Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Bills were up against the cap despite having a lot of expired contracts, so this isn’t at all surprising. I wonder how much dead money is on the books.

Posted
53 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think part of their problem is the dead money they have in Khalil Mack and several other players.  Glad we’re not in their boat.

We're not in their boat yet, but over the long term, all teams have the same maximum amount of money that they are allowed to spend.  The labor contract with the players also establishes a floor as well as a cap.  The floor is only a few percent less than the maximum allowable amount - - the idea being that if all teams spend approximately the same amount of money over the long term the league will have better competitive balance and attract more fans (which means more money for the owners to share).

 

Teams can use accounting "tricks" like pro-rating up-front signing bonuses over the term of a contract to bring future allowable spending forward so that they can try to have the best possible player talent this year, but doing that means they will have less money than other teams to spend in future years.  Unless there are structural changes to the salary cap imposed by future negotiated changes to the collective bargaining agreement with the players' union (which nobody expects), that's unavoidable.

 

Year-to-year increases in the salary cap don't change the fact that if you use accounting "tricks" to bring future spending forward into this year, you can't spend that same money later.  Those accounting tricks don't change the total amount a team can spend over the long term.

 

With a talented team that has a good chance to win a championship, bringing some future spending forward to maximize team talent this year is a logical strategy, because those opportunities aren't always available.  But don't kid yourself into thinking that using accounting "tricks" to increase your odds of winning a championship this year doesn't give you less money to spend in future years, which puts you at a competitive disadvantage in the future.

 

Go Bills !!

Posted

Still have to get down to the 208 cap limit.  This is kind of meaningless,it's just the timing. Let's see what they do with existing contracts to actually pay the recent signings.

Posted
4 minutes ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

We're not in their boat yet, but over the long term, all teams have the same maximum amount of money that they are allowed to spend.  The labor contract with the players also establishes a floor as well as a cap.  The floor is only a few percent less than the maximum allowable amount - - the idea being that if all teams spend approximately the same amount of money over the long term the league will have better competitive balance and attract more fans (which means more money for the owners to share).

 

Teams can use accounting "tricks" like pro-rating up-front signing bonuses over the term of a contract to bring future allowable spending forward so that they can try to have the best possible player talent this year, but doing that means they will have less money than other teams to spend in future years.  Unless there are structural changes to the salary cap imposed by future negotiated changes to the collective bargaining agreement with the players' union (which nobody expects), that's unavoidable.

 

Year-to-year increases in the salary cap don't change the fact that if you use accounting "tricks" to bring future spending forward into this year, you can't spend that same money later.  Those accounting tricks don't change the total amount a team can spend over the long term.

 

With a talented team that has a good chance to win a championship, bringing some future spending forward to maximize team talent this year is a logical strategy, because those opportunities aren't always available.  But don't kid yourself into thinking that using accounting "tricks" to increase your odds of winning a championship this year doesn't give you less money to spend in future years, which puts you at a competitive disadvantage in the future.

 

Go Bills !!


You just have to be smart about it.  
 

If the Bears were in win-now mode, they’d keep Mack & Robinson, thus the dead cap vs talent situation looking much different.  
 

They aren’t, and have opted for less spending and draft picks.  
 

Beane is incredibly responsible in his signings, the values and structuring.  I’m not worried about him falling into this trap… especially given we have an entire future of Allen at QB.   
 

Look no further than his “chips in” move of Von Miller, also having an out after 3 years where we only take on minimal dead cap.  

Posted
1 hour ago, JayBaller10 said:

Bills were up against the cap despite having a lot of expired contracts, so this isn’t at all surprising. I wonder how much dead money is on the books.

About 17 million at this point I believe...

  • Thank you (+1) 1
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...