Mike Williams versus the "cap"...

[Rico]

Try this LINK for my thread at BZ

 

Try this LINK for the thread I posted here at TSW

499163[/snapback]

Thanks Clumpy, I missed both of those posts first time around.

 

At first glance, $6.9M dead cap hit on MW didn't look too hot compared to $5.3M, but it still may be workable depending on who much the cap increases.

 

Then, I read a little further:

QUOTE(d_wag @ Oct 14 2005, 07:58 PM)

so what is that in dead cap money if moulds is cut? 5M? 6M?

 

 

 

If cut before 6/1/06 or traded during 2006 League Year, the dead cap will be $5,333,333 all on 2006 cap

 

If cut after 6/1/06, it will be $3,666,666 on 2006 cap and $1,666,667 on 2007 cap

$6.9M dead cap with MW + $5.3M dead cap with Moulds?

Excuse me while I puke.

[Chilly]

Why oh why did I buy a Mike Williams Jersey?

[Mikie2times]

Vill and Gandy are average NFL linemen = they get the job done, but they are not all-pros. I have no problem with both on the line, but they aren't difference makers --- which is what Williams is supposed to be.

Besides how raw can Gandy be, he's been in the league for four-plus years and started two in Chicago?

Peters is raw, Gandy is a veteran. http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235212

498730[/snapback]

 

In one post you trashed me for saying we have some decent players at offensive line, in another you say the same line has potential, which is it? Vill had a great year in 2004, and has been hit bad by the injury bug this season. He is still an above average run blocker, and is more then capable in pass protection.

 

Gandy is certainly still developing at LT, in 2003 he started 14 games at LT, but then in 2004 he started 5 games at RG and none at LT. Making the position switch was enough to keep him under the radar in FA, the Bills must have watched enough tape of him at LT in 2003 to like his potential. So with such a short time spent at LT he is still developing, but rumor also has it that he was breaking threw at G in 2004. Either way he is a player on the rise with versatility, and came with a great price.

 

My entire point of chiming in on this debate was just to say we have some strong players, so a complete fix is not in order. We can tweak this in the off-season a little bit, but as of now why not start this line (Gandy-Williams-Preston-Vill-Peters). Teague is gone next year, the writing is on the wall. If we can get this unit to gel as the year winds down, we will have a talented cost effective line for several years.

[Mark VI]

I didn't see that assessment, but I thought the News mentioned his cap hit would be $5M if released.  Otherwise, his cap hit next year will be in the $9M range, so you'd actually save $4M against the cap if they released him.  They already approached him about his salary this year and he declined any concessions, so I'd say he's gone because there is no way in hell we pay $9M for a guard next year.

498788[/snapback]

 

I understand what you're saying but I believe the issues of the new amount of next years cap plus how much dead cap $$ towards the next few seasons, impacts this decision. Looks like cutting Moulds ( 10.8 Mil cap hit in 2006 ) would carry a dead cap hit for at least 2 years. If you cut Williams in addition, then that figure would be extreme. You save 4 Mil by cutting Williams. Then you need to find a quality UFA to replace him,who'd cost 3-4 Mil. Where is the savings ?

 

The Bills probably wish to keep Williams and extend his current contract a couple years, to reduce the current cap figure. Then cutting him in a year or 2 wouldn't be too bad a hit, if it's determined he's not working out at Guard. If Williams says no to this idea, then they have to cut him now... but that means signing 2nd tier UFA's for positions of need ( if any) , due to little cap space for the next 2 years. The Moulds and Williams cuts would really tie our hands with dead cap $$ and take us out of the bidding for any quality UFA's until 2008. The Bills would be completely dependent on the Draft.

 

We already know signing bargain scrubs has been a failing exercise.

[Rico]

The Bills probably wish to keep Williams and extend his current contract a couple years, to reduce the current cap figure. Then cutting him in a year or 2 wouldn't be too bad a hit, if it's determined he's not working out at Guard.

499176[/snapback]

Much, much easier said than done.

1. Bills will have to pay him $18.6M over the next 2 years if he doesn't restructure per the original contract.`

2. MW & agent already have been unwilling to restructure, but most likely would if most of the $18.6M is converted to signing bonus.

3. Imagine the look on Ralph's face when TD tells him he's restructuring MW with a $12-15M upfront signing bonus.

4. Per Clumpy, "Starting in 2006, signing bonuses can only be spread out 2006-2009 (4 yrs) without new CBA." If this doesn't change & he is extended with say a $12M signing bonus, his dead cap $$$ if cut after 2006 would be $9M... after 2007, $6M. And if he's not cut, he'd still count $4M bonus + escalating salary against the cap every year.

 

2005 was not a good year for MW to get hurt.

[HurlyBurly51]

I understand what you're saying but I believe the issues of the new amount of next years cap plus how much dead cap $$ towards the next few seasons, impacts this decision. Looks like cutting Moulds ( 10.8 Mil cap hit in 2006 ) would carry a dead cap hit for at least 2 years. If you cut Williams in addition, then that figure would be extreme. You save 4 Mil by cutting Williams. Then you need to find a quality UFA to replace him,who'd cost 3-4 Mil. Where is the savings ?

 

The Bills probably wish to keep Williams and extend his current contract a couple years, to reduce the current cap figure. Then cutting him in a year or 2 wouldn't be too bad a hit, if it's determined he's not working out at Guard. If Williams says no to this idea, then they have to cut him now... but that means signing 2nd tier UFA's for positions of need ( if any) , due to little cap space for the next 2 years. The Moulds and Williams cuts would really tie our hands with dead cap $$ and take us out of the bidding for any quality UFA's until 2008. The Bills would be completely dependent on the Draft.

 

  We already know signing bargain scrubs has been a failing exercise.

499176[/snapback]

 

You're right, especially when taken in the context of the Moulds impact. I just hope he can play G, and that they can work out an extension that all sides can live with. That's probably the best case scenario. I'd hate to see us cut ties with him given the investment that's already been placed in him. Let's squeeze something out of it, but he's gotta meet us somewhere in the middle. I wonder what he'd command on the free agent market? Seems it'd be a lot less than what he could still get from reworking his current deal.

[d_wag]

Much, much easier said than done.

1. Bills will have to pay him $18.6M  over the next 2 years if he doesn't restructure per the original contract.`

2. MW & agent already have been unwilling to restructure, but most likely would if most of the $18.6M is converted to signing bonus.

3. Imagine the look on Ralph's face  when TD tells him he's restructuring MW with a $12-15M upfront signing bonus.

4.  Per Clumpy, "Starting in 2006, signing bonuses can only be spread out 2006-2009 (4 yrs) without new CBA." If this doesn't change & he is extended with say a $12M signing bonus, his dead cap $$$ if cut after 2006 would be $9M... after 2007, $6M. And if he's not cut, he'd still count $4M bonus + escalating salary against the cap every year.

 

2005 was not a good year for MW to get hurt.

499507[/snapback]

 

they restructured the contract over the summer......

[Rico]

they restructured the contract over the summer......

499589[/snapback]

You're right, thanks, I missed that while ranting.

From Clumpy's link above:

In 2005, his $3 million roster bonus was due July 1 (or thereabouts) and it was "guaranteed". That is, converted to signing bonus and spread out over 2005-2007 at $1 million/yr. It saved $2 million on 2005 cap, but added $1 million to each of 2006 & 2007.

So, does that mean he'll get paid $18.6M over the next 2 years, or $20.6M???

[Bflojohn]

Seeing that there is always avenues to pursue here, if Mike Williams isn't in the plans next year, a trade could be in order. Either an outright man for man, draft pick for man, or a package deal that sends him on his way. My thought is that in this sense, his bonus money has been paid by the Bills and base salary and possible incentives are all his new franchise has to pay. The fact that he's played ORT and OLG in Buffalo "might" up his value. After all, he is still a relatively young lineman.

[Rico]

Seeing that there is always avenues to pursue here, if Mike Williams isn't in the plans next year, a trade could be in order. Either an outright man for man, draft pick for man, or a package deal that sends him on his way. My thought is that in this sense, his bonus money has been paid by the Bills and base salary and possible incentives are all his new franchise has to pay. The fact that he's played ORT and OLG in Buffalo "might" up his value. After all, he is still a relatively young lineman.

499748[/snapback]

Not a bad idea in theory. But after you subtract the amortized bonus that the Bills would have to eat ($6.9M), his new team would be on the hook for $7.3M in 2006 and $3.9M in 2007 (plus maybe $1M more each year based on the 2005 roster bonus restructuring). Good luck finding a trading partner.

[clumping platelets]

Mike Williams, without restructure, will get paid $12 million over the next 2 yrs

 

His salaries from 2006 & 2007 and the $3 million roster bonus in 06. The amortized bonuses listed are for bonus money already paid. The "deion" charges (debit/credits) are for cap accounting, not money given to a player

[Rico]

Mike Williams, without restructure, will get paid $12 million over the next 2 yrs

 

His salaries from 2006 & 2007 and the $3 million roster bonus in 06. The amortized bonuses listed are for bonus money already paid. The "deion" charges (debit/credits) are for cap accounting, not money given to a player

500226[/snapback]

Thanks, yeah, I should've said "cap hit" in post #28 instead of "paid".

[clumping platelets]

[Rico]

500233[/snapback]

Exactly.