Jump to content


Bills Projected at $25 Million Under the Cap


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 T master

T master

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,674 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:08 AM

Just read the NFL  is giving a 5% increase in the cap this year as the Bills were going to carry almost $19 Mill over from last year this would put them at $25 Mill for this years cap .

Whats the excuse now to not sign Byrd ?

http://blogs.buffalo...ry-cap-ceiling/

#2 mrags

mrags

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,177 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:10 AM

That his agent is demanding too much money and they aren't willing to pay that much.

#3 BigBuff423

BigBuff423

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:13 AM

That he is not worth the money he's demanding...pay him well, but $10 mil / yr is too much for a Safety, IMO of course

#4 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,314 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:20 AM

i think that is a bigger bump than most were expecting (atleast from what i heard). itll hopefully help out with signing him (and might partially account for the number 10m starting to get thrown around this week, bigger pies produce bigger slices)

#5 Mr. WEO

Mr. WEO

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,578 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:21 AM

Why not make him the highest paid D player in the league?

#6 Max997

Max997

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,443 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:22 AM

I didn't realize they used the cap as an excuse for not signing him last year

There are two parties involved in the negotiation that need to come to an agreement on a contract.

And correct me if I'm wrong Byrd did play for the Bills last year right? And by all accounts will at worst be franchised and play for the Bills again this season

Edited by Max997, 20 February 2014 - 02:16 PM.


#7 BigBuff423

BigBuff423

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:23 AM

View PostMr. WEO, on 20 February 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why not make him the highest paid D player in the league?

I'm assuming this is sarcasm....and God, I hope so...

#8 bigK14094

bigK14094

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:26 AM

View PostMr. WEO, on 20 February 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why not make him the highest paid D player in the league?
Byrd has skills and gets results to a substantial extent.  But, he is slow afoot......observed by me being run down from behind by none other than Nigel Bradham.  (actually passed him chasing a rb against Tampa)   that makes Byrd slow, not a coverage guy for a burner at all.  Certainly not in the Aaron Williams category.  that makes him a less than perfect safety.  A good one for sure, but, remember Jim Leonard also got 4 picks playing that postion this past year.  So, not sure Byrds results in that category make him unique.

#9 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,643 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:30 AM

Let's all forget we are fans motivated by just wanting to build and keep a great team that piles up win upon win.

Let's all put our strict businessmen hats on for a second.

Now that we're all looking at it from business perspective I have a question:

Would we be at a competitive disadvantage if we had to earmark 65% of revenues to player costs, which includes things besides just salary, vs. a team that only has to spend 35% to cover player costs?

Just from a business perspective.

GO BILLS!!!

#10 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,314 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:35 AM

View PostK-9, on 20 February 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Let's all forget we are fans motivated by just wanting to build and keep a great team that piles up win upon win.

Let's all put our strict businessmen hats on for a second.

Now that we're all looking at it from business perspective I have a question:

Would we be at a competitive disadvantage if we had to earmark 65% of revenues to player costs, which includes things besides just salary, vs. a team that only has to spend 35% to cover player costs?

Just from a business perspective.

GO BILLS!!!

for sure - and its part of why our facilities, coaching budget, may have suffered. heck, there were even rumors that with the mario contract we would struggle to fully fund the type of guarantees required up front (as fully guaranteed dollars must be put aside immediately even if not paid that year). its can be a tricky spot -- depending on what our cash flow actually looks like behind the scenes.

#11 Canadian Bills Fan

Canadian Bills Fan

    When it's too tough for them it's just right for us

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,046 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:39 AM

We need to keep our good players and not let them walk.

Sure they ask for stupid amounts of money but there will always be a team willing to pay that amount.

It's time we spend money on keeping good, proven players and not spening it on replacements

CBF

#12 Coach Tuesday

Coach Tuesday

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:46 AM

View PostCanadian Bills Fan, on 20 February 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

We need to keep our good players and not let them walk.

Sure they ask for stupid amounts of money but there will always be a team willing to pay that amount.

It's time we spend money on keeping good, proven players and not spening it on replacements

CBF

I disagree, I'm with the majority of fans here who hope the Bills win the Salary Cap Superbowl.  It's the only thing that matters - having a better cap situation than the other 31 teams.

#13 jboyst62

jboyst62

    Hall of Farmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,917 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:47 AM

Its old cheese but I can't believe we carried over some of Fitz's contract when we could have bit it all last year.

#14 Kirby Jackson

Kirby Jackson

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,427 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:08 PM

View Postjboyst62, on 20 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Its old cheese but I can't believe we carried over some of Fitz's contract when we could have bit it all last year.
Sore subject with me as well. There are some that have argued that it doesn't matter because of what we are rolling over but I am not sure that is correct.

#15 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,643 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:08 PM

View PostNoSaint, on 20 February 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

for sure - and its part of why our facilities, coaching budget, may have suffered. heck, there were even rumors that with the mario contract we would struggle to fully fund the type of guarantees required up front (as fully guaranteed dollars must be put aside immediately even if not paid that year). its can be a tricky spot -- depending on what our cash flow actually looks like behind the scenes.

Tricky indeed. And I doubt any of us will ever see the entire ledger of an NFL team. Safe to say, there are a ton of nefarious and maybe even downright embarrassing expenses in those books, too.

But we have a pretty good idea of gross revenues and player costs and the Bills and teams like them are at a disadvantage from a strict business point of view. There is a huge disparity in the percentage of revenues teams pay in player costs.  I don't readily dismiss that aspect of their business model.

Anyway, thanks for entertaining the point I was trying to make.

GO BILLS!!!

#16 yungmack

yungmack

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:12 PM

View PostMr. WEO, on 20 February 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why not make him the highest paid D player in the league?
Somebody will make him the highest paid FS in league history, but probably not the Bills.

View PostBigBuff423, on 20 February 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

That he is not worth the money he's demanding...pay him well, but $10 mil / yr is too much for a Safety, IMO of course
Do you think $8.5 million would be fair? Because supposedly the Bills could have signed him long term for that amount last year but they thought it was too much.  Now this year it looks like a "fair" price.  Another FO screw up if true.  He'll get 10 or close to it somewhere for a 5 year contract

#17 kota

kota

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,285 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:15 PM

The excuse is that hte bills need to extend players like Spiller and Dareus as well.  YOu can't keep everyone and I would say both those players make a bigger impact on the team than Byrd.

#18 C.Biscuit97

C.Biscuit97

    Ladies' Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,739 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:21 PM

View Postkota, on 20 February 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

The excuse is that hte bills need to extend players like Spiller and Dareus as well.  YOu can't keep everyone and I would say both those players make a bigger impact on the team than Byrd.

Stop making sense. How date you apply forward thinking to the equation? If the Bills don't sign every player to max deals, they are cheap.

You spend the most, you won the most in the NFL. Fact.

#19 K-9

K-9

    Long Timer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,643 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:21 PM

View Postyungmack, on 20 February 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Somebody will make him the highest paid FS in league history, but probably not the Bills.

Do you think $8.5 million would be fair? Because supposedly the Bills could have signed him long term for that amount last year but they thought it was too much.  Now this year it looks like a "fair" price.  Another FO screw up if true.  He'll get 10 or close to it somewhere for a 5 year contract

That 8.5 may have been fair for free safeties, but last year, Parker was asking for Polamalu money in terms of average (north of $9m) and Berry money in terms of guarantees (north of $25m). He doesn't make the distinction between the positions and Byrd wasn't gonna take free safety money.

GO BILLS!!!

#20 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,314 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 12:29 PM

View PostK-9, on 20 February 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:



That 8.5 may have been fair for free safeties, but last year, Parker was asking for Polamalu money in terms of average (north of $9m) and Berry money in terms of guarantees (north of $25m). He doesn't make the distinction between the positions and Byrd wasn't gonna take free safety money.

GO BILLS!!!

even so, do you think he has his client play on a tag for 1.5m less than that 8.5m average in order to gain only, say, 5m over the next 5 years (a net of only 3.5m when you take into account the 2013 raise)? id think thats the kind of range where it would get them to the table, while if we were offering 7.25 and he wanted 9.5 thats a gap of 11m over the life even with the slight raise over the tag he wouldve gotten.

i know you are in the parker will never move even a dollar off his asking price camp, but.... i guess maybe 9.5 was his floor with 10+ being what he wanted.  im sure theres some range there though.

Edited by NoSaint, 20 February 2014 - 12:31 PM.