Einstein's Dog

I think as others as pointed out that you do need some capital on hand to do the deal. It is a little murky (to me at least) exactly what it is, one excerpt said cap hit minus bonus, another article said $13M would be needed on hand for Pitt to get Metcalf. Pretty clear $14Mish is enough to bring Aiyuk on board. It would take close to $20M to get J Jefferson which would take pulling all the levers for a short period of time. It makes the June 1 date with Tre money coming in exciting. Because then it should be easy to get the needed amounts for many of these potential WR targets. And the Bills would probably want to do it when the funds are available before they spend some of it on other things.

And many of those other teams would be embarrassed to list a 4th round rookie and MVS, Hollins. or Claypool. Those should not count.

I don't listen intently to Beane, he says a lot of things and people may need to give him a break. Will you really say he was lying if the Bills trade for a WR? No, you will go back and look at everything he said from a different angle and realize there was more than one way to look at it. Just like many did when they surprisingly brought in Von or surprisingly let Diggs go. Keon is not intended to be the Bills WR1 in his rookie year - that's crazy talk. They traded down twice before taking him for Pete's sake. A much better plan would be for Keon to split time with C Samuel and eventually take the role over - opposite a top tier WR. Reasons I now expect a trade for a WR are the following: 1. I was of the opinion for several months of this "Beane is a great GM, a great GM would never have their top WR be C Samuel during a year in Josh's prime". With that in mind I was rooting against trading up for one of the big three in the draft, 2. No large FA WR acquisition - I didn't want one of the more expensive mediocre FA WRs, keeping in mind number 1 above of course. 3. Only took one WR in the loaded class. I was hoping for just one, keeps a spot open without infringing on Shakir development. The one taken (Coleman) was never intended to be Diggs replacement - see above, he is taking the G Davis role over with C Samuel. Once again this is great in conjunction with number 1 above - otherwise what are they doing? 4. Beane let Diggs go - I feel he did so with a plan in place, he wasn't goaded into it. No GM's plan is to replace Diggs with C Samuel and a rookie. 5. Josh restructure and Tre money, gives available funding for just such a move. We all somewhat guess on the specifics but I trust Beane knows the details. 6. Draft capital - extra 2nd and extra 4th 7. Incredibly young, inexpensive, and cap friendly offensive playmakers for 2024 + 2025. No more money needed on O for a couple of years. People say we would be cramped capwise - who cares everyone on offense is accounted for through 2025. 8. Recent strategy has been go cheap in RB room for investment in WR1. They continued to go even cheaper in RB room with Davis as RB2. The strategy was solid and there should be no regrets so far. The idea that the Bills will adopt a new strategy and go with JAGs at RB and WR blows me away. 9. Took K Coleman over McConkey - if they needed/wanted pro-ready McConkey seemed like the choice. 10. Without a WR1 the need will be there again next year. Prices are headed up, J Jeff and J Chase coming up. Do it now and save. Mainly the reason I expect it though, is all these moves are what I would have done, and I would be bringing in a trade for a top tier WR. All these moves I was rejoicing in would have to be re-evaluated. Without the trade for a WR it looks like a litany of errors out of Beane, not what I would expect. I understand I'm in the minority. But "literally 0% chance" is a little harsh.

Right, they would have something worked out pre-trade. Certainly there would be a large guarantee and a signing bonus. The whole thing would be well orchestrated in advance of the trade. It's having the money to handle the initial transfer that makes the June 1st date with the Tre money relevant. And they may need to do it while they have the full pot of the money available.

But after taking in a WR the FO can restructure and play games with the cap. For instance after having the funds to bring in Metcalf they could then restructure his contract to a cap hit to around $7M (see DHop 23 salary of $1.8M or Diggs cap hit in 2024 of $6M). So in your example above, they restructure Josh, get the money to bring in Metcalf. Immediately restructure Metcalf to around $7M cap hit and the Bills have $10M+ left ($10M Tre + $6M Josh + $2M to start - $7M Metcalf). You don't wait until the trade deadline, the number 1 seed is important. Also if you wait you might not have the funds available for the initial surge needed to bring someone in. For example you need around $15M to bring in an Aiyuk or Metcalf before you can restructure- as best as I can tell, those are the rules.

So you want more resources into the Defense? I hope that is not the direction. I was loving the last few years as they tried moving resources over to the offense - at least in draft capital. For me, I like what I think is the current FO strategy, go low on RBs (price-wise) and invest in pass-catchers. Consistent with that strategy would be doing a big trade for an expensive WR. Loved hearing that there are rumors J Jeff could be had. Now that would be a seismic splash out of Beane. A good reshuffled WR is exactly what is needed IMO. A good WR is the linchpin move of the off-season.

We seem to have polar opposite views. From my angle your view looks defeatist. Beane has successfully lowered your expectations to the bare minimum, you are prepared for the worst. For me an additional WR (like Metcalf) along with another safety, (I would say Hyde over Simmons at this point because the point is to develop Bishop.) and the Bills have a contender. I don't know what can be done about DE but one deficiency can be worked around.

I'm expecting the trade for a WR. I'm rooting for Metcalf. Then the restructure of the new WR contract to around a $5M cap hit for 2024. The remaining $5M is for things as Barley mentioned. But Barley forgot about the secret double dip Josh restructure. So I think there would be enough to bring back Hyde. Hyde would be coming back fully realizing his role is to bring Bishop into a gamer. Hyde would be a great locker room presence, developer, and then insurance. Hyde would know and accept his role. Couple spare million on your way to retirement never hurts.

A little soon for me to be talking about this, but for me it was Dennison. His decision to attempt a pass in a playoff game at the one with about 2 minutes to go, just infuriated me to no end. And sure enough, everything bad that could happen from that terrible decision pretty much materialized. I'll get over it eventually.

I'm in the minority that expect Beane to do a move in early June. But to the OP, I believe almost all teams want multiple good WRs. Unlike RBs where some teams aren't going to pay the top level RBs (ie the Bills). With the rise of Josh the FO adopted the strategy of going cheap on RB and more investment in the WR room. Generally teams with good QBs will find it hard to pay 2 really good WRs, so they need at least one through the draft. Consistent with this strategy is the Bills trading for a top tier WR and developing K Coleman. I don't know what people are thinking this new strategy is exactly, in regards to the Bills. We're going to go cheap on WRs along with going cheap on RBs? That's not a strategy, that's just being miserly, that's rebuild stuff. Under this new strategy where does the money go (and many teams have the same QB pay)?

I think the problem is posters dealing with this tautology: 1. Beane is a great GM 2. A great GM will not have C Samuels as the teams top WR during Josh’s prime 3. The Bills will get a top tier WR. Now for some reason most posters don’t think #3 is happening (not me mind you), and they do not want to adjust #1, so all kinds of excuses come out to work around #2. It gets embarrassing at times, things like- the new trend is to have a collection of JAGs at WR, or since Diggs and Davis weren’t good the second half we should replace them with non-good players. And now the lets make Josh a dink and dunk specialist. It’s getting ridiculous.

And an added benefit of adding a top WR is it pushes Hollins/MVS/Claypool further down the depth chart.

I don't like the idea of converting Josh to a pg. In the NBA analogy you have the best PF and you are trying to make him a pg? Josh is missing a high quality outside WR, how is this difficult for people to see.

I hope so. I also hope Claypool is one of the early cuts.

But the risk is Claypool makes it and then slowly turns back to his old self. For instance Claypool makes it as the 4th or 5th WR but is upset because he feels he is better than Coleman. The unrest could be slow and start with confiding in one other player who thinks similar thoughts - maybe Davis thinks he is outplaying Cook. It may not be an easy thing to catch on to.

Great, found a deal on a carcinogen. Maybe next we can find some cheap asbestos. He's not going to show a poor attitude in camp, how stupid do you think he is? It's once the injustice of Coleman getting more game time than Claypool starts to materialize, then the locker room cancer starts to form. Various forms of this cancer have followed Claypool through his travels. We just had major surgery to clear the Diggs virus so forgive some of us for being a little jumpy when they introduce a toxin into the locker room

To the OP how can anyone put serious expectations on the season with this pathetic of a WR room? Getting to the playoffs would be fine. It could be that Pegula is setting up Beane/McD for failure by withholding funds and not letting Beane trade for his WR1 after June 1st (Beane's plan all along). It is following the J Jones model in Dallas where McCarthy is a dead man walking. Pegula could be doing this because of the affect of Kim and the new business arrangement. Then assuming a down year by the Bills, Pegula would then fire McBeane and hire B Belichick, who would relish the opportunity to have Josh and destroy the Patriots. We will know more by mid-June.

Yes, this move is extremely dangerous in bringing in his potentially cancerous attitude. They just got rid of the cancer cell Diggs, infused the team with highly motivated people K Coleman, C Sameul. And now you're going to let the likes of Claypool potentially invest this room when he whines about the unfair conditions that are keeping him on the bench? Way too risky for my blood, I hope they jettison him after the WR pickup in early June.

And this is on a team with one of the cheapest investments in the league in the RB room. Good value there, IMO, but incredibly cheap nonetheless.

I could see Claypool slotted in behind DK Metcalf on the depth chart. Similar builds and talent practicing for a similar role on the team. Seeing someone like Metcalf might help Claypool somewhat turn it around.

DK Metcalf or B Aiyuk. A young WR completes a young set of playmakers ,all younger than Josh, on contracts that go for at least a couple of years.

And we have so many people on this board okay with the Dean Smithing of our boy Josh. They applaud the idea that Beane/Brady restrain Josh and have him go toe to toe in dink and dunk fests. People are okay with not having one proven WR1 on a team with the strongest arm in the game. I'm not saying it can't work, Dean won the title playing that way, it's just not the route I want to see the Bills go.

My point was it looks like the Bills took what they think is the high ceiling player over what most thought was the more ready McConkey. This would seem to indicate the FO intended to have some developmental time. This makes more sense if your plan is to trade for a starting WR on the other side.

Well I think the Bills FO believes K Coleman has the higher ceiling because it looks like McConkey has the higher floor and they took Coleman over him.

True, and I was nervous last year over that spot. I consider that spot less vital though so I wasn't in panic mode. And who would our hidden gem be? Maybe Shorter? I'm not buying it.