Dibs Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 If the Bills Salary amount to about let's say $95 million this year. That's $14 under the cap + $20 million dead cap space. So Ralph is pocketing $34 million this year based on those numbers? Man, I wish I was that poor. But he's going to spend the $20 mil from dead cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 But he's going to spend the $20 mil from dead cap space. How? Dead cap space is already spent. It is bonuses already paid. If the cap is $109 million The Bills have $20 million of dead cap space? The most the Bills can spend, actual cash from the TV revenue is $89 million. If Ralph plans on being under the Cap by that $14 million he will only be spending $75 million of his TV revenue share. If I'm wrong please show me where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Even if that's true (is it?), it's still an unacceptable risk to the player. What if he gets injured (say, an auto accident or something) between March and September and the Bills cut him? Buh-bye, money. Of course the player would not accept it without being protected. The Bill's can guarantee him the roster spot or injured reserve in which case he gets the salary either way. It's no different than a team paying him a huge up-front bonus in March if he were to then have a season ending injury in training camp. In that scenario you've paid the money to the player and he does not play that year. My whole point is this. When you are under the cap, you have the luxury of structuring a deal so that the cap hit is where you want it to be and you can still guarantee the player big money. The Redskins who are generally fighting to stay under the cap would not have the option of structuring the deal in so many ways. They would be forced to sign a player like Nate to a very long term deal with a large bonus up front and small salaries in the early years of the deal so that they can spread the cap hit way out in order to stay nder the cap now. The Bills have more latitude in terms of structure and might actually be able to show Nate as much money in terms of cash flow as a team like the Redskins and not tie him up for 6-7 years. Maybe write a 4-5 year deal and give him a chance to be a free agent again. Remember, the up front money is nice, but the longer term deals generally have higher salaries backloaded in them and that is not guaranteed. If he signs a long term deal with big up front money, backloaded salary and then that team doesn't want him 4 years from now when the salary is escalated, he gets cut and has to start from scratch. Players and agents must be savvy to this by now. Look at Moulds, he signed a long term "cap-friendly" deal and never saw the big money written late into the deal. The Bills launched him and he played for less in Houston. The Bills have some angles to play here if they really want to retain him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Of course the player would not accept it without being protected. The Bill's can guarantee him the roster spot or injured reserve in which case he gets the salary either way. It's no different than a team paying him a huge up-front bonus in March of he were to then have a season ending injury in training camp. In that scenario you've paid the money to the player and he does not play that year. My whole point is this. When you are under the cap, you have the luxury of structuring a deal so that the cap hit is where you want it to be and you can still guarantee the player big money. The Redskins who are generally fighting to stay under the cap would not have the option of structuring the deal in so many ways. They would be forced to sign a player like Nate to a very long term deal with a large bonus up front and small salaries in the early years of the deal so that they can spread the cap hit way out in order to stay nder the cap now. The Bills have more latitude in terms of structure and might actually be able to show Nate as much money in terms of cash flow as a team like the Redskins and not tie him up for 6-7 years. Maybe write a 4-5 year deal and give him a chance to be a free agent again. Remember, the up front money is nice, but the longer term deals generally have higher salaries backloaded in them and that is not guaranteed. If he signs a long term deal with big up front money, backloaded salary and then that team doesn't want him 4 years from now when the salary is escalated, he gets cut and has to start from scratch. Players and agents must be savvy to this by now. Look at Moulds, he signed a long term "cap-friendly" deal and never saw the big money written late into the deal. The Bills launched him and he played for less in Houston. The Bills have some angles to play here if they really want to retain him. Longer contracts save teams money over time. A players signs a $70 million contract he's lucky to see half of that money. This whole new concept of 'Cash to Cap' seems to be more like 'Going Out Of Business'. I get the sick feeling that a sale is on the horizon and it won't be to the Rich family or Tom Golisano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Cash to the Cap seems like Ralph's way to fight the large bonuses teams are giving out as a way of attracting players. I think Tripplett received the largest bonus last year, and it was 5.5M. I could be mistaken, but not using large signing bonuses probably translates into restricting the front office from getting better players in here. DeLuca, your scenario takes place after we fail to get better players in here and finish the coming season out of the playoffs. At which point will Bills fans allow their better players to leave because they want a bonus and see their replacements as cheaper, less talented players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 Longer contracts save teams money over time. A players signs a $70 million contract he's lucky to see half of that money. This whole new concept of 'Cash to Cap' seems to be more like 'Going Out Of Business'. I get the sick feeling that a sale is on the horizon and it won't be to the Rich family or Tom Golisano. If the team moving will stop your posts, I'm starting to lean toward the Toronto Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 If the team moving will stop your posts, I'm starting to lean toward the Toronto Bills. He does not want to be confused with the facts, his mind is made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 He does not want to be confused with the facts, his mind is made up. Which facts would those be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts