daquixers_is_back Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 That is how great teams are built my friend. While this may be true, it is usually years after the good drafts that the team does well. Look at Indi. It took 9 years after Manning, 11 years after Harrison, 6 years after Wayne, 6 years after harper, and 3 years after Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 AKA ... we will be entering the season with 20+ mill in cap space. Not exactly. The Bills will try to spend all $109MM this season, or close to it. What they won't be doing is shelling out $30MM in bonuses to Free Agents and amortizing them over 10 years. If the Front Office is smart with the draft and makes good personnel moves, we may be alright. They most move from a "rebuilding" mentality to a constant "reloading" mentality. The timing of the press conference is kind of strange. I am sure the Marketing department is pissed since they are trying to sell luxury suites and season tix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It is another way of saying that we are not going to spend up to the cap limit. Signing up to the cap limit will mean that Wilson would have to shelve out more than 40M. Either he does not have that kind of liquid cash or is refusing to part with it. I disagree. They will be spending cash up to the cap, but they will not be backloading contracts with the main purpose of maximizing current cap space by deferring cap space to the future. Contracts will be structured so that a player will be able to play out the entire term and the team will not be forced to cut a player due to ridculously high back end years. I think his comments are a good thing in that the Bills have gone on record that they will spend up to the cap. Prior to this there was a serious question as to whether they would be prevented from coming close to teh cap in any scenario. Overall this is a good thing because the team will not become cap strapped in the future and be forced to undergo a major player purge. The team will still be able to compete for top free agents by using tiered bonuses to spread out the cash hit. Performance for value will be the main factor in any contract offer, so that older players on the downside of their careers will not be getting huge long term contracts which they will never fulfill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Not exactly. The Bills will try to spend all $109MM this season, or close to it. What they won't be doing is shelling out $30MM in bonuses to Free Agents and amortizing them over 10 years. If the Front Office is smart with the draft and makes good personnel moves, we may be alright. They most move from a "rebuilding" mentality to a constant "reloading" mentality. The timing of the press conference is kind of strange. I am sure the Marketing department is pissed since they are trying to sell luxury suites and season tix. Mark my words. We will not being into the season with any less than 15 million in cap space. First of all, how can you amortize bonuses over 10 years, if the player has a 4 year contract? They are basically saying we are going to count every dollar we spend, against the cap, even though the league does not count it against the cap. So when we sign a player with a 6 million dollar bonus, instead of counting it only 1 mill against the cap over the 6 years (as the league does), the team will count it the full 6 million. Do that with 5 players (as Chris Bown said), with each having a 6 year contract, the league will only count that as 5 million against the cap for this year (1 mill per player). Yet we will have spent 6 million per player, for 5 players is 30 million. AKA: The league says we are 20 or so million under the cap after signing those players and we say we are AT the cap, because we are counting CASH instead of the amortized deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Mark my words. We will not being into the season with any less than 15 million in cap space. First of all, how can you amortize bonuses over 10 years, if the player has a 4 year contract? They are basically saying we are going to count every dollar we spend, against the cap, even though the league does not count it against the cap. So when we sign a player with a 6 million dollar bonus, instead of counting it only 1 mill against the cap over the 6 years (as the league does), the team will count it the full 6 million. Do that with 5 players (as Chris Bown said), with each having a 6 year contract, the league will only count that as 5 million against the cap for this year (1 mill per player). Yet we will have spent 6 million per player, for 5 players is 30 million. AKA: The league says we are 20 or so million under the cap after signing those players and we say we are AT the cap, because we are counting CASH instead of the amortized deal. I rather they sign only one or two really good players than last year's five to six average players. And by really good, I mean a player who fits the team's mold and improves us...not necessarily a star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Don't worry about the marketing department--I sent in my check today. They are essentially all sold out of the luxury seats--again. The marketing needs to be done to get people to buy average seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Mark my words. We will not being into the season with any less than 15 million in cap space. First of all, how can you amortize bonuses over 10 years, if the player has a 4 year contract? They are basically saying we are going to count every dollar we spend, against the cap, even though the league does not count it against the cap. So when we sign a player with a 6 million dollar bonus, instead of counting it only 1 mill against the cap over the 6 years (as the league does), the team will count it the full 6 million. Do that with 5 players (as Chris Bown said), with each having a 6 year contract, the league will only count that as 5 million against the cap for this year (1 mill per player). Yet we will have spent 6 million per player, for 5 players is 30 million. AKA: The league says we are 20 or so million under the cap after signing those players and we say we are AT the cap, because we are counting CASH instead of the amortized deal. It depends. If Nate Clements signs with the Skins, I bet the deal will be in the 8 to 10 range. Here is how Sal Maioriana viewed it: "In the simplest possible terms, what this means is that the Bills are approximately $30 million under the NFL’s $109 million salary cap, and they will spend all of that $30 million to get to the limit. But that will be $109 million in cash spent this coming season including all bonus money that they shell out. This approach is vastly different from large-market teams who spend salary cap money right to the limit using salaries and only prorated portions of bonus money, then go way over to pay the up front costs of bonuses because they have vastly deeper pools of revenue than Buffalo to do so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 I disagree. They will be spending cash up to the cap, but they will not be backloading contracts with the main purpose of maximizing current cap space by deferring cap space to the future. Contracts will be structured so that a player will be able to play out the entire term and the team will not be forced to cut a player due to ridculously high back end years. I think his comments are a good thing in that the Bills have gone on record that they will spend up to the cap. Prior to this there was a serious question as to whether they would be prevented from coming close to teh cap in any scenario. Overall this is a good thing because the team will not become cap strapped in the future and be forced to undergo a major player purge. The team will still be able to compete for top free agents by using tiered bonuses to spread out the cash hit. Performance for value will be the main factor in any contract offer, so that older players on the downside of their careers will not be getting huge long term contracts which they will never fulfill. Exactly Obie Wan.....creativity, scouting prowess, not Dan Snyder but just good hard personnel work and good coaching...We are the Oakland A's and/or the Minnesota Twins -- even without a cap they compete almost every year...I am excited we are spending as much as we are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The cap is about 109 Mil. We're about 33 mil under. We MUST spend 85% of that cap, which is about 93 mil. And we have about 8 players that we must re-sign or replace. So we have to spend about 17 million on these 8 positions, whether they are our guys or new guys. And that isn't much. And thus, we will be left with 16 million or so left on the table we're not going to use. If Ralph gets his deal with the qualifiers, all bets are off. I am certain that part of Marv's strategy in this press conference, if not the sole reason, is to show the fans and the league and whomever will listen that we are in the poor house. Which isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I rather they sign only one or two really good players than last year's five to six average players. And by really good, I mean a player who fits the team's mold and improves us...not necessarily a star. Agreed. It depends. If Nate Clements signs with the Skins, I bet the deal will be in the 8 to 10 range. Here is how Sal Maioriana viewed it: "In the simplest possible terms, what this means is that the Bills are approximately $30 million under the NFL’s $109 million salary cap, and they will spend all of that $30 million to get to the limit. But that will be $109 million in cash spent this coming season including all bonus money that they shell out. This approach is vastly different from large-market teams who spend salary cap money right to the limit using salaries and only prorated portions of bonus money, then go way over to pay the up front costs of bonuses because they have vastly deeper pools of revenue than Buffalo to do so." Put it this way. 5 of the 10, HIGHEST paid salary cap teams made the playoffs last year. 2 of the 10, LOWEST paid salary cap teams made the playoffs last year. 8 of the 10, HIGHEST paid salary cap teams have made the playoffs in the past 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The cap is about 109 Mil. We're about 33 mil under. We MUST spend 85% of that cap, which is about 93 mil. And we have about 8 players that we must re-sign or replace. So we have to spend about 17 million on these 8 positions, whether they are our guys or new guys. And that isn't much. And thus, we will be left with 16 million or so left on the table we're not going to use. If Ralph gets his deal with the qualifiers, all bets are off. I am certain that part of Marv's strategy in this press conference, if not the sole reason, is to show the fans and the league and whomever will listen that we are in the poor house. Which isn't true. Does this spending include draft picks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Agreed.Put it this way. 5 of the 10, HIGHEST paid salary cap teams made the playoffs last year. 2 of the 10, LOWEST paid salary cap teams made the playoffs last year. You cannot argue with that, and as the salary cap and the revenue disparity between the teams continue to grow, none of the lower salary cap teams will probably have a fair shot at making the playoffs. We might as well enjoy the next 2 years, because after that, Buffalo and the other small market teams might be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Does this spending include draft picks? For all intents and purposes, yes. The Bills may need 4-5 million or so for rookies but 3 or so of those picks, the top 3 for sure, will replace 3 of those 8-9 guys we need to replace which means 2 CB (Clements, Thomas), 2 DE (Kelsay, Hargrove), 1 DT (Anderson), 1 LB (Fletcher), 1 FB (Shelton), 1 OG (Gandy) and 1 RB (Thomas). So if we spend 5 of the 17 mil for rookies we only have to replace 5 or so guys with the remaining 12 or so million. Any or all of those guys may leave or be re-signed but they have to be replaced. Other guys, like, say, Holcomb, Villarial, etc., may leave but they will be replaced by someone not making as much money in all likelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 For all intents and purposes, yes. The Bills may need 4-5 million or so for rookies but 3 or so of those picks, the top 3 for sure, will replace 3 of those 8-9 or so guys we need to replace which means 2 CB (Clements, Thomas), 2 DE (Kelsay, Hargrove), 1 DT (Anderson), 1 LB (Fletcher), 1 FB (Shelton), 1 OG (Gandy) and 1 RB (Thomas). So if we spend 5 of the 17 mil for rookies we only have to replace 3-4 guys with the remaining 12 or so million. Any or all of those guys may leave or be re-signed but they have to be replaced. Other guys, like, say, Holcomb, Villarial, etc., may leave but they will be replaced by someone not making as much money in all likelihood. I see, but will the rather large signing bonus of a #12 pick count as "cash to the cap?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 If 'Cash to the Cap' means truly spending $109m in cash on player salaries and bonuses in 2007, then I am happy because that means the Bills will be spending more than $50m on new players/extensions. If 'Cash to the Cap' means cash outlays from the current cap of $74m to $109m, then I think it is just a fancy-sounding way of going cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The cap is about 109 Mil. We're about 33 mil under. We MUST spend 85% of that cap, which is about 93 mil. And we have about 8 players that we must re-sign or replace. So we have to spend about 17 million on these 8 positions, whether they are our guys or new guys. And that isn't much. And thus, we will be left with 16 million or so left on the table we're not going to use. If Ralph gets his deal with the qualifiers, all bets are off. I am certain that part of Marv's strategy in this press conference, if not the sole reason, is to show the fans and the league and whomever will listen that we are in the poor house. Which isn't true. Marv says point blank they will spend cash up to teh cap but somehow you conclude they will have $16 million they don't use. Kindly elaborate on this defective logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I see, but will the rather large signing bonus of a #12 pick count as "cash to the cap?" People here are completely misreading and misunderstanding cash to the cap. The Bills are not going to come close to spending "cash to the cap" unless they sign Clements or Steinbach, which probably isn't likely. Again, IMO all bets are off if Ralph gets his way in the qualifier decision, which he eventually will. Or at least come close to getting everything he wants. Then we're back to having the money but not willing to overspend on any player, which is Ralph's basic philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I see, but will the rather large signing bonus of a #12 pick count as "cash to the cap?" As they did with Mike Williams, they will break the guaranteed "signing" bonus in tiers which are paid over 2 or 3 years. Thus, the cash paid in year 1 will count against their "budget", additional amounts to be paid in the future will be guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Marv says point blank they will spend cash up to teh cap but somehow you conclude they will have $16 million they don't use. Kindly elaborate on this defective logic. Cash to the cap for Marv very likely means what they have to spend, which is 85%, which is 93 mil, which is 17 mil more than we already have on the books with 8-9 positions to fill. There is LESS THAN ZERO chance that what Marv said and meant was the Bills were going to spend 109 million in cash this year on contracts, including bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Cash to the cap for Marv very likely means what they have to spend, which is 85%, which is 93 mil, which is 17 mil more than we already have on the books with 8-9 positions to fill. There is LESS THAN ZERO chance that what Marv said and meant was the Bills were going to spend 109 million in cash this year on contracts, including bonuses. So the quote from Marv is: "We're not going to amortize the future," Levy said. "The cap is $109 million this year. I don't think we're going to 'mortgage the future' type of thing by going beyond the cap." How pray tell do you conclude that they set the budget at $93 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts