RockPile007 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Just read a Bills Q&A with Adam Caplan on the Bills site on Scout and he said that there is no guarantee Johnson will be back. He's due a roster bonus of $2.5 million in March. He pretty much did what we all thought. Probably wasn't worth that big contract, but he is a solid rotational guy on the line. You guys think the Bills should cut him if this is the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 i'd keep him until we had someone better. McCargo sure doesn't seem like he'll be back. We have enough holes to fill, imo, to keep making more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought Johnson was decent, and a bit better then I expected. Obviously he's not a starting caliber player, but then again Kyle Williams probably isn't either. In an ideal world we would find a legit dt to start next to Stroud and have Williams/Johnson be the rotational guys, giving us one of the better dt rotations we've had since Fat Pat and Big Sam, with Ron Edwards and Banan in rotation. As well as getting a defensive end. Hopefully the Bills don't create more holes, by cutting a decent player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 He played the role that was intended for him. If the FO thought he was worth the money they offered, I do not believe that his performance on the field would make them believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Grundy Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I thought he was virtually useless and for $2.5 million I would look elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 i'd keep him until we had someone better. McCargo sure doesn't seem like he'll be back. We have enough holes to fill, imo, to keep making more. if mcCargo is back i will know for good that there is no commitment to winning. mcBust and his mcBack need to hang out with mike williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflobarry Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 ....Would the Bills cut a back up to save $2.5 million? Gee, that's tough one......Hmmmmmm.....In a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 He played alright. I don't see why we should worry about what he's making until it actually effects us as far as the salary cap goes. We're under the cap by more than $35 million if it goes up to $123 million as expected. Right now, we're still $25 million under the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I thought he was virtually useless and for $2.5 million I would look elsewhere. That would be kelsey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 if mcCargo is back i will know for good that there is no commitment to winning. mcBust and his mcBack need to hang out with mike williams. McCargo was looked to as a guy who could have a breakout season last year. After getting injured, he couldn't even be traded. Maybe if he returns to health he can make an impact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robkmil Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Just read a Bills Q&A with Adam Caplan on the Bills site on Scout and he said that there is no guarantee Johnson will be back. He's due a roster bonus of $2.5 million in March. He pretty much did what we all thought. Probably wasn't worth that big contract, but he is a solid rotational guy on the line. You guys think the Bills should cut him if this is the case? Maybe replace with him Hargrove/ or is this guy done with this franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Just read a Bills Q&A with Adam Caplan on the Bills site on Scout and he said that there is no guarantee Johnson will be back. He's due a roster bonus of $2.5 million in March. He pretty much did what we all thought. Probably wasn't worth that big contract, but he is a solid rotational guy on the line. You guys think the Bills should cut him if this is the case? And the Bills would rather pay the 4.8 million salary cap hit they would take by releasing him? Another case of a reporter looking only at the dollar amounts and being clueless as to the inner-workings of the salary cap and a teams ramifications on it by releasing a player. The Bills amortized his signing bonus of 6 million over the length of the contract, which was 5 years, meaning it counted 1.2 million per year against the cap(total of 6 million). With him only having been here 1 year, the Bills would then accelerate his remaining signing bonus of 4.8 million by releasing him, and would effectively pay him 4.8 million dollars for not being here, then have to go out an sign an additional player to take his place and pay him whatever they were going to pay him. Really it makes no sense, but if this is the rubbish a reporter wants to believe, then I guess everyone can take it for fact...maybe you should ask him what the ramifications of releasing Johnson on the salary cap are, and when he gives you a clueless look along with a couple of "uhhh....uhhhh....uhhhh"'s, you'll know not to pay him any mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I thought he was virtually useless and for $2.5 million I would look elsewhere. how bout 4.8 million + the salary of the player replacing him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 He played the role that was intended for him. If the FO thought he was worth the money they offered, I do not believe that his performance on the field would make them believe otherwise. Ditto .... enough said .... too many other needs to address.., pay him and move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 McCargo was looked to as a guy who could have a breakout season last year. After getting injured, he couldn't even be traded. Maybe if he returns to health he can make an impact You can forget McCargo. He is a bust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 And the Bills would rather pay the 4.8 million salary cap hit they would take by releasing him? Another case of a reporter looking only at the dollar amounts and being clueless as to the inner-workings of the salary cap and a teams ramifications on it by releasing a player. The Bills amortized his signing bonus of 6 million over the length of the contract, which was 5 years, meaning it counted 1.2 million per year against the cap(total of 6 million). With him only having been here 1 year, the Bills would then accelerate his remaining signing bonus of 4.8 million by releasing him, and would effectively pay him 4.8 million dollars for not being here, then have to go out an sign an additional player to take his place and pay him whatever they were going to pay him. Really it makes no sense, but if this is the rubbish a reporter wants to believe, then I guess everyone can take it for fact...maybe you should ask him what the ramifications of releasing Johnson on the salary cap are, and when he gives you a clueless look along with a couple of "uhhh....uhhhh....uhhhh"'s, you'll know not to pay him any mind... The Bills use cash-to-the-cap. Instead of amortizing the bonus, they took the hit for the entire 6 mil last year. No penalty if he is released. That is the one major competative benefit to cash-to-the-cap, no dead cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 how bout 4.8 million + the salary of the player replacing him? They'll release enough players that it eats up most of their cap room, and then claim that's why they can't spend on any quality free agents. So in effect they'll eat up virtual cap dollars without actually having to pay out the money, and have an excuse for not being aggressive in free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB Bull Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The Bills use cash-to-the-cap. Instead of amortizing the bonus, they took the hit for the entire 6 mil last year. No penalty if he is released. That is the one major competative benefit to cash-to-the-cap, no dead cap space. THis has come up many times before, but I'll clear it up again Cash to the cap is an organizational strategy, but it does not affect the way signing bonuses are counted. They are amortized over the length of the contract whether the organization wants to do it or not. "cash to the cap" is just a way for the Bills to say they don't spend real dollars in any given year over the cap. It's a self-imposed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 THis has come up many times before, but I'll clear it up again Cash to the cap is an organizational strategy, but it does not affect the way signing bonuses are counted. They are amortized over the length of the contract whether the organization wants to do it or not. "cash to the cap" is just a way for the Bills to say they don't spend real dollars in any given year over the cap. It's a self-imposed limit. Not that I have any reason not to believe you, but I have yet to see this from a credible source. (Only posts on various message boards). I know the NFL allows teams to amortize signing bonuses, but I have not seen a rule that forces teams to amortize the bonuses. I am by no means an expert in the CBA, but I did not think the signing bonus language forced teams into amortization. Roster bonuses are not amortized. A team could sign a player on April 1 and give a roster bonus of 6 mil on April 2. If a team was using cash-to-the-cap to avoid amortization, they could use roster bonuses rather than signing bonuses (if signing bonuses must be amortized). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB Bull Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Not that I have any reason not to believe you, but I have yet to see this from a credible source. (Only posts on various message boards). I know the NFL allows teams to amortize signing bonuses, but I have not seen a rule that forces teams to amortize the bonuses. I am by no means an expert in the CBA, but I did not think the signing bonus language forced teams into amortization. Roster bonuses are not amortized. A team could sign a player on April 1 and give a roster bonus of 6 mil on April 2. If a team was using cash-to-the-cap to avoid amortization, they could use roster bonuses rather than signing bonuses (if signing bonuses must be amortized). I don't know how credible this guy is, but he seems to know what he is talking about http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp scroll down to question 1.7e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts