USABuffaloFan Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Stevie's cap money can be split to 4 mil this year and 6 mil next. I would think they wouldn't do this since the cap to cash allotment is higher than cap which would allow them to decide easier next year what to do with Williams.
Doc Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 The Bills still have ~$11.2M in cap room. Better off to take Stevie's entire cap hit this year and have almost nothing next year.
What a Tuel Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 The Bills still have ~$11.2M in cap room. Better off to take Stevie's entire cap hit this year and have almost nothing next year. 11.2 million before or after? Don't we have to sign the draft rookies still?
Koufax Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 I know the Bills wanted to make a bold move focused on winning now and an immediate 2014 bump. I'm still not sure that +Watkins and -Stevie was our best way of doing that when compared with: 1) Drafting Mack at #4 and keeping Stevie. I think I would rather have Stevie + Mack than Watkins + nobody in 2014. Maybe I'm not accounting for his decline, but he is still 27, is a 1000+ yard receiver when he plays 16, and rookie WR tend to struggle a little at first. Even Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant both failed to crack 800yds as rookies. So I am not quite sure why we would expect more out of 2014 Watkins than 2014 Stevie. And to add an impact pass rusher like Mack while having a stronger 2014 receiving corp seems like a smarter choice. 2) Draft Ebron #12 and keep Stevie and our 2015 pick. I've made my case of what I expect out of Stevie v Watkins above (I hope to be wrong now that the deal is done), but if Stevie is close to Watkins this year, we know Ebron would be a big added weapon over our current TEs, and we would keep a first rounder to keep the talent flowing into the system (even if I hope it will be the #32 pick). Ebron + Stevie + 2015 pick vs. Chandler + Watkins + no pick. Either way, I think we are selling a little low on Stevie, and disappointed to see him go. It reminds me a little of the Marshawn situation where we created a log jam with a high pick, and then solved that log jam with an undervalued move. Basically I'm a fan of drafting and keeping the most talent possible year after year, and I think we might have taken a step back there. I wish Stevie luck and a Super Bowl in San Fran, but don't see how removing him from our roster helps us get better in 2014 which was the goal of our bold moves. On the plus side, EJ/Woods/Watkins will be together for a while, and hopefully can form a really dynamic trio well into the future when Stevie is on the decline and no longer a play maker.
What a Tuel Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Well said. I agree mostly, except I think I liked the Watkins pickup more than you. If they would have just kept Johnson, I wouldn't be doubting it.
Doc Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 11.2 million before or after? Don't we have to sign the draft rookies still? $11.2M after cutting Stevie and before signing rookies. They should have about $7.6 million after signing the rookies and before cutting any other players.
What a Tuel Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 $11.2M after cutting Stevie and before signing rookies. They should have about $7.6 million after signing the rookies and before cutting any other players. Ok thanks for the info
rstencel Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Don't think will be that high, not with 4th overall to sign.
Doc Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Don't think will be that high, not with 4th overall to sign. I got that (rookie cap of $3.6 million) from overthecap.com.
BarleyNY Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Stevie's cap money can be split to 4 mil this year and 6 mil next. I would think they wouldn't do this since the cap to cash allotment is higher than cap which would allow them to decide easier next year what to do with Williams. No it can't. That can only happen if he had been designated as a June 1st cut. He was traded. The Bills must take the entire $10.2M cap hit this season. Edited May 11, 2014 by BarleyNY
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) No it can't. That can only happen if he had been designated as a June 1st cut. He was traded. The Bills must take the entire $10.2M cap hit this season. I haven't looked into the particulars, or this specific case, but I believe a June 1st designation can be if you are cut or traded. When you look it up, it often refers to the fact that if you are released or traded before June 1 the traded player is treated as if he were released, so I believe he can then be a June 1st designated player. I've read it in a few different places, but I am not positive about it. Does anyone know "for sure?" Like this... How does the trade of a player affect the team’s Salary Cap? For the team trading the player, a trade is pretty much treated the same as the release of a player – the team is relieved of paying all future base salaries, but still must account for the bonus money that has already been paid to the player. Just like with the release of a player, the remaining unaccounted-for bonus pro-rations will accelerate and count against the team’s Salary Cap. For the team acquiring the player, a trade means that the new team acquires the player’s remaining contract, but does not have any liability for any bonus money previously paid to the player. What is the June 1 release deadline and how does it affect the Salary Cap? If a player is released after the CBA mandated deadline of June 1st, the team gets the benefit of being able to spread the Salary Cap hit – or dead money – over two years. When a player is released after June 1, the team is again relieved of paying that player’s base salary for the year in which he is released (and all future years) and the only amount that counts against the team’s Cap in that year is the player’s bonus proration for that year. The remaining unaccounted-for bonus pro-rations accelerate against the Cap in the following year. So, using the above example, instead of having to eat $6M in dead money in the 4th year of the contract, the team would only have to carry $3M in dead money against the Cap for that year (which is that year’s bonus proration), but would have to account for the other $3M in dead money against the Salary Cap in the following year. Edited May 11, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
YoloinOhio Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I think we all know who to blame for Stevie being traded. God.
CodeMonkey Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I think we all know who to blame for Stevie being traded. God. Hold up there young man ... The Donald does not own the team yet!
4merper4mer Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Hold up there young man ... The Donald does not own the team yet! I think he was talking about Greggo Marrone.
BrooklynBills Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I think the 49ers will find out exactly what Marrone did last year. That Stevie is not in great condition and that he does not always run the routes as designed. I think this is purely a football decision. It should not be forgotten that there was a lot of talk before last year's training camp about how Stevie would adjust to having to function in a more traditional route running system. We have a west coast based passing game which requires very specific route running. Johnson's success under Gailey came when he had less restrictions on his routes and could simply get to a certain spot on the field at a certain time. He is also a possession receiver with questionable hands. I think the 49ers will find out exactly what Marrone did last year. That Stevie is not in great condition and that he does not always run the routes as designed. I think this is purely a football decision. It should not be forgotten that there was a lot of talk before last year's training camp about how Stevie would adjust to having to function in a more traditional route running system. We have a west coast based passing game which requires very specific route running. Johnson's success under Gailey came when he had less restrictions on his routes and could simply get to a certain spot on the field at a certain time. He is also a possession receiver with questionable hands.
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I thought about it all weekend. Still hate it but I'll trust in the Dougs. But man, did we put a lot of pressure on Watkins. And the idea of Mike Williams as our veteran wr seems stupid to me but what do I know.
PO'14 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I think the 49ers will find out exactly what Marrone did last year. That Stevie is not in great condition and that he does not always run the routes as designed. I think this is purely a football decision. It should not be forgotten that there was a lot of talk before last year's training camp about how Stevie would adjust to having to function in a more traditional route running system. We have a west coast based passing game which requires very specific route running. Johnson's success under Gailey came when he had less restrictions on his routes and could simply get to a certain spot on the field at a certain time. He is also a possession receiver with questionable hands. I think the 49ers will find out exactly what Marrone did last year. That Stevie is not in great condition and that he does not always run the routes as designed. I think this is purely a football decision. It should not be forgotten that there was a lot of talk before last year's training camp about how Stevie would adjust to having to function in a more traditional route running system. We have a west coast based passing game which requires very specific route running. Johnson's success under Gailey came when he had less restrictions on his routes and could simply get to a certain spot on the field at a certain time. He is also a possession receiver with questionable hands. I agree and ...........I agree! I thought about it all weekend. Still hate it but I'll trust in the Dougs. But man, did we put a lot of pressure on Watkins. And the idea of Mike Williams as our veteran wr seems stupid to me but what do I know. What does that have to do with anything? I mean, we have a second year QB, and our Best rated receiver ( woods ) is also in his second year. Woods seemed to play pretty good when Johnson didn't play last year. I don't know what a Veteran WR even brings to the table if he cant catch in the clutch ( SJ13)
YoloinOhio Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) I thought about it all weekend. Still hate it but I'll trust in the Dougs. But man, did we put a lot of pressure on Watkins. And the idea of Mike Williams as our veteran wr seems stupid to me but what do I know. From what I can tell, CB, Woods was more of the type of leader they want than Stevie, even as a rookie. Williams will probably not have that role, just because he has the most NFL experience. Despite Woods getting ejected from the Miami game, he was not your typical rookie WR last year. Many rookies step on the field as the #1 WR. I think Watkins is ready for the on the field pressure. I do not think they will push him to become the leader of the WR corp though, they will let that happen naturally. howard @hsimon62 11m spoke to someone who clarified dead money for Stevie Johnson. its $10.225 million. Bills can take it all this yr or defer some to 2015 Edited May 12, 2014 by YoloinOhio
Recommended Posts