dave mcbride Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 given that the bills aren't going to pay moulds what they agreed to pay as per the contract, they can do one of two things: cut him now and let him shop his services while the riches are still out there. let him twist in the wind and then cut him after the crazy $10 million bonuses for mid-tier guys worse than moulds dry up. to compare, the rams cut isaac bruce a week or so ago, let him shop his services briefly (which he could do because he's a vested vet), and then resigned him after he learned that the rams were offering the best deal. on the other hand, the eagles aren't cutting TO, and i strongly suspect that they're trying to screw him as hard as they possibly can. you can be sure that they will cut him, but only at a time that's inconvenient for owens. the bills seem to be playing the same game with moulds. it would be one thing if he was demanding more money than he is supposed to receive in his contract, but he's not. what he and his advisor are arguing about is the magnitude of the *cut* he's being asked to take. he's not going for what the bills are offering, so the bills will inevitably cut him. just not now, while he can make some real money elsewhere (i.e. an $8 million bonus or so). unless they change their minds quickly, it'll be hard to conclude that the bills aren't doing anything else than conducting a charade about negotiating in good faith. behind it, they're all about deliberately teaching him a hard lesson. from the outside, it looks a little bush league, but i don't know all the facts. i suspect that marv isn't a huge fan of moulds, who played poorly for him the two seasons that marv coached him: 1996 & 1997. in fact, he was out of shape in 97 and had a bad season. he came around in 98, but marv was gone by that point. the suspension last year probably pissed a number of people in the organization off, plus you've got to figure in the "if not for the nfl, jail" factor when discussing moulds. anyway, i suspect that there's some bad blood between the parties by this point, and that the bills aren't feeling particularly charitable.
Fan in Chicago Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 anyway, i suspect that there's some bad blood between the parties by this point, and that the bills aren't feeling particularly charitable. 628084[/snapback] I don't see why either side should be charitable about this. The Bills have stated where they stand and EM has said no. Best outcome for both sides would be for the Bills to advertise that he is trade bait.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Maybe they are pissed because they know he knows they know he already shopped his services before FA started, and got himself an offer from a rival team (the Pats?). If so, fug him.
dave mcbride Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Maybe they are pissed because they know he knows they know he already shopped his services before FA started, and got himself an offer from a rival team (the Pats?). If so, fug him. 628092[/snapback] perhaps he did, but then he'd be just like every other pending free agent in the league (in fact, it'd be gross dereliction of duty by an agent if he neglected shopping his client's services beforehand - they all do it now). i do think that the bills don't want him going to the pats, and that could be playing a role in all of this. that said, the pats are smart, and know that the bills will eventually have to cut him. if they bide their time, they'll have their chance. as for a trade, that's a no go for everyone involved - the accelerated bonuses etc. preclude that.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 given that the bills aren't going to pay moulds what they agreed to pay as per the contract, they can do one of two things: cut him now and let him shop his services while the riches are still out there. let him twist in the wind and then cut him after the crazy $10 million bonuses for mid-tier guys worse than moulds dry up. to compare, the rams cut isaac bruce a week or so ago, let him shop his services briefly (which he could do because he's a vested vet), and then resigned him after he learned that the rams were offering the best deal. on the other hand, the eagles aren't cutting TO, and i strongly suspect that they're trying to screw him as hard as they possibly can. you can be sure that they will cut him, but only at a time that's inconvenient for owens. the bills seem to be playing the same game with moulds. it would be one thing if he was demanding more money than he is supposed to receive in his contract, but he's not. what he and his advisor are arguing about is the magnitude of the *cut* he's being asked to take. he's not going for what the bills are offering, so the bills will inevitably cut him. just not now, while he can make some real money elsewhere (i.e. an $8 million bonus or so). unless they change their minds quickly, it'll be hard to conclude that the bills aren't doing anything else than conducting a charade about negotiating in good faith. behind it, they're all about deliberately teaching him a hard lesson. from the outside, it looks a little bush league, but i don't know all the facts. i suspect that marv isn't a huge fan of moulds, who played poorly for him the two seasons that marv coached him: 1996 & 1997. in fact, he was out of shape in 97 and had a bad season. he came around in 98, but marv was gone by that point. the suspension last year probably pissed a number of people in the organization off, plus you've got to figure in the "if not for the nfl, jail" factor when discussing moulds. anyway, i suspect that there's some bad blood between the parties by this point, and that the bills aren't feeling particularly charitable. 628084[/snapback] You're not considering that if the Bills cut Moulds he is screwing them because the Bills have already paid Moulds 5.2 million in cash for NOT playing for them. If they cut him he keeps his bonus money that he has already banked. Is that not screwing the Bills? He's already received 3.2 million dollars for this year. That's about all he is worth total. But he wants 8 million more for this year. According to the News or D&C, the Bills only asked him to take a 2 mil pay cut, that's still just under 9 million for this year. Isnt that screwing the Bills even if he does take a pay cut? It works both ways. If he takes a pay cut of 2 mil he still makes more than he would make on the open market. Not perhaps for this year, if he would have an 8 mil bonus like you surmise, but overall cash for this year is probably better for Moulds to take the paycut.
gggbills Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 perhaps he did, but then he'd be just like every other pending free agent in the league (in fact, it'd be gross dereliction of duty by an agent if he neglected shopping his client's services beforehand - they all do it now). i do think that the bills don't want him going to the pats, and that could be playing a role in all of this. that said, the pats are smart, and know that the bills will eventually have to cut him. if they bide their time, they'll have their chance. as for a trade, that's a no go for everyone involved - the accelerated bonuses etc. preclude that. 628097[/snapback] But that is the point, we do not have to cut him. We are under the cap right now with him. I would not cut him unless we are sure we have a replacement for him. I would do what is in the best interest of the Bills...period. And if that means it is in our best interest to keep him at his current salary...so be it. If that means that it is in our best interest to wait for a good trade or a replacement for him...regardless of how long it takes...so be it. The team comes first
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 I would hope Eric has a BETTER plan than joining the Pats and thinking that that's his ticket to the SB. Not gonna happen.
GG Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 And I'm still bitter about his role in helping torpedo the 2005 season. Payback is a female dog. Hey, Eric, with 3 agents in tow, one of them should have known to structure a contract where the roster bonus is due on the first day of free agency.
Rico Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 IMO Bruce is a classy pro, while Moulds is a classless punk... two different situations, each deserves to be treated seperately & accordingly.
jarthur31 Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 given that the bills aren't going to pay moulds what they agreed to pay as per the contract, they can do one of two things: cut him now and let him shop his services while the riches are still out there. let him twist in the wind and then cut him after the crazy $10 million bonuses for mid-tier guys worse than moulds dry up. to compare, the rams cut isaac bruce a week or so ago, let him shop his services briefly (which he could do because he's a vested vet), and then resigned him after he learned that the rams were offering the best deal. on the other hand, the eagles aren't cutting TO, and i strongly suspect that they're trying to screw him as hard as they possibly can. you can be sure that they will cut him, but only at a time that's inconvenient for owens. the bills seem to be playing the same game with moulds. it would be one thing if he was demanding more money than he is supposed to receive in his contract, but he's not. what he and his advisor are arguing about is the magnitude of the *cut* he's being asked to take. he's not going for what the bills are offering, so the bills will inevitably cut him. just not now, while he can make some real money elsewhere (i.e. an $8 million bonus or so). unless they change their minds quickly, it'll be hard to conclude that the bills aren't doing anything else than conducting a charade about negotiating in good faith. behind it, they're all about deliberately teaching him a hard lesson. from the outside, it looks a little bush league, but i don't know all the facts. i suspect that marv isn't a huge fan of moulds, who played poorly for him the two seasons that marv coached him: 1996 & 1997. in fact, he was out of shape in 97 and had a bad season. he came around in 98, but marv was gone by that point. the suspension last year probably pissed a number of people in the organization off, plus you've got to figure in the "if not for the nfl, jail" factor when discussing moulds. anyway, i suspect that there's some bad blood between the parties by this point, and that the bills aren't feeling particularly charitable. 628084[/snapback] If we had any other GM, I'd tend to believe you but I really don't think Marv is here to screw anybody. He may be a schrewed business man but this tactic doesn't feel like a Levy type move to me.
cantankerous Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 So Moulds torpedo'd the 2005 season? LOL, that is rediculous! LMFAO! He's a classless punk because he wants what's OWED to him in his CONTRACT? He wouldn't be owed such a large chunk if the Bills hadn't asked him to restructure his deal TWICE already. It's the FO's fault his cap number is so high this year, not his. How can you blame him for wanting what's in his contract? For wanting the qb to throw him the damn ball? Some of you amaze me.
stinky finger Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 I would hope Eric has a BETTER plan than joining the Pats and thinking that that's his ticket to the SB. Not gonna happen. 628111[/snapback] I've said before that NE would be where EM ends up, IMO. It would be a great fit for him. What is a better plan?
CircleTheWagons Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 And I'm still bitter about his role in helping torpedo the 2005 season. 628130[/snapback] It might be that Ralph is still pissed too. I'm not comfortable with Evans as our #1, but bringing Moulds to camp is like playing russian roulette with team chemistry. Moulds had a few great years for the team, but his numbers (10.1 ypc, 810 yards) are what we need out of our tight ends, not our #1 WR.
JDG Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 And I'm still bitter about his role in helping torpedo the 2005 season. Payback is a female dog. Hey, Eric, with 3 agents in tow, one of them should have known to structure a contract where the roster bonus is due on the first day of free agency. 628130[/snapback] You mean it was Moulds' fault that Donahoe & Co. insisted upon trotting out a QB who had no business being on an NFL playing field for half the season? It was Moulds' fault that Mike Williams, Bennie Anderson, Trey Teague, & Co. couldn't block the broad side of a barn? It was Moulds' fault that McGahee averaged a stunning 3 yards per carry or less in four out of five games down the stretch? It was Moulds' fault that when teams decided to run against us, we couldn't stop the run, and when teams decided to pass against us, we couldn't stop the pass? I get it.... things sucked last year because it was the fault of our *best* offensive player. Oh that must be it....... JDG
2003Contenders Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Does anyone know when Moulds' roster bonus is due? That sets the timetable on what will happen and when...
JDG Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 You're not considering that if the Bills cut Moulds he is screwing them because the Bills have already paid Moulds 5.2 million in cash for NOT playing for them. If they cut him he keeps his bonus money that he has already banked. Is that not screwing the Bills? He's already received 3.2 million dollars for this year. That's about all he is worth total. And this careful analysis is the result of your study that every other NFL player that caught 80 balls in 15 games last season is going to only receive a combination of $3.2 million dollars in salary and cap hit from amortized signing bonus next year ????? But he wants 8 million more for this year. According to the News or D&C, the Bills only asked him to take a 2 mil pay cut, that's still just under 9 million for this year. Isnt that screwing the Bills even if he does take a pay cut? It works both ways. If he takes a pay cut of 2 mil he still makes more than he would make on the open market. Not perhaps for this year, if he would have an 8 mil bonus like you surmise, but overall cash for this year is probably better for Moulds to take the paycut. 628106[/snapback] Isn't his salary for this year $7million? Whatever. Its not like Moulds just *wants* $7 million, he accepted that "signing bonus" which you are calling his "payment for this year" in exchange for signing a contract that promised to pay him that much for this year. All Eric Moulds wants is for the Bills to either: a) Abide by the signed contract b) Let Eric Moulds shop his services to the highest bidder before agreeing to a pay cut. What's so wrong with that? If the Bills are so convinced that Moulds isn't worth the terms of the contract, then they should let Moulds find out how much Philadelphia, Cleveland, Minnesota, or anyone else is willing to pay, and if the Bills are right they can sign him to an Isaac Bruce deal. Moulds, however, I think wisely doesn't want to get caught negotiating against himself, and instead of just handing a give-back to management, he wants to find out what he is worth. I can't fault him for that. And of course, the Bills seem to be speaking by their actions that they aren't 100% convinced that Moulds is overpaid, or else they would have released him a long time ago now. JDG
JDG Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 given that the bills aren't going to pay moulds what they agreed to pay as per the contract, they can do one of two things: cut him now and let him shop his services while the riches are still out there. let him twist in the wind and then cut him after the crazy $10 million bonuses for mid-tier guys worse than moulds dry up. to compare, the rams cut isaac bruce a week or so ago, let him shop his services briefly (which he could do because he's a vested vet), and then resigned him after he learned that the rams were offering the best deal. on the other hand, the eagles aren't cutting TO, and i strongly suspect that they're trying to screw him as hard as they possibly can. you can be sure that they will cut him, but only at a time that's inconvenient for owens. the bills seem to be playing the same game with moulds. it would be one thing if he was demanding more money than he is supposed to receive in his contract, but he's not. what he and his advisor are arguing about is the magnitude of the *cut* he's being asked to take. he's not going for what the bills are offering, so the bills will inevitably cut him. just not now, while he can make some real money elsewhere (i.e. an $8 million bonus or so). unless they change their minds quickly, it'll be hard to conclude that the bills aren't doing anything else than conducting a charade about negotiating in good faith. behind it, they're all about deliberately teaching him a hard lesson. from the outside, it looks a little bush league, but i don't know all the facts. i suspect that marv isn't a huge fan of moulds, who played poorly for him the two seasons that marv coached him: 1996 & 1997. in fact, he was out of shape in 97 and had a bad season. he came around in 98, but marv was gone by that point. the suspension last year probably pissed a number of people in the organization off, plus you've got to figure in the "if not for the nfl, jail" factor when discussing moulds. anyway, i suspect that there's some bad blood between the parties by this point, and that the bills aren't feeling particularly charitable. 628084[/snapback] I'd agree with you if the Bills then turn around and cut Moulds in April sometime. But if, in the end, the Bills hang on to Moulds, then all they did was play hardball..... JDG
Bill from NYC Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 What's so wrong with that? If the Bills are so convinced that Moulds isn't worth the terms of the contract, then they should let Moulds find out how much Philadelphia, Cleveland, Minnesota, or anyone else is willing to pay, and if the Bills are right they can sign him to an Isaac Bruce deal. 628349[/snapback] What the Bills "should" do is what is right for the Buffalo Bills Football Team and Bills Fans. Moulds showed how much he cared about the above with his antics vs. Miami. As you well know, NFL contracts are not guaranteed. This means that the Bills hold the cards, not Eric Moulds nor his agent, "advisor," or entourage.
2003Contenders Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 My problem right now with Moulds is that it is clear that he simply wants to be released. If money were the only issue, then he could: 1. Work out a more cap-friendly deal that will still net him a similar amount of cash in 2006. 2. Hold fast with his current contract. That is, state that he and the Bills have a contract in place that he is willing to honor. If the Bills don't want to honor it, then the onus is on them to cut or trade him. Originally, #2 seemed to be Moulds' stance. However, he has recently changed his tune. My guess is that he was being disingenuous early on because he knew that the Bills were in some mild cap trouble if they didn't cut him. With the expansion of the CBA, there is no rush to free up his cap figure, and the team no longer HAS to cut him. They do, however, need to make a decision by the time his roster bonus is due.
Recommended Posts