Kelly the Dog Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Bills | Contract update: TripplettMon, 27 Mar 2006 06:46:50 -0800 Buffalo Bills DL Larry Tripplett signed a five-year contract that includes base salaries of $760,000 (2006), $1.685 million (2007), $1.685 million (2008), $1.935 million (2009) and $2.185 million (2010). Bills | Contract update: Schneck Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:46:17 -0800 Buffalo Bills LS Mike Schneck signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $710,000 (2006), $720,000 (2007), $730,000 (2008) and $840,000 (2009). Bills | Contract update: Royal Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:45:57 -0800 Buffalo Bills TE Robert Royal signed a five-year contract that includes base salaries of $585,000 (2006), $1.3 million (2007), $1.675 million (2008), $1.525 million (2009) and $1.44 million (2010). Bills | Contract update: J. Reed Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:45:33 -0800 Buffalo Bills WR Josh Reed signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $600,000 (2006), $1.65 million (2007), $1.825 million (2008) and $2.025 million (2009). Bills | Contract update: Jerman Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:44:58 -0800 Buffalo Bills OG Greg Jerman signed a two-year contract that includes base salaries of $585,000 (2006) and $595,000 (2007). Bills | Contract update: Haggan Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:44:40 -0800 Buffalo Bills LB Mario Haggan signed a two-year contract that includes base salaries of $500,000 (2006) and $675,000 (2007). Bills | Contract update: Fowler Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:44:18 -0800 Buffalo Bills C Melvin Fowler signed a three-year contract that includes base salaries of $600,000 (2006), $1.75 million (2007), and $1.775 million (2008). Bills | Contract update: M. Bowen Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:39:40 -0800 Buffalo Bills SS Matt Bowen signed a two-year contract that includes base salaries of $800,000 (2006) and $900,000 (2007).
CoachChuckDickerson Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Buffalo Bills LS Mike Schneck signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $710,000 (2006), $720,000 (2007), $730,000 (2008) and $840,000 (2009). Holy crap! This guy must laugh at the game of life every night before he goes to bed. Good for him.
X. Benedict Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Buffalo Bills LS Mike Schneck signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $710,000 (2006), $720,000 (2007), $730,000 (2008) and $840,000 (2009). Holy crap! This guy must laugh at the game of life every night before he goes to bed. Good for him. 643306[/snapback] He probably didn't get the signing bonus that Triplet did. But that is pretty good money for 8-12 plays a game.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Buffalo Bills LS Mike Schneck signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $710,000 (2006), $720,000 (2007), $730,000 (2008) and $840,000 (2009). Holy crap! This guy must laugh at the game of life every night before he goes to bed. Good for him. 643306[/snapback] That's one of the better deals they signed and a very valuable player at veteran minimum salaries. I don't think it was any coincidence at all that Lindell had his best year last year.
Lurker Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Buffalo Bills LS Mike Schneck signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $710,000 (2006), $720,000 (2007), $730,000 (2008) and $840,000 (2009). Holy crap! This guy must laugh at the game of life every night before he goes to bed. Good for him. 643306[/snapback] Since the minimum salary for a ten-year vet under the old CBA was $750,000 (I don't believe the new figure has been released yet), that doesn't seem too high for Schneck who's entering his eighth year.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I'm surprised. I figured Schneck would be getting AT LEAST $1M a year. Good long-snappers are hard to come by, much less Pro Bowl ones.
Astrobot Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Bills | Contract update: Tripplett Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:46:50 -0800 Buffalo Bills DL Larry Tripplett signed a five-year contract that includes base salaries of $760,000 (2006), $1.685 million (2007), $1.685 million (2008), $1.935 million (2009) and $2.185 million (2010). Bills | Contract update: Schneck Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:46:17 -0800 Buffalo Bills LS Mike Schneck signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $710,000 (2006), $720,000 (2007), $730,000 (2008) and $840,000 (2009). Bills | Contract update: Royal Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:45:57 -0800 Buffalo Bills TE Robert Royal signed a five-year contract that includes base salaries of $585,000 (2006), $1.3 million (2007), $1.675 million (2008), $1.525 million (2009) and $1.44 million (2010). Bills | Contract update: J. Reed Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:45:33 -0800 Buffalo Bills WR Josh Reed signed a four-year contract that includes base salaries of $600,000 (2006), $1.65 million (2007), $1.825 million (2008) and $2.025 million (2009). Bills | Contract update: Jerman Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:44:58 -0800 Buffalo Bills OG Greg Jerman signed a two-year contract that includes base salaries of $585,000 (2006) and $595,000 (2007). Bills | Contract update: Haggan Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:44:40 -0800 Buffalo Bills LB Mario Haggan signed a two-year contract that includes base salaries of $500,000 (2006) and $675,000 (2007).
UConn James Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Hmm. Royal, Tripplett and especially Reed have contracts that are really cap-friendly this year and then require a serious appraisal of "Do we keep this guy?" next offseason.
Mark Long Beach Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Well, we have to consider the signing bonus into that decision too. The jump in salary could offset the speedup of the signing bonus... So it might make no cap difference to keep/cut them. (sorry for not doing my homework and looking it up myself ...still at work, sigh.)
Buftex Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 It really makes one wonder, why the Bills are so opposed to overpaying Eric Moulds for this season. It appears that they are more interested in saving Ralph's money, than signing guys to improve this team...I will not say that I hate any of the signings they have made, but none seem like moves that will drasticly improve the team. It appears we are going to have to depend on coach Jauron and his staff to make the biggest difference....I wish them luck....
JimBob2232 Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Hmm. Royal, Tripplett and especially Reed have contracts that are really cap-friendly this year and then require a serious appraisal of "Do we keep this guy?" next offseason. I disagree. The first year almost always has a low cap number. This is because if you are paying a guy a 5 million dollar signing bonus, there is no need to pay him more than the minimum the first year, he is already getting 5M! Dont confuse Cap number with the amount ralph pays these guys. What is encouraging here is that salaries dont escalate much from year, and there is no baloon payment on the end. Also interesting is Royals contract peaks in the middle. Not sure what this means (if anything) except to say that the money is more "guarenteed" than the standard increasing every year contract, and also makes the contract more cap-friendly in the long run. These look to be some pretty sound contract numbers for these guys. Not sure who is taking care of the cap over at OBD, but early returns look positive.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 28, 2006 Author Posted March 28, 2006 It really makes one wonder, why the Bills are so opposed to overpaying Eric Moulds for this season. It appears that they are more interested in saving Ralph's money, than signing guys to improve this team...I will not say that I hate any of the signings they have made, but none seem like moves that will drasticly improve the team. It appears we are going to have to depend on coach Jauron and his staff to make the biggest difference....I wish them luck.... 643985[/snapback] My feeling is that they are simply over their head. Marv is a great guy and was a damn decent coach, and knows football, but he really doesn't know how to play this game. I really think they wanted a few guys, like, say Pickett, and it's not as though they don't have the moeny or wouldnt pay the money, I think they just got outfoxed or out-thought or out negotiated. That is total conjecture but it appears to be true. They didnt end up with very much, they miscalculated obviously on the Reggie Wells and the Bear DT contracts, they probably overpaid for Royal although it was a decent signing. I don't think no matter how smart you are, or how much you know football, that you are able to walk in off the street after being away for eight years, practically brag that you're not going to worry about the salary cap or negotiating salaries, and then be shrewd and effective doing it with no experience at it.
Olaf Fub Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 I think he's managed the cap well so far. 5-11 teams have a lot of holes, he's brought in a bunch of players on the cheap to try to fill some of those holes/provide depth. If you throw a lot of money at one or two players you only solve one or two problem areas. (That's assuming you big name FA doesn't get hurt or had a career year just to get a big contract.)
Buftex Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 I think he's managed the cap well so far. 5-11 teams have a lot of holes, he's brought in a bunch of players on the cheap to try to fill some of those holes/provide depth. If you throw a lot of money at one or two players you only solve one or two problem areas. (That's assuming you big name FA doesn't get hurt or had a career year just to get a big contract.) 644049[/snapback] I think we are all familiar with the concept...sometimes though, you get what pay for! Like I said, I don't really have a problem with any of the guys they signed (honestly can't say I know much about most of them), just that it doesn't seem like any are a signifcant upgrade over what we already had here. I find Nall and Triplett kind of intriguing at least , the rest though, just seem like other teams odds and ends. I liked that they were agressive in trying to sign the two un-restricted free agents, but I wish they would have done whatever it would take, with those offers, to sign those guys. It's nice to be under the salary cap, as long as they are planning on making some sort of move, to improve somewhere. Of course, signing any player is a crap shoot....I just hope these moves are part of a plan, and not just being conscious of how much money is being spent. Gotta say though, I am starting to think that Kelly the F&B Dog is close to the truth...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 28, 2006 Author Posted March 28, 2006 I think he's managed the cap well so far. 5-11 teams have a lot of holes, he's brought in a bunch of players on the cheap to try to fill some of those holes/provide depth. If you throw a lot of money at one or two players you only solve one or two problem areas. (That's assuming you big name FA doesn't get hurt or had a career year just to get a big contract.) 644049[/snapback] Not really. We had a lot of holes to fill and then he cut Adams and replaced him with Triplett, cut Milloy and replaced him with Bowen, cut Campbell and replaced him with Royal, cut Mike Williams and replaced him with Fowler. That may have been a downgrade at all of them, or at best a wash on half of them. And didnt fill any holes.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Need to save mad cash for Nate Actually they don't. He's currently eating up over $7M in cap space. If they work-out a long-term contract with him, it will reduce that to about $3M this year, going up slightly more each year. And the cap is supposed to go up $7M NEXT year.
Olaf Fub Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Not really. We had a lot of holes to fill and then he cut Adams and replaced him with Triplett, cut Milloy and replaced him with Bowen, cut Campbell and replaced him with Royal, cut Mike Williams and replaced him with Fowler. That may have been a downgrade at all of them, or at best a wash on half of them. And didnt fill any holes. 644055[/snapback] Adams and Williams were benched on a 5-11 team. Maybe we didn't use a TE in the offense last year because Campbell was no good. Personally, I'm glad we cut Milloy. I'm not suggesting that are problems have been solved but we're younger at every position. I like the fact that he seems to be building the team for the long term and not overspending of FA just to get some big names here. Cleveland, for example, signed a bunch of big name FAs but what did it get them. They might make the playoffs this year but I doubt it. So far they are a bad team who got mediocre in the off-season. They essentially got "Donahoed." The fans will be excited but they are no closer to the Super Bowl.
Buftex Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 The fans will be excited but they are no closer to the Super Bowl. 644070[/snapback] So, Buffalo fans will be disappointed, and no closer to the Super Bowl...or are we supposed to be patient another three or four years, and "hope" this plan works? Personally, I think Clevland has made some great moves...they likely won't win the Super Bowl, but they will be better than they have been. Isn't that kind of the point?
todd Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 The real error here is that people are viewing this as a one-year project. It isn't. It can't be. What Marv is doing is getting some depth with upside. The problem with Buffalo has been, among other things, crappy depth. That was the problem with the D-line last year. ZERO depth. And as much as I loved Sam Adams, he was only worth a minimum of snaps per game. If you tried to rely on the guy through the season to be a cornerstone of your team he would be worthless. The most important FA move the Bills have made this year is to attempt to keep Nate. That is huge. The second most important is cutting ties with MW. That was extremely important. Also, Lawyer just wasn't worth the $$ he was getting. A 10 mil cap figure for Moulds is just silly. He isn't worth it, as much as I like him. If he lowered his salary by 2 mil it would be worth it, but he won't. Hell, many people could afford a much nicer car, but then you wouldn't be able to live in a nice house. That's the rationale you have to address this with. Another thing that people fail to realize is that it is difficult to move around in the draft unless you have the cap flexibility to do it. Maybe Marv is planning to package a few picks to get another #1? Maybe he's going to trade his two #3 picks to get another #2. This has a huge impact on what you want to do with your cap. Regarding the escalation of the cap, I don't think what they have done is a problem. We've got over 10 mil worth of dead money this year which will be gone next year (MW, Lawyer, and Moulds).
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts