Mickey Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 You do not improve a team by losing good players, Kelsay is a good player. Not great, but good. We have seen plenty of guys leave because we didn't want to *gasp* overpay for them and the team floundered as a result. Maybe this strategy will work.
Matt in KC Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) Salaries are going up for NFL players. I know that sounds obvious, but think about it... how come you didn't say he was over-paid because he made (edit:) a half million dollars last year? I'd guess the answer is that you got used to the distorted salaries earned by NFL players. Well, the new salary is no more absurd; it's just one of the only new salaries we've seen since the cap/salaries have shifted. If we didn't shoot at the moving target, we'd lose. This is how the game is played at the GM level. Edited February 28, 2007 by Matt in DC
Bill from NYC Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 You do not improve a team by losing good players, Kelsay is a good player. Not great, but good. We have seen plenty of guys leave because we didn't want to *gasp* overpay for them and the team floundered as a result. Maybe this strategy will work. Well said. Not only that, there is no reason to think that he will not improve. Stats don't tell the whole story wrt Kelsay. He provides a good deal of pressure, which is a hot commodity in the NFL these days. Frankly, I think we got away with a reasonable deal.
ganesh Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 Overpay is definitely a relative term....If you considered what 2nd tier linemen got last year then it is overpaying...However, if you consider what the 2nd tier linemen are likely to get this season, then it is probably on par. It is stupid to compare his contract with Schoebel, as that was signed 2 seasons ago and paid at that years market value. The salary cap has risen by 30% in the 2 seaons since and you have to expect a 30 to 35% increase in salaries. The market for this year is set at around 9-12M per year for the top tier talent and about 4-6M range for the 2nd tier and 1-3M range for the 3rd stringers...The teams will have to pay that money because the owners have been given that money by the television contract.
firstngoal Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 Again, how was Price "Over paid" ? We were not in cap trouble and he got 10 mil for 4 years. Big Deal!Plus he directly contributed hugely to 2 of our wins last season. It doesn't matter if we weren't in cap trouble the deal was bad from a business standpoint because there wasn't a market for Price (nobody wanted him). We could have probably offered him somewhere around the veteran minumum and he would still have signed. Just like the Cowboys deal with T.O.,they too waaay overpaid for him because the only other team that was interested in him was the Broncos and they decided to pass on him before the Cowboys offered him the money.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 It doesn't matter if we weren't in cap trouble the deal was bad from a business standpoint because there wasn't a market for Price (nobody wanted him). We could have probably offered him somewhere around the veteran minumum and he would still have signed. Just like the Cowboys deal with T.O.,they too waaay overpaid for him because the only other team that was interested in him was the Broncos and they decided to pass on him before the Cowboys offered him the money. except that in "over-paying" him we made him happy and he was a positive force in the locker room for the first time in years(on a pretty young team). all those reports about him taking Parrish under his wing.... there are so many intangibles that you "buy" when you pay a player what he wants (or more) that to sit here and gripe about over-paying is pretty futile.
firstngoal Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 Whitner was shocked to be selected at #8. Do you think that he was a good or bad pick based on this alone? Whitner was a good pick in the Draft, but he was taken too high. I feel they overpaid for him too because they had to pay him Top 10 money because they drafted him in the 8th slot when they could have moved down to #15 Denvers slot which would have made more sence. Kelsay is a fringe starter who would likely be a backup End on most other NFL teams. His production on the field doesn't warrant that type of contract, plus the Draft is deep at the defensive end position.
firstngoal Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 except that in "over-paying" him we made him happy and he was a positive force in the locker room for the first time in years(on a pretty young team). all those reports about him taking Parrish under his wing.... there are so many intangibles that you "buy" when you pay a player what he wants (or more) that to sit here and gripe about over-paying is pretty futile. My whole point is: The Bills are griping about Money and they go out and overpay Kelsay. Makes no sence!
DrDawkinstein Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 My whole point is: The Bills are griping about Money and they go out and overpay Kelsay. Makes no sence! just like the fans have been griping about not paying players and look at you now!
tennesseeboy Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 Well...we would have to overpay for another defensive end who isn't as good as Kelsay...and Kelsay isn't going to stay for much less than he would get on the open market...so we have to pay top buck for him. That's the business. I think kelsay is a darn good (not great) defensive end and we were smart to sign him.
firstngoal Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 just like the fans have been griping about not paying players and look at you now! Paying and Over-Paying are two different things! The Kelsay contract is the "talk of the league" and you can bet that several NFL teams aren't too happy with the contract because they are driving up the market for free agent players.
Dawgg Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 There were about 4 other teams interested in Price... the Pats were one of them. The moment they realized that Price was going to get a salary in the $2M range from the Bills, they laughed, turned around and signed Jabar Gafney and Reche Caldwell for $1.6M COMBINED. The Pats have a huge money advantage over the Bills... but they always sign players according to their value.... which is why they are where they are and the Bills are where they are. It doesn't matter if we weren't in cap trouble the deal was bad from a business standpoint because there wasn't a market for Price (nobody wanted him). We could have probably offered him somewhere around the veteran minumum and he would still have signed. Just like the Cowboys deal with T.O.,they too waaay overpaid for him because the only other team that was interested in him was the Broncos and they decided to pass on him before the Cowboys offered him the money.
firstngoal Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 There were about 4 other teams interested in Price... the Pats were one of them. The moment they realized that Price was going to get a salary in the $2M range from the Bills, they laughed, turned around and signed Jabar Gafney and Reche Caldwell for $1.6M COMBINED. The Pats have a huge money advantage over the Bills... but they always sign players according to their value.... which is why they are where they are and the Bills are where they are. I don't recall there being 4 other teams interested in Price (but if they were it would have been for somewhere just over the veteran minimum) but you hit the nail right on the head and it's the point that I'm trying to make: Paying players according to value!
DrDawkinstein Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 what you guys are forgetting is that its much easier for other teams (such as 3 time champs NE) to attract players. if we offer Price vet minimum and so do the Pats, guess where he goes?... we HAVE to pay some talent a little more than they are worth(according to whoever) because our front office is trying to, not only rebuild the team, but rebuild how the franchise is viewed by most of the players in the league.
colin Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 have you seen what other 2 and 3 year day 1 DE picks are getting paid? check out what the kid from GB and the kid from KC are getting (isn't the kid in KC getting franchised?) also the kid on the titans. carter went to DC and howard went to philly for even bigger contracts. while they might be superior to kelsey it would not take much for kelsay to pass them this season, and all the above contracts set the price for kelsey. what matters is if he can be a bigger time player this season
Dan Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 The entire premise of this thread is absurd and I'm a lesser person for commenting on it, but I just can't read anymore without saying something... First we bash Marv and the Bills' Mgmt. because they're not spending any money and we're gonna lose all our FAs. None of the players want to be here and the organization is a mess. Willis must go.. why doesn't Marv do something. Now, Marv has re-signed Kelsay and did so by opening Ralph's wallet a little so Kelsay never even tested the Market - yet you say this is bad. We tender offers to 2 other guys - yet no congratulations. You immediately rush to the judgement that Kelsay is overpayed. Price is overpayed (talk about dragging out skeletons). It sounds like everyone Marv signs is overpayed, yet everyone that is released its because Marv's too cheap to pay them. So which is it? Is Marv cheap or a spend thrift? I know you'll want to say, he's just dumb and making bad decisisons. But, free agency hasn't even started, so Marv could very likely be attempting to keep other players like Clements here as we speak. And we've had no time to wait and see what other DEs earn on the open market. So, to make any inferences on Marv's decision this offseason is premature at best. Not that it matters, but what would be the suggestion regarding Kelsay. Offer him league minimum, piss him off, allow him to test the open market, re-enforce the notion that the Bills are cheap just so everyone can say see I told you so, getting in a bidding war with other teams, sign someone with more promise that doesn't know our system just to save a little money. What's the best move here? I, personally, thought resigning Kelsay was a great move.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 The entire premise of this thread is absurd and I'm a lesser person for commenting on it, but I just can't read anymore without saying something... First we bash Marv and the Bills' Mgmt. because they're not spending any money and we're gonna lose all our FAs. None of the players want to be here and the organization is a mess. Willis must go.. why doesn't Marv do something. Now, Marv has re-signed Kelsay and did so by opening Ralph's wallet a little so Kelsay never even tested the Market - yet you say this is bad. We tender offers to 2 other guys - yet no congratulations. You immediately rush to the judgement that Kelsay is overpayed. Price is overpayed (talk about dragging out skeletons). It sounds like everyone Marv signs is overpayed, yet everyone that is released its because Marv's too cheap to pay them. So which is it? Is Marv cheap or a spend thrift? I know you'll want to say, he's just dumb and making bad decisisons. But, free agency hasn't even started, so Marv could very likely be attempting to keep other players like Clements here as we speak. And we've had no time to wait and see what other DEs earn on the open market. So, to make any inferences on Marv's decision this offseason is premature at best. Not that it matters, but what would be the suggestion regarding Kelsay. Offer him league minimum, piss him off, allow him to test the open market, re-enforce the notion that the Bills are cheap just so everyone can say see I told you so, getting in a bidding war with other teams, sign someone with more promise that doesn't know our system just to save a little money. What's the best move here? I, personally, thought resigning Kelsay was a great move. sorry dan, too much logic and level-headed reasoning in that post for the off-season. youll probably be banned.
Dan Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 sorry dan, too much logic and level-headed reasoning in that post for the off-season. youll probably be banned. Hopefully, not banned. But, I fully expect to be ignored.
DrDawkinstein Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 Hopefully, not banned. But, I fully expect to be ignored. not so much ignored. youre just speaking at a higher level than is usually comprehended around here.
firstngoal Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 The entire premise of this thread is absurd and I'm a lesser person for commenting on it, but I just can't read anymore without saying something... First we bash Marv and the Bills' Mgmt. because they're not spending any money and we're gonna lose all our FAs. None of the players want to be here and the organization is a mess. Willis must go.. why doesn't Marv do something. Now, Marv has re-signed Kelsay and did so by opening Ralph's wallet a little so Kelsay never even tested the Market - yet you say this is bad. We tender offers to 2 other guys - yet no congratulations. You immediately rush to the judgement that Kelsay is overpayed. Price is overpayed (talk about dragging out skeletons). It sounds like everyone Marv signs is overpayed, yet everyone that is released its because Marv's too cheap to pay them. So which is it? Is Marv cheap or a spend thrift? I know you'll want to say, he's just dumb and making bad decisisons. But, free agency hasn't even started, so Marv could very likely be attempting to keep other players like Clements here as we speak. And we've had no time to wait and see what other DEs earn on the open market. So, to make any inferences on Marv's decision this offseason is premature at best. Not that it matters, but what would be the suggestion regarding Kelsay. Offer him league minimum, piss him off, allow him to test the open market, re-enforce the notion that the Bills are cheap just so everyone can say see I told you so, getting in a bidding war with other teams, sign someone with more promise that doesn't know our system just to save a little money. What's the best move here? I, personally, thought resigning Kelsay was a great move. Resiging Kelsay was a goood move, never said it wasn't! But what they PAID for him was ridiculous! Case in point = The Sporting News Scouting Guide for NFL Players has Kelsay rated as the 53rd Best DE in the game (doesn't make enough big plays is one of their assessments). Rated as an ADEQUATE STARTER. I haven't seen the production on the field to warrant such a contract. Would you go to the grocery store and pay $50 dollars for a 16oz container of mustard??? Well, thats what they did! It's not just me that is bringing this up, it's the talk of the league!
Recommended Posts