Dareus Signs Six Year Extension with Bills

[BADOLBILZ]

Now that teams have to spend over X% (like 90%) on a rolling average there's really not much difference like once upon a time

 

The only real perk is big guarantees have to be funded at time of signing, so extra liquidity is nice if you have a couple stack up close

 

 

I remember Ralph lamenting having to sell some paintings to extend Andre Reed's contract back in the day.

[DC Greg]

@Rand_Getlin

Over the first two new years of Dareus' deal, he'll see $45M or so. Nearly $15M (!!) more than if he'd been franchise tagged back-to-back.

 

This one particularly points to the fact that they are trying to set this team up for winning for many years by moving that cap hit further down the road rather than playing the cash-to-cap game as a crutch.

 

If the salary cap jumps a lot....and of course if Dareus plays well....the deal doesn't impede them in the next few seasons.

 

Lost in all the hoopla about the Patriots winning the SB last year, if Lynch is given the ball at the goal line, I think people actually look a bit closer at the many years of salary cap shrewdness that probably cost Brady quite a few more chances at SB's.

 

And the cap HAS to go up, right? And significantly...

[Mark Vader]

This is very exciting.

 

We will have Dareus & Hughes for years to come.

 

I say to all Bills fans, enjoy this defensive line for as much as you can. We may never see another one like it for a long time.

 

Great job, Bills front office.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ThurmasThoman]

All lies in jest

Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest

from the greatest song in history, well done.

[26CornerBlitz]

Yates: Bills' Marcell Dareus can pocket $53 million in first three years

Defensive tackle Marcell Dareus can pocket $53 million over the next three seasons as part of his six-year extension with the Bills signed Thursday.

 

[Dorkington]

Can someone explain the whole cash to cap thing in stupid people terms? And what the difference is between that and what we're doing now?

[NoSaint]

Can someone explain the whole cash to cap thing in stupid people terms? And what the difference is between that and what we're doing now?

Essentially, some teams like to avoid the big amortized bonuses and if the cap is 100m they want to design a plan to spend 100m or less. Others, will dole out big signing bonuses, restructure salary into signing bonuses, and spend $150m of a 100m cap (but have borrowed from future years).

 

An example from our past was paying out roster bonuses that hit in year 1 instead of signing that are amortized. Harder to chase superstars but easier to manage spending and cap. Some however might do the amortized bonus though, eating up their cash spending meaning they would spend 100m but their cap use would be only 85m and then the future years they couldn't do a full 100m spending since some cap was used. Can't get away with that game any longer really.

 

Now that teams have not just a cap but that floor I don't think GMs are generally THAT different since the new cba particularly though.

Edited September 11, 2015 by NoSaint

[Coach Tuesday]

Essentially, some teams like to avoid the big amortized bonuses and if the cap is 100m they want to design a plan to spend 100m or less. Others, will dole out big signing bonuses, restructure salary into signing bonuses, and spend $150m of a 100m cap (but have borrowed from future years).

 

An example from our past was paying out roster bonuses that hit in year 1 instead of signing that are amortized. Harder to chase superstars but easier to manage spending and cap. Some however might do the amortized bonus though, eating up their cash spending meaning they would spend 100m but their cap use would be only 85m and then the future years they couldn't do a full 100m spending since some cap was used. Can't get away with that game any longer really.

 

Now that teams have not just a cap but that floor I don't think GMs are generally THAT different since the new cba particularly though.

 

Is that it? I thought it was: if the cap in a given year is $100M, the team treats the cap as a cashflow ceiling for that year, i.e., it treats all signing bonuses as counting "against" the cap for that year (even though bonuses get amortized over the life of the deal for purposes of the league's rules on what counts against the cap). In other words, if the cap is $100M, and the team signs a player to a five-year contract that includes a $25M singing bonus, the team treats the entire $25M as if it's counting against the $100M cap in Year 1, leaving them with $75M to spend on remaining players that year (even though, for league purposes, only $5M of the bonus officially counts against the cap that year).

 

But - I could very well be wrong.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Coach Tuesday

[Dorkington]

 

Is that it? I thought it was: if the cap in a given year is $100M, the team treats the cap as a cashflow ceiling for that year, i.e., it treats all signing bonuses as counting "against" the cap for that year (even though bonuses get amortized over the life of the deal for purposes of the league's rules on what counts against the cap). In other words, if the cap is $100M, and the team signs a player to a five-year contract that includes a $25M singing bonus, the team treats the entire $25M as if it's counting against the $100M cap in Year 1, leaving them with $75M to spend on remaining players that year (even though, for league purposes, only $5M of the bonus officially counts against the cap that year).

 

But - I could very well be wrong.

Yeah that's what I was getting from some of the discussion, then when NoSaint 'clarified' I went back to being confused

 

With your explanation, it's easy to see how the Pegulas and Ralph would be different, since the Pegulas seem ok with spending whatever, as long as they are under the cap. Under Ralph it seemed like we only kept the cap in mind, and tried to only use the cap money.

 

Whatever though, I'm just glad we're being aggressive in keeping our good players. Even if we have a lot tied up in the DL, that's ok to me, because we don't need to do it another way for a couple years at least.

[PromoTheRobot]

Lamenting the pay scale of our other positions is odd. You pay people who are worth paying. We don't have a QB or left tackle that deserves a fat contract yet. We do have one of the best defensive front fours in the NFL.

 

A good D-line helps keep opponents scoring down. The net result is the same as scoring more. So if you don't have a high scoring offense you might as well have a low point allowing defense.

Edited September 11, 2015 by PromoTheRobot

[eball]

Not trying to pat myself on the back or anything (well, maybe a bit), but if you're interested I put an online comment on Jerry Sullivan's mailbag column this morning. He was his typical a$$hole self.

[NoSaint]

 

Is that it? I thought it was: if the cap in a given year is $100M, the team treats the cap as a cashflow ceiling for that year, i.e., it treats all signing bonuses as counting "against" the cap for that year (even though bonuses get amortized over the life of the deal for purposes of the league's rules on what counts against the cap). In other words, if the cap is $100M, and the team signs a player to a five-year contract that includes a $25M singing bonus, the team treats the entire $25M as if it's counting against the $100M cap in Year 1, leaving them with $75M to spend on remaining players that year (even though, for league purposes, only $5M of the bonus officially counts against the cap that year).

 

But - I could very well be wrong.

i probably worded it poorly - but yea, essentially. theres just further nuances. if you want bar napkin, thats it though.

 

but our team often gave roster bonuses in year one to reduce that signing bonus stuff. the 25m would count 25m in cash AND cap in that situation. but with superstars, you cant do that so you either bend your philosophy, or go after more modest options. it seemed we werent always firm on it there.

 

people play it up far too much though. back before the floor, a team could end up underspending using the philosophy - but so could anyone any given year. now EVERYONE is spending within a few percentage points of each other on a rolling average - so if i do 150 this year and 50 next, and another team manages contracts to be 100 and 100 those two years, it is what it is. cash to cap vs daddy warbucks isnt much of a thing anymore.

 

in fact, the floor edges people towards elements of cash to cap because if you really blow out a year with signing bonus money, it screws up the cash you can spend down the line to get to the minimum averages. the saints had some troubles with drew brees contract. it sucked so much of the cash into one year, while filling up a lot of the cap in future years - read articles made it hard for them to spend the hard dollars to reach the minimum spend while staying under the ceiling.

[Dibs]

.... so you either bend your philosophy, or go after more modest options. it seemed we werent always firm on it there.

 

.....

C2C is basically an accounting guideline. Teams(including Bills) are regularly above and below it depending on circumstance. From memory I believe the Mario signing year was one where we were above C2C....and there were other years recently(ish) as well where we went over C2C.

 

For the most part C2C really makes very little difference....with this off-season for the Bills being one of the rare exceptions.

[26CornerBlitz]

Dareus' Bills teammate tries to get Rolex after big contract (2:27)

Buffalo Bills tight end Marqueis Gray joins 'NFL HQ' to talk about quarterback Tyrod Taylor, Sunday's game vs. the Indianapolis Colts and how teammates are treating defensive tackle Marcell Dareus after he signed a $100 million contract.

 

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Not trying to pat myself on the back or anything (well, maybe a bit), but if you're interested I put an online comment on Jerry Sullivan's mailbag column this morning. He was his typical !@#$ self.

link?

 

Never mind

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/jerry-sullivans-mailbag-with-new-deal-pressure-is-on-now-for-dareus-20150910

 

 

By the way, I typed this from my study as I sip my morning coffee and prepare to go to a job where I really do make a difference in people's lives.

:lol:

Edited September 11, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[KD in CA]

 

By the way, I typed this from my study as I sip my morning coffee and prepare to go to a job where I really do make a difference in people's lives.

 

 

That's hysterical, eball.

[Nanker]

Good job eball.

 

But $108 million. Good God man. That's more than I make in a week!

[BADOLBILZ]

C2C is basically an accounting guideline. Teams(including Bills) are regularly above and below it depending on circumstance. From memory I believe the Mario signing year was one where we were above C2C....and there were other years recently(ish) as well where we went over C2C.

 

For the most part C2C really makes very little difference....with this off-season for the Bills being one of the rare exceptions.

 

 

It was an accounting guideline that allowed Ralph to pocket mountains of profit over the last 12-13 years that he owned the team.

 

Changes in the collective bargaining agreement........designed to prevent exactly what the Bills were doing.........were making it harder for Jeffery C to pocket those unused cap dollars without it being indefensibly apparent to everyone that they weren't committed to winning.

 

I seem to recall you and I having some go-rounds over the Bills profits.....you were buying those woe-is-me numbers around $10M per year and I was saying it was more like $30M and when the books got opened up when the team was up for sale.......we had both underestimated it.

[Dibs]

It was an accounting guideline that allowed Ralph to pocket mountains of profit over the last 12-13 years that he owned the team.

 

Changes in the collective bargaining agreement........designed to prevent exactly what the Bills were doing.........were making it harder for Jeffery C to pocket those unused cap dollars without it being indefensibly apparent to everyone that they weren't committed to winning.

 

I seem to recall you and I having some go-rounds over the Bills profits.....you were buying those woe-is-me numbers around $10M per year and I was saying it was more like $30M and when the books got opened up when the team was up for sale.......we had both underestimated it.

Using a C2C guideline is not relevant to the point you are making. A team can just as easily spend just the minimum requirement while using a non-C2C phylosophy as by using it.....if that is what the team is wanting to do.

[BADOLBILZ]

link?

 

Never mind

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/jerry-sullivans-mailbag-with-new-deal-pressure-is-on-now-for-dareus-20150910

 

 

By the way, I typed this from my study as I sip my morning coffee and prepare to go to a job where I really do make a difference in people's lives.

:lol:

 

My "study".

 

Some of you guys really allow your indignance at sportswriters to make yourselves look like haughty d-bags.