JoeF Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20070...?tbd1043908.asp He does a decent job of providing an objective view of the pessimistic side of reality. I still believe we have an advantage with certain RFA's. If we target someone from a team that has little cap room -- we are almost sure to get them with a front end loaded contract....there likely will be picks involved -- but most likely our 3,4,6 or 7..to get a player that has established at least some playing record.
Bill from NYC Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 It WAS a very good article. My money says that he copied it from KTFBD, and I am serious.
JoeF Posted February 20, 2007 Author Posted February 20, 2007 It WAS a very good article. My money says that he copied it from KTFBD, and I am serious. If he indeed took the path of copying-- he picked a pretty darn good source.
TC in St. Louis Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Spending cash to the cap makes no sense. If you were going to get anywhere near the salary cap, all the new guys would have to sign one year deals. Bonus money is amortized over the length of the deal. Maybe Marv is planning on getting some guys to sign deals with guaranteed bonus money spread out over 2-3 years. The 15 million signing bonus Nate needs is 5 million per year...it's in writing, so it is guaranteed money, even if he dies or something. Why would he need 15 million in cash, up front? You can't spend that kind of money in Buffalo!! Besides, if he has a contract guaranteeing him the full amount, any bank would lend him what he needs, up to the 15 million. That way Ralph doesn't have to go too deep into his pockets to sign people, and the money actually is amortized over a few years. And you can spend cash to the cap, because that's what you are doing. Marv saying that there will be no more amortized deals....that's a bunch of crap. All signing bonuses are amortized over the contract. That's the nature of the beast. He's just laying down some BS before sitting down at the table. I believe they will try to get Nate signed. I think Fletcher is gone, because Marv says he makes all his tackles down field. I think they'll keep Kelsay. Gandy's a goner.
Buftex Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Spending cash to the cap makes no sense. If you were going to get anywhere near the salary cap, all the new guys would have to sign one year deals. Bonus money is amortized over the length of the deal. Maybe Marv is planning on getting some guys to sign deals with guaranteed bonus money spread out over 2-3 years. The 15 million signing bonus Nate needs is 5 million per year...it's in writing, so it is guaranteed money, even if he dies or something. Why would he need 15 million in cash, up front? You can't spend that kind of money in Buffalo!! Besides, if he has a contract guaranteeing him the full amount, any bank would lend him what he needs, up to the 15 million. That way Ralph doesn't have to go too deep into his pockets to sign people, and the money actually is amortized over a few years. And you can spend cash to the cap, because that's what you are doing. Marv saying that there will be no more amortized deals....that's a bunch of crap. All signing bonuses are amortized over the contract. That's the nature of the beast. He's just laying down some BS before sitting down at the table. I believe they will try to get Nate signed. I think Fletcher is gone, because Marv says he makes all his tackles down field. I think they'll keep Kelsay. Gandy's a goner. Remember about 7 or 8 years ago, when the Bengals were at absolute rock-bottom. They tried doing, essentially, what the Bills are trying to do now. There were no big bonuses. FA's who were garnering little interest elsewhere, would contact the Bengals, and feign interest in signing with them. The Bengals were being used by mid-range free agents, to drive up their prices with other teams. The Bengals would try to negotiate low ball contracts with everyone under the sun, but end up with nothing. Eventually, the team really sucked beyond belief, and the few great players they had (Takeo Spikes, Corey Dillon) wanted out as soon as their contracts were up. You may also recall, the Bengals first round draft picks pretty much held out every season, often right up to the regular season. Often the Bengals insisted on unusually long contracts for their first rounders, with very little signing bonus money. The Cardinals tried the same thing.... I am not saying all of this will happen with the Bills, but they certainly are sounding desperate. Eventually, even the notoriously miserly Mike Brown realized that you can't compete in the NFL, these days, using this approach. Hopefully, the Bills personel people are better....
BuffaloRebound Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Remember about 7 or 8 years ago, when the Bengals were at absolute rock-bottom. They tried doing, essentially, what the Bills are trying to do now. There were no big bonuses. FA's who were garnering little interest elsewhere, would contact the Bengals, and feign interest in signing with them. The Bengals were being used by mid-range free agents, to drive up their prices with other teams. The Bengals would try to negotiate low ball contracts with everyone under the sun, but end up with nothing. Eventually, the team really sucked beyond belief, and the few great players they had (Takeo Spikes, Corey Dillon) wanted out as soon as their contracts were up. You may also recall, the Bengals first round draft picks pretty much held out every season, often right up to the regular season. Often the Bengals insisted on unusually long contracts for their first rounders, with very little signing bonus money. The Cardinals tried the same thing.... I am not saying all of this will happen with the Bills, but they certainly are sounding desperate. Eventually, even the notoriously miserly Mike Brown realized that you can't compete in the NFL, these days, using this approach. Hopefully, the Bills personel people are better.... This strategy can work if Losman ends up being a Pro Bowl level QB. It's not that the Bills are low-balling players, it's that they aren't targeting the upper-echelon guys. Guys like Royal, Triplett, and Peerless probably got more money from the Bills than they would have gotten elsewhere. The strategy is to basically draft your stars (and hold on to the ones that play key positions) and use free agency to replace lost free agents and add solid players. It places a huge priority on drafting well.
Dual RB way to go Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Other than Drew Brees, can any1 name a free agent in the last few years that actually played up to their salary? Free agents are normally just a stop gap measure and marv tried to fix the donaho mess as best as he could. If marv declared that the draft picks signings were to be nickle & dimed, then I would throw up the white flag. Build your team through the draft, sign a free agent as backup or a temporary stop gap and roll the dice with your team. Sullivan was trolling; trying to lite up the fire underneath the bills fans. Marv hasn't done anything wrong since being hired other than to maybe have the best or second best draft class last year. I have alot of faith & hope in this next season. Keep Losman off a Harley Davidson and we should be OK!
Ramius Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Spending cash to the cap makes no sense. If you were going to get anywhere near the salary cap, all the new guys would have to sign one year deals. Bonus money is amortized over the length of the deal. Maybe Marv is planning on getting some guys to sign deals with guaranteed bonus money spread out over 2-3 years. The 15 million signing bonus Nate needs is 5 million per year...it's in writing, so it is guaranteed money, even if he dies or something. Why would he need 15 million in cash, up front? You can't spend that kind of money in Buffalo!! Besides, if he has a contract guaranteeing him the full amount, any bank would lend him what he needs, up to the 15 million. That way Ralph doesn't have to go too deep into his pockets to sign people, and the money actually is amortized over a few years. And you can spend cash to the cap, because that's what you are doing. Marv saying that there will be no more amortized deals....that's a bunch of crap. All signing bonuses are amortized over the contract. That's the nature of the beast. He's just laying down some BS before sitting down at the table. I believe they will try to get Nate signed. I think Fletcher is gone, because Marv says he makes all his tackles down field. I think they'll keep Kelsay. Gandy's a goner. Not necessarily. The vikes gave winfield a 10 mil roster bonus instead of a signing bonus, so he had a heinous cap hit in year 1. But then the bonus was paid off and there was no more amortization. Sadly, The bills can do this very thing with their mid level FA's. Give all the money upfront as a 1 year cap hit, and be done with it. Also by doing this, ralph can only spend $30 mil, and still say we are "at the cap". We'll just have a bunch of guys with inflated cap #'s in year 1.
BuffaloRebound Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Not necessarily. The vikes gave winfield a 10 mil roster bonus instead of a signing bonus, so he had a heinous cap hit in year 1. But then the bonus was paid off and there was no more amortization. Sadly, The bills can do this very thing with their mid level FA's. Give all the money upfront as a 1 year cap hit, and be done with it. Also by doing this, ralph can only spend $30 mil, and still say we are "at the cap". We'll just have a bunch of guys with inflated cap #'s in year 1. If Ralph did that, then I would have less a problem with the 'Cash to Cap' concept. But he never would because we would be so far under the cap the next year that Ralph would have to pay more in cash to get to the cap. Under his 'Cash to Cap', he gets the benefit of not amortizing for cash purposes in the current year, then amortizing for cash purposes the next year.
MikeSpeed Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 The strategy is to basically draft your stars (and hold on to the ones that play key positions) and use free agency to replace lost free agents and add solid players. It places a huge priority on drafting well. If Clemens and Kelsay are lost to FA, then your theory of how they are going to operate is incorrect. I'm all for drafting and keeping your own, but you can never let them become FA's if you are not going to pony up the signing bonuses. Side Note: If the NFL would just change the rule about signing bonuses and make it all count against the cap that year, then they would not need to worry about revenue sharing. With all teams only being able to spend to the cap they all have equal chance of getting players.
HurlyBurly51 Posted February 20, 2007 Posted February 20, 2007 Hire more scouts! You got that right! The bills are basically going back into the dark ages, when there was no free agency and teams were built by how well they drafted - except they're the only team playing under that set of rules Further, there is free agency, so even good draft classes will be leaving after their rookie contracts, so it's also like we're taking the college approach of replacing your starters every 4 to 5 years This team is in BIG trouble if they don't even do the one thing left at their disposal - draft good players! So hire more scouts Ralph - it's cheaper than paying free agents
Recommended Posts