MadBuffaloDisease

Not for $3M a year I wouldn't.

It's mostly the players' fault. If they accepted 56.2% of DGR's, then the smaller-market/rvenue owners wouldn't have to make sure that there's expanded revenue sharing.

This is the crux of the matter. This year, if there's no CBA, is a special circumstance since it doesn't matter WHEN you release a player because ALL of the amortized SB will accelerate into the 2006 year, regardless of how many years the player has left on his contract. So the savings for this year would be $5.5M and then that it. No cap hit AT ALL for 2007 because his unamortized SB was charged to the 2006 cap. Now if the CBA is extended, then the Bills can choose to cut him after June 1st and spread-out the unamortized SB over 2 years, but other bonuses might kick in and off-set some of that. And if a new CBA gets done, I don't see the Bills doing anything with his contract, keep him for the year, and cut him next year.

It's not that simple. Losman played against some of the better teams during his return, whereas Holcomb didn't. Against the best teams Holcomb played, the Bengals and Broncos, he led the offense to 13 and 17 (he led them to a garbage-time TD, as long as we're keeping score) points, respectively. And Losman was essentially a rookie and Holcomb was a 9-year vet. I'd work on the lines first before thinking about spending a high pick on a QB (again).

Frerotte is balking at a paycut so he might be released. If so, the Dols will have to pursue a guy like Brees and use a lot of cap on him.

The Bruins suck, so might as well give Miller as much rest as possible.

Would you put it at 50/50?

Moulds can take a 30% paycut and refuse some bonuses that can save the Bills $2.9M.

This is what KFFL.com reported, after reporting the above story:

Maybe Bentley and the Eagles didn't want to be hit with collusion charges, so that's why Bentley issued that report? I guess we'll find out come Monday.

Possibly, but doubtful. It's apparent that Mularkey wasn't as great as we were led to believe, judging by the Steelers' offense getting better after he left.

He's an UFA, not a RFA or an EFA, so he can't be tendered anything. They're probably working on a contract, worth about $1M a year.

Not correct. Assuming there's no new CBA, if they cut Moulds, ALL of his unamortized bonus hits the 2006 cap, regardless of when he's cut. With a new CBA, they'd have to wait until after June 1st. So the Bills save anywhere from $4.5-5.5M with his release as things stand right now. This is the last year of Fletcher's contract, so unless he agreed to an extension, the Bills can't do much with his contract. The Bills can and SHOULD do this with other players (Schobel, Evans, etc.) though. I agree. He's not worth $7M in new, i.e. Ralph's, money. Hell I don't even know if he's worth $4.3M in new money, which is what the Bills are offering him. And if there's no new CBA, there's no way he gets more than $2.5M this year from another team, and he's got a 1/32 chance of picking a SB-winning one. Good luck, Eric.

Don't worry about the Pats. They're not the primo destination they once were, don't like to spend a lot on UFA's, and don't have a ton of cap room in any case. Miami OTOH MIGHT start becoming that, but I'm not impressed with Saban, and they just added Mularkey.

SPOCK!

Yes.

Can't remember.

I remember some comedian had a joke about this, regarding meteorologists and the weather. Basically it was "a 50% chance of rain means it might rain, or it might not."

Yes. As Ramius said, and I wish I had remembered and included in my post, Upshaw said that if a deal wasn't reached by midnight tonight, FA wouldn't be delayed and the CBA was dead. And getting back to my post, players benefit from being in the NFL, with endorsement deals. Should owners demand that any money from deals be subtracted from what the owners have to pay them? Should the owners get a cut?

Who cares which one was profitable? The POINT is that the owners OWN THE LEAGUE. The longer the NFLPA stubbornly refuses to budge from 60% DGR the more money their players are losing, like the NHL players did. Deal with it. And using your oil industry reference, you think oil workers are going to demand a pay raise after the oil industry posted their BEST-EVER quarter recently? According to you, they should.

If anything, the NFLPA blinked. Upshaw was saying that if something wasn't done by midnight tonight, the deal was off the table, PERIOD. Instead he gave the NFL 3 more days to start releasing players. That means Upshaw wants to continue to deal and is probably getting desperate. The only people who will get hurt (at least for the next 2 years, maybe more if there's a lockout in 2008) by not getting a new CBA done are the players. The owners will still be raking in the dough and may see their profits INCREASE in 2007 as only players with 6 or more years in the NFL are UFA's. I say stand firm on the 56.2% of DGR point and look to lockout players in 2008, a la the NHL 2 years ago.

How so?

Yes, many times over.

As was said, if the players don't like it, they can go elsewhere. And the owners are within their rights to lockout the players, thus taking even MORE money from them. All anyone needs to do is look at the NHL fiasco. The owners are the owners for a reason.

Don't forget the 20-odd kids he has with 10-odd women.