95altima1 Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Does anybody know how much they spent last year?
Kelly the Dog Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 These are just ballpark figures, and some of them may be a little low, some high, and I rounded off to the nearest million. But these are close. Triplett - 8 mil Royal - 5 mil Bowen - 2 mil Peerless - 4 mil Josh - 5 mil Reyes - 2 mil A. Thomas - 1 mil K. Thomas - 1 mil A. Davis - 1 mil Nall - 4 mil So about 30-33 million ballpark. But that was ten guys, including one of our own, in Josh. This year they are thinking of half that many, perhaps 5. So you can double the contracts and get better players. It's not wholly bad, but it rules out guys like Steinbach and Nate, and probably any of the top guards and LBs, except perhaps June.
95altima1 Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 These are just ballpark figures, and some of them may be a little low, some high, and I rounded off to the near million. But these are close. Triplett - 8 mil Royal - 5 mil Bowen - 2 mil Peerless - 4 mil Josh - 5 mil Reyes - 2 mil A. Thomas - 1 mil K. Thomas - 1 mil A. Davis - 1 mil Nall - 4 mil So about 30-33 million ballpark. But that was ten guys, including one of our own, in Josh. This year they are thinking of half that many, perhaps 5. So you can double the contracts and get better players. It's not wholly bad, but it rules out guys like Steinbach and Nate, and probably any of the top guards and LBs, except perhaps June. Thanks a lot!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 One must also consider that there are 8-9 positions to fill this year because of the players we will lose. We need, at the very least, 1 OG, 1 FB, 1 RB, 2 DE, 1 DT, 1 LB, 2 CB, although at least three of those positions will be taken by our top three draft picks and some of them will be taken by our own FA that we resign, like Hargrove and K. Thomas, etc. We might not even be able to resign Kelsay because of this cash to the cap crap. He's liable to get 10-12 in cash millions, maybe a lot more.
JimBob2232 Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Here is my take on this cash to cap policy. Someone correct me where I am wrong It seems like the cap is 109M, therefore the bills will spend 109M this season on players. According to Billszone (http://www.billszone.com/mtlog/archives/2007/01/29/billszones_2007_buffalo_bills_salary_cap_page.php) current salaries for 2007 are 46.8M, Other Bonuses are 6.9M, meaning we are only on target to spend 53.7M next season, which seems like its a good 55M BELOW the 109M cash to cap limit. What (if anything) am i missing here???
Kelly the Dog Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Here is my take on this cash to cap policy. Someone correct me where I am wrong It seems like the cap is 109M, therefore the bills will spend 109M this season on players. According to Billszone (http://www.billszone.com/mtlog/archives/2007/01/29/billszones_2007_buffalo_bills_salary_cap_page.php) current salaries for 2007 are 46.8M, Other Bonuses are 6.9M, meaning we are only on target to spend 53.7M next season, which seems like its a good 55M BELOW the 109M cash to cap limit. What (if anything) am i missing here??? That the Bills are somewhat lying to you. They are counting the 20+ million they have already spent in previous bonuses as cash for this year, so instead of spending 55 or so million they are spending 35 or so million, several of which have already been spent. That is why it's bullschit, because you're absolutely right, if they were actually going to spend "cash to the cap" we would have over 50 million and could sign a lot of pretty good talent, including Nate.
Ramius Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 That the Bills are somewhat lying to you. They are counting the 20+ million they have already spent in previous bonuses as cash for this year, so instead of spending 55 or so million they are spending 35 or so million, several of which have already been spent. That is why it's bullschit, because you're absolutely right, if they were actually going to spend "cash to the cap" we would have over 50 million and could sign a lot of pretty good talent, including Nate. So if i am reading this right... 1. The Bills have 30 million in cap space for 2007. (we have used up roughly 79 million in space) 2. The Bills are only on the books for 55 million in real money for 2007 as of right now. 3. But we are treating cap money as if its real money, acting as if ralph is going to have to spend 79 mil already. 4. They are then treating available cap space (30 million) as if that is the only real money we can afford to pay out this upcoming season (bonuses + salary) So basically, they are screwing us 2x. They are treating cap numbers as real money to make it look like we've spent a lot. But then, they turn around and treat remaining cap space as if thats all the cash they have to spend? What a crock of sh--. hypothetical example to see if i fully understand it: we sign Nate for 7 years, 63 mil, with a 18 mil SB (first yr salary, say, 5 mil), and steinbach for 6 years 36 mil SB with a $12 mil SB (first year salary of 3 mil) Our current cap would be 79 mil + 2.5 (nates SB) + 5 (nates salary) + 2 (steins SB) + 3 (steins salary) = 91.5 mil with 17.5 mil in free space But ralph would say that we over spent because he would add 79 +18+5+12+3, and say we went over the cap? And the actual real money paid out this year would be 55+18+12+5+3 = 93 mil. So ralph would only spend 93 mil in real money, and only use 91 mil in cap space, but he would claim that we spent over the 109 mil cap? WTF? Something sounds really screwy. I am really starting to agree with your "ralph crying poor" arguement.
billybob Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 So if i am reading this right... 1. The Bills have 30 million in cap space for 2007. (we have used up roughly 79 million in space) 2. The Bills are only on the books for 55 million in real money for 2007 as of right now. 3. But we are treating cap money as if its real money, acting as if ralph is going to have to spend 79 mil already. 4. They are then treating available cap space (30 million) as if that is the only real money we can afford to pay out this upcoming season (bonuses + salary) So basically, they are screwing us 2x. They are treating cap numbers as real money to make it look like we've spent a lot. But then, they turn around and treat remaining cap space as if thats all the cash they have to spend? What a crock of sh--. hypothetical example to see if i fully understand it: we sign Nate for 7 years, 63 mil, with a 18 mil SB (first yr salary, say, 5 mil), and steinbach for 6 years 36 mil SB with a $12 mil SB (first year salary of 3 mil) Our current cap would be 79 mil + 2.5 (nates SB) + 5 (nates salary) + 2 (steins SB) + 3 (steins salary) = 91.5 mil with 17.5 mil in free space But ralph would say that we over spent because he would add 79 +18+5+12+3, and say we went over the cap? And the actual real money paid out this year would be 55+18+12+5+3 = 93 mil. So ralph would only spend 93 mil in real money, and only use 91 mil in cap space, but he would claim that we spent over the 109 mil cap? WTF? Something sounds really screwy. I am really starting to agree with your "ralph crying poor" arguement. Basically Ralph is saying "I'm not going into my pocket to get players"
MDH Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 These are just ballpark figures, and some of them may be a little low, some high, and I rounded off to the near million. But these are close. Triplett - 8 mil Royal - 5 mil Bowen - 2 mil Peerless - 4 mil Josh - 5 mil Reyes - 2 mil A. Thomas - 1 mil K. Thomas - 1 mil A. Davis - 1 mil Nall - 4 mil So about 30-33 million ballpark. But that was ten guys, including one of our own, in Josh. This year they are thinking of half that many, perhaps 5. So you can double the contracts and get better players. It's not wholly bad, but it rules out guys like Steinbach and Nate, and probably any of the top guards and LBs, except perhaps June. You forgot the rookies, though only one rook got a significant signing bonus.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 You forgot the rookies, though only one rook got a significant signing bonus. He asked about free agency, which doesn't count rookies.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 So if i am reading this right... 1. The Bills have 30 million in cap space for 2007. (we have used up roughly 79 million in space) 2. The Bills are only on the books for 55 million in real money for 2007 as of right now. 3. But we are treating cap money as if its real money, acting as if ralph is going to have to spend 79 mil already. 4. They are then treating available cap space (30 million) as if that is the only real money we can afford to pay out this upcoming season (bonuses + salary) So basically, they are screwing us 2x. They are treating cap numbers as real money to make it look like we've spent a lot. But then, they turn around and treat remaining cap space as if thats all the cash they have to spend? What a crock of sh--. hypothetical example to see if i fully understand it: we sign Nate for 7 years, 63 mil, with a 18 mil SB (first yr salary, say, 5 mil), and steinbach for 6 years 36 mil SB with a $12 mil SB (first year salary of 3 mil) Our current cap would be 79 mil + 2.5 (nates SB) + 5 (nates salary) + 2 (steins SB) + 3 (steins salary) = 91.5 mil with 17.5 mil in free space But ralph would say that we over spent because he would add 79 +18+5+12+3, and say we went over the cap? And the actual real money paid out this year would be 55+18+12+5+3 = 93 mil. So ralph would only spend 93 mil in real money, and only use 91 mil in cap space, but he would claim that we spent over the 109 mil cap? WTF? Something sounds really screwy. I am really starting to agree with your "ralph crying poor" arguement. That's about right, yes. And not only that, but he will be getting more than 93 million in cash just from TV. That's before one ticket or jersey or luxury box or hat or parking spot or revenue sharing from rich guys or monies from the league from their enormous corporate sponsorships.
I 90 Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Basically Ralph is saying "I'm not going into my pocket to get players" He may be saying that he won't spend money in hand on players, let alone go hand in pocket. That he won't spend what his partners/competitors are spending.
jahnyc Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I usually try to be optimistic, but I think this cash to cap stuff stinks. Plus, since it is being implemented this year without giving effect to prior years, we will be subject to double counting. I appreciate that RW is fighting to keep small market teams competitive, but in the near term, this fighting is going to negatively impact our ability to compete. No way RW is going to spend a lot of money while revenue sharing has yet to be resolved. The funny thing is that I don't think most Bills fans want the Bills to spend wildly. I know that I would like to see the Bills re-sign Clements and Kelsay and then get a guard in free agency. That would make me very happy (but it is not going to happen).
Dibs Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Here is my take on this cash to cap policy. Someone correct me where I am wrong It seems like the cap is 109M, therefore the bills will spend 109M this season on players. According to Billszone (http://www.billszone.com/mtlog/archives/2007/01/29/billszones_2007_buffalo_bills_salary_cap_page.php) current salaries for 2007 are 46.8M, Other Bonuses are 6.9M, meaning we are only on target to spend 53.7M next season, which seems like its a good 55M BELOW the 109M cash to cap limit. What (if anything) am i missing here??? To all those who are saying that this is incorrect......where are you getting your facts from? Has anyone in the organization said that this is incorrect or is it just an assumption some of you are making? The only logical way of looking at this is the way JimBob2232 has. Why do we always assume the worst?
apuszczalowski Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 To all those who are saying that this is incorrect......where are you getting your facts from? Has anyone in the organization said that this is incorrect or is it just an assumption some of you are making? The only logical way of looking at this is the way JimBob2232 has. Why do we always assume the worst? Because we are Bills fans, Its part of what comes with being a fan of a Buffalo team and Because Ralph is cheap and Senile, as well as Marv who is senile and a puppet, and Ralph and Willis are going behind everyones back to move the team to Toronto overnight becasue their only goal in life is to screw Buffalo over
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 To all those who are saying that this is incorrect......where are you getting your facts from? Has anyone in the organization said that this is incorrect or is it just an assumption some of you are making? The only logical way of looking at this is the way JimBob2232 has. Why do we always assume the worst? Because he said the words "cash to the cap". The Bills have 30 million left in "cash to the cap". They have 50 million left in real cash.
Dibs Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Because he said the words "cash to the cap". The Bills have 30 million left in "cash to the cap". They have 50 million left in real cash. We have 50mil left in real cash..........to the cap limit. We have 30mil left in.........what's that called? Oh yeah.....30mil left in cap room. My question is why so many jump to the conclusion that we are going to go the worst possible way when interpreting the words used. You guys are funny.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 We have 50mil left in real cash..........to the cap limit. We have 30mil left in.........what's that called? Oh yeah.....30mil left in cap room. My question is why so many jump to the conclusion that we are going to go the worst possible way when interpreting the words used. You guys are funny. Because, again, we have 30 million left in those words, "cash to the cap". We have spent 79 million in "cash to the cap" so far, if you count salaries. Do the math. He also said we won't be spending freely, what does that tell you? He also said we won't be as active, what does that tell you? If they were planning on spending 50 million, we could sign Nate and Steinbach and Cato June all together EASILY. Do you think this is in their prospective plans? Because if they did what you're suggesting they would be spending a LOT MORE in cash than they would if they just did it the way they always have and all other teams always have. Is that what you believe Ralph wants to do?
Dibs Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Because, again, we have 30 million left in those words, "cash to the cap". We have spent 79 million in "cash to the cap" so far, if you count salaries. Do the math. ..... No......we have used 79 million in cap dollars. According to others who have done the math, we have used(spent) around 60mil in actual dollars....better known as cash.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 No......we have used 79 million in cap dollars. According to others who have done the math, we have used(spent) around 60mil in actual dollars....better known as cash. Dibs, mate. Step away from the Fosters. You're really not thinking. Or you're simply ignoring all facts, logic, and history. Seriously, and this isn't hyperbole, if Ralph Wilson spends "cash to the cap" under your definition, and not mine, it will be the biggest spending spree in NFL free agent history. The Redskins have never done it. I am almost positive that no team has ever done it, with the possible exception of when the Colts gave Manning a 35 million bonus (which I believe they broke into payments) so even they didn't do it. Do you believe this is the Bills plan? When Ralph is crying poor? To spend more cash on bigger contracts than any team ever? Please answer me that question. No team in NFL history has spent 55 million dollars in your definition of "cash to the cap".
Recommended Posts