The Salary Cap Fallacy

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

 

Kirby, saying that they chose not to sign Sammy is correct. But it is still very reasonable to think that paying what it would've cost to re-sign him would have put the team in an uncomfortable position, forcing them to not sign other people they would like to keep. Yeah, they chose not to sign him, but their discontent with signing him even if he stayed healthy and was dominant was very likely a big factor, probably one of the two primary factors in terms of why they didn't sign him.

 

And the idea that they haven't been "forced" to let someone go in a decade is misleading. Sure, there hasn't been a case where if they hadn't let someone go the league would have penalized them for going over the cap. But the reason that they haven't been forced to let someone go this very year is that they shed salaries like crazy.

 

It's like saying that since a guy hasn't had his house foreclosed on and sold he must be OK financially ... ignoring the fact that he sold his car, his TV, all the furniture and broke into his 501K to make the payments.

 

And yeah, they could have re-structured Dareus and Glenn ... same as a guy could take out a second mortgage to have extra money to pay the first. But it's not prudent either way. It's just putting today's expenses on tomorrow's salary cap, not something financially intelligent teams do.

 

There's no guarantee that the cap will rise forever. Good teams don't make that assumption.

Yeah, like Darby.....Oh wait

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

Kirby, saying that they chose not to sign Sammy is correct. But it is still very reasonable to think that paying what it would've cost to re-sign him would have put the team in an uncomfortable position, forcing them to not sign other people they would like to keep. Yeah, they chose not to sign him, but their discontent with signing him even if he stayed healthy and was dominant was very likely a big factor, probably one of the two primary factors in terms of why they didn't sign him.

 

And the idea that they haven't been "forced" to let someone go in a decade is misleading. Sure, there hasn't been a case where if they hadn't let someone go the league would have penalized them for going over the cap. But the reason that they haven't been forced to let someone go this very year is that they shed salaries like crazy.

 

It's like saying that since a guy hasn't had his house foreclosed on and sold he must be OK financially ... ignoring the fact that he sold his car, his TV, all the furniture and broke into his 501K to make the payments.

 

And yeah, they could have re-structured Dareus and Glenn ... same as a guy could take out a second mortgage to have extra money to pay the first. But it's not prudent either way. It's just putting today's expenses on tomorrow's salary cap, not something financially intelligent teams do.

 

There's no guarantee that the cap will rise forever. Good teams don't make that assumption.

You don't get penalized for going over he cap. You can't go over the cap. It's a hard cap in the NFL.

 

The cap has continued to rise and the Bills didn't have to let anyone go. They did a nice job with the cap IMO but they weren't hindered by it. Teams have figured it out. They just kick the cap down the road forever. They never let it catch up. Either that or you bite the bullet in a given year (like the Saints did) and start fresh right after. The cap isn't punitive anymore. It's too easy to manipulate.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

He didn't have a choice. They are the only ones with a choice. They could have tagged him.

...5th year decline should have been the first clue that tag was not in the cards......OBD is NOT convinced long term for that type of money............

[Kirby Jackson]

By restructuring Glenn and dareus ur giving them more money up front. for the guy who's ankle is always hurt, and the guy who keeps screwing up

...and they didn't do it to maintain future flexibility. It was an option though if there was a guy that they really wanted.

...5th year decline should have been the first clue that tag was not in the cards......OBD is NOT convinced long term for that type of money............

I agree. The point is that they chose to move on from him. It wasn't that they couldn't have kept him. That's where the spin on "signability" is.

[John from Riverside]

There has been a lot of talk since the trades about "signability." It is something that a lot of people have just accepted as a reality. "We wouldn't have been able to sign Watkins." I ask, "why not?" What was preventing the Bills from keeping him? The answer is they CHOSE not to re-sign Sammy. The FO evaluated the situation and said, "he isn't worth what he will receive on the open market. We do not value him enough to prevent him from hitting the open market."

 

In terms of the salary cap we blindly believe that it is hindering our ability to put together a roster. When was the last time the Bills were FORCED to let a player walk? It's been over a decade. The rising cap has allowed teams a lot of flexibility in manipulating the cap. There isn't a team in the NFL that's restricted by the cap. Some teams do a better job of manipulating it than others but any team can pretty much sign any guy. As an example, the Bills had restructures for Dareus and Glenn sitting there if they wanted. They could have opened a boatload of cap space for this year. They push the cap hits into a future year, when the cap rises and it isn't that big of a deal. Teams have figured out ways to work the cap and it is no longer the hinderance that it once was.

 

Just thought that it was important to have this discussion. I'd be curious to hear from Dibs (if he's around) or MAjBobby. They have been really good contributors on the cap.

Your talking about why they cant do it

 

but the only thing that really matters is that Beane says they cant do it...I am sure they know all this stuff and yet he is still pretty point blank about it.

[Kirby Jackson]

Your talking about why they cant do it

 

but the only thing that really matters is that Beane says they cant do it...I am sure they know all this stuff and yet he is still pretty point blank about it.

"Won't" do it not "can't" do it. It's an important distinction.

[BringBackOrton]

Your talking about why they cant do it

 

but the only thing that really matters is that Beane says they cant do it...I am sure they know all this stuff and yet he is still pretty point blank about it.

Beane said he never had a conversation with Sammy or anyone else about him re-signing.

 

Please open your eyes John.

[Thurman#1]

They will re-sign Matthews to make the trade a "success." I believe Kirby said this earlier, and I agreed 100%. Trading for Matthews, touting him as a good replacement player, then letting him walk would look awful.

 

 

I wouldn't take this for granted, though it's certainly very possible. But if they do, they will still have saved a ton of money compared to what a healthy Sammy will/would get.

 

But letting him go might look just fine depending on how they replaced him.

 

He didn't have a choice. They are the only ones with a choice. They could have tagged him.

 

 

Sure, for $16 - $17 mill in 2018 and around $20 mill the year after. Sammy had leverage and choice here too, even without the possibility of sitting out all or part of a season.

 

But Sammy showed every sign of wanting to be here. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that even guys who want to be somewhere will generally go elsewhere for a better contract elsewhere if the difference is more than tiny, especially in second contracts, where guys make their big nest egg.

[QCity]

Just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should buy it.

[Thurman#1]

You don't get penalized for going over he cap. You can't go over the cap. It's a hard cap in the NFL.

 

The cap has continued to rise and the Bills didn't have to let anyone go. They did a nice job with the cap IMO but they weren't hindered by it. Teams have figured it out. They just kick the cap down the road forever. They never let it catch up. Either that or you bite the bullet in a given year (like the Saints did) and start fresh right after. The cap isn't punitive anymore. It's too easy to manipulate.

 

 

Not true. You do get penalized for going over the cap. Nobody does it, but if you did it, you'd get penalized, probably in terms of the NFL not approving whatever contract or move you were trying which would get you over the cap.

 

In any case, going over the cap has happened, and fairly recently. The Steelers and Niners have been fined for the contracts which caused the problem and if I remember correctly lost a draft pick. So that's wrong.

 

And you're kidding yourself here, Kirby. They Bills absolutely did have to let people go. Same as the average person has to sell his car or give up lattes or his cable or satellite TV contract when money gets tight. No, the police don't come and hold a gun to their head. But they're still forced to do it.

 

And you don't manipulate the cap. It's a hard cap as you said. You don't manipulate your cap situation either. What people call manipulation is really just kicking the contracts down the road. Except the smart teams don't do it.

 

And if you think the fact that the cap has continued to rise means it will do so forever, you are using horribly flawed logic.

[GoBills808]

Saints have been up against the cap for a while now and have suffered accordingly.

 

Didn't we lose Gilmore recently as a cap casualty?

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

I wouldn't take this for granted, though it's certainly very possible. But if they do, they will still have saved a ton of money compared to what a healthy Sammy will/would get.

 

But letting him go might look just fine depending on how they replaced him.

 

 

 

Sure, for $16 - $17 mill in 2018 and around $20 mill the year after. Sammy had leverage and choice here too, even without the possibility of sitting out all or part of a season.

 

But Sammy showed every sign of wanting to be here. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that even guys who want to be somewhere will generally go elsewhere for a better contract elsewhere if the difference is more than tiny, especially in second contracts, where guys make their big nest egg.

$20M? What?

[Thurman#1]

"Won't" do it not "can't" do it. It's an important distinction.

 

 

Same difference. They "won't" do it because if they do it they "can't" do something else they want to do.

 

In this case it's an unimportant distinction. You can say, "I won't buy a soda." Or you can say, "I can't buy a soda because I only have two bucks and I want a candy bar instead." Both are correct, "won't" and "can't."

 

Just because nobody's holding a gun to your head doesn't mean you can't use "can't." You can. You can be forced into a decision by logic and by lack of resources. When you'd like to do two things but don't have the resources, you're forced to pick one. You have to do it.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Thurman#1

[John from Riverside]

Beane said he never had a conversation with Sammy or anyone else about him re-signing.

 

Please open your eyes John.

used the word "signabiltiy" at least THREE times in his last press conference

 

Open your ears

[NoSaint]

By restructuring Glenn and dareus ur giving them more money up front. for the guy who's ankle is always hurt, and the guy who keeps screwing up

To be fair we could have signed anyone we wanted without even discussing those

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...and they didn't do it to maintain future flexibility. It was an option though if there was a guy that they really wanted.

I agree. The point is that they chose to move on from him. It wasn't that they couldn't have kept him. That's where the spin on "signability" is.

....you know as well as I do in my 55 years of following this club that players come and go.....leaving many kicking and screaming either way, but obviously now more prevalent today with MB''s and the electronic age...and the whole NFL landscape has changed through the years....now we're talking MEGA bucks at risk and essentially a year round sport...an all time fav of mine is Billy Shaw....took time off from mixing cement to play for Buffalo at a whopping 18 grand a year...and then back to mixing cement......hell, today's beer man makes that in a month....in Billy's day, it was for the love of the game...today it is a $10+ billion dollar enterprise....sad part is with the cap escalating annually, the founding players are forgotten after thoughts as they struggle with paltry pensions, pain pill addictions and life threatening afflictions....cap goes up and they fall farther behind, because of modern day greed forgetting those who paved the way....

[John from Riverside]

To be fair we could have signed anyone we wanted without even discussing those

Your right....I actually thought they deserved a lot of credit there not kicking the can down the street

 

and when you think about it....Glenn has this foot issue now....SHOULD they extend him with that going on?

[GoBills808]

....you know as well as I do in my 55 years of following this club that players come and go.....leaving many kicking and screaming either way, but obviously now more prevalent today with MB''s and the electronic age...and the whole NFL landscape has changed through the years....now we're talking MEGA bucks at risk and essentially a year round sport...an all time fav of mine is Billy Shaw....took time off from mixing cement to play for Buffalo at a whopping 18 grand a year...and then back to mixing cement......hell, today's beer man makes that in a month....in Billy's day, it was for the love of the game...today it is a $10+ billion dollar enterprise....sad part is with the cap escalating annually, the founding players are forgotten after thoughts as they struggle with paltry pensions, pain pill addictions and life threatening afflictions....cap goes up and they fall farther behind, because of modern day greed forgetting those who paved the way....

True enough. But I'm of the opinion that the players should grab what they can, while they can. They don't owe the team that drafted them, nor the fans who cheer for them. They owe themselves and their families as much as they can take from the league. The long term consequences of playing football are serious enough to render the concept of loyalty meaningless in the NFL IMO.

[Thurman#1]

$20M? What?

 

 

The year after. If they wanted to pull a Skins-with-Cousins move and franchise him twice.