ganesh Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Could you blame him the way he was villified last year? 613530[/snapback] He could have helped by taking pressure of his young QB by making more plays....Instead, he could never get anything going with Losman and then he really jumped on the Kelly Holcomb bandwagon........ You have to have patience with your rookie players...He did not...He exposed his young QB and that is not a good team player.... I respect Moulds for what he did for the organization, but he was way off last year..... Having a meat heat head coach who couldn't handle criticism on himself or his young QB and gave into the veteran bitching didn't help either.... Thank you Eric Moulds for the memories and good luck wherever you go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Exactly. I won't like seeing EM leave. Especially if he ends up in NE and has a monster season. 613589[/snapback] If he is going to NE, he is not going to make 3.67M this year.....the salary that the bills are asking him to take.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 At some point the bills have to think long term...not short term......Moulds is not the long term future of this team....Time to move on....We may not have the best WR corps this season, but if we can spend that money on quality OL and win games the ugly way, I don't mind it...... Look at the WR corps of the two SB teams.....Pittsburgh had Hines Ward and Cedric Wilson....Randal El was the slot receiver......El is overrated and will get big money....but going into the season, people here were bitching that the steelers did the wrong thing by not resigning Plexico Burress.....The steelers went to the SB and won it......The same goes with the Seahawks... Their best WR is out injured...they plug in Joe Jervicius and Bobby Engram and win games.......as the old Grandma would say....It is the line Stupid..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Agreed. I have a funny feeling there will be a lot of bitching and whining when Moulds tears it up for a contender next season. 613677[/snapback] Can you name a bunch of teams, where EM is going to go and be the 1st WR of the team ? Moulds will have a decent/good season but is suddenly not ggoing to stand up tear it up.....Remember he is also 32 and getting there in NFL age.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 After 11 million this year. Read the first post Kelly. The Bills would only pay Eric Moulds $5.5 mil this year.... not $11 million. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Read the first post Kelly. The Bills would only pay Eric Moulds $5.5 mil this year.... not $11 million. JDG 613748[/snapback] No, they pay him 11 million on the cap, and 7 plus million is cash this season. You're just subtracting the 5.5 mil we would "save" from the 11 mil cap figure but that's not accurate. We owe him 6.1 mil salary and 1.1 or more in roster bonuses if we keep him this year. So the question is, is Eric Moulds worth 7 million cash on a rebuilding team this year? Nate Clements as a franchise designation CB designed to cover guys like Moulds gets 5.9 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKC Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Moulds clearly showed in his last three games that he still has the talent to play in this League. 613512[/snapback] So in a continuum of his teasing career, during which he has been just as likely to show up on any Sunday as he has been to disappear or directly contribute to a loss by his attention lapses, we should pay up the kind of money reserved for top 5 wide receivers? I'm more inclined to accept that Eric Moulds remains one of the least consistent #1 wideouts in the NFL at a time when reliable work at the position has become the more coveted trait by winning programs. Sure, like a girlfriend with herpes he will show up all pretty one day and dazzle everyone in the room- but beware what might wait behind the door next time the bell rings. If Marv is still the bright guy we knew in the past he'll treat Moulds like he did in Mould's rookie year and subsequently our "rebuilding" won't be saddled by one of the most overrated #1 WRs of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Would this be the last year of eric's contract ?? If u don't have a chance to resign him as a FA, then it's not worth the investment this year. Gotta get younger, and pickup a new player that can mature in the system for a year. I like jerivicious, good posession guy to complement evans. 613640[/snapback] Agreed.... plus next year, maybe we look to lock up Lee Evans long-term, since he is the franchise receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 No, they pay him 11 million on the cap, We don't pay anyone "on the cap". I did err in saying that we are only paying Moulds $5.5 million this year, the $5.5 million is his marginal cap hit, not what we are paying him. We certainly aren't paying him $11 mil under any defintion, though. You are confusing "paying" and "cap hit", and blurring "new cap space" with "sunk cap sapce." The only factor that matters in any decision is marginal cost. I don't think that breaking that cost into "cash" and "cap hit" is particularly meaningful. We have to presume that Ralph Wilson is willing to spend what it takes to win. Thus, the constraint on the Bills isn't "cash", its "cap space." The marginal cost of keeping Eric Moulds this year, according to today's D&C is $5.5 million less the cost of Eric Moulds' replacement. Period. Either Moulds is either worth that marginal cost or he is not. Bringing other figures into the discussion, like $11million, or $7 million in cash, serves little purpose other than obfuscation. The Bills can't control sunk costs, they can only control the marginal cost. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Why can't a significantly worse player make significantly less money than he used to. It makes sense... EM has an enflated image of himself. Like Andre Reed did at the end of his career. Eric will be retired in less than two years, I guarantee it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 We don't pay anyone "on the cap". I did err in saying that we are only paying Moulds $5.5 million this year, the $5.5 million is his marginal cap hit, not what we are paying him. We certainly aren't paying him $11 mil under any defintion, though. You are confusing "paying" and "cap hit", and blurring "new cap space" with "sunk cap sapce." The only factor that matters in any decision is marginal cost. I don't think that breaking that cost into "cash" and "cap hit" is particularly meaningful. We have to presume that Ralph Wilson is willing to spend what it takes to win. Thus, the constraint on the Bills isn't "cash", its "cap space." The marginal cost of keeping Eric Moulds this year, according to today's D&C is $5.5 million less the cost of Eric Moulds' replacement. Period. Either Moulds is either worth that marginal cost or he is not. Bringing other figures into the discussion, like $11million, or $7 million in cash, serves little purpose other than obfuscation. The Bills can't control sunk costs, they can only control the marginal cost. JDG 613798[/snapback] It's 7 million dollars. That's his contract for this year. That's what he costs this year ignoring all signing bonus money from 2000 and 2005. If you want to throw out cap numbers altogether, which you apparently want to do, fine. We pay Moulds 7 million in cash this year. Is that worth it? And if we don't we would save 1.7 mil next year, too. Again, he is not even worth the 5.5 mil cash this year because we're not winning the SB. That is almost the most important factor in all this. He MAY be worth 7 mil if he would be the difference maker. And he could be on a certain team. But not this Bills team in 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Is it really worth cutting Eric Moulds just to get an extra $1.5-$2.5mil of cap space to use on other positions? And who are we going to replace him with? Antonio Bryant? He's a head case who got run out of Dallas, and whom Cleveland isn't thrilled about re-signing, even though their best WR isn't even going to be ready for training camp. He caught only 69 balls for 1000 yards, and the same number of TD's as Moulds last year anyways. 613512[/snapback] Only 1000 yards? Compared to Moulds' 816, that looks pretty good. And he had Trent Dilfer and Charlie Frye throwing to him - without a #2 as good as Evans. Yeah, I'm impressed. I thought he would cost much more, but if you say he can be had for $2-3 million a year, where do I sign? Bryant for Moulds? No thanks? What has Bryant ever done other than throw a towel in Parcells face? 613542[/snapback] He was 19th in the league in receiving yards this year. Of the 18 ahead of him, only Larry Fitzgerald was younger. No, they pay him 11 million on the cap, and 7 plus million is cash this season. You're just subtracting the 5.5 mil we would "save" from the 11 mil cap figure but that's not accurate. We owe him 6.1 mil salary and 1.1 or more in roster bonuses if we keep him this year. So the question is, is Eric Moulds worth 7 million cash on a rebuilding team this year? Nate Clements as a franchise designation CB designed to cover guys like Moulds gets 5.9 mil. 613755[/snapback] Good point!!! Cap numbers are one thing. The amount of money Ralph Wilson hands out will also be factored into the decision. There's a difference between salary cap fantasy dollars and actual dollars Ralph hands out - and he probably only has so many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Why does everyone think 32 is so old for a receiver? Didn't Rice play into his 40's? I am willing to join the doom and gloomers if EM is let go this year as I will agree that this team is going to be going no where fast. Watch how fast our receivers will become non existent when they put double coverage on our new #1 receiver Lee Evans. Might as well Hand the QB job back to Losman this year, atleast it can be used as an excuse for rebuilding and finishing behind the Jets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Have him take the 30% pay cut, and then he can attempt to get the other money back by incentive based pay. Heck, you could make incentive money available that would surpass his 5.5M base this year. It looks like '07 will be uncapped so who cares about the bonus money counting then. Is Moulds worth the 5.5M or do we play with Evans-Aiken-Parrish? Wow that combo has got to strike fear in the opposing defenses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 We need the money more to improve the lines on both sides of the ball. We had two great receivers last year and it got us nowhere because of the disaster we have up front. I hate losing Moulds, absolutely hate it but it is a regrettable necessity. We aren't goint to replace him with anyone expensive or high profile. We don't need to. We have Evans, we have Parrish, we'll just have to make do on the third and fourth guys. If we get what we need up front, we won't need 4 pro bowlers at wide out. One will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 We don't pay anyone "on the cap". I did err in saying that we are only paying Moulds $5.5 million this year, the $5.5 million is his marginal cap hit, not what we are paying him. We certainly aren't paying him $11 mil under any defintion, though. You are confusing "paying" and "cap hit", and blurring "new cap space" with "sunk cap sapce." The only factor that matters in any decision is marginal cost. I don't think that breaking that cost into "cash" and "cap hit" is particularly meaningful. We have to presume that Ralph Wilson is willing to spend what it takes to win. Thus, the constraint on the Bills isn't "cash", its "cap space." The marginal cost of keeping Eric Moulds this year, according to today's D&C is $5.5 million less the cost of Eric Moulds' replacement. Period. Either Moulds is either worth that marginal cost or he is not. Bringing other figures into the discussion, like $11million, or $7 million in cash, serves little purpose other than obfuscation. The Bills can't control sunk costs, they can only control the marginal cost. JDG 613798[/snapback] You're position would carry much more weight if the Bills were on the verge of greatness, then sure find a way to keep Eric. However, Losman is still a year or two away from being ready to roll, and that's still an "if" as well. Holcomb surely won't take the Bills to the promised land so.... I suspect it could be a couple years to get this team in shape, barring a miracle, and by then Moulds will be even older, slower and less deserving of top WR pay. Moulds would take a salary cut, if up front bonus money was involved, and that would only come back to haunt the bIlls next year and the year after. Sadly, as much as I dislike the idea of losing Moulds (who still is valauable, just not at his cap number the next few years) it's probably time. If he has a great year and actually gets on a playoff contender or participant, all the more power to him. At this time, I see his point (best part of his career is definitely behind him as a star) and the Bills point. It's all part of today's game. Sometimes things like this just have to happen, just like when Thomas, Reed, and B. Smith were all let go. Thomas and Reed were shot, but Bruce still had somethng left (although nothing like what he gave us). Father time grants no exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 It's 7 million dollars. That's his contract for this year. That's what he costs this year ignoring all signing bonus money from 2000 and 2005. If you want to throw out cap numbers altogether, which you apparently want to do, fine. We pay Moulds 7 million in cash this year. Is that worth it? And if we don't we would save 1.7 mil next year, too. Again, he is not even worth the 5.5 mil cash this year because we're not winning the SB. That is almost the most important factor in all this. He MAY be worth 7 mil if he would be the difference maker. And he could be on a certain team. But not this Bills team in 2006. 613814[/snapback] You're misunderstanding me. I don't want to throw out the cap numbers altogether. I think that most observers (Bill in NYC might be an exception) agree that if the Bills had unlimited resources for next season, we would keep Eric Moulds. The Bills, of course, don't have unlimited resources. So, what is the constraint on the Bills resources? Cash? Marginally so, but not really. I'm sure Ralph Wilson has some more paintings you can sell. The real constraint on the Bills resources for next season is the salary cap space. No matter what happens, Eric Moulds is going to count $5.3mil against the salary cap for this year. So, the question is, what is the marginal cost of retaining Eric Moulds? The answer is $5.5million less the cost of his replacement. All the other figures you have tossed around aren't particularly meaningful to then decision of whether or not to retain Eric Moulds. Thus, when you start asking "is Eric Moulds worth $7 million", as you did above, you are either intentionally obfuscating, or else you simply don't understand the basics of rational logic decision-making (aka, the basics of economics). Let's say that Eric Moulds could be replaced with David Givens for a $3 million cap hit next season. That means the correct evaluation question is this: "Is Eric Moulds worth $2.5 million more in production to the Bills next year than David Givens"? Or to put it another way, "is Eric Moulds worth more to the Bills next year than David Givens and whomever we can buy with the $2.5 million in cap space?" Repeat that example for every possible replacement, and you arrive at the answer. If the answer is "yes" every time, then you keep Moulds. If not, then you cut him. But the figure for comparison is a lot closer to $2.5 million (and I might be being conservative on how much cap space a player like David Givens will consume next year) than it is to $5.5million, let alone to $7 million. I agree that the Bills are not winning a Super Bowl next year. I agree. The Bills do, however, have goals for next year. The two top ones are probably, in no particular order, ending our playoff drought to reinvigorate the fan base and get our players some much-needed playoff experience; and to evaluate JP Losman as potential starting NFL QB. I think there is no question that Eric Moulds can definitely help us achieve one of those goals, if not both of those goals for next year. So, its not like Moulds is worthless to us next season - and again, we need to compare that worth against the marginal cost, as described above. Finally, there is some truth to considering the costs to the Bills in future years of retaining Eric Moulds this year. After all, retaining Moulds this year does committ the Bills to expending a certain amount of cap space on Moulds in 2007. Of course, cap space in 2007 is less valuable than cap space in 2006, simply because the cap will be higher. Indeed, there might not even be a cap next year. So you need to calculate the present discounted value of cap space in 2007 which is a bit more complex than I'm going to go into here, but based on the figures being tossed around, I don't think that it materially affects the results. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 JDG - You make some excellent points, and I can absolutely see where you are coming from. I'm nervous about losing EM, I'm still not sold on Evans being a true #1 or the second coming of Peerless Price. However, what if the choice is, say, Givens at 3 mil and Ted Washington at 2.5? Fills two holes with EM's money. Still leaves us about 7-8 mil to address the OL. Not a bad deal. EM would be more valuable if this team was playoff-calibur, but its far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 JDG, I totally understand your marginal cost argument, as well as the 5.5 mil figure, as well as the economics of the NFL. I just think you're looking at the 2006 5.5 mil for EM figure in a vacuum, which is the wrong way to look at it. You have to consider what he costs this year, what he is actually costing, what cash you pay him (because that does matter to guys like Ralph when you try to give bigger bonuses to potential FAs), what it means to us next year, what kind of team we have, what other players we may draft, etc. Is Eric Moulds a better player for 5.5 million in 2006 for the Buffalo Bills than Joe Jervicious or David Givens or Antonio Bryant at 4 million? Perhaps. But it's a lousy move to make that decision. Because next year you would have JJ at 5 million and have him for three more years vs. be paying EM 10 million and have him for one. That is where I'm arguing against your position of just looking at EM this year at 5.5 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 You're misunderstanding me. I don't want to throw out the cap numbers altogether. 613862[/snapback] Good, then consider this: Jayson Taylor has a cap figure only slightly higher than that of Moulds. Taylor produces. Teams must account for him and he still gets his sacks and pressures. He is near the top at his position. As for Moulds, do you seroiusly think that he still strikes fear in the heart of most good corners? Please. There are dozens of wideouts who out-produce Eric, most at a far lower cost. The cap space saved by cutting Moulds could make the difference between landing a quality free agent or not doing so. It IS possible. I think that where we disagree is the premise that keeping Moulds could push us into the playoffs in 06. I disagree with this, and am facing the possibility that his presence could actually hinder us from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts