Current Bills salary cap situation - 4/8/2022 12:50 PM $200.1MM - taken for “Top 51” - Sportrac current estimate is that Bills are over by $2.8MM for all - Link to Sportrac in 1st post

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I thought Beane said "we might sign a few guys at for minimum contracts" or something of the sort.

 

We just had no idea all these reported signings fell into that bucket, including Shaq

 

He definitely implied his spreadsheet that underpinned "we are right up against it" included deals that were not in the public domain yet. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He definitely implied his spreadsheet that underpinned "we are right up against it" included deals that were not in the public domain yet. 

 

That too.  But he also said something about signing a few more guys for vet minimum. 

I think Crowder is the only one who has signed above vet minimum since that presser (where Beane specifically mentioned he had a backup QB included).

 

So who knows if Crowder was also included or whether he's the "exception to the rule".

[Big Turk]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That too.  But he also said something about signing a few more guys for vet minimum. 

I think Crowder is the only one who has signed above vet minimum since that presser (where Beane specifically mentioned he had a backup QB included).

 

So who knows if Crowder was also included or whether he's the "exception to the rule".

 

Teams get a cap discount when signing vets with more than a certain number of years of service for the vet minimum...

 

It's a way of encouraging them to sign those players instead of cheaper younger ones.

A few more restructures or extensions surely on the way.

[Warcodered]

21 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

[Blank Stare]

One of the questions you have to answer is whether you think what little salary cap space we have left (or a few extra moves that would have to be made depending on the bears offer) should be used to retain Bates and forego a veteran corner OR let Bates walk and go grab a guy like Haden to hold the fort until Tre is back. 
 

My preference is to retain Bates. Reason? I think he can be a good guard in this league and it should be all about doing everything you can to protect and enhance Josh. Yes, you can grab a starting guard in the draft, but I’m not sure I want to wait for that guy to “get it”. Kromer helps with that, but I still prefer to keep Bates and draft a depth guard in the mid to late rounds of the draft. With respect to corner, I think this staff believes in Dane Jackson. This is also the position I feel most comfortable about McD’s ability to draft a guy (not necessarily in the first round, but I wouldn’t hate that) and coach him up. 

[TBBills]

Just now, TheProcess said:

One of the questions you have to answer is whether you think what little salary cap space we have left (or a few extra moves that would have to be made depending on the bears offer) should be used to retain Bates and forego a veteran corner OR let Bates walk and go grab a guy like Haden to hold the fort until Tre is back. 
 

My preference is to retain Bates. Reason? I think he can be a good guard in this league and it should be all about doing everything you can to protect and enhance Josh. Yes, you can grab a starting guard in the draft, but I’m not sure I want to wait for that guy to “get it”. Kromer helps with that, but I still prefer to keep Bates and draft a depth guard in the mid to late rounds of the draft. With respect to corner, I think this staff believes in Dane Jackson. This is also the position I feel most comfortable about McD’s ability to draft a guy (not necessarily in the first round, but I wouldn’t hate that) and coach him up. 

Not really worried about Bates, that is why the Bills did what they did b.c if someone offers him peanuts they can sign him but if they offer more the Bills don't even haven't worry about him.

[Blank Stare]

7 minutes ago, TBBills said:

Not really worried about Bates, that is why the Bills did what they did b.c if someone offers him peanuts they can sign him but if they offer more the Bills don't even haven't worry about him.

Yeah, I don’t disagree that’s likely the Bears approach with their offer, but my point is that I think the Bills should make the necessary moves to keep him. I don’t know the particulars on the Bears deal (assuming it’s bigger first year money to prevent the Bills from matching), but would you rather keep a guy like Matakevich or cut him and free up some extra dough for Bates? That’s also not the only move they can make to make it work. Bates has earned it here and is super versatile (which they love).

[TheWeatherMan]

$11M is dead cap from awful ex Carolina Panther contracts.  That would have been most useful this year.  

[Marvlevydraftdaygenius]

Who cares about the salary cap.  The saints were 48 million over and with no one knowing players restructured and now are under the cap until next off season when they will report they are over by 60 million.

[Shaw66]

On 3/27/2022 at 11:39 AM, TheWeatherMan said:

$11M is dead cap from awful ex Carolina Panther contracts.  That would have been most useful this year.  

That's an interesting point, but as I think about it, it doesn't trouble me too much, for a few reasons.  

 

First, overall, the Bills are about average when it comes to total dead cap space.   Yes, it would be nice to lead the league with the least dead cap, but it's really hard to do.  In the ordinary course of doing business in the NFL, you're going to have some dead cap money. 

 

Second, I guess I don't really care if the dead cap came from signing players from Carolina.   Other teams probably have similar statistical anomalies, where most of their dead cap came from one team.   

 

Third, although we can argue about how badly the Bills overpaid or overcommitted for these guys, there's a pretty good rationale for them.  Star was, in fact, a good player, but a combination of injuries and COVID made him less productive than the Bills had hoped, and also meant that he provided less leadership than they had hoped, too.   Still, I'm sure McBeane would tell you that he was a positive, even if the price was too high.   

 

They'd certainly say the same thing about Williams.  He was a solid contributor, passable at right tackle and a real life-saver at guard.  He was critical to the success of the Bills when they didn't have anyone else who was holding up at those two positions.   I'd guess Beane was happy to pay him.  The only reason he's dead cap now is because Spencer Brown showed he could do it and Rodger Saffold signed.  

 

And I'm certainly not complaining about Addison.  He's been excellent for the Bills, and eating some dead cap on him is simply part of the price to pay to replace him with Von Miller.  

 

We like to laugh about the Carolina connection, but those three guys from Carolina were good players.  And, in retrospect, were part of the building process to get to the team the Bills had in 2021, and the team they're going to have in 2022.   

 

It's hard to complain about what Beane and McDermott have done. 

[Alphadawg7]

6 hours ago, Marvlevydraftdaygenius said:

Who cares about the salary cap.  The saints were 48 million over and with no one knowing players restructured and now are under the cap until next off season when they will report they are over by 60 million.

The Saints haven’t won anything.  Why do people keep citing them as if their approach is good?  
 

They are not only way over the cap, they lost some of their best players because they can’t afford to keep them. The Saints roster is worse today than it was last year.  And they also don’t have a big QB contract to account for and are still in perennial cap hell.
 

So how are they everyone’s poster child for managing the cap?  I mean they are an example of what not to do IMHO.  

[Mark Vader]

13 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

The Saints haven’t won anything.  Why do people keep citing them as if their approach is good?  
 

They are not only way over the cap, they lost some of their best players because they can’t afford to keep them. The Saints roster is worse today than it was last year.  And they also don’t have a big QB contract to account for and are still in perennial cap hell.
 

So how are they everyone’s poster child for managing the cap?  I mean they are an example of what not to do IMHO.  

I don't see the Saints as being a good example on how to use the salary cap, but rather it shows that no matter how over the cap a team can be, there is a way to fix it, without having to cut half your roster.

 

Beane has shown us that he is capable of managing any salary cap issues that the Bills have, and the fans should feel good about that.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Mark Vader

[No_Matter_What]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

The Saints haven’t won anything.  Why do people keep citing them as if their approach is good?  
 

They are not only way over the cap, they lost some of their best players because they can’t afford to keep them. The Saints roster is worse today than it was last year.  And they also don’t have a big QB contract to account for and are still in perennial cap hell.
 

So how are they everyone’s poster child for managing the cap?  I mean they are an example of what not to do IMHO.  

Because people see that they were $60M over the cap, now they are $30M under the cap, don't see a lot of lost players (i.e. consider their roster basically the same) and make a conclusion that cap space is a myth. It is the same principle when people are calling Beane a "wizard" when he makes cap space by restructuring Milano or keeps Von Millers cap hit at $5M this year.

 

Whereas it obviously isn't a myth, Saints lost some players and they are definitely borrowing from the future and Beane is just doing something trivial what every other GM can do and does.

 

Problem I see that nobody exactly knows to what extent they (Saints, and at some extent Bills already this year) mortgaged the future. At least I don't remember seeing any quality article or something like that. I mean I can see all the data on Sportrac too, I think I understand all the basics about cap space, I understand that they restructured all deals, that all base salaries are now minimal at the expense of the future (prorated restructure bonus), but I don't remember seeing any quality analytics when will this eventually catch them - something like when the ratio between dead cap / restructures to total cap space next year will be worse than X then Y happens or so.

 

I'll try to analyze that myself after the draft (when Sportrac has all preseason data), but I am not sure I have enough data (I'd need some previous seasons probably) and enough brains to come to anything meaningful.

[Alphadawg7]

27 minutes ago, Mark Vader said:

I don't see the Saints as being a good example on how to use the salary cap, but rather it shows that no matter how over the cap a team can be, there is a way to fix it, without having to cut half your roster.

 

Beane has shown us that he is capable of managing any salary cap issues that the Bills have, and the fans should feel good about that.

 

I very respectfully disagree...they lost some of their best players and don't have a QB.  Saints are grossly over the cap without having a big QB contract to deal with.  Thats a terrible position to be in if you ask me.  So they may not have "cut" half their roster, but they lost some important players and some of their best players in FA because they couldn't keep them.  And had they been also paying a QB, a lot more guys would have to be gone to fit that big QB contract in there.  

 

So still, they are not a good example by any measure in my book.  I would use them as the exact opposite of how to manage a cap.  

Edited March 28, 2022 by Alphadawg7

[Alphadawg7]

23 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

Because people see that they were $60M over the cap, now they are $30M under the cap, don't see a lot of lost players (i.e. consider their roster basically the same) and make a conclusion that cap space is a myth. It is the same principle when people are calling Beane a "wizard" when he makes cap space by restructuring Milano or keeps Von Millers cap hit at $5M this year.

 

Whereas it obviously isn't a myth, Saints lost some players and they are definitely borrowing from the future and Beane is just doing something trivial what every other GM can do and does.

 

Problem I see that nobody exactly knows to what extent they (Saints, and at some extent Bills already this year) mortgaged the future. At least I don't remember seeing any quality article or something like that. I mean I can see all the data on Sportrac too, I think I understand all the basics about cap space, I understand that they restructured all deals, that all base salaries are now minimal at the expense of the future (prorated restructure bonus), but I don't remember seeing any quality analytics when will this eventually catch them - something like when the ratio between dead cap / restructures to total cap space next year will be worse than X then Y happens or so.

 

I'll try to analyze that myself after the draft (when Sportrac has all preseason data), but I am not sure I have enough data (I'd need some previous seasons probably) and enough brains to come to anything meaningful.

 

But the Saints are not that good of a roster, they may not even make the playoffs next year is squishy NFC conference.  Their whole season comes down to Jameis being a good QB for them.  Not something I want to bank on.  

 

They don't have much at WR, they lost their best OL, they lost their 2nd best defensive player, and they kicked the can down the road for even more cap issues in the years to come.  All of this without having a top end QB to pay.   

 

I mean the Saints fixed the cap this year at the sacrifice of weakening their team.  The $30M under now is a mirage built on a house of cards that is only possible this year because they don't currently have a QB and signed Jameis back cheap.  Their roster is worse today than it was when the season ended with a lot more cap problems kicked down the road that will continue to be a problem for them.  All while still needing a QB unless Jameis suddenly morphs into some major reclamation success story that never happens...in which they would still need to pay him if he does that anyway.  

 

So, again, yes they got their cap number down...but they had to make their team worse to do so.  I am not interested in finding ways to make our team worse each year is the thing.  I want the offseason to be where Beane strengthens our overall roster, which he has very much this year IMO.  Doing what the Saints have done is a classic example of how not to manage a cap and one of the worst examples if you ask me.  

[Shaw66]

Seems to me you're either a good team, a bad team, or a mediocre team that may be heading up or down.  

 

You're either in cap hell, your cap is somewhat tight, or you have comfortable cap room.  

 

The Bills are a good team with a somewhat tight cap.  The only thing better than that would be a good team with plentiful cap room, which is generally unlikely and not going to last.   So, I'm happy about where the Bills are.  

 

The Saints are a bad team with (or without) cap room.   I don't care how much cap room my team has if my team is nowhere on the field, and that's where I think the Saints are.  

[No_Matter_What]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

But the Saints are not that good of a roster, they may not even make the playoffs next year is squishy NFC conference.  Their whole season comes down to Jameis being a good QB for them.  Not something I want to bank on.  

 

They don't have much at WR, they lost their best OL, they lost their 2nd best defensive player, and they kicked the can down the road for even more cap issues in the years to come.  All of this without having a top end QB to pay.   

 

I mean the Saints fixed the cap this year at the sacrifice of weakening their team.  The $30M under now is a mirage built on a house of cards that is only possible this year because they don't currently have a QB and signed Jameis back cheap.  Their roster is worse today than it was when the season ended with a lot more cap problems kicked down the road that will continue to be a problem for them.  All while still needing a QB unless Jameis suddenly morphs into some major reclamation success story that never happens...in which they would still need to pay him if he does that anyway.  

 

So, again, yes they got their cap number down...but they had to make their team worse to do so.  I am not interested in finding ways to make our team worse each year is the thing.  I want the offseason to be where Beane strengthens our overall roster, which he has very much this year IMO.  Doing what the Saints have done is a classic example of how not to manage a cap and one of the worst examples if you ask me.  

Alpha did you read what I wrote? I didn't argue with you

 

I agree with you that they are weaker then they were and I don't like what they did over past years. I only wanted to add that I'd like to be able to quantify that "kicking the can down the road" thing, since Bills started this year and it is very likely that they will continue next year. So I'd like to gain some knowledge where is the turning point from being fine to do so and where does Saints road start (if it makes sense)

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Seems to me you're either a good team, a bad team, or a mediocre team that may be heading up or down.  

 

You're either in cap hell, your cap is somewhat tight, or you have comfortable cap room.  

 

The Bills are a good team with a somewhat tight cap.  The only thing better than that would be a good team with plentiful cap room, which is generally unlikely and not going to last.   So, I'm happy about where the Bills are.  

 

The Saints are a bad team with (or without) cap room.   I don't care how much cap room my team has if my team is nowhere on the field, and that's where I think the Saints are.  

Yeah this is spot on. Thing is that we started mortgaging a little bit this year, and I am almost sure we will go farther next year. I am not saying we shouldn't, just stating the fact. I think you asked me before how much - I don't know yet, I didn't see any relevant metric for this, and I will try to come up with my own once the draft is over and dust settles at Sportrac. But for sure we already have worse cap situation for 2023 than we had for 2022 a year ago (again, I am not saying I would not do that if I was Beane, it is somewhat inevitable for top teams). 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

Alpha did you read what I wrote? I didn't argue with you

 

I agree with you that they are weaker then they were and I don't like what they did over past years. I only wanted to add that I'd like to be able to quantify that "kicking the can down the road" thing, since Bills started this year and it is very likely that they will continue next year. So I'd like to gain some knowledge where is the turning point from being fine to do so and where does Saints road start (if it makes sense)

Yeah this is spot on. Thing is that we started mortgaging a little bit this year, and I am almost sure we will go farther next year. I am not saying we shouldn't, just stating the fact. I think you asked me before how much - I don't know yet, I didn't see any relevant metric for this, and I will try to come up with my own once the draft is over and dust settles at Sportrac. But for sure we already have worse cap situation for 2023 than we had for 2022 a year ago (again, I am not saying I would not do that if I was Beane, it is somewhat inevitable for top teams). 

Thanks.  I really don't follow cap stuff, but I'm sure that if you could have a frank conversation with Beane, he could tell you already where he sees the cap flexibility for next year.   They study it and need to know now so that they can gauge the impact of each move they consider this year.   They even already know some of the cuts that they may need to make, based on current evaluation of players.   It's a continuous, fluid, multi-year planning process that never stops.   

 

What is knowable, as you say, is how bad the future year looks based on known contracts.   I doubt the Bills are planning to put themselves into cap hell, but time will tell.  I believe Belichick did it to himself from time to time and managed it okay. 

[78thealltimegreat]

The cowboys did it too they where 40 million over and now are like 30 million under and all they did was trade Amari Cooper and let Collins go.
They still resigned Michael Gallup to a 62 million dollar contract extension and resigned Dalton Schultz it can be done the salary cap can be manipulated fairly quickly.

The Chiefs trade 1 receiver and next year they have the most cap money to spend. 

 

[No_Matter_What]

58 minutes ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

The cowboys did it too they where 40 million over and now are like 30 million under and all they did was trade Amari Cooper and let Collins go.
They still resigned Michael Gallup to a 62 million dollar contract extension and resigned Dalton Schultz it can be done the salary cap can be manipulated fairly quickly.

The Chiefs trade 1 receiver and next year they have the most cap money to spend. 

 

Where did you take the bolded? 

 

They don't have most cap money next year, they are actually 16th, they only have $32M (most money have Bears, over $128M), and all whilst have only 22 players under contract. They have actually one of the worst situations from all teams. It doesn't mean they are doomed, I am just saying that what you wrote is way off.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2023/