The Eric Moulds Decision

[JDG]

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.

 

That's fallacious - you're comparing the absolute cost, not the marginal cost.

 

If we could cut Eric Moulds and use the savings to sign Jason Taylor, even I would be in favor. But we can't.... which is why you need to consider marginal, not absolute cost.

 

JDG

[The Dean]

According to published reports, the Bills have not offered Moulds a restructuring.

 

JDG

613629[/snapback]

 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-b...ov=ap&type=lgns

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/p...RTS03/602280351

 

What's all this now?

[Bill from NYC]

That's fallacious - you're comparing the absolute cost, not the marginal cost.

 

If we could cut Eric Moulds and use the savings to sign Jason Taylor, even I would be in favor.  But we can't.... which is why you need to consider marginal, not absolute cost.

 

JDG

613951[/snapback]

 

I didn't omit Taylor's salary to be misleading. I don't know how much it is. Do you?

All I had were the total cap hits.

[JDG]

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.

613916[/snapback]

 

1) It is true that perhaps Ralph Wilson doesn't want to spend new money on Eric Moulds. If so, however, then we should all just give up on hoping for a winner in Buffalo until Ralph Wilson dies. My analysis is based on the assumption that Ralph Wilson is willing to spend up to the salary cap on players each year. I do think that's a fair assumption. After all, Ralph is either going to spend the $7 mil in cash on this Eric Moulds' salary this year, or else he will spend that $7 million on someone else's salary *plus* spending even more than that on the signing bonus for Eric Moulds' replacement. Thus, if spending cash is an issue (and I hope for all our sake that it is not), then *retaining* Eric Moulds produces less cash expenditure this year than cutting Eric Moulds.

 

2) WR's like the oft-injured Jurevicious and Givens, or the journeyman Antonio Bryant are available *every* year. Its not like if we keep Moulds that we can't sign such a WR next year, especially since the "dead cap" space of cutting Moulds next year is much lower.

 

JDG

[RuntheDamnBall]

Therein lies the rub. Next season.

 

Yes, the Bills will likely be better with Eric Moulds this year. Is Eric Moulds going to be the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs and then getting killed? I am not sure. Probably not. Is he the difference between winning the AFC Championship and then maybe winning the SB? On this year's Bills? No. So the 1A question that needs to be asked is, are we going to want to pay 9 million next year to Eric Moulds for one more year. After 11 million this year. That answer is probably no.

 

I think he can be a good possession receiver in this league for 3 more years. But he's not worth high #1 WR money. We're better off drafting the stud TE and a younger possession WR.

613707[/snapback]

Yup. SD has done A-OK with a stud TE and no verifiable No. 1 receivers. I'll HATE to see Moulds go and do well with another contender, but that's probably what he deserves at this stage of the game. And our other guys deserve to grow and not to let impatient veterans derail the growth process.

 

I'd like to see them get a vet who's been there a la McCardell or Jurevicius. It would go a long way for this team in providing leadership and level-headed patience. Right now Eric's the kind of leader you have to appease because he's meant so much to the team, rather than the kind of leader you look to follow because he's got the ring and just plays his heart out.

 

This team needs the presence of a tested hunger for more, not merely the impatient, desperate hunger for just something, anything resembling success.

[JDG]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-b...ov=ap&type=lgns

 

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/p...RTS03/602280351

 

What's all this now?

613954[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I usually don't use the word "restructuring" to describe "pay cuts" and "give backs." A "restructuring", to me at least, means offering to convert salary into bonus so as to offer a player the same money but with less of a cap hit in the current year. In other words, simply changing the structure of the contract.

 

I recognize that maybe some people, like the AP writer linked to above, will use the word "restructure" to describe a "pay cut", but in the context of the post I was referring to, it was clearly the former definition being used.

 

JDG

[The Dean]

Sorry, I usually don't use the word "restructuring" to describe "pay cuts" and "give backs."  A "restructuring", to me at least, means offering to convert salary into bonus so as to offer a player the same money but with less of a cap hit in the current year.    In other words, simply changing the structure of the contract.

 

I recognize that maybe some people, like the AP writer linked to above, will use the word "restructure" to describe a "pay cut", but in the context of the post I was referring to, it was clearly the former definition being used.

 

JDG

613999[/snapback]

 

 

Gotcha. I guess that's why some posters here say "restructuring" never results in less $ for the player and is simply a shuffling of dollars. Clearly that's the way most restructuring is done. But there are some instances where $$ are actually lost by a player (Bruce Smith comes to mind). I guess if we use "restructure" to define ONLY the cases where $ is not lost, then, by definition, these instances where $ is lost are not "restructures".

[Adam]

This brings up this question : Does Moulds want to stay a Bill?

IMHO, this is the real question...

613521[/snapback]

No- just like in the Miami game, he wants to quit

[Simon]

You make valid points John and if it weren't for one thing, I'd be on board with what you're saying.

He quit on his teammates in the middle of a game.

I don't want him anywhere near the Bills locker room or sideline for any amount of money.

[apuszczalowski]

Who says he quit on his team during the Miami game?

 

Were you on the sidelines or atleast at the stadium close enough to the field right behind moulds?

 

From what is being reported, he had an arguement with one of his coaches who demanded he get in the game while he says he need to have a possible injury looked at. They got into an arguement and Mularky kept him on the bench for the game. I tend to believe that a little more than he spent the time crying on the bench cause he wasn't getting passes, when the owner of the team pretty much takes your side over his own caoches.

 

If you don't remember, Moulds was only suspended for a week cause Ralph didn't want to undermine one of his coaches. Thats why it was only a week instead of the couple originally reported Mularky was going to give him.

[Kelly the Dog]

Who says he quit on his team during the Miami game?

 

Were you on the sidelines or atleast at the stadium close enough to the field right behind moulds?

 

From what is being reported, he had an arguement with one of his coaches who demanded he get in the game while he says he need to have a possible injury looked at. They got into an arguement and Mularky kept him on the bench for the game. I tend to believe that a little more than he spent the time crying on the bench cause he wasn't getting passes, when the owner of the team pretty much takes your side over his own caoches.

 

If you don't remember, Moulds was only suspended for a week cause Ralph didn't want to undermine one of his coaches. Thats why it was only a week instead of the couple originally reported Mularky was going to give him.

614315[/snapback]

The possible injury thing was made up by his personal advisor, Greg Johnson. Moulds never complained of an injury, the trainers said after the game that Moulds never told them of any injury, before, during or after the game. That was bull sh--. He also went back in the game later when he had to.

 

And after Mort made his report that Sunday of the suspension that Moulds took himself out, said I don't need to listen to the coaches, refused to go back in, and played music with his Ipod instead of listening to the halftime talks of the coaches, I don't recall anyone anywhere denying it.

 

Furthermore, Moulds and the NFLPA is NOT ever going to allow a player to be suspended without pay 93,000 for simply arguing with a position coach on the sidelines. It doesn't happen.

[goober]

This is more pointless sentimentality than addressing the salary cap implications of many of the prior posts - and i can understand the opinion that dropping Moulds is necessary with his salary implications, but i definitely feel worse getting rid of him as opposed to Bruce and Thurman. Those guys were egomaniacs who had clearly lost a step, Moulds will contribute more than they did on other teams. And I think Moulds cared more about the Bills than those guys did- certainly Bruce just wanted money and attention. None of us know exactly what happened with his Mularkey dispute. So best of luck to Moulds, a sentiment I rarely feel when a Buffalo player goes elsewhere. Usually I hope that ex-Bills quickly tear an ACL after they leave town...

[dave mcbride]

or the journeyman Antonio Bryant are available *every* year. 

613957[/snapback]

 

John, you mostly had me until now. have you seen bryant play? i'm not saying he's the second coming, but the guy is really talented and may well blossom at this point of his career. right now, on talent alone, he's as good as moulds -- about as physical, better hands, and faster. he had some head case issues early on, but then again so did moulds. basically, as far as i can see, the guy is a player who is on the verge of busting out given the right situation.

[JDG]

John, you mostly had me until now. have you seen bryant play? i'm not saying he's the second coming, but the guy is really talented and may well blossom at this point of his career. right now, on talent alone, he's as good as moulds -- about as physical, better hands, and faster.  he had some head case issues early on, but then again so did moulds. basically, as far as i can see, the guy is a player who is on the verge of busting out given the right situation.

614526[/snapback]

 

Actually, I loved Antonio Bryant coming out of college, and did see him do well in Cleveland. The point remains, however, that this guy has had charachter issues surround him his whole career. He was run out of Dallas by Bill Parcells, and despite his production, Romeo Crennel apparently doesn't want him either.

 

I wish Bryant well, but Bryant has two pretty solid strikes against him. I can't say that I predict greatness for him.

 

JDG

[OGTEleven]

Actually, I loved Antonio Bryant coming out of college, and did see him do well in Cleveland.  The point remains, however, that this guy has had charachter issues surround him his whole career.  He was run out of Dallas by Bill Parcells, and despite his production, Romeo Crennel apparently doesn't want him either.

 

I wish Bryant well, but Bryant has two pretty solid strikes against him.  I can't say that I predict greatness for him.

 

JDG

614531[/snapback]

Do you consider pulling yourself out a a game and pouting on the sidelines a character issue?

[ChasBB]

Who cares -- time to move on and forget about him. Won't he count against the cap NEXT season too if we keep him another season? It's just nonsense even talking about it. It's time to cut him loose and be done with it. Ever since his little tantrum in Miami I don't want this guy around anyhow and he's been overrated most of his career anyhow.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

It's a no-brainer. Cutting Moulds saves $5.5M that can be used to get TWO players in FA (and even with no new CBA, UFA's will need to sign with SOMEONE, and every team will be in the same boat). He's on the wrong side of 30, had a 10.1 average last year, and his attititude isn't getting any better. With the naming of Losman as starter, he should have been working-out in Buffalo with JP, but he didn't.

 

Worrying that the Bills won't find someone to replace him or that he'll go play for the Pats and burn the Bills isn't a reason to NOT move forward. Again if the thinking is the Bills won't make the SB this year, you get the future started earlier.

[dry martini]

The possible injury thing was made up by his personal advisor, Greg Johnson. Moulds never complained of an injury, the trainers said after the game that Moulds never told them of any injury, before, during or after the game. That was bull sh--. He also went back in the game later when he had to.

 

And after Mort made his report that Sunday of the suspension that Moulds took himself out, said I don't need to listen to the coaches, refused to go back in, and played music with his Ipod instead of listening to the halftime talks of the coaches, I don't recall anyone anywhere denying it.

 

Furthermore, Moulds and the NFLPA is NOT ever going to allow a player to be suspended without pay 93,000 for simply arguing with a position coach on the sidelines. It doesn't happen.

614332[/snapback]

 

To spin your last thought, substitute "simply arguing with a position coach" with "attempting to get a potential injury addressed." NFW does that not get challenged.

 

Eric walked on his team. Against Miami. Kelly would barely survive that one. See ya.

[jarthur31]

Even if we decided not to restructure and keep him, he'd find a way to get released. He wants a ring and you can tell but past articles when he hangs with Milloy. That just isn't going to happen in Buffalo soon.

[Orton's Arm]

Thus, the only question is - is Eric Moulds worth $5.5 million in cap space this year.    Granted $5.5 million is a lot. 

613512[/snapback]

You make a persuasive case, JDG, but I'm going to disagree.

 

First off, Kelly is right to look at new cash out. If Moulds gets $7 million of new cash this year, then sooner or later the Bills will take an additional $7 million salary cap hit.

 

You say that salary cap space in 2007 is worth less than cap space in 2006. Certainly that's true if 2007 is an uncapped year! But assuming there will be a cap, you could make a strong case that 2007's salary cap space is more valuable, dollar per dollar, than 2006 cap space. This isn't traditional economics, where you seek to maximize the value of the discounted cash flow over the life of an investment. The goal here is to win the Super Bowl, which means that cap space in a potential Super Bowl year (like 2007) is in a different category than cap space in a non-Super Bowl year like 2006.

 

So the question becomes: should the Bills take a $7 million salary cap hit on Moulds by keeping him another year? (I grant that the $7 million is spread out over several years, but eventually that whole $7 million in new money will hit the cap.) Or do the Bills take a bath on Moulds, and sign a guy like Givens for a much lower yearly salary? Getting rid of an aging and highly overpaid Moulds will free up cap space for free agents along the OL in 2006, while at the same time getting Moulds off the books for 2007.