vegas55 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Buffalo News had article today about our pending free agents, which reminded me that Overdorf managing our cap is reminiscent of that captain piloting the Titanic. Can anyone explain to me why the Bills chose to spread Fitzpatrick's signing bonus/dead cap space into the 2014 season. Why not take the entire hit this year, when the team is 20 million + under the cap? So now dividing that cap hit effects the money available to sign free agents in 2014. The cap space saved for 2013 , by spreading it into 2014 was completely unnecessary. It's this type of mismanagement that has been a constant and consistent theme with this organization. Of course Russ Brandon is on WGR once a week, every week during the season. Do you think the brilliant radio hosts could have just once asked him about this and other cap management miscues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Buffalo News had article today about our pending free agents, which reminded me that Overdorf managing our cap is reminiscent of that captain piloting the Titanic. Can anyone explain to me why the Bills chose to spread Fitzpatrick's signing bonus/dead cap space into the 2014 season. Why not take the entire hit this year, when the team is 20 million + under the cap? So now dividing that cap hit effects the money available to sign free agents in 2014. The cap space saved for 2013 , by spreading it into 2014 was completely unnecessary. It's this type of mismanagement that has been a constant and consistent theme with this organization. Of course Russ Brandon is on WGR once a week, every week during the season. Do you think the brilliant radio hosts could have just once asked him about this and other cap management miscues? There was no mismanagement of the cap at all. Due to the rollover rules, putting the Fitz $7m into the 2013 cap would mean that there would be $7m less to roll over into the 2014 cap......either way, the 2014 cap was going to be lower by $7m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Buffalo News had article today about our pending free agents, which reminded me that Overdorf managing our cap is reminiscent of that captain piloting the Titanic. Can anyone explain to me why the Bills chose to spread Fitzpatrick's signing bonus/dead cap space into the 2014 season. Why not take the entire hit this year, when the team is 20 million + under the cap? So now dividing that cap hit effects the money available to sign free agents in 2014. The cap space saved for 2013 , by spreading it into 2014 was completely unnecessary. It's this type of mismanagement that has been a constant and consistent theme with this organization. Of course Russ Brandon is on WGR once a week, every week during the season. Do you think the brilliant radio hosts could have just once asked him about this and other cap management miscues? Dibs and I have been arguing about this for some time. I think the missing part of his argument is a motive for putting that money forward. I believe that cap dollars from 2012 that were rolled into 2013 can't be rolled over again into 2014. And since the Bills are about $20M under the cap........they aren't going to touch that 2012 money this year. And thus it goes to waste. The motive to push it into 2014 is that there is a cap FLOOR for the 4 year period that ranges from 2013-2016. Each team must spend at least 89% of the alotted cap dollars over that 4 year period. It doesn't have to be 89% each year.........but rather 89% of the sum of those 4 years cap figures. If the Bills used Fitz' dead money this year........and then got some deals done........they may have ended up using some of that 2012 rollover........which doesn't help them reach that cap FLOOR going forward. Edited January 5, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas55 Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 Dibs and I have been arguing about this for some time. I think the missing part of his argument is a motive for putting that money forward. I believe that cap dollars from 2012 that were rolled into 2013 can't be rolled over again into 2014. And since the Bills are about $20M under the cap........they aren't going to touch that 2012 money this year. And thus it goes to waste. The motive to push it into 2013 is that there is a cap FLOOR for the 4 year period that ranges from 2013-2016. Each team must spend at least 89% of the alotted cap dollars over that 4 year period. It doesn't have to be 89% each year.........but rather 89% of the sum of those 4 years cap figures. If the Bills used Fitz' dead money this year........and then got some deals done........they may have ended up using some of that 2012 rollover........which doesn't help them reach that cap FLOOR going forward. Thank you for clarifying the ineptness/cheapness of this organization. Wasted a year where they had so much room to use. As per usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 This organization is a joke plain and simple. They are not fully committed to winning, how else can you explain 14 straight years with no playoff appearances. I'm reminded of just how inept this organization is each and every January when I have the pleasure of watching playoff caliber football. It looks like a different sport than what I watch at the Ralph September-December. And any fan who drinks the Kool-Aid that EJ Manuel will "develop" into a winning QB given time is completely misguided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Dibs and I have been arguing about this for some time. I think the missing part of his argument is a motive for putting that money forward. I believe that cap dollars from 2012 that were rolled into 2013 can't be rolled over again into 2014. And since the Bills are about $20M under the cap........they aren't going to touch that 2012 money this year. And thus it goes to waste. The motive to push it into 2013 is that there is a cap FLOOR for the 4 year period that ranges from 2013-2016. Each team must spend at least 89% of the alotted cap dollars over that 4 year period. It doesn't have to be 89% each year.........but rather 89% of the sum of those 4 years cap figures. If the Bills used Fitz' dead money this year........and then got some deals done........they may have ended up using some of that 2012 rollover........which doesn't help them reach that cap FLOOR going forward. I think this is 100% correct. And exactly why there must be a hard floor EVERY YEAR. I'm sick of the cheapness of this team (and my MLB team, the Pirates). I'm done spending money on this team until they spend money on it themselves. They can start by resigning Byrd. They talk the BS about building through the draft, but as history has shown, they simply restock through the draft. Lynch, they had the "attitude" excuse. With Byrd they will drum up some BS that he's not a top 3 safety (most INT's by any active player since 2009), when they fails, they will say Searcy is getting an extension and that he is as good as Byrd. :wallbash: :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Other than the Bills have one of the best cap situations in the NFL...we have gone over this ad nauseum already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I think this is 100% correct. And exactly why there must be a hard floor EVERY YEAR. . . . If the base salary cap (before adding any amounts rolled in because they were unspent in a prior year) is say $125M per year, the current floor that each team must spend over the 4 years 2013-1016 would be roughly $125M x 4 x 89% = $445M. By choosing to allocate $7M of Fitz "dead money" into 2013, the Bills reduced the amount they must spend during that 4 year period by less than 2%, to $438M. OK, that's cheap, but not significant enough to make much difference if they spent the remaining $438M wisely. And the $7M is a one-time thing that's already done. Going forward, why should it make the slightest difference whether the Bills are required to (1) spend 89% of $125M = $111.25M each and every year (which totals $445M over 4 years), or (2) time their spending any way they want so long as the 4 year total adds up to at least $445M? Free agents aren't fighting each other to come here, for numerous reasons. If we are required to overpay for free agents compared to NY, NE and Miami, seems to me like we potentially benefit by having the option to load up for a run every few years. How would the reduced flexibility you propose possibly help us (as compared to the current 4 year average floor)? Edited January 5, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) What's the difference what year it's in when the Bills will never spend up to the cap anyway? Edited January 5, 2014 by Max997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) BADOL and Dibs are both right in different senses. I think the Bills were intending (or at least prepared) to spend more money than they actually did. Since they didn't, today there's no significant difference wrt to Fitz's hit. EDIT: During last year's offseason, they anticipated upgrading or re-signing players at at least 7 positions. If they had eaten all of Fitz's (and others') dead money in 2013, they woudn't have had as much money to roll over into 2014, EDIT: but more importantly, less money to potentially spend. As it turns out, they upgraded those positions relatively cheaply. We just don't know what they would've had to spend if things didn't work out the way they did. I elaborated on this here: http://forums.twobil...s/#entry3013882 However, I'm not 100% sure about the continuous roll over so all these points may be moot altogether. If the Bills can and do roll over all of this year's surplus space, they'll be in very good shape moving forward and all that dead money will be an afterthought. Edited January 5, 2014 by uncle flap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) If the base salary cap (before adding any amounts rolled in because they were unspent in a prior year) is say $125M per year, the current floor that each team must spend over the 4 years 2013-1016 would be roughly $125M x 4 x 89% = $445M. By choosing to allocate $7M of Fitz "dead money" into 2013, the Bills reduced the amount they must spend during that 4 year period by less than 2%, to $438M. OK, that's cheap, but not significant enough to make much difference if they spent the remaining $438M wisely. ...... But it isn't even that.... The 2013 cap year and the 2014 cap year are both in the 2013-2016 cap floor period. Placing the $7m Fitz money in either year counts towards that 4 year period cap floor. In regards to the cap floor amount it absolutely makes no difference. They chose to put the $7m Fitz money into the 2014 cap....not the 2013 cap(as you stated above). .... If they had eaten all of Fitz's (and others') dead money in 2012...... They couldn't eat the dead money in 2012 as Fitz played the 2012 season. The question is between 2013 & 2014......and both count towards the same cap floor. Edit: It seems that people have simply followed what another poster has written without applying their minds properly to the situation. Here is the 2013 cap showing $3m dead for Fitz: http://www.spotrac.c...-bills/cap-hit/ And here is the 2014 cap showing the extra $7m dead for Fitz: http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/ The statement made earlier in the thread of "The motive to push it into 2013...." was simply incorrect as it was pushed into 2014....thus making the cap floor irrelevant to the situation(as I have just shown). Edited January 5, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 They couldn't eat the dead money in 2012 as Fitz played the 2012 season. The question is between 2013 & 2014......and both count towards the same cap floor. My mistake, thanks for pointing that out... got my wires crossed after enjoying plenty of football today However, my point is the same; Spreading the hit gave them more flexibility during last year's offseason (though they didn't need/use the extra space) and would've provided more flexibility going forward if they had used additional space on more expensive or additional signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) My mistake, thanks for pointing that out... got my wires crossed after enjoying plenty of football today However, my point is the same; Spreading the hit gave them more flexibility during last year's offseason (though they didn't need/use the extra space) and would've provided more flexibility going forward if they had used additional space on more expensive or additional signings. No worries....your wires were likely crossed due to the misleading and incorrect statement made earlier in the thread. I used to think similar to you there(re: flexibility)....and I still see it as a factor, but I now see that using the rollover monies would have been extremely difficult to do and still keep the 2014 cap in a healthy situation(as the 2014 cap is very tight). Spending extra money in 2013 would inherently increase the 2014 spend......which would have meant difficulty reworking A.Williams, Dareus Spiller & Hughes if we wanted.....as well as limiting our FA acquisition abilities. Of course....as you said, if the re-roll is indeed allowed, it makes all of this discussion absolutely moot anyway. Edited January 5, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 But it isn't even that.... The 2013 cap year and the 2014 cap year are both in the 2013-2016 cap floor period. Placing the $7m Fitz money in either year counts towards that 4 year period cap floor. In regards to the cap floor amount it absolutely makes no difference. They chose to put the $7m Fitz money into the 2014 cap....not the 2013 cap(as you stated above). . . . Oops - - you're right, I should have fact checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 But it isn't even that.... The 2013 cap year and the 2014 cap year are both in the 2013-2016 cap floor period. Placing the $7m Fitz money in either year counts towards that 4 year period cap floor. In regards to the cap floor amount it absolutely makes no difference. They chose to put the $7m Fitz money into the 2014 cap....not the 2013 cap(as you stated above). They couldn't eat the dead money in 2012 as Fitz played the 2012 season. The question is between 2013 & 2014......and both count towards the same cap floor. Edit: It seems that people have simply followed what another poster has written without applying their minds properly to the situation. Here is the 2013 cap showing $3m dead for Fitz: http://www.spotrac.c...-bills/cap-hit/ And here is the 2014 cap showing the extra $7m dead for Fitz: http://www.spotrac.c...s/cap-hit/2014/ The statement made earlier in the thread of "The motive to push it into 2013...." was simply incorrect as it was pushed into 2014....thus making the cap floor irrelevant to the situation(as I have just shown). I simply incorrectly typed 2013 instead of 2014. You still have offered no motive for pushing that money forward. NONE. I REPEAT............YOU HAVE OFFERED NO REASON AS TO WHY IT WAS DONE THIS WAY. This if the problem with your argument. Decisions like that aren't made randomly. My contention is that THE LAST dollars that get spent in a given year are the rollover dollars from the previous season. By pushing that $7M into next season it prevented them from getting close enough to the cap that they started spending into that 2012 rollover money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The cap is really mostly relevant for those teams that actually have enough revenue to spend up to the cap. There are lots of small market teams that can't spend to the cap because they don't take in enough revenue to get there. The Bills are one of the lowest revenue teams in the NFL. I believe that they are spending as much as they can without losing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas55 Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 The cap is really mostly relevant for those teams that actually have enough revenue to spend up to the cap. There are lots of small market teams that can't spend to the cap because they don't take in enough revenue to get there. The Bills are one of the lowest revenue teams in the NFL. I believe that they are spending as much as they can without losing money. Ralph Wilson paid $25,000 for this team. It's now worth 900 million. Additionally he has made a huge operating profit in just about every year he has owned the team. HE CAN AFFORD to have a few seasons where he loses money. I mean how much money does he need to make off this team? His children's children's children will never be able to spend the money this guy has made from owning the team. Is it asking too much to have a few years where winning is put ahead of making money he will never be able to even spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Ralph Wilson paid $25,000 for this team. It's now worth 900 million. Additionally he has made a huge operating profit in just about every year he has owned the team. HE CAN AFFORD to have a few seasons where he loses money. I mean how much money does he need to make off this team? His children's children's children will never be able to spend the money this guy has made from owning the team. Is it asking too much to have a few years where winning is put ahead of making money he will never be able to even spend? Tell that to every business operating today. FWIW, I work for a MAJOR health care company and my division consistently makes a profit, but not enough of a profit for corporate. So, within a few weeks we will be sold to a Private Equity firm who will cut costs as much as possible without putting us out of business and then sell us again. The personal situation for me and my co-workers will certainly be much worse than current, but that is the way of the world. The Cowboys wouldn't spend as much as they currently do if their revenue didn't substantiate it. Neither would the NY Yankees.... NO business considers past performance and profits when they make current financial decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 According to this, the Bills have about $29 million adjusted cap space for 2014, 6th most in the league. (And thid should already have taken into account Fitz's 7 million) http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24379050/agents-take-raiders-atop-list-of-10-teams-with-best-2014-salary-cap-situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 According to this, the Bills have about $29 million adjusted cap space for 2014, 6th most in the league. (And thid should already have taken into account Fitz's 7 million) http://www.cbssports...y-cap-situation Yeah, there was a deal of discussion started a couple of weeks ago about it in this thread(covering much the same things as this thread). http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/164666-bills-6-on-list-of-best-cap-situations/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts