Salary Cap - Is Whaley Allowed to Spend It All?

[3rdand12]

last year didn't whaley say overdorf handles all the contracts and what not? he said he tells JO who they want and he tries to hammer out a contract and if he can't than they move on. iirc he said that in one of his post promotion videos. I've been saying it for a little while now that i really think the problem is all these middle men. he gets the word from ralph on money and thats what he can work with and the GMs try to get players but if overdorf doesn't get it done than they move on.

i also think that in my conspiracy world that eugene parker really has a problem with overdorf not the bills and its become such a stagnant cesspool of a relationship they cannot work together to get a deal done.

Very interesting that you have considered the Eugene money bags Parkers issue to be with Overdone. I can see that actually.

The latest announcement of Byrd needing highest paid and hard cash, do make it seem a rivalry more than good business sensibilities.

[GA BILLS FAN]

So, double or triple the ticket prices and everyone here pony up the money to fill the stadium. That seems reasonable - until not enough people in Buffalo can afford to go, attendance dwindles and the team ends up in Toronto or LA.

 

I won't purport to know for sure if the TV revenue is enough for the Bills to spend to the full cap every year without losing money, but I definitely believe that the playing field is not level in terms of team revenue and profits. I am very comfortable guesstimating that the Bills are in the lower 25% of the league in profitability.

Hire a REAL marketing genius to fully develop the value of this franchise --- take a look at Green Bay and the amount of money that franchise generates ---- this FO thinks small --- renovating the Ralph is a classic think small idea --- the Bills have the potential to generate a lot more money than they are right now ---- as for the crux of your question, it is a legitimate issue --- even if Buffalo fully develops their potential revenue, they'll never have the population and income of larger cities, but the also won't have the same cost issues --- but in the end, teams can make more money in larger cities --- what Buffalo needs is an owner who wants to win first, and pocket some money second ---- it's not up to me to tell Ralph how to spend his money, he clearly wants to hold onto it until he leaves this world --- but, if I were him, and I had a franchise that I bought for $25,000 and is now worth close to $1B --- I'd be okay losing some money to get the best coaches, scouts, front office people and I'd spend to the cap ---- in other words, this city might need an owner with deep pockets and the desire to win above all else ----

[QB Bills]

+1, you spend to cap, whether that plan includes Byrd is not as important to me as seeing a commitment from this FO to do what is necessary to win -- if they don't resign Byrd, but extend Glenn, add a FA LG and WR etc. it would pass mustard.

There's no reason that they can't easily do all of the above.

 

The fact that they've lowered fans' expectations this much is sad. Not much we can do about it though.

[BillnutinHouston]

Some point to Overdorf and Littman reporting to Brandon as evidence that Whaley doesn't have full authority over football decisions. But I think a case can be made that Overdorf's and Littman's work is, strictly speaking, administrative in nature and therefore shouldn't be overseen by a hardcore football guy. Who really wants Whaley to be worrying about whether Littman's numbers are right or if Overdorf properly initialled page 12 of the rookie contract?

 

Regardless of who the green eyeshade people report to, the real keys are: a) who sets the priorities for how the money is spent, b) who determines the parameters that O&L work under, i.e., who gives Overdorf the latitude to negotiate contracts and how much latitude is he given, c) how the financial information is used to make decisions and d) who makes the final decisions. I think it's significant that in the Buffalo News article, "Whaley said he is completely comfortable with the chain of command because the three of them work so closely together. 'Absolutely, because we have one singular focus, to win,' Whaley said. 'No one has a hidden agenda in that building.'”

Edited January 23, 2014 by BillnutinHouston

[Dorkington]

It's a business. The team will spend as little as possible, while trying to get the most revenue. So the balance is a handful of talented players, $10-20m left in the cap, and a whole heaping of sales pitch filled with hope. And we eat it up every year.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

'No one has a hidden agenda in that building.'”

When's the last time Ralph was "in that building?"

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

What is it Marv Levy used to say "Cash to Cap"?

I billieve that's Ralph's edict "Cash to Cap", no more leveraging the future.

[RyanC883]

I did some research on the Bills salary cap figures over the past few seasons.

 

> In 2012, we started the league year (March) with about $23 million in cap space. After free agency and draft signings were completed, we started the season (September) with about $13-14 million in cap space.

 

> In 2013, we started the league year with about $17-18 million in cap space. We started the season with about $9 million.

 

> We currently (January 2014), sit at about $18 million in cap space.

 

 

I've heard the excuse over and over. We couldn't sign "X" player to a new contract, because we need to save the money for "Y" player next year. This excuse is already being thrown around on why we can't muster up another $1-2 million to bring back Jairus Byrd (because we need the money for Marcel Dareus, CJ Spiller or Jerry Hughes next year).

 

It's a total bullcrap excuse. This team is never in salary cap trouble. Even after making Mario Williams the highest paid defensive player in football, we still went into the 2012 season with a comfortable cushion of more than $10 million!!!

 

So my question is... Does Doug Whaley have the permission from his superiors (Russ Brandon, Jim Overdorf, Ralph Wilson, etc.) to spend up to the maximum of the salary cap? Because if he DOES, then why are we squabbling about re-signing a 3x Pro Bowler?

 

The Saints currently sit at about $640 THOUSAND over the salary cap, but you better believe they will find a way to keep Jimmy Graham on that roster. Why can't things work like that around here?

 

This is a very good question. Good analysis pointing out the Bills lie to its fans regarding the, "we need to save money for next year," excuse. Same crap the Pirates pull.

 

We won't know till some time has passed.

 

If we do everything we can to sign Byrd......I will be leaning heavily towards "truth".

Conversely, if we don't.......and don't spend the $9m(?) saved on an equivalent player....."not truth".

 

My guess: Byrd walks, signs for 11 million elsewhere, and we spend the 9 million on a bunch of average players or no one, using the excuse of draft, future players we need to keep (then don't, as evidenced by Byrd's departure), etc.

 

It's a business. The team will spend as little as possible, while trying to get the most revenue. So the balance is a handful of talented players, $10-20m left in the cap, and a whole heaping of sales pitch filled with hope. And we eat it up every year.

 

There are owners and teams that do not operate this way in the NFL and NHL and are very successful and profitable. (i.e. Saints, Steelers, Penguins). (I exclude MLB teams because the MLB has no cap.)

[thebandit27]

Hire a REAL marketing genius to fully develop the value of this franchise --- take a look at Green Bay and the amount of money that franchise generates ---- this FO thinks small --- renovating the Ralph is a classic think small idea --- the Bills have the potential to generate a lot more money than they are right now ---- as for the crux of your question, it is a legitimate issue --- even if Buffalo fully develops their potential revenue, they'll never have the population and income of larger cities, but the also won't have the same cost issues --- but in the end, teams can make more money in larger cities --- what Buffalo needs is an owner who wants to win first, and pocket some money second ---- it's not up to me to tell Ralph how to spend his money, he clearly wants to hold onto it until he leaves this world --- but, if I were him, and I had a franchise that I bought for $25,000 and is now worth close to $1B --- I'd be okay losing some money to get the best coaches, scouts, front office people and I'd spend to the cap ---- in other words, this city might need an owner with deep pockets and the desire to win above all else ----

 

Actually, the commissioner of the NFL recommended that Buffalo renovate the Ralph as opposed to building a new stadium.

 

http://www.buffaloru...m-roger-goodell

 

Despite the changes he foresees in Orchard Park, Goodell does not think the Bills need a brand new stadium. When talking with fans, he pointed out that he was sitting in the stands in Buffalo for a reason.

"It’s a great stadium to watch a game," said Goodell. "One of the reasons I picked this game to sit out in the stands is because I think it’s a great experience to be here with the Bills fans and the sight lines are great."

 

And as many have told you before--willingness to spend has NEVER been an issue. It's been the poor choices of who to spend money on that's brought the team to where they are now.

 

It's not about spending to the cap-- EDIT: many teams practices cash-to-cap principles now. It's about making sure you keep your best players without paying over-inflated contracts.

 

I billieve that's Ralph's edict "Cash to Cap", no more leveraging the future.

 

It's not Ralph's decision at this point--however, as noted above, EDIT: many teams follow cash to cap nowadays.

 

This is a very good question. Good analysis pointing out the Bills lie to its fans regarding the, "we need to save money for next year," excuse. Same crap the Pirates pull.

 

 

 

My guess: Byrd walks, signs for 11 million elsewhere, and we spend the 9 million on a bunch of average players or no one, using the excuse of draft, future players we need to keep (then don't, as evidenced by Byrd's departure), etc.

 

 

 

There are owners and teams that do not operate this way in the NFL and NHL and are very successful and profitable. (i.e. Saints, Steelers, Penguins). (I exclude MLB teams because the MLB has no cap.)

 

Byrd can't just walk...the team can franchise him for $8.3M if they want to...

 

Also, it's worth noting that there's zero correlation between teams that spend the most cash and teams that have success.

 

http://overthecap.com/nfl-cash-space.php?Year=2013

Edited January 23, 2014 by thebandit27

[RyanC883]

Other than the Cowboys, how many teams are paying off stadiums that they paid for? I may be wrong, but I don't think many teams pay for their own stadiums, especially $1B ones.

 

Now, I am not saying that the Bills don't have a good stadium deal, but it isn't likely any better than most teams get (especially considering that the stadium is what, 43 years old). i don't think that you can ignore that ticket prices are among the lowest in the league, they have almost no luxury box income (which teams like Dallas, Jets, Giants, Washington don't share with other teams) and their merchandise sales are surely among the lowest in the league.

 

I am just not seeing how the Bills have the finances to spend like the Cowboys, Jets, Giants, Redskins etc can.. Beyond that, I don't see where that spending has gotten the Cowboys, Jets and Redskins very far anyway.

 

Sure, I'd love it if the Bills could go on a spending spree this offseason and nail some high priced free agents like the Dolphins did last year, but where did that get the Dolphins? I would argue that the Bills approach to FA (which mirrors that of the Steelers and Pats in terms of signing mid-tier players) is as effective as big-splash free agent signings (Of course, there are exceptions like Peyton Manning).

 

difference being the Pats and Steelers retain their top FA's. (Big Ben, Antonio Brown, Troy Polomilau, etc.)

 

Actually, the commissioner of the NFL recommended that Buffalo renovate the Ralph as opposed to building a new stadium.

 

http://www.buffaloru...m-roger-goodell

 

Despite the changes he foresees in Orchard Park, Goodell does not think the Bills need a brand new stadium. When talking with fans, he pointed out that he was sitting in the stands in Buffalo for a reason.

"It’s a great stadium to watch a game," said Goodell. "One of the reasons I picked this game to sit out in the stands is because I think it’s a great experience to be here with the Bills fans and the sight lines are great."

 

And as many have told you before--willingness to spend has NEVER been an issue. It's been the poor choices of who to spend money on that's brought the team to where they are now.

 

It's not about spending to the cap-- EDIT: many teams practices cash-to-cap principles now. It's about making sure you keep your best players without paying over-inflated contracts.

 

 

 

It's not Ralph's decision at this point--however, as noted above, EDIT: many teams follow cash to cap nowadays.

 

 

 

Byrd can't just walk...the team can franchise him for $8.3M if they want to...

 

Also, it's worth noting that there's zero correlation between teams that spend the most cash and teams that have success.

 

http://overthecap.co...e.php?Year=2013

 

Actually, your chart proves just the opposite. With the exception of the Chargers (who got into the playoffs by referee error/missed FG) no team at the Bills level or below made the Playoffs last season. You don't have to be the biggest spender, but there is some minimal level of spending that is necessary to field a competitive team.

[thebandit27]

difference being the Pats and Steelers retain their top FA's. (Big Ben, Antonio Brown, Troy Polomilau, etc.)

 

Depends on what you mean by "top"...

 

In last off-season alone, Pittsburgh let their top WR and top CB leave in free agency, along with their starting RB and starting LG. They also released James Harrison.

 

NE let Wes Welker leave for a very manageable contract; ditto for Patrick Chung. They also let a long line of veteran WRs walk out the door thinking they could just replace them at will.

 

I know what you're getting at, but the real crux of retaining your own players comes down to knowing who to pay and when to pay them.

[PromoTheRobot]

Is there a correlation between spending to the cap and winning?

[K-9]

Depends on what you mean by "top"...

 

In last off-season alone, Pittsburgh let their top WR and top CB leave in free agency, along with their starting RB and starting LG. They also released James Harrison.

 

NE let Wes Welker leave for a very manageable contract; ditto for Patrick Chung. They also let a long line of veteran WRs walk out the door thinking they could just replace them at will.

 

I know what you're getting at, but the real crux of retaining your own players comes down to knowing who to pay and when to pay them.

 

Thanks for clarifying and you are absolutely right. The Pats* and Steelers have NEVER been afraid to let their homegrown talent seek other opportunities if those players couldn't be re-signed for what they thought was fair for them. It's like you said, it's knowing who and when.

 

One final thing on cash to cap. The Steelers, Chiefs, Packers, and Bengals have ALL used cash to cap accounting for years. Some people make it sound like the Bills invented it for crissakes. And it makes sense when you're a team that has to spend say 65% of revenues on player costs vs. the 35% that a high-revenue team might spend.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[....lybob]

geez doesn't anyone remember "cap-jail-hell " what we have been doing everything in our power to avoid for the last 15 years - you know so we can be consistent in our performance and not wildly up and down - and no one can argue we haven't been consistent.

[K-9]

geez doesn't anyone remember "cap-jail-hell " what we have been doing everything in our power to avoid for the last 15 years - you know so we can be consistent in our performance and not wildly up and down - and no one can argue we haven't been consistent.

 

Thank-you, John Butler. He left a cap mess to say the least.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

Is there a correlation between spending to the cap and winning?

 

You mean a correlation between using more of your resources towards winning, and winning? I'd imagine as long as you are still making smart decisions making 120m of them is better than 110m of them. Wouldn't guarantee success but I have to think it ups the odds. Do you think there's no advantage to doing it?

Edited January 24, 2014 by NoSaint

[thewildrabbit]

You guys are dreamers, and keep forgetting who owns this team.

[Dibs]

Is there a correlation between spending to the cap and winning?

 

I haven't studied it fully.....but I don't tend to think so.

 

Looking at cap space for teams in 2013.....

(Cap space is a better indicator of spending IMO as it shows a greater spend over the last couple of seasons rather than just the 2013 season)

 

Least cap space is the Rams, Giants then Saints.

Broncos, Seahawks, Patriots & 49ers are 11th, 15th, 13th & 16th respectively with cap space.

There looks to be a little bit of correlation at the bottom end with the Browns, Jags, Bills, Dolphins & Eagles all having large cap space......but last season the Seahawks would have been in this group which firms my belief that cap spending is more situational(more dependent on the players at hand as well as the perceived view to be able to improve to the next level).

 

http://www.overtheca...e.php?Year=2013

 

It seems to me that when things come together in a team(totally unrelated to cap spending, usually meaning they find a good QB)......they start winning. I say totally unrelated to cap spending as it seems clear that simply spending money does not relate to winning.

 

Spending an extra $12m/year on a player will typically raise a teams cap spending(close to their limit).....but usually doesn't translate to any extra wins. That one additional player(who raises the cap number) might get injured(Percy Harvin), under perform in the new team(Mike Wallace), or simply not provide enough bang for ones buck.

 

 

It seems to me that when things do start to fall into place in any given team(where they feel they have a shot at the SB), they will then start to spend into future cap years(mortgaging the future) to achieve a SB win(ala Saints). Even this though is dependent on the legitimacy of said teams belief that their "window" is open(see Cowboys as mistake made in this regard).

 

With so many teams spending close to their cap limits in 2013......and most of those teams being quite uncompetitive.....it is fairly clear that spending the money available does not directly correlate to wins.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Dibs

[mjt328]

Maybe there isn't a direct correlation, but consistently sitting at $10-20 million under the cap (while letting our talent walk) definitely says something about Buffalo's commitment to winning.

 

Teams like Washington are big spenders, but they make poor decisions about who to spend it on. That's why they aren't winning.

 

Teams like Carolina (and to a lesser extent Seattle and San Fran) are winning and have lots of cap space, but that's mostly because the big stars on their teams are still young and playing on their first contracts.

 

Long-time winners - New Orleans, New York Giants, Baltimore, Pittsburgh - these are the teams that have lots of veteran Pro Bowl players on their second contracts. These are the teams with a legitimate excuse to let free agent talent walk, because otherwise they would go over the cap.

 

 

If the Bills really believe that signing Byrd would hurt their chances at bringing back Dareus next year - then I completely understand the reluctance to offer a massive contract.

Unfortunately, I'm more inclined to believe (based on watching this team for 25 years), that our contract negotiations have more to do about the front office's "perceived value" of players. If they don't think a guy is worth the money he's asking (whether it be Byrd, Levitre or Peters), they simply won't give it to him - regardless of whether they can afford it under the salary cap or not.

[Dean Cain]

We only have to spend up to 89.5%, why spend more?