Managing our cap space, which players do we re-sign, who do we let walk?

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, TheProcess said:

They can make the cap work to re-sign any player they desire. 

 

Someone who gets it. We should have him stuffed. 

[Paup 1995MVP]

Enuf about dumping tons of money at Dion Dawkins......just yet.  He has not been dominant in the slightest to warrant a big 15+ mill/year deal at this point.  I would wait at least thru half the season to see him elevate his game.  If he is dominating, then open the vault within reason.  If not, try and trade him or let him walk at the end of the season and draft a potential starting LT with our 1st round pick.  His game has been below average to above average ever since he came to Buffalo.  Championship teams have better starting LT's then what Dawkins has shown so far.  Lets hope he elevates his game.  He needs a little bit of Feliciano in him.  Little bit more nastiness...

[GunnerBill]

24 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Enuf about dumping tons of money at Dion Dawkins......just yet.  He has not been dominant in the slightest to warrant a big 15+ mill/year deal at this point.  I would wait at least thru half the season to see him elevate his game.  If he is dominating, then open the vault within reason.  If not, try and trade him or let him walk at the end of the season and draft a potential starting LT with our 1st round pick.  His game has been below average to above average ever since he came to Buffalo.  Championship teams have better starting LT's then what Dawkins has shown so far.  Lets hope he elevates his game.  He needs a little bit of Feliciano in him.  Little bit more nastiness...

 

Yea because left tackles grow on trees. Just dump Dawkins and draft one.... it is that easy (especially when you are picking in the 20s). I think you pay Dawkins. I was against it at the bye last season but his play after the bye was "elevated". It was the most consistent run of his career. His play in that spell was very good. If he can put 16 games together like that you definitely need to pay him. I get the point that he probably isn't ever going to be a truly elite left tackle but the great thing with Dawkins is even after you pay him if somehow a left tackle does fall to you in the draft one year you can kick Dawkins inside to left guard. Paying Dawkins doesn't mean you stop looking for someone better.

 

As for Championship teams having "better" left tackles..... what like Eric Fisher? Or Vaitai? Or Trent Brown? Or Nate Solder? Or Russell Okung? I think Dawkins is absolutely in that class. He isn't Jason Peters, he isn't Andrew Whitworth or Tyron Smith, or Ronnie Stanley but the most recent Superbowl winners haven't actually had elite left tackles. They have had guys who were good not great. I will give you though that of that list of Superbowl winning left tackles only Fisher with KC and Solder with NE got second contracts off the teams that drafted them and New England didn't pay Solder when he came up for a 3rd contract. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Ethan in Cleveland]

There will be a ton of cap space when Murphy, DiMarco, and Star move on. They will restructure Morse in a couple years if he does not play better.  

I don't understand why the Bills don't use the franchise tag more often.  

My strategy would be to extend White now.  I would make him highest paid DB in the league. In two years his contract will look like a bargain.

I would then tag Dawkins next year.  I think he is an average LT and I would be willing to overpay but not over commit to him beyond 2021.  That gives them two off seasons to draft his heir apparent ideally with a first or second round pick next year.

I'd let Milano walk and hope I can turn his signing into a comp pick - maybe a 4th rounder

Feliciano and Long both will be gone after 2020.  Either Ford, a free agent or more likely a draft pick will fill the RG spot.  

I would have extended Hyde and let Poyer play out his contract but the Bills and Poyer made a good/fair deal so win/win for player and team

So can I afford to extend White Poyer and Hyde???  That will be tough.  Safeties can be had in the draft and they can play well early.  Or they could go free agent or convert a corner like Taron Johnson to safety.  In the end, I try my hardest to keep this group together and hope Hyde gives them a bit of a discount.  The Seahawks let the legion of boom fall apart (injuries played a big role too)and they still have not recovered.  

As for the big tow, I'm in no hurry to extend Allen or Edmunds.  Both have shown promise but neither is a true superstar worthy of their draft status yet.  But if they continue to improve then of course you keep the QB first.  If Edmunds starts to play at a Bobby Wagner level then you start shredding other parts of the defense like Hyde, Milano, and Hughes to keep Edmunds.  Then backfill OLB and DL in the next two drafts.  

 

So in recap, to make this work, they need starters at LT, RG, OLB, DE, and possibly a safety in the next two drafts.  That retains Allen, Edmunds, White, Dawkins for 2021 and probably Hyde while presuming Ford is a starter at RT or RG and letting Milano, Star, Murphy, and DiMarco walk.  It will be a very difficult task but getting 4 or 5 starters out of two consecutive drafts is not impossible. Of course a few of those roles may be filled with veteran free agents for a year or two.  

[Kirby Jackson]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Oh good. A thread worrying about cap space. It really is a Bills fan obsession. Next week - comp picks!

You need to cut everyone some slack. We are new at having a good roster ?. We really don’t know what to do. 

 

I am going to say it loud for the people in the back. The Bills can afford (and pretty easily) to retain all of their top players. We need to understand the difference between and average annual salary and a cap hit. They are not the same and in many cases those numbers aren’t even close. They can keep Allen, Edmunds, Diggs, White, Hyde. Dawkins, Milano, etc... That does not mean that they will decide to keep all of those guys but they can.

 

What you are going to see over the next few years is some of the older veterans turn over and get replaced by younger guys. You’ll see guys like Hughes, Addison, Star, Norman, DiMarco, Long, Feliciano, Nsekhe, Brown, Beasley, etc.. as the guys that don’t sign their next deal. They will be replaced by younger players and/or vets that were like them when they came to the Bills. 
 

Now there is some valid concern about the salary cap plateauing because of Covid. That’s a reasonable fear but it doesn’t appear likely IMO. The league is still planning on a full schedule with fans (that feels like wishful thinking but that’s the plan). Even if it is a modified version of that they won’t get hit too badly with the extra playoff games this year. Next year they add that 17th game and the players are going to be getting a bigger percentage of the revenue. The league will find other sources of revenue whether it be streaming or international money to offset any potential losses. They probably won’t get it all back at once but will put a dent in it if it gets to that point. 
 

Lastly, they will do what teams have done, and kick the can down the road if necessary. They aren’t going to drop the cap $75M for 2021 despite Schefter’s speculation. It’s just not logistically possible with the guy’s teams have under contract. In the absolute worst-case scenario they will spread those potential losses over a few years (maybe 5) and then find new/more revenues to offset them. The cap is $209M this year. I’ll go on record as being surprised if we see it below $200M at any point.

 

As an aside, I just stumbled across this 2021 salary cap health breakdown that Jason Fitzgerald at Over the Cap did. Figured it fits well in this discussion: https://overthecap.com/2021-nfl-team-by-team-salary-cap-health/ After a quick glance at 2021 I think that it’s likely that the following guys won’t be on the roster after this year: Hughes or Addison (only 1), Butler, Lee Smith, Hauschka, and Long. Then I think that Matakevich and/or Klein are maybes. The rough projected cap space was $52.7M before these moves. With just the “likely” guys going that number moves to about $77M. If you bring in the 2 maybes the number goes to $82.5Mish. Again these are estimates but as you can see the Bills are in a good spot.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, TheProcess said:

They can make the cap work to re-sign any player they desire. 

 

 

Yes, they can. Of course they can.

 

But they won't. Because doing so would mean they would lose flexibility, be unable to fill the holes that appear regularly. Sure, they could sign 14 or 15 guys at $10+ mill average salary contracts. And then fill in around them with guys on contracts around $1 mill or less. Sure, it's possible. But it won't happen. If it was as easy as "We'll just keep everyone we desire to keep," then there'd never be a hard choice, would there? And yet every team faces them, and the better their roster the more often they face them.

 

Yeah, they can. The 49ers certainly could have kept Buckner. But they didn't. It wasn't smart, largely for cap reasons.

 

What they'll do is very carefully try to figure out who they can keep while still retaining enough flexibility to make the many other things they need to do work.

 

Generally, teams can afford to keep roughly 9 - 11 core guys. How many depends on how much those guys end up costing. Probably closer to 9 if your QB costs $40 mill. A bunch of them will be at positions that are more important, if you get a guy there who fits what the coaches want. For us, those guys at crucial positions would appear to be Allen, Edmunds, Dawkins, White, Oliver if you're looking that far down the road, Diggs, Morse That's seven, if you count Oliver this early, which you might not. After that it becomes less clear. Do you count Addison at $10.15M a year as a core guy for the next three years? Maybe. If so, that'd be eight core guys. Who'll be the pass rusher they prioritize? Hughes would seem to be too old for them to extend him if he's expensive next time.

 

Often there are a few guys at positions that aren't generally highly valued that are either terrific players or perfectly fit what the team wants. The Colts will probably make Quenton Nelson a core guy, though guards aren't usually seen that way. Our guys here might be Milano, Ford, maybe Jefferson if he's as good as we hope. Knox, if he's as good as we hope?

 

Other than those 9 - 11 guys, people will come in and leave. They'll be drafted and stay on rookie contracts. They'll sign cheap to medium-priced FA contracts (depending on what's available with the cap). They'll re-sign cheaply. They'll sign short contracts for just a year or two to quickly open up space down the road when they leave.

 

They'll fit in ... with intelligent cap management and the tough decisions that that entails.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Thurman#1

[SoCal Deek]

It seems to me the Bills roster is nicely constructed with a nice mix of players either coming up or phasing out over the next few years. There doesn’t appear to be a big balloon payment year coming on the near horizon. Sure, they’ll have some decisions to make but so will the players! The hope is that by the time some of the younger starters mature that the Bills will be a perennial winner and they’ll want to stay for really good money more than they’ll want to leave for better money. 

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

It seems to me the Bills roster is nicely constructed with a nice mix of players either coming up or phasing out over the next few years. There doesn’t appear to be a big balloon payment year coming on the near horizon. Sure, they’ll have some decisions to make but so will the players! The hope is that by the time some of the younger starters mature that the Bills will be a perennial winner and they’ll want to stay for really good money more than they’ll want to leave for better money. 

 

Not sure this will happen. Other than the team that shall not be named I struggle to think of many recent examples of players taking hometown discounts. Players went to New England because you were pretty much guaranteed a chance at a ring. They made the AFCCG 8 years in a row! How many Packers, Ravens, Saints, Steelers, Seahawks (probably the 5 most consistent "good teams" over the past decade after the Pats) took hometown discounts to stay even on teams that were perennial playoff squads? I'm struggling to think of any. If it is the sake of structure of deals and the odd $1m here or there it might help. But players want to maximise their money first and foremost and in a sport where one play can end a career I don't see that changing.

[Paup 1995MVP]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea because left tackles grow on trees. Just dump Dawkins and draft one.... it is that easy (especially when you are picking in the 20s). I think you pay Dawkins. I was against it at the bye last season but his play after the bye was "elevated". It was the most consistent run of his career. His play in that spell was very good. If he can put 16 games together like that you definitely need to pay him. I get the point that he probably isn't ever going to be a truly elite left tackle but the great thing with Dawkins is even after you pay him if somehow a left tackle does fall to you in the draft one year you can kick Dawkins inside to left guard. Paying Dawkins doesn't mean you stop looking for someone better.

 

As for Championship teams having "better" left tackles..... what like Eric Fisher? Or Vaitai? Or Trent Brown? Or Nate Solder? Or Russell Okung? I think Dawkins is absolutely in that class. He isn't Jason Peters, he isn't Andrew Whitworth or Tyron Smith, or Ronnie Stanley but the most recent Superbowl winners haven't actually had elite left tackles. They have had guys who were good not great. I will give you though that of that list of Superbowl winning left tackles only Fisher with KC and Solder with NE got second contracts off the teams that drafted them and New England didn't pay Solder when he came up for a 3rd contract. 

Always enjoy your feedback and analysis Gunner.  Andrew Whitworth has had a very good career.  And he never looks that athletic and powerful.  But he gets the job done, is a good leader and is technically very solid.  A true professional.  I think he will be 38 this season.  Jason Peters has had a HOF career.  Unfortunately mostly not with the Buffalo Bills.  But those things happen.  Tyron Smith is a physical freak for the Cowboys.  But he has been injured at times,  and still gets beat occasionally.  I always liked Matt Light for the Pats during the first decade of Patriot dominance.  Was very solid year in and year out.  Not HOF level, but very very good.  I compare Kyle Williams to that level of play over his career.  Right there with Light.  And a bit above Whitworth relative to their positions.  I want to see Dawkins approach that level.  He is not going to be a HOF type player.  Just does not have that ability.  But if we are going to keep him on a large second contract, he has to take the next step to being very good week in and week out.  I hope he becomes that this season.    

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Always enjoy your feedback and analysis Gunner.  Andrew Whitworth has had a very good career.  And he never looks that athletic and powerful.  But he gets the job done, is a good leader and is technically very solid.  A true professional.  I think he will be 38 this season.  Jason Peters has had a HOF career.  Unfortunately mostly not with the Buffalo Bills.  But those things happen.  Tyron Smith is a physical freak for the Cowboys.  But he has been injured at times,  and still gets beat occasionally.  I always liked Matt Light for the Pats during the first decade of Patriot dominance.  Was very solid year in and year out.  Not HOF level, but very very good.  I compare Kyle Williams to that level of play over his career.  Right there with Light.  And a bit above Whitworth relative to their positions.  I want to see Dawkins approach that level.  He is not going to be a HOF type player.  Just does not have that ability.  But if we are going to keep him on a large second contract, he has to take the next step to being very good week in and week out.  I hope he becomes that this season.    

 

I think you are low on Whitworth. Whitworth is a future HOFer to me. He has been a top 3 left tackle since the Bengals moved him there after his third year. That is a decade of elite play at a premium position and has done it on two teams with two different schemes.

 

I do agree on Dawkins never being a HOF type player and not having that level of ability. Whitworth is a three time all pro (2x 1st team and 1x 2nd team) and a 4 time pro bowler. Dawkins isn't at that level and is never going to be at that level (at least not at LT, I still think he has all pro potential at LG). But that doesn't mean you walk away from him for the sake of a couple of million IMO. Especially because that ability to slide him inside down the road means that if you suddenly find an elite LT prospect falls to you in the draft you can take him and improve your line (potentially at two spots). I'd try to do a deal with Dawkins that has all the guarantees up front in the first couple of years and then gives you team flex from year 3. So even if there are big salary $s attached to those later years they are dollars you might never have to pay should the elite LT falling to you situation arise.

[Blank Stare]

18 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, they can. Of course they can.

 

But they won't. Because doing so would mean they would lose flexibility, be unable to fill the holes that appear regularly. Sure, they could sign 14 or 15 guys at $10+ mill average salary contracts. And then fill in around them with guys on contracts around $1 mill or less. Sure, it's possible. But it won't happen. If it was as easy as "We'll just keep everyone we desire to keep," then there'd never be a hard choice, would there? And yet every team faces them, and the better their roster the more often they face them.

 

Yeah, they can. The 49ers certainly could have kept Buckner. But they didn't. It wasn't smart, largely for cap reasons.

 

What they'll do is very carefully try to figure out who they can keep while still retaining enough flexibility to make the many other things they need to do work.

 

Generally, teams can afford to keep roughly 9 - 11 core guys. How many depends on how much those guys end up costing. Probably closer to 9 if your QB costs $40 mill. A bunch of them will be at positions that are more important, if you get a guy there who fits what the coaches want. For us, those guys at crucial positions would appear to be Allen, Edmunds, Dawkins, White, Oliver if you're looking that far down the road, Diggs, Morse That's seven, if you count Oliver this early, which you might not. After that it becomes less clear. Do you count Addison at $10.15M a year as a core guy for the next three years? Maybe. If so, that'd be eight core guys. Who'll be the pass rusher they prioritize? Hughes would seem to be too old for them to extend him if he's expensive next time.

 

Often there are a few guys at positions that aren't generally highly valued that are either terrific players or perfectly fit what the team wants. The Colts will probably make Quenton Nelson a core guy, though guards aren't usually seen that way. Our guys here might be Milano, Ford, maybe Jefferson if he's as good as we hope. Knox, if he's as good as we hope?

 

Other than those 9 - 11 guys, people will come in and leave. They'll be drafted and stay on rookie contracts. They'll sign cheap to medium-priced FA contracts (depending on what's available with the cap). They'll re-sign cheaply. They'll sign short contracts for just a year or two to quickly open up space down the road when they leave.

 

They'll fit in ... with intelligent cap management and the tough decisions that that entails.

 

 

I don’t think we are in fundamental disagreement, but I think you may be misinterpreting my comment. Of course they won’t keep everyone, but they can figure out a way to keep anyone they really want to keep. Will that come with sacrifices to other areas to make it work with the cap? Sometimes. But they, like any other team, can keep anyone they really want to keep. I said nothing of the potential consequences for who they choose to keep. 
 

I’m constantly reminded of the Saints with this topic. Years ago, we heard a lot of “They are up against the cap, there’s no way they can sign Jairus Byrd or X player without the cap catching up to them.”  All these years later the Saints have remained competitive and kept most of their core players together. Besides GM and coaching staff continuity, the most successful teams are able to identify their franchise QB, keep core players, infuse the roster with cheap young talent, and effectively manage the cap. The Saints have all of those things in spades and have never really had to “pay the piper”. 

Look, I get it. As Bills fans we aren’t accustomed to a competent GM and coaching staff, but we finally have that folks. It can be done. Enjoy the ride!

 

Edit: I just looked up the Saints record the last 10 years or so, and yes, they had a few 7-9 seasons sprinkled in there. No one is more familiar with 7-9 than we are, so maybe not the best example I could’ve used. But, even in those 7-9 years I never remember them being flat out terrible. Plus, with the Falcons and Carolina, they were in some pretty tough divisional matchups. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by TheProcess

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, TheProcess said:

I don’t think we are in fundamental disagreement, but I think you may be misinterpreting my comment. Of course they won’t keep everyone, but they can figure out a way to keep anyone they really want to keep. Will that come with sacrifices to other areas to make it work with the cap? Sometimes. But they, like any other team, can keep anyone they really want to keep. I said nothing of the potential consequences for who they choose to keep.

 

From what I can see, you're in fundamental disagreement with yourself. You say they can keep anyone they really want to keep. But then you say they'll have to make sacrifices to make it work with the cap. Those two statements are in opposition. I agree with the second. Yeah, they'll have to make sacrifices. Sacrifices mean you don't keep everyone you really want to keep.

 

Pretty sure the 9ers would've loved to keep Buckner and the Texans Hopkins. But they had to make sacrifices.

 

6 hours ago, TheProcess said:

 

I’m constantly reminded of the Saints with this topic. Years ago, we heard a lot of “They are up against the cap, there’s no way they can sign Jairus Byrd or X player without the cap catching up to them.”  All these years later the Saints have remained competitive and kept most of their core players together. Besides GM and coaching staff continuity, the most successful teams are able to identify their franchise QB, keep core players, infuse the roster with cheap young talent, and effectively manage the cap. The Saints have all of those things in spades and have never really had to “pay the piper”. 

Look, I get it. As Bills fans we aren’t accustomed to a competent GM and coaching staff, but we finally have that folks. It can be done. Enjoy the ride!

 

Edit: I just looked up the Saints record the last 10 years or so, and yes, they had a few 7-9 seasons sprinkled in there. No one is more familiar with 7-9 than we are, so maybe not the best example I could’ve used. But, even in those 7-9 years I never remember them being flat out terrible. Plus, with the Falcons and Carolina, they were in some pretty tough divisional matchups. 

 

I disagree totally about the Saints there. EDIT: I see you noticed it wasn't a great example, but still worth looking at what happened when they got in cap problems ...

 

Yeah, people said they can't sign Byrd without the cap catching up to them. And they were right. New Orleans was coming off five very competitive years and then suddenly ...

 

Pre-Byrd and salary cap prob.

 

2009: 13-3 and title

2010: 11-5 and lost wild card game

2011:  13-3 and won wild card and lost division championship to Harbaugh's 9ers

2012:  7-9 no playoffs

2013: 11-5 and won wild card and lost division game to champion Seahawks

 

then they picked up Byrd and got in a cap jam and suddenly ...

 

2014: 7-9

2015: 7-9

2016 7-9

 

... with Drew Brees at QB, healthy all three of those years.

 

 

I am enjoying the ride. Part of the ride that I am enjoying is that Beane knows that he has to keep the cap under control. He's smart. He's doing a great job. He is concerned with draft picks including comp picks. He gets it. Why wouldn't I enjoy the ride with a GM who knows how to play the system.

 

 

"So, the plan is to always be in cap strength and in draft picks strength, like this presents itself. I mean there are certain teams that I would like to have traded for, Stefon Diggs or some of these other players have been traded for but didn’t have the cap space. Or didn’t have the capital to do it so will we have that every year Josh? I don’t know, but this is all been a plan to have our caps strong and have the draft picks to be able to send them to acquire a veteran player or to move up and down the draft how we want."  - Brandon Beane

 

https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2020/4/3/21206671/transcript-buffalo-bills-general-manager-brandon-beane-2020-free-agency-stefon-diggs-coronavirus

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, TheProcess said:

I don’t think we are in fundamental disagreement, but I think you may be misinterpreting my comment. Of course they won’t keep everyone, but they can figure out a way to keep anyone they really want to keep. Will that come with sacrifices to other areas to make it work with the cap? Sometimes. But they, like any other team, can keep anyone they really want to keep. I said nothing of the potential consequences for who they choose to keep. 
 

I’m constantly reminded of the Saints with this topic. Years ago, we heard a lot of “They are up against the cap, there’s no way they can sign Jairus Byrd or X player without the cap catching up to them.”  All these years later the Saints have remained competitive and kept most of their core players together. Besides GM and coaching staff continuity, the most successful teams are able to identify their franchise QB, keep core players, infuse the roster with cheap young talent, and effectively manage the cap. The Saints have all of those things in spades and have never really had to “pay the piper”. 

Look, I get it. As Bills fans we aren’t accustomed to a competent GM and coaching staff, but we finally have that folks. It can be done. Enjoy the ride!

 

Edit: I just looked up the Saints record the last 10 years or so, and yes, they had a few 7-9 seasons sprinkled in there. No one is more familiar with 7-9 than we are, so maybe not the best example I could’ve used. But, even in those 7-9 years I never remember them being flat out terrible. Plus, with the Falcons and Carolina, they were in some pretty tough divisional matchups. 

 

Yea the Saints are one of the teams I think of when I think of teams who did legitimately put themselves in cap strife. That 2014-15 period they were cutting good starters to meet the cap. That is where Atlanta is now. That is cap strife. They are the only two immediate "cap hell" situations I can think of from the last 10 years (not saying there aren't others they are just the two that come to mind)

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

I am enjoying the ride. Part of the ride that I am enjoying is that Beane knows that he has to keep the cap under control. He's smart. He's doing a great job. He is concerned with draft picks including comp picks. He gets it. Why wouldn't I enjoy the ride with a GM who knows how to play the system.

 

How is he concerned with comp picks? What he has said is "they will come when we have a better roster we are not there yet." Beane has it right. The end is elite players. The rest is the means. He does value draft picks though, as all GMs should except those really loading for one last tilt in a quickly closing window. His mechanism of over subscribing his team in FA to cash some of those chips in at cutdown time is a much more effective route for a team trying to get good than comp picks.

[Thurman#1]

32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea the Saints are one of the teams I think of when I think of teams who did legitimately put themselves in cap strife. That 2014-15 period they were cutting good starters to meet the cap. That is where Atlanta is now. That is cap strife. They are the only two immediate "cap hell" situations I can think of from the last 10 years (not saying there aren't others they are just the two that come to mind)

 

 

 

Q: Virtually all the free agent contracts were constructed with the future cap in mind. Was that the idea?

BB: "Yeah, I mean, I want to try and be fiscally responsible. Terry and Kim give us, they let us use what we need to use, but we just got out of cap jail, or whatever you want to call it.”

 

https://expo.newyorkupstate.com/sports/g66l-2019/07/518d9fee2e9c4/9-things-buffalo-bills-gm-said-on-state-of-rebuild-entering-year-3.html

 

BN: At more than $50 million, you have twice as much dead-cap money compared to any other team in the NFL. From your standpoint, what does that mean? How is that managed?

BB: That was all in this plan, back when I interviewed for the job. Again, you've got an idea of how it's going to work, but you never know when you're going to make certain moves and certain players you don't know (about) yet. Maybe it's a guy that we ended up moving that I hoped we didn't need to move, but we did. Once we started making these moves and things started falling in place, (you say), "I wanted to go ahead and take this hit this year, in 2018, to clean the slate." And I found that we're almost there, which is really going to open it up for 2019 and beyond.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/09/07/buffalo-bills-gm-brandon-beane-sean-mcdermott/

 

 

If your idea of cap hell or cap strife, or whatever, is so bad that only two teams of the last ten years come to mind, then fair enough, the Bills weren't there.

But they absolutely were in bad cap shape. They were aware of it. Beane knew even before his interview that it needed cleaning up and that it was going to be a priority. Fine, they weren't in "cap strife." But hey were in poor shape under the cap, particularly for a team with so few results in terms of wins and losses. Beane called it "cap jail or whatever you want to call it."

Edited May 28, 2020 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Q: Virtually all the free agent contracts were constructed with the future cap in mind. Was that the idea?

BB: "Yeah, I mean, I want to try and be fiscally responsible. Terry and Kim give us, they let us use what we need to use, but we just got out of cap jail, or whatever you want to call it.”

 

https://expo.newyorkupstate.com/sports/g66l-2019/07/518d9fee2e9c4/9-things-buffalo-bills-gm-said-on-state-of-rebuild-entering-year-3.html

 

BN: At more than $50 million, you have twice as much dead-cap money compared to any other team in the NFL. From your standpoint, what does that mean? How is that managed?

BB: That was all in this plan, back when I interviewed for the job. Again, you've got an idea of how it's going to work, but you never know when you're going to make certain moves and certain players you don't know (about) yet. Maybe it's a guy that we ended up moving that I hoped we didn't need to move, but we did. Once we started making these moves and things started falling in place, (you say), "I wanted to go ahead and take this hit this year, in 2018, to clean the slate." And I found that we're almost there, which is really going to open it up for 2019 and beyond.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/09/07/buffalo-bills-gm-brandon-beane-sean-mcdermott/

 

If your idea of cap hell or cap strife, or whatever, is so bad that only two teams of the last ten years come to mind, then fair enough, the Bills weren't there.

But they absolutely were in bad cap shape. They were aware of it. Beane knew even before his interview that it needed cleaning up and that it was going to be a priority. Fine, they weren't in "cap strife." But hey were in poor shape under the cap, particularly for a team with so few results in terms of wins and losses. Beane called it "cap jail or whatever you want to call it."

 

And you know my take on that. The was a helpful narrative for Beane and McDermott. I agreed with their strategy as I have said many times. After the holiday club attitude under Rex they needed to drain the swamp and have a hard reset - but they did not inherit a roster in such bad cap shape that they couldn't build from it. It plays a bit on people's general ignorance about the way teams work the cap. "look we don't have much space so we are in cap hell". Just not the truth. It is like New England this year. They are not in cap hell. They don't have much space this year, and they are carrying more dead money than you would ideally want but there are literally a half a dozen or so options open to New England that don't do damage to the team if they want to create space for this year. They could choose not to and to do what Beane chose to do in 2018. And again, there is nothing wrong with that strategic choice.... but it isn't a requirement. There are plenty of options.

[Kirby Jackson]

58 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Q: Virtually all the free agent contracts were constructed with the future cap in mind. Was that the idea?

BB: "Yeah, I mean, I want to try and be fiscally responsible. Terry and Kim give us, they let us use what we need to use, but we just got out of cap jail, or whatever you want to call it.”

 

https://expo.newyorkupstate.com/sports/g66l-2019/07/518d9fee2e9c4/9-things-buffalo-bills-gm-said-on-state-of-rebuild-entering-year-3.html

 

BN: At more than $50 million, you have twice as much dead-cap money compared to any other team in the NFL. From your standpoint, what does that mean? How is that managed?

BB: That was all in this plan, back when I interviewed for the job. Again, you've got an idea of how it's going to work, but you never know when you're going to make certain moves and certain players you don't know (about) yet. Maybe it's a guy that we ended up moving that I hoped we didn't need to move, but we did. Once we started making these moves and things started falling in place, (you say), "I wanted to go ahead and take this hit this year, in 2018, to clean the slate." And I found that we're almost there, which is really going to open it up for 2019 and beyond.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/09/07/buffalo-bills-gm-brandon-beane-sean-mcdermott/

 

 

If your idea of cap hell or cap strife, or whatever, is so bad that only two teams of the last ten years come to mind, then fair enough, the Bills weren't there.

But they absolutely were in bad cap shape. They were aware of it. Beane knew even before his interview that it needed cleaning up and that it was going to be a priority. Fine, they weren't in "cap strife." But hey were in poor shape under the cap, particularly for a team with so few results in terms of wins and losses. Beane called it "cap jail or whatever you want to call it."

This was more of a narrative than reality. The Bills didn’t have a cap issue. They had a roster that they wanted to turn over. In order to get different players in they were going to have to create dead money. They could have built around the current roster at the time. The decision that they made was that they wanted to hit the reset. It’s not because the cap forced them to do it (like the Falcons). That was what they wanted to do to build the roster. Beane just used the “cap jail“ argument to sway people to be patient. He didn’t want to alienate people when their favorite player was somewhere else. He told them “I don’t want to do this, I have to.” The reality is he didn’t have to. He knows that most people don’t really understand that. Just because he said that it didn’t make it true. He used it as a way to sell the public on his plan. It certainly looks like the right decision.

[Thurman#1]

36 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

And you know my take on that. The was a helpful narrative for Beane and McDermott. I agreed with their strategy as I have said many times. After the holiday club attitude under Rex they needed to drain the swamp and have a hard reset - but they did not inherit a roster in such bad cap shape that they couldn't build from it. It plays a bit on people's general ignorance about the way teams work the cap. "look we don't have much space so we are in cap hell". Just not the truth. It is like New England this year. They are not in cap hell. They don't have much space this year, and they are carrying more dead money than you would ideally want but there are literally a half a dozen or so options open to New England that don't do damage to the team if they want to create space for this year. They could choose not to and to do what Beane chose to do in 2018. And again, there is nothing wrong with that strategic choice.... but it isn't a requirement. There are plenty of options.

 

 

 

Dude, you are spinning like a dreidel. Three or four times now I've said that it may not have been cap hell but it was bad. And you keep coming back with, "they weren't in cap hell." Yeah, I've agreed with that again and again and again. If your idea of cap hell is as awful as you're making it clear that it is ... then I agree it wasn't cap hell. Just very bad cap shape. And now Beane says the exact same thing. He doesn't use the term "cap hell." Instead, "cap jail or whatever you want to call it."

 

When your take requires you to say that Beane is lying ("Just not the truth," you said), what you've got is an awful take. Where's the advantage to them in saying this? When your take forces you to say that and the only reason you can come up with for them needing to help themselves by saying this is that it "is a helpful narrative," that's good evidence that you're simply headed in the wrong direction.

 

Your opinion is that they could have built from this. OK, I totally disagree, but that's beside the point. The point is that from instant one, Beane was not considering that. He's said again and again that even in his job interview he made it clear to the Pegulas and McDermott that the cap was in awful shape and that they needed to get it in shape. And that McDermott and the Pegulas were on the same page. So what you think about whether they could have built or not is for another argument.  That's what Beane thought In his fricking job interview.

 

"Just not the truth." This is what people do when they are on the wrong side in arguments and can't change their mind. They become willing to  take a direct quote from the person concerned and explain (generally poorly) why the arguer knows way better than the guy (Beane, in this case) himself.

 

:You're a terrific poster, but you're way off in the weeds here.

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This was more of a narrative than reality. The Bills didn’t have a cap issue. They had a roster that they wanted to turn over. In order to get different players in they were going to have to create dead money. They could have built around the current roster at the time. The decision that they made was that they wanted to hit the reset. It’s not because the cap forced them to do it (like the Falcons). That was what they wanted to do to build the roster. Beane just used the “cap jail“ argument to sway people to be patient. He didn’t want to alienate people when their favorite player was somewhere else. He told them “I don’t want to do this, I have to.” The reality is he didn’t have to. He knows that most people don’t really understand that. Just because he said that it didn’t make it true. He used it as a way to sell the public on his plan. It certainly looks like the right decision.

 

 

Kirby, you also are a terrific poster.

 

But Beane didn't need to lie to sell people on this. People were dying to buy into any plan.

 

And they certainly did have a cap issue. On the last day of the 2016 league year, in March 2017, they had the 26th worst cap situation, with around $18 million in cap space. That's really bad. Again, it wasn't cap hell. But yes, it was a serious cap issue. They had to start wiggling and cutting right off the bat, and they did. Beane went on record not long after, about specifically about how much he wanted to have kept Robert Woods but not being able to because of a money issue. The Rams didn't pay Woods all that much. They didn't want to "turn over' Woods. They had money problems. They wanted to clean up those problems and have cap space by 2019 and the way to do that (and at the same time accumulate draft capital for bringing in a QB) was to cut money and trade away guys who'd bring back some picks.

 

I'm not going to argue here whether or not they needed to rebuild. Not here. It's hijacking the thread, it's a separate issue, and it's been discussed elsewhere. But from extremely early on in the process they had decided to rebuild. And rebuilding is harder when you're in a bad cap situation.

 

There were plenty of other ways to urge people to be patient, particularly by the time he talked of "cap jail" in September of 2018. It was very obvious by then that we had a long way to go and were going to have to be patient like it or not. And those who weren't patient weren't going to be swayed by talking about the fact that a year and a half ago we'd been in cap jail.

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Dude, you are spinning like a dreidel. Three or four times now I've said that it may not have been cap hell but it was bad. And you keep coming back with, "they weren't in cap hell." Yeah, I've agreed with that again and again and again. If your idea of cap hell is as awful as you're making it clear that it is ... then I agree it wasn't cap hell. Just very bad cap shape. And now Beane says the exact same thing. He doesn't use the term "cap hell." Instead, "cap jail or whatever you want to call it."

 

When your take requires you to say that Beane is lying ("Just not the truth," you said), what you've got is an awful take. Where's the advantage to them in saying this? When your take forces you to say that and the only reason you can come up with for them needing to help themselves by saying this is that it "is a helpful narrative," that's good evidence that you're simply headed in the wrong direction.

 

Your opinion is that they could have built from this. OK, I totally disagree, but that's beside the point. The point is that from instant one, Beane was not considering that. He's said again and again that even in his job interview he made it clear to the Pegulas and McDermott that the cap was in awful shape and that they needed to get it in shape. And that McDermott and the Pegulas were on the same page. So what you think about whether they could have built or not is for another argument.  That's what Beane thought In his fricking job interview.

 

"Just not the truth." This is what people do when they are on the wrong side in arguments and can't change their mind. They become willing to  take a direct quote from the person concerned and explain (generally poorly) why the arguer knows way better than the guy (Beane, in this case) himself.

 

:You're a terrific poster, but you're way off in the weeds here.

 

You are the one that is way off. I know Beane never considered the build it from here philosophy. I know he only ever wanted to do the full rebuild and that was the vision he sold the Pegulas and he sold the fan base. But that was him presenting his view of the world. I am not really suggesting he was lying. I think he absolutely believed and was committed to that. But it was his world view, his narrative, it wasn't a fact. It was his perspective and yes, his is the one that matters, but another GM coming in to the exact same situation may well have seen it totally differently. What it came down to is Beane and McDermott arrived and said "we don't want a lot of these guys and some of them are expensive therefore we can't bring in enough of our guys until we have got rid of these guys." If you come in from that specific world view then of course the cap looks in bad shape - you are paying money to guys you don't want. If another GM had come in and said "man I like Sammy Watkins and I like Cordy Glenn" etc then he wouldn't have looked at their numbers as being a bad cap state. Of course they look like that when you have predetermined you don't want them.

 

EDIT: I also meant to say that you know me well enough Thurman to know I am happy to have a strong disagreement without me taking anything personal from it. You disagree, I understand. It's all good. And secondly I am not saying Beane didn't inherit some bad contracts when he arrived. I hated the Charles Clay restructure (not so much the initial contract which was a bit rich but gave the Bills some flex, but the restructure which meant they were stuck in it) the moment they did it. It is just that even the best managed rosters in the league have a bad contract or two somewhere. Choosing which football players will improve and which will stagnate / regress is an imperfect science.

 

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Kirby, you also are a terrific poster.

 

But Beane didn't need to lie to sell people on this. People were dying to buy into any plan.

 

And they certainly did have a cap issue. On the last day of the 2016 league year, in March 2017, they had the 26th worst cap situation, with around $18 million in cap space. That's really bad. Again, it wasn't cap hell. But yes, it was a serious cap issue. They had to start wiggling and cutting right off the bat, and they did. Beane went on record not long after, about specifically about how much he wanted to have kept Robert Woods but not being able to because of a money issue. The Rams didn't pay Woods all that much. They didn't want to "turn over' Woods. They had money problems. They wanted to clean up those problems and have cap space by 2019 and the way to do that (and at the same time accumulate draft capital for bringing in a QB) was to cut money and trade away guys who'd bring back some picks.

 

If you are looking at cap space as a one year deal you are looking at the cap completely incorrectly. That is essentially the entire crux of our disagreement about the importance of cap space. And Beane was not here when Woods walked. He was a Ram before Beane was in the building.

Edited May 28, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Blank Stare]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

From what I can see, you're in fundamental disagreement with yourself. You say they can keep anyone they really want to keep. But then you say they'll have to make sacrifices to make it work with the cap. Those two statements are in opposition. I agree with the second. Yeah, they'll have to make sacrifices. Sacrifices mean you don't keep everyone you really want to keep.

 

Pretty sure the 9ers would've loved to keep Buckner and the Texans Hopkins. But they had to make sacrifices.

In my mind, cap management is a given. A constant. However, keeping everyone you want to keep is different than keeping everyone you wish you could. You always hear the GM/coach-speak “Boy, we’d really like to keep everyone”. Obviously, you can’t. But you can prioritize cap dollars for anyone you truly want to keep around. It comes with drafting successful players. Time always tells whether you made the right call with your cap allocation choices.
 

Texans and Niners absolutely could’ve kept Hopkins and Buckner around, but they decided to allocate their cap dollars elsewhere. The organization didn’t look at it as a strong enough “want”.  Again, when I say you can keep anyone you desire, I said nothing of the consequences. How strong is the desire? 

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

disagree totally about the Saints there. EDIT: I see you noticed it wasn't a great example, but still worth looking at what happened when they got in cap problems ...

? Yes, bad example. Rather than running from it and delete it, I’m comfortable just making the edit and acknowledging that mistake. It happens. 

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Yea the Saints are one of the teams I think of when I think of teams who did legitimately put themselves in cap strife. That 2014-15 period they were cutting good starters to meet the cap. That is where Atlanta is now. That is cap strife. They are the only two immediate "cap hell" situations I can think of from the last 10 years (not saying there aren't others they are just the two that come to mind)

Agree. Bad example to use. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by TheProcess