Dibs

What happened to E?

I think we should be able to do a lot more than people are fearing. With creative contracts, I see no reason why we can't get a Steinbach as well as the other eight guys you mentioned. At a huge guess I'll say Steinbach will want $15mil signing bonus. What if we offer a $3mil signing bonus & guaranteed monies of $3mil for the following 5 years(we'd have to add more due to the lost interest). That way, he is guaranteed(even if cut or injured) to get $18mil(over 6 years) instead of a $15mil signing bonus. If his salary only $2mil for year 1.....that means our cap(cash) hit would only be $5mil. $5mil for Steinbach is certainly doable.

I wonder what the penalty for not covering the minimum is.

Good post. Very good points.

Read what I want out of that....hmmm I guess I could read it that we won't bid against another team......we only go after a player that no other team wants. I could also read it as we are not going to get fixated on any particular player & over-bid (due to other teams being interested) to acquire the player. Which seems closer to what ML probably meant? I also think he might have had NC in mind when he made the statement.......maybe?

Exactly.....so 'cash over the cap' for the whole team would be how much in actual dollars the team is paid that exceeds the salary cap. 'cash to the cap' means that you don't let the actual dollars exceed the cap......you spend to the caps limit. This is the part which you & others are assuming. Somebody made this assumption & stated it as fact.....now it is being assumed to be fact. Where.....anywhere......does it show this to be the case?

But he's going to spend the $20 mil from dead cap space.

No.....you are correct......and as far as I'm aware the figure is around $20mil. The media(or more likely the guy who wrote the first article that all others copied) didn't figure that, made a mistake & quoted the wrong figure.

It's not just me.....there have been several posters pointing out the logic of the situation in pretty much all the threads. I've never been too impressed with the medias ability to understand mathematical principles.....especially when it is thrust upon them all of a sudden. The journalists got it wrong.......if 'cash for cap' is not spending cash up to the cap figure......what is it? I guess we'll find out soon enough who is correct.....I just find it frustrating that this is causing the sky to fall.

Not if 'cash for cap' means that we spend(in actual dollars) up to the cap figure(this year $109mil). Apparently of the existing $69mil that is counted towards the cap with existing player contracts, only around $49mil is actually coming out of the coffers. This leaves an additional $20mil which we therefore could spend. That would mean.....in your Dockery example......it would be $12.6mil out of around $50mil.....or 25% That would mean we could sign around 4 decent players.....& when you consider we need to replace NC($7mil salary)....LF($4mil salary).....& we have a very young team with only McGee($4.4mil), Schobel($5mil) & Spikes($6.4mil) with decent cap hit numbers.....and even then they are not exactly upper echelon......we should have a few new good FA acquisitions this off season. I don't understand where the logic leap from......'only spending a cash amount equal to the cap limit'......became.......'only spend a cash amount equal to what you have left under the cap'. It just makes no sense the way some people here at TSW are assuming it is. EDIT NOTE:- I figured where this erroneous figure of $30mil has come from......it came from this article. Basically, MARK GAUGHAN got it wrong.....and everybody assumed the figures he gives are the true ones.

Not my definition.....& I can see you are thinking it is something different to what it is. What it is is simply spending the cap limit amount. i.e.....this year $109mil. If you give a signing bonus of $10mil.....you count that. If you have a cap cost of $2mil from a previous signing bonus(i.e. an Aaron Schobel)....that does not count towards your cash spending. You're just playing with me aren't you? You showed yourself that last season we covered over $30mil in our FAs & we didn't hand out a large signing bonus amongst the lot. You had it exactly right when you wrote in post #6 when you responded to Jimbob2232.....who had it perfectly written.It ends up being not too dissimilar to the situation without cash-to-cap. $30mil counted under cap.....an extra $15mil SB to NC.....an extra $15mil SB or so to Steinbach & a few others. $50mil goes quickly. At least this way, we won't be spending too many future dollars now.

No......we have used 79 million in cap dollars. According to others who have done the math, we have used(spent) around 60mil in actual dollars....better known as cash.

I haven't the time to go over all of the reasons for why it might well be better for us to not re-sign NC. There has been numerous threads lately containing all the reasons(cover 2 corner, value for money, matching over-payment by other teams). I don't believe we should not re-sign him.....I believe we should make the best decision based on all the variables involved.....sign.....don't sign......base it upon logic, not emotion. "The rest of our secondary is porous at best. " You'll want to work on better arguments there.....I don't have time to put them to you.....I know you can piece them together yourself.

We have 50mil left in real cash..........to the cap limit. We have 30mil left in.........what's that called? Oh yeah.....30mil left in cap room. My question is why so many jump to the conclusion that we are going to go the worst possible way when interpreting the words used. You guys are funny.

This is the only shocking part to this story.

I think that may well be one of the reasons for doing it.

I wasn't actually expecting a response....more of a rhetorical question......maybe it's not as obvious to others as it is to me. There is no difference. They are all FAs without ties to their previous teams. That means that any team(us included) can look at the list of FAs & chose to spend on whichever one they feel would be the best fit(value for money/personality/system/etc/etc/etc). I know that you in particular will hate to face it but NC is to the Bills what every other unattached FA is to the Bills. He is just one guy in a group of guys. My point basically is that there should be no doom & gloom over not signing NC......as long as a different first class FA is signed in his stead.

OK....now I'm officially confused on the subject. Is he good at OG? Is he bad at OG? I guess I was prefering Steinbach or Deilman before him so hopefully we'll get one of them so I don't have to feel too much trepidation if we were to sign him.

Why jump to the assumption that instead of instigating this as a measure to ensure we continually stay out of cap trouble, they are instigating this to try & pay as little money as possible? They have said "Cash to Cap". That means basically what joesz posted unless they are trying to mislead. Why assume the latter & not the logical former?

To all those who are saying that this is incorrect......where are you getting your facts from? Has anyone in the organization said that this is incorrect or is it just an assumption some of you are making? The only logical way of looking at this is the way JimBob2232 has. Why do we always assume the worst?

Only if they implement it how you are speculating. I'd think that if the did.....you would be spot on that we would spend well below the cap limit......however, since teams are required to cover 85% of the limit ($92.5mil.....or $16.5mil under), I don't think your(& many, many others) speculation that RW & ML will spend as little as possible will hold up. e.g. We are $30mil under the cap(after rookies etc) If we were to sign players with combined $30mil signing bonuses & salaries but only counted $10mil towards this seasons cap figures(which is a very low signing bonus ratio)......we would be $20mil under the cap....which is not allowed. What joesz said in the first post is not only the only logical way of interpreting this but is also the most likely thing to occur due to the 85% rule.

I understand he is an excellent OG but only a mediocre OT. If we get him as OG that would be fine with me.

What's the difference between Nate Clemments, Eric Steinbach, Dwight Freeney, Cato June or any other non-restricted non-tagged FA?

My only concern would be his injury history. He's averaged 12 & 1/2 games per season.....& missed time in all 5. Apart from that, RR is not a huge financial burden to keep......he would be a great addition to the team.

You realize that the first point was the only point that I have been trying to make to you?