Salary Cap Spending
#1
Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:55 AM
#2
Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:03 AM
When does the 89% requirement need to be met by?
#3
Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:05 AM
#4
Posted 20 March 2013 - 11:35 AM
dogman, on 20 March 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:
You need to check your facts again I think. I just did a simple Google of articles on the Bills cap situation. And found ones such as this -> link to Buff News article
The Bills do not have that much room to make FA signings.
#5
Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:22 PM
prissythecat, on 20 March 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:
The Bills do not have that much room to make FA signings.
That article was written on 2/13/13. It did not factor in the cap hit for Kelsay plus they also factored in a 1.3 m tender offer for Nelson which did not happen. Also, their cap hit for Fitz this year is only half of what the article stated because half is absorbed in 2013 and half in 2014. So... since that article was published, the Bills have about 11m more to spend than that. I don't know if they also acounted for McGee's cap savings, and I don't know what Manny Lawson's signing does. Also, the Bills reportedly rolled over $10m unused cap space fron 2012 to this year making their cap for 2013 about 131m. They have to spend to 89&% of the $12!m, but they could go as high as the $131m number this year.
#6
Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:33 PM
Dr. Trooth, on 20 March 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:
That article was written on 2/13/13. It did not factor in the cap hit for Kelsay plus they also factored in a 1.3 m tender offer for Nelson which did not happen. Also, their cap hit for Fitz this year is only half of what the article stated because half is absorbed in 2013 and half in 2014. So... since that article was published, the Bills have about 11m more to spend than that. I don't know if they also acounted for McGee's cap savings, and I don't know what Manny Lawson's signing does. Also, the Bills reportedly rolled over $10m unused cap space fron 2012 to this year making their cap for 2013 about 131m. They have to spend to 89&% of the $12!m, but they could go as high as the $131m number this year.
Right, but I think they are almost certainly at the 109m threshold (especially with rookie pay).
Spending from here will be choice not obligation.
#7
Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:47 PM
Waiting is the hardest part
#8
Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:50 PM
#10
Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:05 PM
#11
Posted 20 March 2013 - 02:04 PM
Captain Hindsight, on 20 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:
I'm not sure all the FA's are waiting around until Buddy gets around to it. My concern is that without any signings they are locking their draft up, and forcing themselves to draft certain positions. That kills Buddy's "best available" concept. Or they can wait and collect all the refuse left over. My source was overthecap.com-but could be wrong.
#12
Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:01 PM
dogman, on 20 March 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:
My concern is that without any signings they are locking their draft up, and forcing themselves to draft certain positions. That kills Buddy's "best available" concept.
I see the opposite. We have so many holes now that a pure BPA will help no matter what position the BPA is on our pick. Then, after the draft, we will know exactly which positions we need FAs to fill.
#13
Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:30 PM
dogman, on 20 March 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:
$5 mil - $ 6 mil for rookeis
Byrd Contract $7 mil - $8 mil
We will sign a few FA's before the FA period is up
extend Woods
Edited by Snorom, 20 March 2013 - 03:30 PM.
#14
Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:33 PM
#15
Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:55 PM
dogman, on 20 March 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:
ProbablyWrong, on 20 March 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:
#18
Posted 20 March 2013 - 08:00 PM
#19
Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:52 PM
billnutinphoenix, on 20 March 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:
http://espn.go.com/b...ion-sources-say










