Dibs Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Its old cheese but I can't believe we carried over some of Fitz's contract when we could have bit it all last year. No reason to be annoyed or upset over that. Due to the new(ish) rollover rules, putting the $7m dead Fitz money into the 2014 year rather than into the 2013 year made no difference to our 2014 cap space. The math is really very simple in this. Using actual numbers(rounded to the nearest million).... Having the $7m Fitz dead money in 2014: $18m rollover. $12m dead $6m left over ($18m - $12m = $6m) Having the $7m Fitz dead money in 2013: (This reduces the dead money by $7m but also reduces the rollover money by $7m due to it being spent in 2013) $11m rollover $5m dead $6m left over ($11m - $5m = $6m) Sore subject with me as well. There are some that have argued that it doesn't matter because of what we are rolling over but I am not sure that is correct. I hope this removes your doubts on the issue.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I hope this removes your doubts on the issue. It was you that I was looking for Dibs. I guess I didn't follow as much as doubted. You seem to have as good a grasp as anyone on the cap rules. Thanks for the clarification!!!
billsfan89 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 They have to resolve the Byrd issue once and for all. Either sign him to a long term extension or franchise him and trade him. They can't afford to have this issue linger like it did last season.
FireChan Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Sorry to jump in here, but you'd make less money in the McDonald's scenario. How does that put them at a competitive disadvantage? If both businesses are still profitable, you'd just make more. Does that not fit the "cares about making as much money as possible I.E. 40 million vs 20 million instead of something else?"
K-9 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Sorry to jump in here, but you'd make less money in the McDonald's scenario. How does that put them at a competitive disadvantage? If both businesses are still profitable, you'd just make more. Does that not fit the "cares about making as much money as possible I.E. 40 million vs 20 million instead of something else?" I'm paying 35% less for my supplies and generating twice the revenue at my McDonalds. Please explain how I'd make less? Anyway, I had asked people to look at it strictly from a business perspective, not the fan perspective. If people need to be pissed at Ralph because he's a greedy bastard out to maximize profits, so be it. That's been done here and there's nothing left of that horse to beat. That wasn't the point of my question upthread anyway. I should have known better. GO BILLS!!!
CodeMonkey Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) The NFL is such an odd model because the only money that you are promise is the guaranteed portion. I will admit that I find the entire definition of what the NFL considers a contract very odd. A player and a team enter into a contract whereas the player plays for the team for 3 years for 1 million dollars a year (no mention of "guaranteed" money). The next day after the contract is signed the team decides they no longer want the player and cut him. The contract is unilaterally dissolved and it is like it never happened. No money is paid to the player, there is no breach of contract or anything. However if the player the next day decides he wants to play for a different team, he cannot dissolve the contract. If he doesn't report/play there are repercussions. I understand it is legal because that's how the lawyers draw up the contract, and is the reason there is guaranteed versus non-guaranteed money in the first place. But it is ridiculously one sided. The NFL is given special considerations to allow their monopoly in the first place. This contract inequity should not be tolerated in my opinion. Why the players union allows it is mind boggling. If you and I enter into a contract where you agree to pay me $X a year for Y years for something and I fulfill my part of the contract you are not getting out of paying me, you can bet that /soapbox Edited February 21, 2014 by CodeMonkey
BigBuff423 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I am not sure that I understand? The NFL is such an odd model because the only money that you are promise is the guaranteed portion. I think that most have an idea of what their market value is in any business. If you are sure that you can get that number or responsibility/opportunity (whatever you are seeking) then guys go for it. There are a lot of factors though: cost of living, schools for their kids, taxes, team culture, facilities, teammates, coaching staff, playing time, etc... that determine where a player goes. It is not just strictly about the contract amount. It's in reference when to when Byrd refused to sign the tender, sat out for a bit, and then took the time to get into game shape / injury issue and ended up getting paid more money...in the world I live in, you get what you're paid and when you work you get paid...if you want to work somewhere else, by all means feel free to do that, but you take the risk of having no job...in the NFL, risk doesn't really exist unless you've been a marginal player or are at the end of your career in either case, you would either take the Tag - happily! - or accept what the team deems a resonable offer. They have to resolve the Byrd issue once and for all. Either sign him to a long term extension or franchise him and trade him. They can't afford to have this issue linger like it did last season. That is succinctly on point....whatever they do with him...just G-Damn it, do it soon! So the team and the fans can move on....please....
NoSaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 That is succinctly on point....whatever they do with him...just G-Damn it, do it soon! So the team and the fans can move on....please.... i dont think they care if the fans are hanging on it, and i assure you, there will be no moving on. byrd will be a weekly discussion for the next decade, regardless of outcome.
Kirby Jackson Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) It's in reference when to when Byrd refused to sign the tender, sat out for a bit, and then took the time to get into game shape / injury issue and ended up getting paid more money...in the world I live in, you get what you're paid and when you work you get paid...if you want to work somewhere else, by all means feel free to do that, but you take the risk of having no job...in the NFL, risk doesn't really exist unless you've been a marginal player or are at the end of your career in either case, you would either take the Tag - happily! - or accept what the team deems a reasonable offer. If you were a lawyer for example and a different firm wanted to promise you 3 times the money that your current firm does ($24 guaranteed instead of $8M) wouldn't you be mad that your current firm could block that? Edited February 21, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Gordio Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Stop making sense. How date you apply forward thinking to the equation? If the Bills don't sign every player to max deals, they are cheap. You spend the most, you won the most in the NFL. Fact. I don't know man. You can't keep letting the draft picks that you hit on walk after their first contract. They are never going to get ahead that way. I mean is Byrd worth the $9-$10 mill per year that he is probably going to get offered by some team? Probably not but what is the difference. Their $25 million under the cap & you know what, signing Byrd to a long term contract they will still be $10-$15 million under the cap next year to sign other players so why let him walk? Because as usual business is first over actually trying to win games at one bills drive. It is just the way it is.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I bet Ralph, if we include propfits thru the years and increased value of franchise since day one has probably made about a billion profit with this team. Revenue sharing and amoint of this TV stuff is just mind bogeling on why any teamn would not max out the capo if they really were trying to win.
BigBuff423 Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 In that case, I would be "guaranteed" $8 million to work for one year with promises of gaining an additional lucrative contract. And yeah, I might be miffed, but it's also my doing considering it's not like they're only offering $8 million with no hopes of more money, they offered $40 million with a heft portion guaranteed.....now the other firm offered me more money guaranteed, but I have to move my family, go into a new work environment, have new co-workers (whom I may or may not like), etc....when my original firm still values me and pays me well....and gave me my first job out of college
Kirby Jackson Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) In that case, I would be "guaranteed" $8 million to work for one year with promises of gaining an additional lucrative contract. And yeah, I might be miffed, but it's also my doing considering it's not like they're only offering $8 million with no hopes of more money, they offered $40 million with a heft portion guaranteed.....now the other firm offered me more money guaranteed, but I have to move my family, go into a new work environment, have new co-workers (whom I may or may not like), etc....when my original firm still values me and pays me well....and gave me my first job out of college The main difference is the injury risk associated with the NFL. What if Byrd suffers a Dustin Keller type of injury? There is no promise of a more lucrative deal. Not to mention when you can only negotiate with your current team do you think that you will ever get the value that the open market would fetch you? The other thing is shouldn't you have a right to pick where you work? If the owners do not have to honor the contract that they agreed to why should the players be bound to them? I know that it was collectively bargained but the owners must have fought hard to keep the franchise tag because I have never seen a player happy to be tagged. Edited February 23, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Hazed and Amuzed Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 The main difference is the injury risk associated with the NFL. What if Byrd suffers a Dustin Keller type of injury? There is no promise of a more lucrative deal. Not to mention when you can only negotiate with your current team do you think that you will ever get the value that the open market would fetch you? The other thing is shouldn't you have a right to pick where you work? If the owners do not have to honor the contract that they agreed to why should the players be bound to them? I know that it was collectively bargained but the owners must have fought hard to keep the franchise tag because I have never seen a player happy to be tagged. It's the fanatics double standard, if a player wants to get payed top dollar or wants to play for a winner then they're being greedy but if a team wants to cut a player to save money or if a player is over performing their rookie contract and the team holds out on extending him it's considered smart business.
NoSaint Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 The main difference is the injury risk associated with the NFL. What if Byrd suffers a Dustin Keller type of injury? There is no promise of a more lucrative deal. Not to mention when you can only negotiate with your current team do you think that you will ever get the value that the open market would fetch you? The other thing is shouldn't you have a right to pick where you work? If the owners do not have to honor the contract that they agreed to why should the players be bound to them? I know that it was collectively bargained but the owners must have fought hard to keep the franchise tag because I have never seen a player happy to be tagged. I don't mean this to be harsh to bbuff, but I think he's still hung up on "paid to play a game" and not wanting to to see the reality of 1 year at 6.9m vs 5 year 50m with 25m guaranteed For Byrd it's less money short term, less long term safety, and being forced to stay at an employer he never chose in the first place. While he has a LONG list of things to be grateful for, it doesn't mean he can't want more.
ganesh Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Somebody will make him the highest paid FS in league history, but probably not the Bills. Do you think $8.5 million would be fair? Because supposedly the Bills could have signed him long term for that amount last year but they thought it was too much. Now this year it looks like a "fair" price. Another FO screw up if true. He'll get 10 or close to it somewhere for a 5 year contract I thought Nate Clements got close to a 8M contract from the 49 ers about 6 years ago.
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 I disagree, I'm with the majority of fans here who hope the Bills win the Salary Cap Superbowl. It's the only thing that matters - having a better cap situation than the other 31 teams. In fact, they should pass a law that all employers can restrain the labor market whenever it's useful. I mean, if I have a key guy in my company, I don't want the competition to hire him away and it doesn't serve my stockholders' competitive advantage to pay him more.
Beerball Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Looks like they found more revenue. Cap is now projected to be north of $131M. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000329207/article/salary-cap-expected-to-exceed-previous-130m-figure
NoSaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Looks like they found more revenue. Cap is now projected to be north of $131M. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000329207/article/salary-cap-expected-to-exceed-previous-130m-figure PFT speculating 135m earlier today
Beerball Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 PFT speculating 135m earlier today Yeah, I saw that. I posted this because I figure if anyone knows it should be NFLN.
Recommended Posts