BarleyNY

I can see players like Kyle released to make room for guys who fit a 2 gap system better. It's a freaking travesty because there is a ton of attacking, 1 gap talent on the team - much of which carries big contracts. That's going to be wasted in one fashion or another. My thought on Cromarte was that Rex was just doing him a favor by bringing him in, but what if that's wrong? What if he's seeing what his price is and is considering him a replacement for McKelvin? His release frees up $3.9M. What if Cromarte would come here for something like that? That's a real possibility - and an upgrade. I don't think you can get those 4 players in for Kyle's release (plus the $500k for each of the other players that roll out of the Top 51), but you probably could get them for Kyle ($6.5M) plus McKelvin ($3.9M) plus two roll off players ($500k each). That's $11.4M. Say $4M for Cromarte, $4M (1st year hit) for McClain and $3.4M for Pace and Coples. I am just spitballing those numbers. I'll need to check, but it's certainly getting feasible. I don't know that the defense will be better at the end of the day though. I have no faith that it'll be better than if Schwartz was here running his scheme. But he isn't here, Rex is - and it might be better than it was last season. Plus future commitments would be lessened tremendously. I could honestly see something like this happen.

No way does Cromarte sign for under $1M. Rex is just doing his former player a favor by showing interest in him.

Couple additional thoughts: - On the topic of rewarding teams that draft well, doesn't the compensatory pick system already do that? And doesn't the existence of the tags (franchise and transition) restrict the movement of most of the best players? - Regarding parity, doesn't a relatively unrestricted free agency system help that? Tags, the draft and restriction during a player's first four (or five) years in the league probably restrict player movement enough. Why further restrict it?

And Eisen with the deadpan on the video, "When these guys fall, they fall long and hard."

Start adding up those contracts and then try to find the money for them - along with retaining or replacing Glenn and Incognito. It's just not realistic. That's really my point with where the Bills are cap-wise. Also, vets at the ends of their careers typically will sign with either the team that pays the most or gives them the best chance at a championship. Maybe the Bills can find some scheme-specific players (like released Jets) who don't have a ton of options, but there is that complicated scheme to think about too. Stopgap players might not be here long enough to even pick up the system before they're gone so you want guys that either already know it or will be here long enough to be productive after they pick it up.

Eating $500k as a hedge isn't a good move and other, worse moves don't make it any better. It's not a cap killer, but the Bills are not in position to piss away space either. Make a call and live with it. Rolondo McClain may very well be a great fit. How much do you think he will cost? Ditto on those NTs and DEs? And who are they?

Totally disagree. Being overly aggressive is for SB runs when you're close. And I didn't like most of the moves that got them here.

The Bills couldn't even come close to affording Cromarte, even at this point in his career. I figured Rex was doing his agent a favor by showing interest. Or maybe Whaley trying to move along negotiations with Gilmore. With Cro's denial I guess maybe the latter. Dunno. Makes no sense. Yeah. Take into consideration that Cromarte is a poor and unwilling tackler and a move to safety is a terrible, terrible idea.

I have to disagree with buffalorumblings' reasoning and conclusion. The Bills' situation is definitely worse than they would lead people to believe. It is, however, not quite as bad as many have portrayed it. It sure was not the worst in the league. The Saints' situation was horrific and they've been hemmoraging talent to get healthy cap-wise. The Bills' situation is manageable, but there'll be sacrifices needed to get the cap in order. The article basically quoted a few people who made over-the-top comments and said "don't worry, it's not that bad." True, it's not crazy bad, but it's not don't-worry-about-it good either. Cap health and proper use of cap space is much, much more about value (wins) for cap space used (money spent) and the ability to retain and add talent. The Bills spent big and have gotten mediocrity for it. That's poor value. They're also very unlikely to see a net gain in talent on their roster this offseason due to cuts of players like Mario and the difficulty they'll have even keeping their own free agents, much less adding talent that way. The article's writer seemed to think that just because the Bills CAN get under the cap, then everything is okay. That's not the litmus test, how bad it hurts a team to get under the cap is.

Yes, it'd just force other teams to match that higher contract with the hometown discount and they'd just have to take the additional cap hit.

I don't think it works that way either. There are exceptions in the NBA like the Bird Rule, Mid Level Exception, etc. I think the Bird Rule just forgives the amount over the player maximum and I think the Mid Level works similarly.

The NBA has a soft cap. They are able to offer their own free agents more than any other team. Also teams are able to go over the cap but are required to pay a luxury tax. I'm not sure how the contracts of re-signed players are accounted for. MLB has no cap at all. Their union is by far the strongest of any US sports league.

It's about money. A soft cap would lead to more spending, not only by teams directly spending more via the cap breaks given for re-signing their own, but also other teams trying to keep pace. The NFL has the weakest players' union among all major league sports so the cap will remain a hard cap, which is by far the most owner friendly of cap structures.

Kyle's roster bonus of $500k is due by 3/13 so the Bills would want to make a decision on him before then. They can't really wait to see whom they draft first. Kyle is probably creating the most interesting situation this off-season as far as I am concerned. What happens with him hinges on so many different things. Fit in defense, health, contract ($6.5M savings if released before 3/13). Think about this: Kyle's release would likely be in addition to Mario's and Bradham is unlikely to return. That would be a loss of three of the front seven players. That's huge turnover especially when you consider that at least two (and probably all three) of them were marquee players.

Agreed. Last offseason that was pretty much what I said. Spending as they did would really only have make sense for something like a championship run. The spending is already starting to create issues. If some corrective control isn't exercised then it'll get worse, not better.

Yup. The owners don't want to venture into soft cap territory like that.

The article considers cap increases. You really should should read it. The OTC and Spotrac people really know their stuff. I've conversed online off and on with Ian Whetstone of OTC for well over a decade. I've leaned a ton from him regarding how the salary cap works.

http://overthecap.com/bills-2016-offseason-preview/#more-11579 Thanks for posting. I've been waiting and watching for this article. Everyone posting about the Bills' cap or cap moves should read it. It sums up the situation very well. It is very much in line with my opinion, But they hit upon some things that hadn't considered. And they make good cases. One is why the Bills might be forced to try to extend Taylor now instead of waiting. It is simply that it will be so difficult to afford him after this season if he performs well so they might feel forced to take the chance now.

Exactly. To do list in no particular order: - Mario is released. If you aren't going to let him do what he does best (and it is a freaking travesty that Rex won't) then you can't pay him close to what he's making now. He will make much more elsewhere. - Gilmore gets his new deal. He's earned a good one. He can get a huge hunk of cash up front and the Bills can save some cap space this season. - Incognito gets re-signed - Glenn either gets re-signed or tagged. If tagged, then try to sign him to a long term deal before the deadline. - Restructure some contracts or release some players. McKelvin, Graham, etc. - Draft and FA priorities are outside WR, OL, LB/DE. - Additional acquisitions should include QB (vet and prospect), slot WR, FB, LB, OL, S, PK. (No particular order there.)

Cutting him would mean $13M in dead money and cost the Eagles $5M additional cap space. But a trade would only net $4M in dead money and the Eagles would gain $4M in cap space. The difference is due to $9M in guaranteed future salary for which the new team would assume responsibility. http://overthecap.com/player/demarco-murray/621

No they were not. It was an example that shows that Clay's total cap hits are equal regardless of whether or not his deal was restructured. The restructure just delays $7.5M of the cap hit to future years where it would add to dead money IF he is cut. Okay. No worries. Wow, that was a long one. I'm sorry for snapping.

You don't understand the example because you don't understand how the cap works. You don't know the difference between a cap hit and dead money. If you did, the example would make sense.

They are exactly the same as Spotrac's numbers. But you don't understand that because you don't have the first clue how the NFL cap works or what the teminology means. And you have no desire (ability?) to learn, so it's not worth my time to try to educate you. Have a nice time spewing idiotic garbage.

Do you even know what dead money is?

I wrote about the "cap hits" not "dead money" because that shows the allocation of cap dollars. And in my example I noted that the dead money if he was cut prior to 2018 would be $9M which is exactly what Spotrac shows. Seriously, learn how the cap works.