Von Miller takes pay cut

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, TheBrownBear said:

The magic number for those incentives is 10.  Not 10 sacks, but a combination of 10 tackles or QB pressures.

 

I don't doubt that, but you hearing this from anywhere in particular????

 

10 tackles won't be difficult for him to reach, anyway.

[BillsFanForever19]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

From a reliable source, Knox was asked to take a paycut. I heard this last week but never got an update.

 

That would surprise me. Though I'd def be here for it.

 

Prevailing thought is he's being cut next season when it's best to get out of his deal. And the way his contract is, we don't really have a leg to stand on as far as "we need you to take a paycut if you want to stay here".

 

He and his agent know with a 20m Dead Cap Hit, it's not really an option for us. They also probably know that odds are pretty good he's out next season. I don't see him choosing to take a paycut under these circumstances and I'd be surprised if Beane even tried.

Edited March 7 by BillsFanForever19

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Mango said:

Am I missing something? You think Von will get a bonus for 4 tackles?

 

Bonuses are generally based on a total performance not necessarily related to the prior year. I would be shocked if Von triggered additional pay on his 4th tackle. That silly.

 

It wouldn't be a bonus. It's a not likely to be earned incentive, which are typically based on the player's previous statistical season. I listen to a LOT of Greg Tompsett. That's exactly how he defines it.

 

You can Google it and that's how it's defined, too.

 

I'm sure that player and team can come to a different agreement, but what would be the motivation for the player? The entire point is that it benefits both player and team, as this does. That's how you so often hear of players agreeing to something we equate to a "payout." They can earn it back. And if they do, the team owes it the following year.

 

Tompsett also points out that it can work in favor of the team when a player agrees to LIKELY to be earned incentives, but doesn't reach them. For example, Matt Milano signed an extension last offseason. We don't know the details of the incentives in his contract, but assuming the team put incentives in his contract that were likely to be earned incentives in his contract like tackles, sacks, interceptions, and games played... he likely didn't meet those incentives. Those likely to be earned incentives would have counted against the CAP last year and therefore we'd get that money back in the CAP this year.

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

Maybe. But part of me wonders if Beane threatened him - take the pay cut or we'll release you as a post-6/1 designation. A couple months back I thought that would be one way of handling his contract, I just didn't know if Beane would be willing to be that ruthless. If Von was cut he would get a paltry contract offer from another team, and we would be stuck with a bunch of dead money, so it is a good compromise for both sides to accept this pay cut.

 

If the report is that Von can still earn $20m next year, I doubt it's Beane being ruthless and would bet on the not likely to be earned incentives.

[John from Riverside]

He is betting on himself
I like it

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Westside said:

Do you need a crystal ball to know not to over pay for a 30+ year old DE? It was a bad deal, too much money for to many years. 

 

 

Yes, you do need a crystal ball.

 

I mean, the way you worded it, it's obvious. If it's an overpay, don't do it. If it's an underpay, do do it. If it's just on target, do it.

 

But that's not the way the world works. Plenty of 30+ DEs have been signed for a ton of money and been worth every penny. And plenty of others have not. Knowing which will be which would indeed require a crystal ball, or more specifically, it's impossible.

 

Not everyone is as successful as an older front seven / pass rushing guy as Willie McGinest or Kevin Greene or Calais Campbell or Terrell Suggs or Reggie White or James Harrison or Jason Taylor or Chris Doleman or Michael Strahan or Julius Peppers or Bruce Smith or Jim Jeffcoat or Neil Smith or Trace Armstrong or Sean Jones or Too Tall Jones or Clyde Simmons or Robert Mathis or Rickey Jackson or Leslie O'Neal or John Abraham or John Randle or Justin Smith or Brandon Graham or Clay Matthews or Ron McDole or ...

 

I could go on but the more obvious ones are gone.

 

Hell, Jerry Hughes had a really good season at 34. London Fletcher.

 

Point is, some guys don't. Others .... you know ... do.

 

So yeah, you do need a crystal ball. Could've worked out, especially with the plans to platoon him. So far it hasn't, but it could have.

 

 

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m not feeling as bad as I thought I was going to I’m big fans of guys like Poyer, white and Morse
 

But we all knew this day was coming, even if it wasn’t going to be this year

 

 

I'm feeling bad emotionally, and I'm worried about the center of the o-line. They were, at long last, genuinely good all along the line this year. Now we don't know how next year will look.

[John from Riverside]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, you do need a crystal ball.

 

I mean, the way you worded it, it's obvious. If it's an overpay, don't do it. If it's an underpay, do do it. If it's just on target, do it.

 

But that's not the way the world works. Plenty of 30+ DEs have been signed for a ton of money and been worth every penny. And plenty of others have not. Knowing which will be which would indeed require a crystal ball, or more specifically, it's impossible.

 

Not everyone is as successful as an older front seven / pass rushing guy as Willie McGinest or Kevin Greene or Calais Campbell or Terrell Suggs or Reggie White or James Harrison or Jason Taylor or Chris Doleman or Michael Strahan or Julius Peppers or Bruce Smith or Jim Jeffcoat or Neil Smith or Trace Armstrong or Sean Jones or Too Tall Jones or Clyde Simmons or Robert Mathis or Rickey Jackson or Leslie O'Neal or John Abraham or John Randle or Justin Smith or Brandon Graham or Clay Matthews or Ron McDole or ...

 

I could go on but the more obvious ones are gone.

 

Hell, Jerry Hughes had a really good season at 34. London Fletcher.

 

Point is, some guys don't. Others .... you know ... do.

 

So yeah, you do need a crystal ball. Could've worked out, especially with the plans to platoon him. So far it hasn't, but it could have.

 

 

 

 

I'm feeling bad emotionally, and I'm worried about the center of the o-line. They were, at long last, genuinely good all along the line this year. Now we don't know how next year will look.

I feel you
One thing to consider and I always do whenever it came to Morse. He’s one hit away from another concussion and an aging player that doesn’t make it hurt any less but he’s not on the team.

[Thurman#1]

28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It wouldn't be a bonus. It's a not likely to be earned incentive, which are typically based on the player's previous statistical season. I listen to a LOT of Greg Tompsett. That's exactly how he defines it.

 

You can Google it and that's how it's defined, too.

 

 

 

That's the difference between likely to be earned and not likely to be earned. It's not what they are "typically based on."

 

There are PLENTY of not likely to be earned bonuses set a lot higher than what the player did last year.

 

So a likely to be earned incentive on tackles for Von would have to be at 3 tackles or less. But a not likely to be earned incentive could be set at four. Or at 50.

 

There's a famous story about Brady keeping Gronk in the last game of the year to earn his incentives. Those incentives were set at 55 receptions and 750 yards. But the year before he'd put up 45 catches and 623 yards.

 

You can set not-likelies as high as you want.

 

 

19 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I feel you
One thing to consider and I always do whenever it came to Morse. He’s one hit away from another concussion and an aging player that doesn’t make it hurt any less but he’s not on the team.

 

 

Yup. Good point.

 

Doesn't make his replacements better, unfortunately. They seem to have more confidence in Conor McDermott at center than I do, though we may see differently in FA or the draft.

 

 

Edited March 7 by Thurman#1

[Turk71]

Von taking a pay cut and loading his contract with incentives instead of guaranteed money is an incredible development. 

 He was already guaranteed the money and didn't have to take a pay cut. The fact that he did and loaded his contract with incentives instead tells me that he plans on being really good again. 

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, NoSaint said:

vons alternative was to be cut, be signed to a meager deal and look bad 

 

this was simply a good business decision for both sides in the midst of a bad set of alternatives for each 

The Bills were saddled with a bad contract and Von had little other options they met in the middle. A good compromise for both honestly.

[The Red King]

8 hours ago, Buffalo Super Fan said:

Von Miller is a washed up NFL football player that is a distraction. If Von Miller was a team player he should retire. The Buffalo Bills should have never signed him. Von Miller should have been released today he has no value as a NFL player anymore and certainly can’t help

the Bills other than sitting on his but with a Bills jacket wrapped around himself playing sparely. At least the Chuck Knox over the hill 1980’s Buffalo Bills players like Conrad Dobler had some professional pride and gave the 1980 Bills something. Von Miller has given the Bills nothing total waste of a Bills roster spot. I don’t want to hear about Von Miller’s knee Conrad Dobler had bad knees without the medical technology we have today to repair his knee. Suck it and play Von Miller or retire in my opinion. Go Bills! Let’s Go Buffalo 

 

Miller pressured Mahomes into throwing a pic that sealed a Bills' win over KC two years ago.  That's just one example.  People seem to forget Von actually looked good until he got injured.  Can he bounce back this year?  We'll see.  But stop saying he never did anything for the Bills.  Wanna blame something?  Blame that garbage turf in Detroit.

[BillMafia716ix]

Von is so confident that he’s going to bounce back he took a 10M pay cut to help the team and can still earn it all back and then some if he produces. Talk about betting on yourself. 

[BillMafia716ix]

Von is essentially betting on himself this season. Good news for us and very rewarding for him if he does. 

[Doc Brown]

6 minutes ago, BillMafia716ix said:

Von is essentially betting on himself this season. Good news for us and very rewarding for him if he does. 

The power of positive thinking.  Some may say delusional.  Interested to see what the incentives are.

[JohnNord]

Shouldn’t both these threads be merged?

[bmur66]

I hope this gives the Bills an easy out after next season.

[Captain Hindsight]

11 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

Von’s play decline was due to injury

He made a play against the chiefs in the playoff game where he moved so quickly and violently I couldn’t believe it was him. The play was called back on a penalty but I hope that was a preview of him recovering 

[boyst]

8 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

hmm you live in Nashville right? Knox and his family are there aren’t they?  It would be quite something if he reworked it after just signing last year

no i live in greensboro, nc.

6 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

From a reliable source, Knox was asked to take a paycut. I heard this last week but never got an update.

🤔😉

[Mango]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It wouldn't be a bonus. It's a not likely to be earned incentive, which are typically based on the player's previous statistical season. I listen to a LOT of Greg Tompsett. That's exactly how he defines it.

 

You can Google it and that's how it's defined, too.

 

I'm sure that player and team can come to a different agreement, but what would be the motivation for the player? The entire point is that it benefits both player and team, as this does. That's how you so often hear of players agreeing to something we equate to a "payout." They can earn it back. And if they do, the team owes it the following year.

 

Tompsett also points out that it can work in favor of the team when a player agrees to LIKELY to be earned incentives, but doesn't reach them. For example, Matt Milano signed an extension last offseason. We don't know the details of the incentives in his contract, but assuming the team put incentives in his contract that were likely to be earned incentives in his contract like tackles, sacks, interceptions, and games played... he likely didn't meet those incentives. Those likely to be earned incentives would have counted against the CAP last year and therefore we'd get that money back in the CAP this year.

 

If the report is that Von can still earn $20m next year, I doubt it's Beane being ruthless and would bet on the not likely to be earned incentives.

Greg gets some things right. But he gets a lot wrong especially regarding the cap. Cover 1 started as great. They’re less great now. Just my opinion on them. 
 

I think the reason a player is willing to take an incentive laden deal in this situation is because if they don’t his career likely ends. Unless Von has 15+ sacks this year his time here is done at season end. And maybe his career overall is done. You can’t keep a guy who vastly underperforms his cost. And nobody wants to sign a guy who underperforms. 
 

But take a haircut with the possibility to win it back based on performance? If Von gets 8.5 sacks this year at $8M people are having the conversation “He just needed a year to get right” and even if he doesn’t stick around here he is a guy who performed at a level commensurate with his pay. Good credit and bad credit matter. 

[John from Riverside]

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

Greg gets some things right. But he gets a lot wrong especially regarding the cap. Cover 1 started as great. They’re less great now. Just my opinion on them. 
 

I think the reason a player is willing to take an incentive laden deal in this situation is because if they don’t his career likely ends. Unless Von has 15+ sacks this year his time here is done at season end. And maybe his career overall is done. You can’t keep a guy who vastly underperforms his cost. And nobody wants to sign a guy who underperforms. 
 

But take a haircut with the possibility to win it back based on performance? If Von gets 8.5 sacks this year at $8M people are having the conversation “He just needed a year to get right” and even if he doesn’t stick around here he is a guy who performed at a level commensurate with his pay. Good credit and bad credit matter. 

Von that even 80% of himself is a 10 plus sack guy

[Mango]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

Von that even 80% of himself is a 10 plus sack guy

And that is really bad value at his previous $25M cap number. You don’t pay premier pass rusher money for 10 sacks. 
 

But it’s good value for $8M.