SKOOBY Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I thought he was virtually useless and for $2.5 million I would look elsewhere. +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 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? Unless the Bills intend on bringing someone in via FA and/or the draft, they should keep him. It's good to be able to rotate your DTs. Stroud, Williams and Johnson, it's a decent rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 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 are cash-to-cap. The salary cap doesn't come in to play with the Bills anymore. This is one advantage of cash-to-cap. To the cash-to-cap system, cutting a guy who still is due amortized money looks like no money whatsoever. So the Bills can make the decision based strictly on whether or not they think he's worth the bonus he will recieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 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. As Cody said above, this doesn't even enter into their calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 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. You're not clearing anything up, man, you're just confusing things. 1) You said "Cash to the cap is an organizational strategy, but it does not affect the way signing bonuses are counted." You're right and wrong about that. As the league calculates it, you're right. However, as the Bills calculate it, you're wrong there. 2) You said "It's a self-imposed limit." Absolutely right. 3) However, here's the point you missed. Teams operating in this way (cash-to-cap) are forced (yes, by their own self-imposed decision, but that's beside the point) to act in certain ways. Those ways to operate virtually guarantee that the teams will never even get close to the league-imposed salary cap limit. It just won't happen and therefore these teams don't have to worry about the salary cap. This is good. It's still there, but has no bearing on the team. Essentially, they're not borrowing money against future promises to pay, so yeah, there's a limit to how much money you can borrow, but it doesn't come up for the guy who doesn't borrow anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB Bull Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 You're not clearing anything up, man, you're just confusing things. 1) You said "Cash to the cap is an organizational strategy, but it does not affect the way signing bonuses are counted." You're right and wrong about that. As the league calculates it, you're right. However, as the Bills calculate it, you're wrong there. 2) You said "It's a self-imposed limit." Absolutely right. 3) However, here's the point you missed. Teams operating in this way (cash-to-cap) are forced (yes, by their own self-imposed decision, but that's beside the point) to act in certain ways. Those ways to operate virtually guarantee that the teams will never even get close to the league-imposed salary cap limit. It just won't happen and therefore these teams don't have to worry about the salary cap. This is good. It's still there, but has no bearing on the team. Essentially, they're not borrowing money against future promises to pay, so yeah, there's a limit to how much money you can borrow, but it doesn't come up for the guy who doesn't borrow anything. I think you need to do some more thinking about what you wrote. The notion that do not need to worry about the salary cap is ridiculous. Of course they don't need to worry about the salary cap - they only need to worry about their own "cap", which is even more restrictive. Over a prolonged period, there is no advantage to cash-to-cap other than saving money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts