Will DeAndre Hopkins be available this offseason?

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, BananaB said:

Watch it again then. Elam had a great first start against Miami and he had a big impact on Hill and Waddle in his man to man coverage. 

 

 

Yeah, Elam did have a good first start. Then teams figured out that he was as yet a liability in zone coverage and used that to make him look consistently bad. He learned all year how to improve himself and yeah, he had a good game against Cincy. 

 

He looked like he has figured things out and gotten a lot better. I'm expecting to see an awful lot of him next year and mostly liking it.

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, Dr. Who said:

Yes, I'm not trying to ignore the important distinctions. I think Beane should be able to find a way to acquire Hopkins without crippling the future. Or, to be more precise, I'd be willing to take some hit to the future to get him. I don't think the cost has to be anywhere near what LA did.

 

 

You're probably right that it wouldn't be as severe as what happened to LA.

 

But yeah, it would start in on crippling the future.

 

Have you seen where our cap is for next year, 2024? Even right now we're projected at being about $17M OVER the cap. Already!!!! Add in $40M over this year and next year for Hopkins and things will look a lot worse. And yes, we can do renegotiations. Which will simply add on to what we owe the next year or two. That's all these renegotiations do, is borrow money from our future cap years.

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're probably right that it wouldn't be as severe as what happened to LA.

 

But yeah, it would start in on crippling the future.

 

Have you seen where our cap is for next year, 2024? Even right now we're projected at being about $17M OVER the cap. Already!!!! Add in $40M over this year and next year for Hopkins and things will look a lot worse. And yes, we can do renegotiations. Which will simply add on to what we owe the next year or two. That's all these renegotiations do, is borrow money from our future cap years.

I think it's difficult to project precisely. I've referenced elsewhere folks who surmise the cap is going to escalate significantly in the next few years. Maybe that doesn't happen, I don't really know. I still suspect there is a plausible way to make Hopkins work, though perhaps that is too close a margin for many to comfortably live with. What I do know is that I am now a graybeard. When I was young, well, I didn't think about it, but paradoxically, had I done a cost benefit analysis, I might have been more cautious because I would be thinking of those future years as time I expected to be watching the Bills possibly struggle as a result of hasty investment. Where I'm at now, if there is a genuine shot at the SB, you take it. Things alter quickly. The future that is now might be very different in a short time regardless of all your prudential efforts.

[TheBeaneBandit]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Yes, I'm not trying to ignore the important distinctions. I think Beane should be able to find a way to acquire Hopkins without crippling the future. Or, to be more precise, I'd be willing to take some hit to the future to get him. I don't think the cost has to be anywhere near what LA did.

Exactly. Because when all is said and done and another team swoops in I guarantee 95% of the league (and GM fan base) will be like "how the hell did Beane not beat that deal".

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

Exactly. Because when all is said and done and another team swoops in I guarantee 95% of the league (and GM fan base) will be like "how the hell did Beane not beat that deal".

At the moment, if the scuttlebutt is not just a bunch of delusional smoke, we'd be primarily bidding against ourselves. I do think Beane needs to negotiate and keep the price down as much as possible, yet ultimately, I suppose I would be willing to "lose" a bit on compensation to acquire the player.

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

Exactly. Because when all is said and done and another team swoops in I guarantee 95% of the league (and GM fan base) will be like "how the hell did Beane not beat that deal".

As long as Beane and the AZ GM are on good terms, I’m sure Beane has his offer out there with the contingency of “hey, if someone offers more, give me a call before you close the deal”… that would be a common courtesy for a team that has been deep in negotiations (as reported) but the sticking point is the level of compensation going back to Arizona. 
 

Beane seems to be one of the more respected GM’s in the league.. I highly doubt a brand new GM wants to start off by screwing him over. 

[Solomon Grundy]

NFL Network is playing with my emotions. Right now playing is Chargers v Cardinals. Afterwards Bills v Dolphins. DHop having nice game too

[Chandler#81]

41 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

And there's always a wildly entitled fan so spoiled, so desperately believing they deserve special treatment that they are willing to deceive themselves that a 13-3 season (in a season when one of their teammates died on the field, when there was a mass shooting, two blizzards with multiple fatalities, the first time in history when a team has had three away games in twelve days) followed by a playoff win and a playoff loss with almost half the defense out or injured ... is equal to

 

"eating a plate of poo."

 

Easiest male Karen demonstration in the world.

Please don’t forget our Owner Kim’s ordeal. Just because the Pegula’s want their privacy respected, doesn’t mean it didn’t have a huge, dramatic influence on the entire team.

[TOboy]

5 minutes ago, SCBills said:

As long as Beane and the AZ GM are on good terms, I’m sure Beane has his offer out there with the contingency of “hey, if someone offers more, give me a call before you close the deal”… that would be a common courtesy for a team that has been deep in negotiations (as reported) but the sticking point is the level of compensation going back to Arizona. 
 

Beane seems to be one of the more respected GM’s in the league.. I highly doubt a brand new GM wants to start off by screwing him over. 

See I’m torn on this line of thought. On one hand, I get the idea, you want to ensure you get the player. 
 

However, it’s probably not the best way to negotiate. You’re basically saying you’re willing to give more, so why on earth would the other GM accept your offer. I’d think you’d want to make them believe they’ve got your best and final, otherwise they’ll keep pushing for that little more you’d be willing to give. 

[Chandler#81]

42 minutes ago, Yantha said:

I've stayed out of this thread but at 141 pages.....  can someone please give the the summary in ONE post?  LOL.....

 

Seems I need to catch up.

He hasn’t visited. He may not even be on the Bills radar. 
in other words, you haven’t missed a GOTdamn thing!

[Reed83HOF]

48 minutes ago, Yantha said:

I've stayed out of this thread but at 141 pages.....  can someone please give the the summary in ONE post?  LOL.....

 

Seems I need to catch up.

 

 

https://twitter.com/RyanBuffalo01/status/1639011882099513457341

 

This series of tweets sums it up nicely

Edited March 26, 2023 by Reed83HOF

[mikemac2001]

3 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

 

https://twitter.com/RyanBuffalo01/status/1639011882099513457341

 

This thread of tweets sums it up nicely

Damn I didn’t see that yet I think we get this done by Tuesday 

[mrags]

4 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

 

https://twitter.com/RyanBuffalo01/status/1639011882099513457341

 

This thread of tweets sums it up nicely

I think it’s ok but not that much detail about how it’s gone on so far. 

[SCBills]

7 minutes ago, TOboy said:

See I’m torn on this line of thought. On one hand, I get the idea, you want to ensure you get the player. 
 

However, it’s probably not the best way to negotiate. You’re basically saying you’re willing to give more, so why on earth would the other GM accept your offer. I’d think you’d want to make them believe they’ve got your best and final, otherwise they’ll keep pushing for that little more you’d be willing to give. 

I could see “best and final” in certain scenarios … but open lines of communication more for a complicated deal where you know the team you’re dealing with isn’t keeping the player AND is putting the team that they deal him to in a tough position with cap maneuvering is probably the move here. 
 

This isn’t a straightforward deal, Arizona needs a team to be able to create 19M in cap and wants good picks back.  Also, their player doesn’t have a no-trade but due to his contract can somewhat dictate where he goes.  

We could also have multiple offers out there, depending on what they’re willing to do, or not do, with his cap hit. 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by SCBills

[OldTimer1960]

I’m not a big fan of trading for Hopkins.  He will be 31 before the season starts, has recently been injured, and was suspended for failing a PED test not long ago.  It’s one thing to acquire an aging star, but his salary and (presumably) cap hit are very high for him.  I would not want to exacerbate the Bills’ tight cap situation with an aging star.  Hopkins salary for 2023 is almost $20M.  If they are willing to take a big cap number on, it should be for someone younger (IMHO).

Edited March 26, 2023 by OldTimer1960

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, Yantha said:

I've stayed out of this thread but at 141 pages.....  can someone please give the the summary in ONE post?  LOL.....

 

Seems I need to catch up.

Hopkins trade value is very low as he otherwise would be cut due to salary and AZ rebuild. Multiple teams (incl KC) interested in the highly talented, but aging vet so that’s what is establishing his market. Cards could assume some of his salary, but compensation would increase. Bills would have to make more than one salary cap move to fit Hopkins’ salary, which is $19.45M in 2023 and $14.915M in 2024. One of those salary cap moves would likely have to be trading Oliver. Another logical move would be to rework Hopkins’ contract. Owners meeting starts Monday and would be the logical time to work this all out since there are many moving parts to making this happen. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by BarleyNY

[Johnny Hammersticks]

6 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I’m not a big fan of trading for Hopkins.  He will be 31 before the season starts, has recently been injured, and was suspended for failing a PED test not long ago.  It’s one thing to acquire an aging star, but his salary and (presumably) cap hit are very high for him.  I would not want to exacerbate the Bills’ tight cap situation with an aging star.  Hopkins salary for 2023 is almost $20M.  If they are willing to take a big cap number on, it should be for someone younger (IMHO).

Obviously, Beane isn’t going to take on his full salary regardless of the trade compensation.  Arizona paying part of the bill or a contract restructuring would need to be part of the deal.  If Nuk didn’t have such a burdensome contract, he would have been traded long ago.

[OldTimer1960]

1 minute ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

Obviously, Beane isn’t going to take on his full salary regardless of the trade compensation.  Arizona paying part of the bill or a contract restructuring would need to be part of the deal.  If Nuk didn’t have such a burdensome contract, he would have been traded long ago.

I would not want to acquire and restructure on a 31 y.o.  WR.  That just creates future cap problems with dead money.

[Buffalo03]

5 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I would not want to acquire and restructure on a 31 y.o.  WR.  That just creates future cap problems with dead money.

It's not your money. Don't worry about it lol

[Johnny Hammersticks]

4 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I would not want to acquire and restructure on a 31 y.o.  WR.  That just creates future cap problems with dead money.

I believe there are ways of converting a large portion of his salary to a signing bonus so that you’re not kicking the can down the road too far.  I think a restructured 3 year deal could work if done correctly.  I’m no cap expert though.