Tipster19 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I think if so that Marv needs to get it handled soon so that we can make possible trades to fill our the current needs of the team. Having a few open needs and no movement in contracts is a little puzzling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I think if so that Marv needs to get it handled soon so that we can make possible trades to fill our the current needs of the team. Having a few open needs and no movement in contracts is a little puzzling. Isnt Hargrove needing to be signed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Restructuring is not cost to cap friendly. It normally means that the contract is being reduced for today's salary cap purposes but it normally would increase the cap hit for future years. Within the new cost to cap philosophy I doubt that you will see any restructuring. Extensions yes, but nothing that mortgages the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Isnt Hargrove needing to be signed? You know if we don't resign Hargrove we get our 5th round pick back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 You know if we don't resign Hargrove we get our 5th round pick back. Will that be for this year's draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 1) Hargrove was tendered as an RFA. 2) Right now, we are preparing for the draft, and looking at the FA pool. Little effort (i would think) is going into extending or reworking the deals of guys currently under contract. 3) Salary cap is not a concern for the bills (at least so they say). They are well under the cap and do not need additional cap space. What they need is more dollars. Reworking does little good in the cash-to-cap philosophy unless you have extra dollars to allocate in the current year and want to spend them so that next year you dont have to spend so many. I dont see this as the case this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynchMob23 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Tipster, according to Kirwan, who checked with NFL this morning on Sirius, the Bills are 22 million under the cap. I don't think they need to re-structure anyone with that much ching under the cap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Hey, thanks for the input TKOSpiked but when I checked Bills Daily front office page it was the cap to cash that concerned me. That appeared to be about only 11-12 million available. If Marv sticks to his guns on only spending cash to cap then this doesn't leave much for us to make a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Hey, thanks for the input TKOSpiked but when I checked Bills Daily front office page it was the cap to cash that concerned me. That appeared to be about only 11-12 million available. If Marv sticks to his guns on only spending cash to cap then this doesn't leave much for us to make a trade. And restructuring will only bring future payments into the present. Not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yep 12 Mill under the cap. If we changed that ridiculous cash to cap philosophy we could get around that. I hate the fiscal policy we have currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I am afraid that restructuring would just hurt us in the cap to cash approach. I know thats just me echoing the point made by others but it doesnt hurt to repeat it. If we really only have 12 million left under that approach we might manage a few middle of the road signings but thats about it. I assume that 12 million figure doesnt include our rookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Sadly it doesn't look like we're going to be signing any big name players in trades. I'm finding it hard to accept the thought that we are going to just stand pat and only go with our draft picks and maybe a couple of minor signings in free agency. This team still needs a big shot in the arm to have any chance to compete for the play-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Sadly it doesn't look like we're going to be signing any big name players in trades. I'm finding it hard to accept the thought that we are going to just stand pat and only go with our draft picks and maybe a couple of minor signings in free agency. This team still needs a big shot in the arm to have any chance to compete for the play-offs. Honestly, and I know this sucks big time, but I think we are shooting for 2008 and beyond. So whats this make? Year 7 of the rebuilding plan? To be fair its only the second year of the Levy regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCCEO Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You know if we don't resign Hargrove we get our 5th round pick back. I know nothing of that, unless it was some provision of the trade. Id assume that tendering him to an RFA contract would qualify. Either that or you misunderstood the situation somehow. If hargrove signs elsewhere the team he signs with would be forced to compensate the bills to the tune of a 3rd round pick. Yep 12 Mill under the cap. If we changed that ridiculous cash to cap philosophy we could get around that. I hate the fiscal policy we have currently. I agree that it is ridiculous especially since some of the bonuses counting against the cap this year for us could have already been payed out. On the upside it means were not going to do something completely retarded. Also, that strategy is for this year only as of now as far as I know, nothing has been said proclaiming it as our strategy in future years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts