John from Riverside Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Wrong. The smart move is to just take the hit this year. Why is that a smart move when we need to resign Glenn and Cog? You are worried about a franchise QB salary.....I get it......but we also have to live in the present while we plan for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Pushing Clay's money forward is a disastrous idea especially with a pending contract for a QB next year. That's why I said it would be drastic. I personally would prefer to just take the hit and carry as much cap space as possible, but if we need a few extra mill to get Incognito and Glenn back I have no issue with a partial conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Wrong. The smart move is to just take the hit this year. If they can afford to, sure. But they more than likely cannot -- which they knew when they made the deal. Again, the cap is flexible and fluid. It's not a static number, and no matter how much you wish for it to be true the Bills have plenty of ways to finesse the cap and do what they need to do this off season. You're worrying about nothing. And I get you have an agenda against Whaley and how he's constructed the roster. That's fine, it'd just be more honest and accurate if you couched your criticism that way instead of ignorantly harping on the cap situation which is not nearly as dire as you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) If they can afford to, sure. But they more than likely cannot -- which they knew when they made the deal. Again, the cap is flexible and fluid. It's not a static number, and no matter how much you wish for it to be true the Bills have plenty of ways to finesse the cap and do what they need to do this off season. You're worrying about nothing. And I get you have an agenda against Whaley and how he's constructed the roster. That's fine, it'd just be more honest and accurate if you couched your criticism that way instead of ignorantly harping on the cap situation which is not nearly as dire as you claim. Actually it is you that doesn't understand the real world ramifications and trade-offs with the "fluidity of the cap" as you like to call it in cutting and restructuring player contracts. Edited February 15, 2016 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuco Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 What do the numbers say? Converting Clay's roster bonus into a signing bonus reduces this year's cap from $13.5 million to $6 million. That saves $7.5 million this year. It also makes Clay's cap charge $9 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Additionally, if we decide to release him in 2017 we would lose $9 million in cap space. And if we cut him in 2018 we would lose $4.5 million in cap space. I understand the deal was made with a restructure of the $10 million bonus in mind. But we need to realize if we do it we are definitely keeping him around until 2018 at least - at $9 million per year after this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Actually it is you that doesn't understand the real world ramifications and trade-offs with the "fluidity of the cap" as you like to call it in cutting and restructuring player contracts. Again, this is not correct. I do understand, and as you continue to demonstrate I understand more than you do about how the cap actually works in the NFL. The truth is you disagree with how Whaley built the roster. That is 100% an acceptable / understandable position to take even if I disagree with it. But your screaming to the heavens that the cap is going to crush this team is just not a defensible position unless you do not understand the cap. That's not me taking a homer attitude, it's reality. Whaley's plan, as he's stated several times by now, was to reload the offense last year through UFA and then spend this year's cap dollars on securing their own homegrown talent. The cap situation allows Whaley to do this, it does not allow them to go out on another big spending spree -- but that was never the plan nor should it be. The idea is to keep their own so they don't have to keep spending big on UFAs to plug holes. Glenn, Gilmore, and to a lesser degree RI (because he's not homegrown) are key pieces to retain for the Bills future -- and there is plenty of ways to fit those deals under the cap that don't involve gutting the roster. I get if you disagree with the plan -- again, that is a perfectly valid opinion to hold as there's plenty of evidence to support your position. But lamenting about the cap just speaks to your agenda more than it does your understanding of the cap. What do the numbers say? Converting Clay's roster bonus into a signing bonus reduces this year's cap from $13.5 million to $6 million. That saves $7.5 million this year. It also makes Clay's cap charge $9 million in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Additionally, if we decide to release him in 2017 we would lose $9 million in cap space. And if we cut him in 2018 we would lose $4.5 million in cap space. I understand the deal was made with a restructure of the $10 million bonus in mind. But we need to realize if we do it we are definitely keeping him around until 2018 at least - at $9 million per year after this year. Which, based on his value to the team and Roman's scheme, is more than worth it. This team hasn't had a TE like Clay since PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 A lot of money spent for not many wins.... HA... At least when they were cheap and not winning a lot, there was a reason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Again, this is not correct. I do understand, and as you continue to demonstrate I understand more than you do about how the cap actually works in the NFL. For a guy that banters about "fluidity" and "flexibility" you never mention the consequences or trade-offs. NOT ONCE! For someone that thinks they understand the cap doesn't actually realize and understand the real world ramifications on the football club - present and future. Edited February 15, 2016 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 For a guy that banters about "fluidity" and "flexibility" you never mention the consequences or trade-offs. NOT ONCE! For someone that thinks they understand the cap doesn't actually realize and understand the real world ramifications on the football club - present and future. This is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) This is not true. It is true. Edited February 15, 2016 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 It is. Unless you're not reading my posts, it's completely untrue. Again, this is not correct. I do understand, and as you continue to demonstrate I understand more than you do about how the cap actually works in the NFL. The truth is you disagree with how Whaley built the roster. That is 100% an acceptable / understandable position to take even if I disagree with it. But your screaming to the heavens that the cap is going to crush this team is just not a defensible position unless you do not understand the cap. That's not me taking a homer attitude, it's reality. Whaley's plan, as he's stated several times by now, was to reload the offense last year through UFA and then spend this year's cap dollars on securing their own homegrown talent. The cap situation allows Whaley to do this, it does not allow them to go out on another big spending spree -- but that was never the plan nor should it be. The idea is to keep their own so they don't have to keep spending big on UFAs to plug holes. Glenn, Gilmore, and to a lesser degree RI (because he's not homegrown) are key pieces to retain for the Bills future -- and there is plenty of ways to fit those deals under the cap that don't involve gutting the roster. I get if you disagree with the plan -- again, that is a perfectly valid opinion to hold as there's plenty of evidence to support your position. But lamenting about the cap just speaks to your agenda more than it does your understanding of the cap. Which, based on his value to the team and Roman's scheme, is more than worth it. This team hasn't had a TE like Clay since PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Unless you're not reading my posts, it's completely untrue. It is completely true. You are not discussing the caveats, trade-offs or consequences of being "fluid" or "flexible" with the cap. They are your favorite buzz words. That post is your opinion on the current cap situation that does not discuss any of the above. That post basically reads as Doug Whaley's talking points that was mentioned in an article a couple weeks back. Edited February 15, 2016 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 It is completely true. You are not discussing the caveats, trade-offs or consequences of being "fluid" or "flexible" with the cap. That post is your opinion on the current cap situation that does not discuss any of the above. That post basically reads as Doug Whaley's talking points that was mentioned in an article a couple weeks back. Read slower. The entire third paragraph discusses the trade offs of Whaley's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Read slower. The entire third paragraph discusses the trade offs of Whaley's plan. I don't see anything about the fluidity and flexibility of the cap you constantly talk about and the trade-offs or consequences that come with it. Can you bold that for me? I don't see it. It doesn't even have to be that post. Try to find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) I don't see anything about the fluidity and flexibility of the cap you constantly talk about and the trade-offs or consequences that come with it. Can you bold that for me? I don't see it. It doesn't even have to be that post. Try to find one. ... Uh, again, the entire third paragraph talks about it. Not to mention earlier posts today (and throughout the months) talking about cutting Mario and Leodis. I've never denied there aren't decisions to be made and (sometimes) difficult cuts to make. I'm not sure what you're hung up on now. You are speaking as if I'm saying the Bills plan is to somehow make the cap fluid and flexible. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the CAP is fluid and flexible -- around the league. It's fluid because it changes on a year to year basis (this year by over 12 million). It's flexible because every team (not just the Bills) can be creative in how they structure contracts in a league with no guaranteed contracts. These aren't debatable points. This is the reality of the NFL cap. That teams, including the Bills, have to make trade offs about how and where they spend their money to get under that cap number is not in dispute. No one, especially me, is arguing or has argued that you can have your cake and eat it too. Choices must be made. And as I detailed in the third paragraph, the Bills made the choice LAST year to execute this current plan. They can't spend big this year on UFA because they spent big last year (that's a trade off). They did so with an eye on Glenn, Gilmore and Bradhams expiring contracts in 16/17. Whaley's plan was to spend this year's money on retaining their drafted talent rather than go on a UFA shopping spree -- that's not a talking point, that's an example of a trade off. Again, if you actually took the time to understand what I'm saying you'd see that your issue isn't with the cap situation or cap management for the Bills, but with Whaley's plan itself. That's a perfectly valid objection to have mind you, but arguing the Bills are in cap hell frankly is not. It's just incorrect, as is the charge that I don't understand the consequences of the cap. Edited February 15, 2016 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 ... Uh, again, the entire third paragraph talks about it. Not to mention earlier posts today (and throughout the months) talking about cutting Mario and Leodis. I've never denied there aren't decisions to be made and (sometimes) difficult cuts to make. I'm not sure what you're hung up on now. You are speaking as if I'm saying the Bills plan is to somehow make the cap fluid and flexible. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the CAP is fluid and flexible -- around the league. It's fluid because it changes on a year to year basis (this year by over 12 million). It's flexible because every team (not just the Bills) can be creative in how they structure contracts in a league with no guaranteed contracts. These aren't debatable points. This is the reality of the NFL cap. That teams, including the Bills, have to make trade offs about how and where they spend their money to get under that cap number is not in dispute. No one, especially me, is arguing or has argued that you can have your cake and eat it too. Choices must be made. And as I detailed in the third paragraph, the Bills made the choice LAST year to execute this current plan. They can't spend big this year on UFA because they spent big last year (that's a trade off). They did so with an eye on Glenn, Gilmore and Bradhams expiring contracts in 16/17. Whaley's plan was to spend this year's money on retaining their drafted talent rather than go on a UFA shopping spree -- that's not a talking point, that's an example of a trade off. Again, if you actually took the time to understand what I'm saying you'd see that your issue isn't with the cap situation or cap management for the Bills, but with Whaley's plan itself. That's a perfectly valid objection to have mind you, but arguing the Bills are in cap hell frankly is not. It's just incorrect, as is the charge that I don't understand the consequences of the cap. Such a long winded post to distract of the fact that you can't find such post to disprove me. You like buzz words that make you think you know the cap but you don't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Such a long winded post to distract of the fact that you can't find such post to disprove me. You like buzz words that make you think you know the cap but you don't have a clue. Can't disprove what? I was trying to have a substantive conversation and went out of my way to address your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilarian Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Good thing the Bills have that franchise QB under contract for 15 mill per... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Pushing Clay's money forward is a disastrous idea especially with a pending contract for a QB next year. Since cap space can be carried forward this makes no sense. A restructure give the Bills more cap flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Since cap space can be carried forward this makes no sense. A restructure give the Bills more cap flexibility. No, it will just delay adding to your cap when you have more important signings next year and after with a pending franchise QB contract and your #1 pending CB contract. The best course of action is to just take the hit right now and get it done with. Also, for a player like Clay who has health and longevity concerns (Miami's doctors for one) with his knees, there is major risk in restructuring to a guaranteed signing bonus leaving open millions of potential dead money on the table in future years. There is no free lunch. Edited February 16, 2016 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts