Dibs

If a situation like the shut-down in the US were to happen in Australia, we would do exactly that. In our constitution, if the bill for supplying funds is not passed, the government goes into caretaker mode and a double dissolution election is called. This is where both houses are dissolved and every sitting politician has to go back to the polls. Effectively they all get fired and the reset button is pressed. This happened once in our history in 1975.

Thanks Bill, I think it safe to say that everybody likes being told that somebody appreciates their posts. I may be wrong in regards to speculating why the Bills are doing what they are doing, but in regards to this issue(the Fitz/Anderson hits being put into 2014 and not changing how it effects the 2014 cap), I am correct. I state that with confidence as it is not an opinion......it is mathematically correct. I will try to explain the situation......which has, for me at least, become a bit more difficult to explain due to my lack of certainty on the re-rollover rule. I will keep the extra complexities out......which means that there will be some caveats on some of the things I say, but won't effect things in relation to the specific 2013/2014 cap situation the Bills are in. In times past, moving monies in this manner would certainly have effected the following year's cap situation. Moving a $10M debt into the next season would have (obviously) lowered the amount left under the cap. The big change to this was when NFL teams became able to roll over any leftover monies into the following year. Mathematically this means that spending it in year A, or putting it in year B would make no difference on year B's cap numbers. I will endeavor to explain it here using some imaginary 'flat' numbers. Let's say the 2013 cap and the 2014 cap are 100M. ....and the Bills have spent 80M in 2013.....and have committed to spend $80M in 2014. With the rollover ability, this means that the remaining 20M of cap money from 2013 goes onto the 2014 cap.....effectively raising the 2014 cap to 120M giving us (120M minus 80M) 40M of cap room instead of 20M. They also however have $10M in dead money which they can put into either the 2013 or the 2014 years. If the 10M is put into the 2013 year: Their 2013 spend rises to 90M.....leaving 10M left over. That left over 10M is then rolled into the 2014 cap....bring the 2014 cap to be 110M. As 80M has been spent in 2014...... This leaves (110M minus 80M) 30M of cap room in 2014. If the 10M is put into the 2014 year: Their 2013 spend remains at 80M.....leaving 20M left over. That left over 20M is then rolled into the 2014 cap....bring the 2014 cap to be 120M. 80M has been spent in 2014.....plus the 10M in question......makes the 2014 spending to be 90M This leaves (120M minus 90M) 30M of cap room in 2014. As you can see, either way it is done, the cap room for 2014 is unaffected. 2014 ends up with the same amount of cap room in both scenarios. We are already there. This season teams are required to spend 88.8% of the base cap.....which rises to 90% in future seasons. As it stands, we have spent 92.7% of the base cap this year. We have also already committed to spend an estimated 88% of next years cap(while still needing to re-sign Byrd....and have players hitting FA that we may well want to re-sign in Carrington, Moats, Chandler, Legursky, Branch, Leonhard.....and Punter, FB, backup QB & Kicker......plus monies for the 2014 rookie class. On top of that we have Dareus and A.Williams who hit FA in 2015 whom we might want to lock up mid 2014. These 4 points all come under the same concept of cap management. What tends to be forgotten is that any long term contracts signed today effect the cap situations of tomorrow. I tried to explain the ramifications of signing both Levitre and Byrd on the 2014 cap earlier in the thread. I'll do so again here using the fictionally easier 100M cap example from above. (For ease of calculation I will remove the 10M dead money factor). As stated prior, our example has.... 100M caps in both 2013 and 2014.....and... We have spent 80M in both years leaving... 20M in cap space in 2013...and... a rolled over cap space of 40M in 2014. Signing a player(Levitre) to 8M/year effects the 2013 cap.... The 80M spent becomes 88M....leaving 12M for rollover. It however greatly effects the 2014 cap.... The 80M spent in 2014 becomes 88M leaving 12M....plus the 12M rollover becomes 24M. 40M of cap space in 2014 becomes 24M. That would be all well and good if the actual numbers were that high, but they aren't. Assuming the addition of 8M for Byrd(which was the situation at the time of the decision), we have already committed to 118M of the 125M projected cap for 2014. Leaving 7M in cap room. Allowing best case scenario of being able to roll over the full 18.4M(not 20M) of left over money from 2013 into 2014......that would be reduced by signing Levitre to 10.4M onto the 2014 cap. Leaving 17.4M in cap room......except we still have to pay 8M in 2014 so this brings the number to 9.4M in cap room. 9.4M(likely a little more for various reasons) to....as I said earlier....re-sign Carrington, Moats, Chandler, Legursky, Branch, Leonhard.....and Punter, FB, backup QB & Kicker......plus monies for the 2014 rookie class. On top of that we have Dareus and A.Williams who hit FA in 2015 whom we might want to lock up mid 2014. *note* If already rolled monies are not allowed to be re-rolled into future years, the 9.4M in cap space becomes 0.4M in cap debt. We certainly could have signed both players but it would have left us in a tenuous place regarding future caps. I totally agree with your QB/OT point.....but we don't have those big contracts on the roster. To me it comes down to the philosophy of "you don't overpay for players unless you are legitimately within sight of a championship." We don't have the big QB or OT contracts on our roster.....but if we overspend now, the impact on future seasons might mean we have to gut the team(collecting more dead money) in order to sign them. Glenn hopefully will be good enough to be re-signed mid 2015 to a 10M+++/year deal. With luck in 2016 we re-sign EJ to a $20M+++/year deal. Having to cut overpaid players who also land you with a sizable dead cap hit is not good cap management. We have made those mistakes in the recent past & I like to think the FO has learned from them and is poised to be able to take advantage of the massive overspending of many other teams in the next couple of off-seasons. We will see. An arguable point but again a no-brainer IMO when considering the cap ramifications of having to Franchise Tag the player. Unfortunately the OG tag money was significantly more in terms of value for money than the S tag money. There is also the point of the fact that the S has been to two probowls and considered generally top 5 at his position. Agreed.....but this too highlights the importance of long term cap management. I'm sure that none of us want the Bills to be in a situation where we are stretched with regards to the cap when we are wanting to re-sign/extend these players in 3+ years time. Overpaying players now....and running the cap to the max each year causes greater problems down the road when wanting to sign legitimate star players. I could be wrong in my assessment that the Bills are making these decisions because they have a solid cap plan for the future. They may simply be stingy and not want to spend over a certain level.....and it's just coincidence that it makes good long term cap sense. I personally don't think that is the case as the Mario, Freddie, SJ, Woods etc contracts seem to show that they are willing to spend money when they see it fits......but I guess the next 2-5 years will prove things one way or the other.

Sure there is.....I said it before. As it makes no difference to the 2014 cap whether you have it the 2013 or 2014.....you may as well have it in the 2014 leaving extra monies in the 2013 year just in case you get a surprise opportunity to spend it on. It's been pretty widely reported that the cap won't dramatically increase till the 2015 season. http://www.sportsbus...es/NFL-cap.aspx http://espn.go.com/n...lary-cap-growth Did you see the bit I wrote(and provided link for) where the Bills have been the 12th highest spenders this season? They have spent well over "their cap"......and they have also covered well over the minimum cap amount. I explained the ramifications of that $20M earlier. If you are unable to follow it....I can't do any more to help you.

lol...oh no. .....and I initially had such high hopes for this competition.

I think you've raised some very interesting concepts. I have come to the conclusion that confidence(or the appearance of) often gives the impression of intelligence, even if there is not much behind the words that are said. I also think that far too much emphasis is placed upon the ability to retain knowledge. I went to school with a guy who was super-smart when it came to his studies. He was A+ across the board and was considered extremely smart. The thing about him though, he couldn't analyze information much at all. Essentially he was hopeless at problem solving. Anything where he had to actually think for himself, he was an absolute moron. To this day I am unsure if he was smart or dumb.

I have......and I used to love his wry, tongue in cheek trolling threads.....but I thought he left(or was kicked off).

I don't know how the US is, but here in Australia pretty much everyone has little trust for and dislikes politicians......and I don't believe it is because its easy to believe stupid chit.

Isn't that just a Golum inspired joke?

Ahh.....I didn't know that. The wording on my initial comment was I think influenced by the dialogue of Australian politics. I guess what I meant by saying "ran their budgets in deficit" was that they had spending deficits.

This is an interesting theory.....though I can't see any way that it could be proven to be true. As it stands we have spent 92.7% of the cap.....while only being required to spend 88.8% this season. This year we have spent 1.107 times the cap in cash(cash to cap) which is 12th highest in the NFL. http://www.overthecap.com/nfl-cash-space.php?Year=2013

Glutton for punishment. Yeah, sorry for that.

I assume you mean balanced or surplus budget. ....and what's your point with that? Apart from the Clinton administration there has only been one year of surplus governing since 1960. ....apart from George W's last year you mean. I'm no expert but I'd say the Global Financial Crisis has a good deal to do with that. The cause of the GFC is another issue entirely. Though I was mistaken about the intent of the initial post that I responded to, my response was highlighting only Republican Presidents because I was responding to what I thought was somebody singling out only Democratic Presidents in regards to balanced/surplus budgets. I don't see how that is relevant to the issue of surplus/deficit importance. Why are you asking me this? I'm fairly certain that you have a strong view on that already. Okay....you're an idiot. Initially I thought that you were a one-eyed Republican supporter calling out a one-eyed Democrat supporter for being hypocritical.....and were being hypocritical yourself in doing so(by making the point that Obama's budgets have been in deficit....when the fact is that both parties have been).

Apologies. I misunderstood the direction of your point......or more accurately, the motivation for your point. I can now see that you were making basically the same point that I was attempting(against the wrong person lol)......albeit against different sides of politics.

If it was about discussion/debating skills then not only would people be marked down(instead of up) for aggressively insulting their opponent......but the topics would have to be ones that could actually be intelligently debated.

Hmmm....I don't think so(I watch a fair bit of UK stuff). The English are more likely to pronounce "street" without the "R"....."stweet".

By the same token....to all the folks that scream from the rooftops that Obama doesn't balance the budget.....were they screaming the same for W Bush, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower? All of which regularly ran their budgets in deficit.

Don't people who are covered get better care than people who aren't?

There has been an ongoing discussion on the board about whether rolled over money can be re-rolled into the following year. Sources have been cited(including the CBA document) that are worded in the negative.....but several respected analysts have been cited as having opinion that it can be re-rolled. If it cannot be re-rolled, we lose $9.8M in rollover for 2014. I agree with there being a good chance we won't have Byrd's contract on the 2014 books......though personally I hope we do. In regards to the "usual roster turnover"....the players you mention have dead cap hits....Kolb & Smith $0.5M each....and we will still need players brought in to replace them if they are cut. Don't get me wrong, I believe we will be in a good position to take advantage of the good FA period that next off-season looks to be. Had we placed the Fitz $7M onto this years cap we would be rolling over $7M less into the 2014 cap.......end result being exactly the same for the 2014 cap. Doing it this way enabled the Bills to have extra money available in 2013.....even though we didn't/haven't used it. Perhaps for PR reasons the Bill's FO should have just taken the hit this season to avoid the sort of unfounded negative public reaction shown in this thread.

I did a study on this a while back here:http://forums.twobil...n-a-super-bowl/ In recent times it boils down to having a great QB.

$109,887,839 At the very bottom of the page.... http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap-hit/2014/

I've been hanging around PPP lately because of this competition. I thought it was a great idea and hoped to be entertained for some time with it. I was a little concerned that it was going to be judged by one individual.....but I can live with that. I became put off a bit further when it became apparent that aggressive insults were going to be viewed as a positive rather than a negative....but as that would add an extra element of colour to the dialogue I was content with that also. Then I saw the topic for the 2nd debate. Which aspect of the scourge that is Hollywood has done more damage to our country in the last 30 years.....sex or violence? The question of "Has Holywood sex and violence damaged the country?" would be a debatable topic. To question which one has caused more damage, when there is a questionable premise of whether either has actually done any damage makes it a non debatable topic. It would be a bit like asking if it is the QB or Coach that has had more of an influence on why the Cowboys are currently a great team.

The figures I listed for the 2014 cap included all current contracts. All of those numbers were used in the figures I gave.

You are confusing results with intent. Considering the recent success the Bills have had at evaluating the talent of players on the OL, it is not unreasonable to assume that they believed the LG position was going to be minimally stable. The fact that their Plan A(using the players that are currently there) has not turned out as expected is definitely a mistake.....but not a mistake on planning. It was a mistake on talent assessment.

A lot of people talk about the "$20 million" in cap that we have as if it only applies to this season.....and that not spending it is somehow "cheap" behaviour on behalf of the FO. Paying Levitre 8M a year(for 6 years) would impact the following 5 caps......most importantly the 2014 cap. Due to the rollover rules, Levitre sucking up $8M/year would suck $16M out of next years cap(2014).....$8m in salary & the loss of $8M rollover money that would occur for not signing him. The cap space we have at the moment is $18.4M. The 2014 cap is slated to be around $125M. At the moment we are committed to $110M. Assuming no changes, we start the 2014 year with $15M in cap space plus rollover money. Byrd's money($8M) needs to be included in the plans leaving $7M of cap money in 2014. We will also have players hitting FA that we may well want to re-sign in Carrington, Moats, Chandler, Legursky, Branch, Leonhard.....and Punter, FB, backup QB & Kicker......plus monies for the 2014 rookie class. On top of that we have Dareus and A.Williams who hit FA in 2015 whom we might want to lock up mid 2014. We also have very few players who are in the position to renegotiate their contracts to create space. Mario being the only one that really would be viable. Going back to the 2014 numbers.... Had we signed Levitre for $8M/year, we would be $1M over the 2014 cap.....AND have to do all of those things listed above. There is still the rollover monies to factor in.... (As I still don't have definitive information about re-rollover I will cover both scenarios).... Assuming we can re-roll rollover money.....we can take that $18.4M into next season. Had we signed Levitre that would then be reduced to $10.4M.....effectively leaving us with $9.4M in cap space to achieve all of the above things listed. Assuming we can't re-roll rollover money(which I'm fairly sure is the case).....we can take $8.6M into next season. Had we signed Levitre that would then be reduced to $0.6M.....effectively leaving us being $0.4M over the cap & still having to achieve all of the above. There is bond to be some juggling etc of monies......but the end position really is that in the particular cap situation the Bills are in through 2013/2014, re-signing Levitre(particularly over-paying for him) was never going to be considered a wise decision unless he was a STAR player.