AKC Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 What's amusing is that they may reject the Bills offer to restructure, take the Bills bonus money, and go sign somewhere for the minimum. Like New England. He'd be an absolute star in New England. 613343[/snapback] I'd think his being signed by NE would signal their abandonment of the personnel model they've had success with. Reliability has been the clear #1 trait of NE WRs and while there are many positive things you can claim about EMoulds skillset, reliability is not among them. It'd be overly generous IMO to place Eric among the top 20 league-wide in reliability among #1 WRs. Add to that his apparent desire to cash out at the end of his career and the sum makes NE seem an unlikely fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Some of you are getting they salary cap number, and the actual amount of cash paid to a player in a given year mixed up. Be careful. They are 2 completly different animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 why didnt these fools trade him to the eagles for TO and and incentive-laden cap-friendly deal? 613377[/snapback] Because if they did a Moulds-for-Owens trade they'd be on the hook not only for E-Mo's $5+ million caphit, but the balance of the 7-year, $40something-million contract T.O. signed in Philly last season? Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Because if they did a Moulds-for-Owens trade they'd be on the hook not only for E-Mo's $5+ million caphit, but the balance of the 7-year, $40something-million contract T.O. signed in Philly last season? Just a thought... 613398[/snapback] Not saying they would do it but that wouldn't be any bonus paid to TO. He got, what, 8-9 mil of that 40 mil as a bonus? So we'd only owe him 5 mil a year for six years. I'd do it. Convert half into a bonus and spread the other part out incrementally. We're stuck with EM's 5+ anyway we look at it. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInSouthBuffalo Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'd cut him tomorrow then. I thought that maybe Moulds agent was trying to bluff and get other teams interested to drive up the price. If Moulds isn't going to budge it's time to say bye-bye. Maybe this will be a good thing. It COULD make us more attractive to a potential free agent now that we will have a #1/#2 receiver position open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It has long been reported that if they make the CBA deal before the deadline, the cap would jump to at least 110 mil vs the 92-95 mil it is at now. But that means everyone is going to have a lot more money to sign their guys or guys we may want. 613394[/snapback] Signing other FA's will be tougher... definitely advantageous though to having signed young talent like Crowell & McGee to reasonable contracts that now would look like steals. Nate would really be short-changed at $5.9M, and the $5.5M saved by letting Moulds go isn't quite that good since a FA replacement just got more expensive.. IF it goes down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It has long been reported that if they make the CBA deal before the deadline, the cap would jump to at least 110 mil vs the 92-95 mil it is at now.613394[/snapback] That still seems high to me. Clump has the 2005 cap at $85.7M, & I thought he was projecting a 2006 increase to $93.5M, not $110M. Congrats to the players if they get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 That still seems high to me. Clump has the 2005 cap at $85.7M, & I thought he was projecting a 2006 increase to $93.5M, not $110M. Without a new CBA, the cap would be $95M. With a new CBA and expanded revenue sharing, it's supposed to be $112M. Congrats to the players if they get it! Congrats to the smaller market teams, like the Bills, if it happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Without a new CBA, the cap would be $95M. With a new CBA and expanded revenue sharing, it's supposed to be $112M. 613417[/snapback] Thanks, I must've missed that. Wow! CHA-CHING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Thanks, I must've missed that. Wow! CHA-CHING! Yeah, except that every team will get an additional $17M in extra cap room to keep their players and/or sign UFA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Anybody have any idea of just how much of a paycut the Bills are looking for Moulds to take? If he is shceduled to make about 10 million this year, even if the Bills were to ask him to take a 50% paycut, it is still likely more than he is going to get anywhere else...unless the Bills are asking him to play for peanuts, I think it comes down to how much Moulds wants to remain a Bill. I think he is a very good WR, but never one of the elite. The Bills would definitely feel his loss, unless they come up with a very good replacement. While singning him for too much money would be foolish, losing him could be very damaging to the progress of the offense (ie: JP Losman). It is kind of amazing, when you think about it, that the Bills, since the mid-nineties have never really been able to come up with a solid third wide receiver. Since Don Beebe, most that they have signed have been roster fodder. They get few opportunities to make plays, don't take advantage of the opportunities they do get, and then eventually just disappear. Josh Reed is the closest thing we have had to a decent (at times, calm down!) third receiver. Maybe I am overlooking someone, but has there been anyone, since Brooks, or Beebe? Anyways, I am not the biggest Eric Moulds fan, but I still think he is pretty damn good, and losing him would really be a set back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Not saying they would do it but that wouldn't be any bonus paid to TO. He got, what, 8-9 mil of that 40 mil as a bonus? So we'd only owe him 5 mil a year for six years. I'd do it. Convert half into a bonus and spread the other part out incrementally. We're stuck with EM's 5+ anyway we look at it. Just a thought. 613407[/snapback] Seven years, $46 million, just shy of a 10 million bonus, according to this: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/fo...ll/11614448.htm "In 2006, Owens' base salary will drop to $770,000, then rise to $5.5 million in 2007, $6.5 million in 2008, $7.5 million in 2009 and $8.5 million in 2010." So: if they were to do a deal right now, we'd get stuck with Moulds' caphit plus TO's $5 million roster bonus (due next month) and $770K 2006 salary, PLUS his escalating salaries for 2007-2010, for a guy who's the same age as Eric and has already talked his way off two teams. Maybe it's just because I can't stand T.O., but I don't think I'm interested in that deal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Yeah, except that every team will get an additional $17M in extra cap room to keep their players and/or sign UFA's. 613420[/snapback] I think a good chunk of that space will get eaten up as the standard salary increases. Might take a year or so to stabilize, but every player currently under contract is going to want more $$$ too. I see more holdouts as a result (Willis ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Anybody have any idea of just how much of a paycut the Bills are looking for Moulds to take? If he is shceduled to make about 10 million this year, even if the Bills were to ask him to take a 50% paycut, it is still likely more than he is going to get anywhere else 613421[/snapback] Not if the cap goes to $112M. Bills still owe him $14.3M the next 2 years, he'll get that back with a nice signing bonus + 3-year contract now IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 If the Bills cut Moulds, they don't owe him any bonus... 613345[/snapback] They don't owe him any additional bonus, but he's already been paid a signing bonus that is amortized over the life of the contract. He gets to keep that money and go sign elsewhere for nothing. Why not do the same here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 They don't owe him any additional bonus, but he's already been paid a signing bonus that is amortized over the life of the contract. He gets to keep that money and go sign elsewhere for nothing. Why not do the same here? 613432[/snapback] His agent already said they'd be happy to stay & get the $14.3M the Bills owe him the next 2 years... just no restructuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 There's gotta be an "I" in team somewhere. Of course EM would be more than happy to stay in Buffalo and collect $14.3 million over the next two years. What WR on the downside of his career and knowing full well he will not get anything close to that anywhere for anything barring a major league drug deal wouldn't be happy to do that? Just restructure, get an extra year on your contract and help out the team that you have been with for 10 years? Hell no. PAY ME! I don't think so. Just exactly how many playoff games have the Bills won with EM as the #1 WR? A big fat zero. His production has declined every season regardless of who the QB was. Time to go EM. Thanks for pretty much nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I doubt this is about money. Even with a paycut, he would make more than he can get on the open market considering he is on the tail end of his career. I think this is about winning and it would not surprise me if he signed with NE just like Rodney Harrison did in a similar situation. Add to that his apparent desire to cash out at the end of his career and the sum makes NE seem an unlikely fit. 613395[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 why didnt these fools trade him to the eagles for TO and and incentive-laden cap-friendly deal? 613377[/snapback] Well, there are assorted reasons why they didin't trade for TO. Many you'd probably disagree with...but that really isn't the point. The REAL point is they just plain WON'T trade for TO. It will never happen. Bet your house and life savings on it. Accept it and it will make things easier for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 TO will never see Buffalo, because a group of smart intelligible Bills fans will shoot him the moment he steps foot in Buffalo. Screw that P.O.S. Trade EM to Philly for a 2nd rd pick, and let them re-work a deal. I bet he signs a sweet heart deal there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts