Eagles reset RB market, extend Barkley.

[Magox]

The Khalil Shakir deal I believe is somewhat instructive in seeing how a deal with Cook could look like.   This is not a post to convince anyone of whether his quality of play and value are worth what a contract could look like but how much of the cap he would tie up if he were to be signed to a similar deal as Khalil.

 

The contract with Shakir is actually a $13.25 M AAV  4 year $53M, which makes it even better than what we were hearing due to the remaining amount not listed presumably are on performance based incentives.   

 

A deal with Cook would probably look very similar.

 

The Sportrac link wasn't working for me, so here is another one I found https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/77025/khalil-shakir

 

I think too many people focus on the AAV, it's truly not representative of what the actual cap hits are in practical terms.  A better way of looking at it is the actual CAP HIT and CAP% of the league cap.

 

If the Cook contract were to be lets say exactly the same as Cooks which as a $13.25M AAV and 1 voided year then this is what you'd expect:

 

2025  Cook would only have around a $3M cap hit which would be 1% of the cap

2026 Cook would have around a $6.8M cap hit which would be 2.21% of the cap

2027 Cook would have a $13.9M cap hit which would be 4.12% of the cap

2028 Cook would have a $15M cap hit which would be 4.04% of the cap

2029 Cook would have a $15.9M cap hit which would be 3.91% of the cap

2030 the VOIDED year would have a $1.8M cap hit which would be .4% of the cap

 

The VOIDED year is essentially a somewhat empty container.  That container could be used for 2027, 2028 and 2029 years to push out the base salaries that can be converted to bonuses to lower the cap hit and spread it out in the remaining years including the voided year.

  

The base salary for 2027 is $9.9M

The base salary for 2028 is $11M

The base salary for 2029 is $11.2M

 

For 2027 where the cap hit is at it's zenith at 4.12% of the cap, they could spread out the $10M salary, convert to bonus and spread it out between the remaining 3 years (which includes the voided year) and lower the cap hit for 2027 by around $7.5M, by spreading $2.5M to 2028, 2029 and 2030.  Of course if you do this then the percentage of cap would be under 2% for 2027.

 

The point is, even without any restructures which there very likely would be the maximum cap % hit would be 4.12% of the cap for a playmaking RB.

Edited Wednesday at 02:59 PM by Magox

[colin]

4 hours ago, Magox said:

The Khalil Shakir deal I believe is somewhat instructive in seeing how a deal with Cook could look like.   This is not a post to convince anyone of whether his quality of play and value are worth what a contract could look like but how much of the cap he would tie up if he were to be signed to a similar deal as Khalil.

 

The contract with Shakir is actually a $13.25 M AAV  4 year $53M, which makes it even better than what we were hearing due to the remaining amount not listed presumably are on performance based incentives.   

 

A deal with Cook would probably look very similar.

 

The Sportrac link wasn't working for me, so here is another one I found https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/77025/khalil-shakir

 

I think too many people focus on the AAV, it's truly not representative of what the actual cap hits are in practical terms.  A better way of looking at it is the actual CAP HIT and CAP% of the league cap.

 

If the Cook contract were to be lets say exactly the same as Cooks which as a $13.25M AAV and 1 voided year then this is what you'd expect:

 

2025  Cook would only have around a $3M cap hit which would be 1% of the cap

2026 Cook would have around a $6.8M cap hit which would be 2.21% of the cap

2027 Cook would have a $13.9M cap hit which would be 4.12% of the cap

2028 Cook would have a $15M cap hit which would be 4.04% of the cap

2029 Cook would have a $15.9M cap hit which would be 3.91% of the cap

2030 the VOIDED year would have a $1.8M cap hit which would be .4% of the cap

 

The VOIDED year is essentially a somewhat empty container.  That container could be used for 2027, 2028 and 2029 years to push out the base salaries that can be converted to bonuses to lower the cap hit and spread it out in the remaining years including the voided year.

  

The base salary for 2027 is $9.9M

The base salary for 2028 is $11M

The base salary for 2029 is $11.2M

 

For 2027 where the cap hit is at it's zenith at 4.12% of the cap, they could spread out the $10M salary, convert to bonus and spread it out between the remaining 3 years (which includes the voided year) and lower the cap hit for 2027 by around $7.5M, by spreading $2.5M to 2028, 2029 and 2030.  Of course if you do this then the percentage of cap would be under 2% for 2027.

 

The point is, even without any restructures which there very likely would be the maximum cap % hit would be 4.12% of the cap for a playmaking RB.

 

I always thought it would peak out at like 12 per year for cook, but that's picking nits.  2/3 years in a similar contract for cook gets us to like 7% of cap on our two best skill players of 2024 when we lead the nfl in scoring.  I'll take that.

 

[Magox]

7 minutes ago, colin said:

 

I always thought it would peak out at like 12 per year for cook, but that's picking nits.  2/3 years in a similar contract for cook gets us to like 7% of cap on our two best skill players of 2024 when we lead the nfl in scoring.  I'll take that.

 

That’s what many don’t understand, in practical terms you are spending a very small amount of your cap on your two best skill players.

[RichRiderBills]

The worst part is bad implications for franchise tag RB next year. 

[JP51]

37 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:

The worst part is bad implications for franchise tag RB next year. 

I agree but I honestly dont think we tag cook... we either sign or trade him or let him walk... the tag would about give him what he is looking for I think.... especially with this move and he seems like a pouter to me... 

[DrDawkinstein]

"But the Bills cant pay Allen AND Cook AND build a defense!"

 

 

(3/$51M btw)

 

[LABILLBACKER]

On 3/4/2025 at 11:23 AM, appoo said:

Ain't no other Saquon Barkley's out there. I love Cook but he's probably two tiers below Barkley

Yup, and 2 tiers means I'm not paying a 2 down rb more than 10M/ yr.  

[Doc Brown]

20 hours ago, Magox said:

The Khalil Shakir deal I believe is somewhat instructive in seeing how a deal with Cook could look like.   This is not a post to convince anyone of whether his quality of play and value are worth what a contract could look like but how much of the cap he would tie up if he were to be signed to a similar deal as Khalil.

 

The contract with Shakir is actually a $13.25 M AAV  4 year $53M, which makes it even better than what we were hearing due to the remaining amount not listed presumably are on performance based incentives.   

 

A deal with Cook would probably look very similar.

 

The Sportrac link wasn't working for me, so here is another one I found https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/77025/khalil-shakir

 

I think too many people focus on the AAV, it's truly not representative of what the actual cap hits are in practical terms.  A better way of looking at it is the actual CAP HIT and CAP% of the league cap.

 

If the Cook contract were to be lets say exactly the same as Cooks which as a $13.25M AAV and 1 voided year then this is what you'd expect:

 

2025  Cook would only have around a $3M cap hit which would be 1% of the cap

2026 Cook would have around a $6.8M cap hit which would be 2.21% of the cap

2027 Cook would have a $13.9M cap hit which would be 4.12% of the cap

2028 Cook would have a $15M cap hit which would be 4.04% of the cap

2029 Cook would have a $15.9M cap hit which would be 3.91% of the cap

2030 the VOIDED year would have a $1.8M cap hit which would be .4% of the cap

 

The VOIDED year is essentially a somewhat empty container.  That container could be used for 2027, 2028 and 2029 years to push out the base salaries that can be converted to bonuses to lower the cap hit and spread it out in the remaining years including the voided year.

  

The base salary for 2027 is $9.9M

The base salary for 2028 is $11M

The base salary for 2029 is $11.2M

 

For 2027 where the cap hit is at it's zenith at 4.12% of the cap, they could spread out the $10M salary, convert to bonus and spread it out between the remaining 3 years (which includes the voided year) and lower the cap hit for 2027 by around $7.5M, by spreading $2.5M to 2028, 2029 and 2030.  Of course if you do this then the percentage of cap would be under 2% for 2027.

 

The point is, even without any restructures which there very likely would be the maximum cap % hit would be 4.12% of the cap for a playmaking RB.

What's interesting about Shakir's contract is how easy it is to get out of it after 2026 before the maximum cap hits.  If Cook's deal is similar I still wouldn't agree with it but wouldn't be overly critical if the Bills did extend him.  There's something to be said about rewarding a player who put all the work in to exceed expectations.

[Magox]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

What's interesting about Shakir's contract is how easy it is to get out of it after 2026 before the maximum cap hits.  If Cook's deal is similar I still wouldn't agree with it but wouldn't be overly critical if the Bills did extend him.  There's something to be said about rewarding a player who put all the work in to exceed expectations.

 

The Eagles keep all their good players, they have 9 players with $17M AAV or more on the roster and 7 that they pay $20M AAV.   We need to extend Rousseau, Cook, Bernard and Benford and then add a couple more blue chippers.   The team can fit them all in them all, it's just a matter of will to spend in actual dollars from the owner.   

 

The Bills will have 2 players with over $20M AAV and a total of 4 with over $17M AAV.   The idea that we should not extend some of our best players on the team because they aren't elite and will cost their current market value is nonsensical.   Cook who arguably was the best skill position player on the Bills this past season and people want to let him walk so that they can save $2-$3MAAV because they've set this arbitrary value for him based on what I've been arguing vociferously in that people have an outdated way of looking at both the cap and the RB position and I hate to say it, recent developments are backing up my thesis.   This all sounds like Giants level of stupidity over Saquon, if the Giants had offered him a few million more AAV he'd still be with them.   Talk about stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.   

 

People say, "We can just draft another RB and replace him".   Maybe and maybe not.  Very very likely that whoever the Bills would draft would not be as good as Cook, which means that the probability that we downgrade at RB would be highly likely.   Great!   Just because we didn't sign someone in Cook who literally would cost around 1% of the cap in 2025, 2% of the cap in 2026 and 4% in 2027 (Which could be lowered by converting the base to salary and most likely bring it back to around 3%) is downright idiotic.

 

Same goes for Rousseau, people have all these subjective feelings over him, "He's not a game wrecker".   "I'll pay $20M AAV but not a penny more", "He's not elite".   It's all nonsense.   He is objectively a top 12-15 player in the league.  Which means out of 64 starting DE's, he's in the top 20 - 25%.    He's the best DE this team has drafted since......I can't even remember who, whoever it is it's been a while.    And just because he's not elite, and we don't want to pay market value, people want to go ahead and now create ANOTHER hole in the defense?    So now the Bills would need to replace 2 players at that spot.   Genius!!! Others say let Rousseau play out his last year and lets take it from there.   Ok, sounds reasonable on the surface, but if you don't extend him now, you miss out on saving around $10M in cap savings for 2025 which limits our options in who they can go after in FA or trade.   So there is a monetary cap incentive to extend Rousseau.   There is plenty enough money to extend all the players that the Bills care about and to go after more.  There just is.   Again, ridiculous. 

 

The Eagles have signed a RB for over $20M AAV, a guard for over $20M AAV and an off the ball LB for $17M AAV.   They are doing the exact opposite of a lot of people's standard way of thinking and the reason is that they value good players and are not in the business of getting rid of them.   

 

Edited Thursday at 12:57 PM by Magox

[nucci]

7 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Yup, and 2 tiers means I'm not paying a 2 down rb more than 10M/ yr.  

He's a 2 down RB because they keep taking him off the field. He should have played more vs the Chiefs. Ridiculous how often he was on the bench

[Man with No Name]

17 minutes ago, nucci said:

He's a 2 down RB because they keep taking him off the field. He should have played more vs the Chiefs. Ridiculous how often he was on the bench

Can't block. Drops balls in clutch situations. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

2 hours ago, Magox said:

 

The Eagles keep all their good players, they have 9 players with $17M AAV or more on the roster and 7 that they pay $20M AAV.   We need to extend Rousseau, Cook, Bernard and Benford and then add a couple more blue chippers.   The team can fit them all in them all, it's just a matter of will to spend in actual dollars from the owner.   

 

The Bills will have 2 players with over $20M AAV and a total of 4 with over $17M AAV.   The idea that we should not extend some of our best players on the team because they aren't elite and will cost their current market value is nonsensical.   Cook who arguably was the best skill position player on the Bills this past season and people want to let him walk so that they can save $2-$3MAAV because they've set this arbitrary value for him based on what I've been arguing vociferously in that people have an outdated way of looking at both the cap and the RB position and I hate to say it, recent developments are backing up my thesis.   This all sounds like Giants level of stupidity over Saquon, if the Giants had offered him a few million more AAV he'd still be with them.   Talk about stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.   

 

People say, "We can just draft another RB and replace him".   Maybe and maybe not.  Very very likely that whoever the Bills would draft would not be as good as Cook, which means that the probability that we downgrade at RB would be highly likely.   Great!   Just because we didn't sign someone in Cook who literally would cost around 1% of the cap in 2025, 2% of the cap in 2026 and 4% in 2027 (Which could be lowered by converting the base to salary and most likely bring it back to around 3%) is downright idiotic.

 

Same goes for Rousseau, people have all these subjective feelings over him, "He's not a game wrecker".   "I'll pay $20M AAV but not a penny more", "He's not elite".   It's all nonsense.   He is objectively a top 12-15 player in the league.  Which means out of 64 starting DE's, he's in the top 20 - 25%.    He's the best DE this team has drafted since......I can't even remember who, whoever it is it's been a while.    And just because he's not elite, and we don't want to pay market value, people want to go ahead and now create ANOTHER hole in the defense?    So now the Bills would need to replace 2 players at that spot.   Genius!!! Others say let Rousseau play out his last year and lets take it from there.   Ok, sounds reasonable on the surface, but if you don't extend him now, you miss out on saving around $10M in cap savings for 2025 which limits our options in who they can go after in FA or trade.   So there is a monetary cap incentive to extend Rousseau.   There is plenty enough money to extend all the players that the Bills care about and to go after more.  There just is.   Again, ridiculous. 

 

The Eagles have signed a RB for over $20M AAV, a guard for over $20M AAV and an off the ball LB for $17M AAV.   They are doing the exact opposite of a lot of people's standard way of thinking and the reason is that they value good players and are not in the business of getting rid of them.   

 

 

The eagles stagger a lot of dead cap over the course of these deals, and leverage a lot of future cap to keep players.  They use options so its kind of confusing - every year you keep a player you basically add a new bonus and another void year.  You do have to make tough decisions on vet's though - lane johnson for example will probably get cut next year.  

[Magox]

18 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

The eagles stagger a lot of dead cap over the course of these deals, and leverage a lot of future cap to keep players.  They use options so its kind of confusing - every year you keep a player you basically add a new bonus and another void year.  You do have to make tough decisions on vet's though - lane johnson for example will probably get cut next year.  

Yes, you end up paying the piper at some point which is why that in order to have sustained success you have to draft well