BarleyNY

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.

These statements show a total lack of understanding of cap fundamentals.

Yes, those would each be the dead cap if Clay was released in the corresponding year. The previous article was not clear about what those numbers were. Clays dead money would be: $18M if cut before the 2016 season or $13.5M if cut after the 2016 season and before the 2017 season or $9M if cut after the 2017 season and before the 2018 season or $4.5M if cut after the 2018 season and before the 2019 season. Some of the articles make it sound like the dead money is cumulative. The restructure doesn't make his contract any riskier. The Bills are just delaying $7.5M in cap hits instead of taking the $7.5M additional cap hit this season. Once the money is paid (or guaranteed) the risk is assumed.

Honestly, the "complete disregard to proper cap management" occurred when the original contract was given to Clay. The restructure takes a terrible contract and makes it slightly less terrible from a cap management standpoint. Also you have to consider the whole downstream picture of the cap. The Bills gain $7.5M in immediate cap space and that is now distributed over three years, 2017-2019, in $2.5M increments. That cap space can be used or carried forward. It'll probably get used because it is needed now, but it could be carried forward if the team chose to do that. That would cancel out the additional dead money. The tactic of the restructure is a good move. The player the Bills chose to give that kind of a contract to is the problem. http://overthecap.com/tag/buffalo-bills Here is a good article from OTC at the time of the Clay signing. On the new deal if Clay was released after 2017 the Bills would take a hit of $4.5M ($9M dead money - $4.5M 2018 salary). If they cut him after 2018 it would net to $0 ($4.5M-$4.5M). So expect him to be on the team through at least 2018 unless something major happens.

Here is the current structure: http://overthecap.com/player/charles-clay/675 The $10M guaranteed roster bonus is being converted to a signing bonus. His previous cap hits from 2015-2019 were: $5M, $13.5M, $6.5M, $6.5M, 6.5M (total $38M) His new hits will be: $5M, $6M, $9M, $9M, $9M (total $38M) That assumes he plays out his deal. If he is released or traded prior to the end of the deal, then the dead money would be the total of whatever guaranteed earnings and future prorated roster bonuses were left. For instance, if he was cut between the 2017 and 2018 seasons: Previous structure cap hits: 2015 $5M, 2016 $13.5M, 2017 $6.5M, 2018 dead money $4M (total $29M) New structure cap hits: 2015 $5M, 2016 $6M, 2017 $9M, 2018 dead money $9M (total $29M) The potential dead money hit in a future year would suck, but it would be better to taking a big portion of that hit this year.

That article is misleading regarding dead money. Those aren't cumulative numbers. Clay's total compensation doesn't change with the restructure. Neither does his guaranteed money. The dead money is greater in later years only because the $10M guaranteed roster bonus that would all hit this year is being converted to a signing bonus and spread out over 4 years. In short, a future dead money cap hit would be larger because we aren't taking the hit this year.

No, it doesn't. And those numbers are wrong. The way the contract was previously structured Clay got a guaranteed roster bonus of $10M in March. The restructure converts that to a $10M signing bonus that will be spread out over 4 years. That's it. The dead money goes up in future years because they aren't taking the whole hit this year - but it doesn't go up to the numbers you state.

That makes no sense. The dead money if Clay is released (or traded) would be a cap hit THIS YEAR without the restructure. Oh, and it was guaranteed so the Bills would have to take the hit anyway. The only choice is whether to take it now or spread it out equally over 2016-2019. It was a stupid contract, yes. But the restructure only delays some of the cap hit, it doesn't create any new dead money. Oh, and as I said before - the future hits are a smaller percentage of the overall cap, by 8% per year (on average).

Gotta disagree with OTC here. It is a bad contract, but kicking some of the cap charges down the road only helps. Not only do the Bills need the space now, but the cap is going up an average of 8% a year. That means there is an 8% per year discount per year on every cap dollar moved into future years. Why not do that?