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

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours 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.

 

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.

He wasn’t here for Woods.
 

If they wanted to keep Woods (or anyone) they could have easily. They made a decision not to. They weren’t forced to. That’s the difference between cap problems and telling people that you have a cap problem. The Bills didn’t make one decision because they were forced to - not one. You don’t have a cap problem unless you are forced to make those decisions BECAUSE of the cap.
 

The Bills made the decision to turn over the roster because they didn’t think that the players under contract were good enough to get the job done. The dead money was self-created because they wanted different players than the one’s under contract. Again, that was a choice. This is the plan that they entered the building with and it looks like the right one.
 

The “cap jail” or “cap problems” though was nonsense. That’s not really a thing in the NFL unless you are incompetent. You can ALWAYS kick the can down the road. The Falcons have proven to be incompetent. The Bills were fine when it came to the cap. It’s just easier to sell people on patience when you say “we have a mess and it’s someone else’s fault. Give us time to fix this.” Beane is nobody’s fool. It’s hard to go from the middle to the top. That’s why they tore it down.

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Kirby Jackson

[T master]

I love what Beane & McD have done with bringing in so many really good players but most if not all of them in the not to distant future will be looking to make that 1 big pay day so i don't see Beane being able to sign all of those on the roster right now because of FA .

 

I would love to see this team back in the day before FA when you could build a team and keep them around for years but in todays NFL i don't see that happening here but i think Beane and company will continue to find players in the draft to make the Bills a contender every year .

 

Some of our favorite players won't be here long term it's just not possible due to FA and the way teams give huge contracts Beane will choose those that will be the cornerstones of the team and give contracts accordingly but will continue to bring up rookies to fill the voids of those players that he wants to keep but can't afford to .

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

I love what Beane & McD have done with bringing in so many really good players but most if not all of them in the not to distant future will be looking to make that 1 big pay day so i don't see Beane being able to sign all of those on the roster right now because of FA .

 

I would love to see this team back in the day before FA when you could build a team and keep them around for years but in todays NFL i don't see that happening here but i think Beane and company will continue to find players in the draft to make the Bills a contender every year .

 

Some of our favorite players won't be here long term it's just not possible due to FA and the way teams give huge contracts Beane will choose those that will be the cornerstones of the team and give contracts accordingly but will continue to bring up rookies to fill the voids of those players that he wants to keep but can't afford to .

Who specifically are you concerned will be gone? IMO, the Bills are about to follow the Cowboy’s model in retaining all of their top players on their second contracts. I expect the Bills to have Diggs, Edmunds, Tre, Dawkins, Oliver, Milano and (hopefully) Josh for years. They don’t have any cap issues now or in the next 5 years. 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Who specifically are you concerned will be gone? IMO, the Bills are about to follow the Cowboy’s model in retaining all of their top players on their second contracts. I expect the Bills to have Diggs, Edmunds, Tre, Dawkins, Oliver, Milano and (hopefully) Josh for years. They don’t have any cap issues now or in the next 5 years. 

 

The only one of those I am still 50/50 on is Milano. If he bounces back to 2018 form then yes. On last year's more inconsistent evidence I think they might let him walk. This year is big for him.

[Kirby Jackson]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The only one of those I am still 50/50 on is Milano. If he bounces back to 2018 form then yes. On last year's more inconsistent evidence I think they might let him walk. This year is big for him.

He’s the one that I hesitated on but I think that the Bills value his mobility too much to let him go. 

[HappyDays]

On 5/28/2020 at 10:03 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

If they wanted to keep Woods (or anyone) they could have easily. They made a decision not to. They weren’t forced to. That’s the difference between cap problems and telling people that you have a cap problem. The Bills didn’t make one decision because they were forced to - not one. You don’t have a cap problem unless you are forced to make those decisions BECAUSE of the cap.

 

I don't think "they could have kept Woods if they wanted to" is the same as "they didn't have a cap problem". Sure they could have kept Woods, just like the Saints could have and did sign Jairus Byrd. It just wouldn't have been smart. Our cap problem was that we had very little cap space and were not anywhere near a championship caliber roster. The main reason was that we didn't have a championship caliber QB and they didn't get here in time to even draft one the first year. McDermott and Beane immediately recognized a 3 year rebuilding project. 3 years away from a championship team with less than $20 million in cap space counts as a cap problem.

[Kirby Jackson]

26 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I don't think "they could have kept Woods if they wanted to" is the same as "they didn't have a cap problem". Sure they could have kept Woods, just like the Saints could have and did sign Jairus Byrd. It just wouldn't have been smart. Our cap problem was that we had very little cap space and were not anywhere near a championship caliber roster. The main reason was that we didn't have a championship caliber QB and they didn't get here in time to even draft one the first year. McDermott and Beane immediately recognized a 3 year rebuilding project. 3 years away from a championship team with less than $20 million in cap space counts as a cap problem.

Totally different with Byrd and Woods. Byrd signed a very large contract on a team that had very little cap space. Woods signed a moderate contract and the Bills had moderate cap space. Woods 2017 cap hit was $7M. The Bills wouldn’t have had to sacrifice ANYTHING to do that. They could have easily created that space by converting some future money for guys into signing bonuses.
 

There was not a cap problem. There is virtually no such thing as a cap problem in the NFL. It’s a narrative used to sway fans to buy into a plan. It’s media created. Teams figured out YEARS ago how to navigate around it. This could change I suppose if revenues are negatively impacted by COVID. At this point though, teams no that future years will be bigger and structure contracts accordingly. Cap issues are not real unless you are incompetent (see the Falcons). I’m willing to die on this hill and can point to dozens of examples of teams in “cap trouble” manipulating the cap and not making any sacrifices. Unless the cap is punitive there are no issues. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Kirby Jackson

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I don't think "they could have kept Woods if they wanted to" is the same as "they didn't have a cap problem". Sure they could have kept Woods, just like the Saints could have and did sign Jairus Byrd. It just wouldn't have been smart. Our cap problem was that we had very little cap space and were not anywhere near a championship caliber roster. The main reason was that we didn't have a championship caliber QB and they didn't get here in time to even draft one the first year. McDermott and Beane immediately recognized a 3 year rebuilding project. 3 years away from a championship team with less than $20 million in cap space counts as a cap problem.

Woods is a 1k yard receiver on the 37th highest WR contract by AAV, below Brown AND Beasley. Keeping him wouldn’t have been smart? WHAT

[ColoradoBills]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Woods is a 1k yard receiver on the 37th highest WR contract by AAV, below Brown AND Beasley. Keeping him wouldn’t have been smart? WHAT

 

I would of loved to see Woods stay in Buffalo but there was no way that was happening.

He didn't want to be here even if they wanted him.

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I would of loved to see Woods stay in Buffalo but there was no way that was happening.

He didn't want to be here even if they wanted him.

Possibly true, but it’s undoubtedly true that keeping him would have been a good decision if they could have.

 

They didn’t need Woods and his $12M cap hit over two seasons to walk to rebuild the Bills. 

[T master]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Who specifically are you concerned will be gone? IMO, the Bills are about to follow the Cowboy’s model in retaining all of their top players on their second contracts. I expect the Bills to have Diggs, Edmunds, Tre, Dawkins, Oliver, Milano and (hopefully) Josh for years. They don’t have any cap issues now or in the next 5 years. 

 

Given the way Beane has went about his business to this point it wouldn't surprise me if he could work his magic in laying out the contracts to keep them all around i guess i'm just living with the mind set of the past Bills regime's .

 

I hope you are right that would be awesome to see the Bills be able to be a really good team for the next 15+ yrs I would be more than happy to be wrong if that was the out come .

[HappyDays]

27 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Woods is a 1k yard receiver on the 37th highest WR contract by AAV, below Brown AND Beasley. Keeping him wouldn’t have been smart? WHAT

 

In hindsight it would have been smart. But at the time we had no QB and little cap space. It isn't just letting Woods walk, that was just one example out of many tough decisions the Bills needed to make to get out of their cap problem. And they've executed the plan perfectly. There have been missteps along the way but right now you can't complain about the way our cap is structured. If Allen takes another step we're a championship caliber team right now.

[FireChans]

52 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

In hindsight it would have been smart. But at the time we had no QB and little cap space. It isn't just letting Woods walk, that was just one example out of many tough decisions the Bills needed to make to get out of their cap problem. And they've executed the plan perfectly. There have been missteps along the way but right now you can't complain about the way our cap is structured. If Allen takes another step we're a championship caliber team right now.

They didn’t really have that many tough decisions to make. Sammy was walking after 2017, they got out a year earlier for minimal short term savings, similar with Darby. The Dareus trade at midseason accelerated his hit, but there was no plan to be competitive in 2018. Darby was on a rookie deal. We still signed Poyer and Hyde that offseason, and Hyde got a decent contract. We let Gilmore walk which opened up a good chunk of space. 

 

A cursory analysis proves that keeping Woods wouldn’t have been cap prohibitive AT ALL. In fact, almost none of our moves were cap prohibitive that offseason outside Dareus, whose cap hit took two years to clear. 

 

They cleared the roster with the goal of getting rid of players they didn’t want. They barely saved anything by ditching players at the end of their rookie deals and replacing them with players making similar money.

Edited May 29, 2020 by FireChans

[uticaclub]

On 5/28/2020 at 7:03 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

He wasn’t here for Woods.
 

If they wanted to keep Woods (or anyone) they could have easily. They made a decision not to. They weren’t forced to. That’s the difference between cap problems and telling people that you have a cap problem. The Bills didn’t make one decision because they were forced to - not one. You don’t have a cap problem unless you are forced to make those decisions BECAUSE of the cap.
 

The Bills made the decision to turn over the roster because they didn’t think that the players under contract were good enough to get the job done. The dead money was self-created because they wanted different players than the one’s under contract. Again, that was a choice. This is the plan that they entered the building with and it looks like the right one.
 

The “cap jail” or “cap problems” though was nonsense. That’s not really a thing in the NFL unless you are incompetent. You can ALWAYS kick the can down the road. The Falcons have proven to be incompetent. The Bills were fine when it came to the cap. It’s just easier to sell people on patience when you say “we have a mess and it’s someone else’s fault. Give us time to fix this.” Beane is nobody’s fool. It’s hard to go from the middle to the top. That’s why they tore it down.

 

I heard a radio interview with Woods and he wanted to go to a pass heavy team and play on the west coast closer to family, he took the high road and said good things about Buffalo but at the time we were a run heavy offense

[njbuff]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The only one of those I am still 50/50 on is Milano. If he bounces back to 2018 form then yes. On last year's more inconsistent evidence I think they might let him walk. This year is big for him.

LB is one position where you don’t really have to break the bank to re-sign Milano.

 

I think Kirby put it best.

 

Also, in today’s NFL age, if you are a good organization, you should be able to retain your top 30 players and fill out the rest of the roster as needed,

[Thurman#1]

On 5/28/2020 at 8:46 PM, GunnerBill said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Agreed that looking at cap space as a one year deal is seeing it wrong. But that's the thing ... after a first year when they spent very little new money, they still were in bad shape the next year.

 

When McDermott got here, he started the league year with the 26th worst cap situation. But on that same day, the start of the 2017 league year, the next year's cap situation, the 2018 cap, was, if I remember, the 28th worst. Whaley had put them in an awful situation not just for a year but for the fairly long term. He had a lot of long-term big contracts on the books. Whaley was simply poor at handling the cap. If he'd had that situation with a team that went 13-3, then hey, you'd be much more forgiving. But they were a mediocre team with no real QB, an awful right side of the OL, Dareus having just received a huge new contract and then regressed, and a defense that was really well-coached that had some very good players and then a bunch of JAG starters like Zach Brown, Adolphus Washington, Corey Graham, Aaron Williams breaking down from injury, and Preston Brown, etc. And if the new group had signed second contracts with guys like Sammy, Robert Woods and Cordy Glenn, their poor cap situation would have continued right along being poor. 

 

You (EDIT: and Kirby) were right and I'm wrong about Woods being out before Beane got here. It must have been McDermott who was the one I remember lamenting how much he wanted to keep Woods but that it simply wasn't possible with the cap situation they were in. My bad.

 

 

 

Another GM coming into the situation might have seen it completely differently? Well, since there really isn't a situation where that's not at least theoretically true, yeah, fair enough. There are bad administrators and bad decision makers in every field. Could they have found one? Yeah, maybe. In fact, if the Pegulas had told everyone they interviewed that they believed that this team could win a Super Bowl with Tyrod Taylor and what they had, that the owners believed they were only a few players away from a title, there isn't a doubt in the world that they could have found somebody to say "Hey, I'm your guy, I'm just the genius who can win a Lombardi with this group."

 

But that's just it. The Pegulas didn't say that. They weren't that dumb. They hired the guy who said that they needed a franchise QB, that to get one they needed a rebuild and to win a title they needed that rebuild and at the same time they needed to get their bad cap situation back under control. You yourself admit this, saying he believed and was committed to this. Exactly, Bill.

 

You seem to be arguing that a rebuild wasn't necessary. That's a wacky position but it's also not what this argument has been about. This argument has been about whether they were in bad cap problems. And for a group committed to a rebuild, as you admit they were, it isn't much of a question. It is something they committed to getting under control, despite the pain, from as early as their interview. So saying that it was about wanting to turn over players doesn't make sense. Sure, they wanted to rebuild and they absolutely must have known that some or many of the guys on the previous roster were gone. But what they've also made clear is that when they got here an awful lot of their time was spent on figuring out which guys would fit the new group and which wouldn't. They spent a ton of film study on it and they also gave a number of guys a year to show whether they could be a part of this team. They seem to have wanted Dareus to be here till he made it clear he wasn't going to let little rules get in the way of his lifestyle. Though maybe they were just trying to have someone fill the Lotulelei role and at the same time lower that massive cap hit by waiting a year or two, till he started missing meetings. 

 

Doesn't make sense to say they knew before they came in what they wanted the turnover to look like. Yeah, rebuilds mean a bunch of turnover. But sometimes guys who fit can stay. It's not a mistake that Kyle Williams stayed, or Lorax. They fit the locker room and were good players. McDermott and Beane were likely hoping there'd be a few more like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Agreed that looking at cap space as a one year deal is seeing it wrong. But that's the thing ... after a first year when they spent very little new money, they still were in bad shape the next year.

 

When McDermott got here, he started the league year with the 26th worst cap situation. But on that same day, the start of the 2017 league year, the next year's cap situation, the 2018 cap, was, if I remember, the 28th worst. Whaley had put them in an awful situation not just for a year but for the fairly long term. He had a lot of long-term big contracts on the books. Whaley was simply poor at handling the cap. If he'd had that situation with a team that went 13-3, then hey, you'd be much more forgiving. But they were a mediocre team with no real QB, an awful right side of the OL, Dareus having just received a huge new contract and then regressed, and a defense that was really well-coached that had some very good players and then a bunch of JAG starters like Zach Brown, Adolphus Washington, Corey Graham, Aaron Williams breaking down from injury, and Preston Brown, etc. And if the new group had signed second contracts with guys like Sammy, Robert Woods and Cordy Glenn, their poor cap situation would have continued right along being poor. 

 

You're right and I'm wrong about Woods being out before Beane got here. It must have been McDermott who was the one I remember lamenting how much he wanted to keep Woods but that it simply wasn't possible with the cap situation they were in. My bad.

 

 

 

Another GM coming into the situation might have seen it completely differently? Well, since there really isn't a situation where that's not at least theoretically true, yeah, fair enough. There are bad administrators and bad decision makers in every field. Could they have found one? Yeah, maybe. In fact, if the Pegulas had told everyone they interviewed that they believed that this team could win a Super Bowl with Tyrod Taylor and what they had, that the owners believed they were only a few players away from a title, there isn't a doubt in the world that they could have found somebody to say "Hey, I'm your guy, I'm just the genius who can win a Lombardi with this group."

 

But that's just it. The Pegulas didn't say that. They weren't that dumb. They hired the guy who said that they needed a franchise QB, that to get one they needed a rebuild and to win a title they needed that rebuild and at the same time they needed to get their bad cap situation back under control. You yourself admit this, saying he believed and was committed to this. Exactly, Bill.

 

You seem to be arguing that a rebuild wasn't necessary. That's a wacky position but it's also not what this argument has been about. This argument has been about whether they were in bad cap problems. And for a group committed to a rebuild, as you admit they were, it isn't much of a question. It is something they committed to getting under control, despite the pain, from as early as their interview. So saying that it was about wanting to turn over players doesn't make sense. Sure, they wanted to rebuild and they absolutely must have known that some or many of the guys on the previous roster were gone. But what they've also made clear is that when they got here an awful lot of their time was spent on figuring out which guys would fit the new group and which wouldn't. They spent a ton of film study on it and they also gave a number of guys a year to show whether they could be a part of this team. They seem to have wanted Dareus to be here till he made it clear he wasn't going to let little rules get in the way of his lifestyle. Though maybe they were just trying to have someone fill the Lotulelei role and at the same time lower that massive cap hit by waiting a year or two, till he started missing meetings. 

 

Doesn't make sense to say they knew before they came in what they wanted the turnover to look like. Yeah, rebuilds mean a bunch of turnover. But sometimes guys who fit can stay. It's not a mistake that Kyle Williams stayed, or Lorax. They fit the locker room and were good players. McDermott and Beane were likely hoping there'd be a few more like that.

 

 

 

It didn't require them to think Tyrod was the guy in order to go a different way. And the two are inextricably linked - the plan and the cap. There is no getting away from that. You might think an argument that a rebuild wasn't needed is wacky. But it really isn't. Nor is an argument that the cap wasn't in a terrible cap state. I am not arguing Whaley was a good GM or that his approach to the cap was a sensible one. But it was not at a point where the Bills were forced into a course of action. They had choices in January 2017. I think they took the right ones but they still had enough flexibility to go another way. 

[ColoradoBills]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It didn't require them to think Tyrod was the guy in order to go a different way. And the two are inextricably linked - the plan and the cap. There is no getting away from that. You might think an argument that a rebuild wasn't needed is wacky. But it really isn't. Nor is an argument that the cap wasn't in a terrible cap state. I am not arguing Whaley was a good GM or that his approach to the cap was a sensible one. But it was not at a point where the Bills were forced into a course of action. They had choices in January 2017. I think they took the right ones but they still had enough flexibility to go another way. 

 

Your point about the choices they had are valid Gunner BUT seeing what McDermott and Beane are all about tells the tale.

They were going to get the players they wanted and that is what caused all the changeover and ultimately the record amount of dead money in 2018.

It was the dead money that had them in "cap hell" for those 2 years and I guess in a sense it was Whaley's team construction that was the cause.

 

PS.  Congrats Elon Musk for getting the boys up there!

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Your point about the choices they had are valid Gunner BUT seeing what McDermott and Beane are all about tells the tale.

They were going to get the players they wanted and that is what caused all the changeover and ultimately the record amount of dead money in 2018.

It was the dead money that had them in "cap hell" for those 2 years and I guess in a sense it was Whaley's team construction that was the cause.

 

PS.  Congrats Elon Musk for getting the boys up there!

 

No, it was their strategic choice that was the cause. And again... I supported the choice. I was banging the drum for McDermott a year before we hired him and I had total faith in his choices. He screams natural leader to me. 

 

 

[Big Turk]

On 5/26/2020 at 11:09 AM, Gregthekeg said:

Only 4 positions I think are worth crazy money, QB, DE, CB, and LT.  Of that list Tre White is the only player at this point that I feel is 100% a must have.  I think a lot of the older vets on the D will be missed if not resigned.  White however, is a cornerstone of a Franchise.  I wouldn't pay Dawkins crazy money, he is good not great.  Our DE's are all older or rookies so they don't fit the bill.  Allen hasn't shown me that they need to give him 40+ mil/year, but I am hoping that will change.  

 

Other than that I would be shocked if there were any high price FA resignings that blow up the market.  (In a few years Edmunds might be one of the exceptions)

 

The problem is that every player that hits free agency past a certain level of "goodness" expects to set the market for their position and become the highest paid player at it whether they are deserving of it or not...I mean literally if the player is top 10 at their position they expect to be the highest paid player when they get their new contract. It's ridiculous...is there any other market that operates like that?

 

Just the reality of how the league works now.

Edited May 30, 2020 by matter2003