NoSaint Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 16 hours ago, YattaOkasan said: can someone explain the disadvantage for the player from Field yates? I wouldve thought the conversion becomes dead cap spread across the years. So yes the cap number is higher but the dead cap number is higher too. higher dead cap is a positive for the player with regards to him staying on the team (see Mario Addison). yea I disagreed with that statement too. I guess by year 3-4 dead money will be low and cap hit high, but that’s alway the situation and a lot of guys are seeking new guarantees by then anyway.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 23, 2021 Author Posted February 23, 2021 6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: "The cap should also rise." Where did I hear that before? Oh, yeah, last year. Let's stop kidding ourselves that we know what will happen with the coronavirus over the next year or so. We don't. There are millions, even tens of millions of people, nutbags really, who appear unwilling to get the vaccine. We don't know whether mutations will occur, or whether they might make the vaccine less useful or useless against the new strains. We just don't know. Nothing should be counted on. So while kicking cans down the road makes sense in certain situations, it's not always a great idea and it's better in limited doses than it is as a widespread practice. A bit of it this year would make a ton of apparent sense. The more you do, though, the riskier it gets and the more you hurt yourself down the road. It's not a cure-all. It is precisely like borrowing on a credit card ... use it wisely and it can be a useful tool, but unwisely used it can make things difficult for you for a long time. Obviously things can change because of factors outside of the NFL's control.
Cson76 Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 21 hours ago, GunnerBill said: If the Bills want to get Diggs to restructure they will have to give him more new money up front (ie a pay rise). It think there is absolutely a way to do it where both parties get what they want. The Bills get some cap relief in 2021 and Diggs gets a pay rise to recognise he is a top 5 receiver and the 16th or 17th best which is how he is currently paid. You don't necessarily need a pay raise to incentivize the player. converting to singing bonus guarantees the money for the player and they see value in that. However, I would expect a pay raise if they do it to reward the season he just had
Thurman#1 Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said: Obviously things can change because of factors outside of the NFL's control. Precisely. And yet you're the guy who said that the cap should rise. We don't know.
GunnerBill Posted February 23, 2021 Posted February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Cson76 said: You don't necessarily need a pay raise to incentivize the player. converting to singing bonus guarantees the money for the player and they see value in that. However, I would expect a pay raise if they do it to reward the season he just had But the point is the Bills are going to Diggs and asking him for something. And Diggs is underpaid. He has leverage now because they want something from him. No guarantee that leverage exists again once he has given them what they want.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 23, 2021 Author Posted February 23, 2021 48 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Precisely. And yet you're the guy who said that the cap should rise. We don't know. It "should" rise. Why are you being difficult? It's called a projection. The salary cap is projected to rise significantly. People get paid a lot of money to make projections based on real data. Obviously some things can't be included in projections, like what if a pandemic is killing hundreds of thousands of people in a year.
Thurman#1 Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 (edited) 18 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said: It "should" rise. Why are you being difficult? It's called a projection. The salary cap is projected to rise significantly. People get paid a lot of money to make projections based on real data. Obviously some things can't be included in projections, like what if a pandemic is killing hundreds of thousands of people in a year. Why am I being difficult? Hmm ... maybe for the same reason you are. Pretending the pandemic doesn't exist here doesn't make sense. Absolutely any projection on a subject like the future of the salary cap absolutely MUST include a projection on what the pandemic will do. The pandemic is maybe the single largest factor in the near-term future of the cap. It makes things very unpredictable. About the best you can do is to say something along the lines of, "If the pandemic proceeds along the best possible future lines, it should make a cap rise next year more likely." Hard to say how likely, though. I mean, the NFL owners didn't make $182M per team this year. How much less did they make? $150M? Less? More? Assuming they made $150M, will the owners want to subtract the money they lost this year ($182M minus $150M) from the cap next year? The next two years? Three? The PA would probably object, so how has this issue been treated in negotiations so far? If the pandemic is a lot lower but still around, would the states allow 50% stadium attendance? 75%? 90%? 100%? If someone sues a pro sports team and can prove through viral DNA results that someone died because the virus was passed at a stadium, what would that do? What happens if the major networks finally start saying, "You know, we're losing more and more money every year, we can't keep doing this anymore with the forever rising NFL contracts ... Doesn't work with our economics anymore"? What happens if TV revenue goes down? Streaming revenue will likely go up. How much? Would it make up the difference? Things are wildly wildly unpredictable right now, particularly in the very short term, but long-term too. Edited February 24, 2021 by Thurman#1
Paul Costa Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 Buffalo is in a win now window before JA17 gets his massive contract. Beane needs to renegotiate several of these aforementioned contracts & cut several more. The next two years need to produce a Super Bowl. The Bills are right there. This off season needs to look more like the Saints or Chiefs in the past few seasons
BillsVet Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 On 2/22/2021 at 1:56 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said: Good find. I don't think the Bills will do this with everyone, but Tre' White and Dawkins are ideal candidates. Depending upon how the Bills see them, Morse and Brown could be handled this way as well, at a higher risk because it would mean taking a bigger cap hit in a couple of years if we wish to move on. I think at least one of Butler or Jefferson gets cut, and if we see the possibility of bringing in DL talent possibly Addison as well. Re-structuring 2 home-grown players who signed extensions less than 1 year ago is not a good look nor good cap management. And much of this discussion is because Buffalo leaned on UFA far too much to cover up not obtaining productive players after Round 2 in 17-19. Some of it is just bad UFA decisions as happened in 2018. Beane and McD get credit for the run last year and no one can take that AFCCG appearance away from them. Now the challenge is to get younger, be more efficient with draft and cap resources and all while maintaining the same level of production. The days of liberally using UFA and being average/below average after the 2nd round have to be over for this team to continue being a top tier NFL franchise. Beane and McD are gonna be working with a lot smaller margin of error than they've had in the last 4 off-seasons.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 23 hours ago, BillsVet said: Re-structuring 2 home-grown players who signed extensions less than 1 year ago is not a good look nor good cap management. In an ordinary year, yes. In an extraordinary year, where 2021 cap is likely to plunge $10M-$18M over 2020 cap, but due to new TV deal the cap is expected to rise 2022 and beyond, it appears to make good fiscal sense and is a strategy a number of teams are employing. Do you think the Bills should avoid it as a tool for the hand they've been dealt because you don't think it's a "good look" or you want to apply a general cap management strategy to an extraordinary circumstance? I think that would be foolish. On 2/24/2021 at 6:50 AM, Thurman#1 said: About the best you can do is to say something along the lines of, "If the pandemic proceeds along the best possible future lines, it should make a cap rise next year more likely." I would think the new TV deal currently being negotiated is the largest figure in driving a predicted cap rise, and will occur independent of the pandemic - but will take effect after this season's cap must be set.
machine gun kelly Posted February 24, 2021 Posted February 24, 2021 It’s basically one of three things, restructure, reduce, or release. Restructuring doesn’t necessarily mean they lose $, it’s just converted to bonus so you kick the cap $ down the road if he doesn’t live out the contract. Reduce is not common, but in this year, there may be some guys if at 30 or above may be willing to take a small haircut to have two more years with a team we hope going to the SB. No one is going to take a massive haircut. Release, we’ll, that’s going to happen, and again the over 30 crowd, you have to look at what has and will be their production in the next two years. I think it’s premature as Thurm said there are so many variables, and ABC’s the next one up for contract renewal. Then the others follow son thereafter. The guess by some say as much as 100% increase. I don’t see that and some that I respect speculate in 2022-24 there could be a 50-75% increase, or maybe more if they not only go from 17-3 regular to pre-season games, amd an extra wildcard game, to the ultimate prize for the teams and players to 18-1, and two byes. The pie keeps getting bigger, they probably will increase starting roles to 55-57, amd I bet they maintain the 16 PS. Now this is just me piecing together a bunch of different analysts, but that means nothing. All of it could be wrong, so I’m not citing one particular I know the answer source, as that’s just not possible.
BillsVet Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 23 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: In an ordinary year, yes. In an extraordinary year, where 2021 cap is likely to plunge $10M-$18M over 2020 cap, but due to new TV deal the cap is expected to rise 2022 and beyond, it appears to make good fiscal sense and is a strategy a number of teams are employing. Do you think the Bills should avoid it as a tool for the hand they've been dealt because you don't think it's a "good look" or you want to apply a general cap management strategy to an extraordinary circumstance? I think that would be foolish. No one is claiming COVID hasn't factored into their 2021 cap situation, but you're leaving out the recent roster UFA spending decision history. Buffalo entered the 2020 season with 1.3M in cap space and this year are at 3.2M. That's a pretty slim margin to begin with, but the cost of building a DL, OL, and WR group largely through UFA. Those contracts add up, and make it more difficult to absorb the effect of the virus. It's also bad policy to expect something (the TV deal) to go up each negotiation, when it's clear with the NFL's ratings are down. No one can assume the TV contract will rise anymore. As for the players contracts, if they can front-load some money in those renegotiated contracts it won't be a major issue. They're confident in both Dawkins and White. It's why 2021 is about ending their reliance on UFA's to fill out the roster and transitioning to more team friendly contracts, many of which I expect will be rookie deals.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, BillsVet said: No one is claiming COVID hasn't factored into their 2021 cap situation Well, maybe not. But when you make a bald statement like: 23 hours ago, BillsVet said: Re-structuring 2 home-grown players who signed extensions less than 1 year ago is not a good look nor good cap management. It sure doesn't look as though you're factoring that in. Wanting other people to put the cap situation last spring under a microscope and claiming it's "not a good look nor good cap management" whilst failing to acknowledge that the cap went down $18M in a year where it had been predicted to go up $12-22M, seems a bit....lopsided.
Recommended Posts