. 647930[/snapback] We can if we're not going to spend it on anyone else, and the pickings are slim. When Moulds goes, we're going to have about 10 million left on the cap, counting Nate's 8 mil. We could give him a large chunk of a multi-year deal this year and not have to take such a big cap hit in years to come. Or sign Peters to a long term deal, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 We can if we're not going to spend it on anyone else, and the pickings are slim. When Moulds goes, we're going to have about 10 million left on the cap, counting Nate's 8 mil. We could give him a large chunk of a multi-year deal this year and not have to take such a big cap hit in years to come. Or sign Peters to a long term deal, too. 647938[/snapback] That's true, I'm sure Nate would be very pleased... plus you won't have to break the bank for Peters. Sad thing is, I can't think of anyone else I want to lock up long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts