2023 Salary Cap Thread

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

28 minutes ago, Ann said:

Why are there void years on a one-year contract?

 

 

Because the cap is a complete fiction.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2023/06/07/buffalo-bills-brandon-beane-leonard-floyd-contract-details/

 

Four year contract with three void years...so effectively a one year contract, but allows the Bills to spread the cap hit out over four years.  

 

That's...both &#%$ed, and &#%$ing brilliant.  That's Belichick-level fraud, but in a guy who possesses an actual personality.  I love it.   

[Ann]

Brandon Shell

[Ann]

 

Full twitter image:

[Alaska Darin]

 

[Nanker]

$4M ain’t enough to get through the season with. 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Nanker said:

$4M ain’t enough to get through the season with. 

They'll trade whichever D-lineman they don't expect to make the final roster and they could also restructure a deal or 3 still should they need more cap space.

 

Unlike the NHL's cap, the NFL's is largely imaginary.

[Alaska Darin]

14 hours ago, Taro T said:

They'll trade whichever D-lineman they don't expect to make the final roster and they could also restructure a deal or 3 still should they need more cap space.

 

Unlike the NHL's cap, the NFL's is largely imaginary.

Especially when you have an owner with deep pockets who wants to win.  The cap would be real AF if Ralph still owned this team (and it's probably in Toronto).

[RochesterRob]

41 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Especially when you have an owner with deep pockets who wants to win.  The cap would be real AF if Ralph still owned this team (and it's probably in Toronto).

  Frazier would be head coach as well.  

[SquirminThurman]

On 6/8/2023 at 6:26 PM, Ann said:

Why are there void years on a one-year contract?

The cap is only an accounting tool. It effectively shows what season the money reports as an accounting debit to the team.

 

IIRC bonus money on voidable years gets dangerous because that money is guaranteed, whereas salary in voidable years is not. That means the owner has to have the money and be willing to fork it over when the contract with void year bonuses is signed. This is long before it is actually accounted for against the cap. So the rich teams, or owners with deep pockets still have an advantage.

 

IMO the Bills are dipping their toes into dangerous voidable year territory. Having a voidable year or two for a player like Hyde or Floyd makes some sense, but when guys like Matakevich start getting voidable years added, things are starting to go sideways. It makes it tough to cut fringe players. If not cut, it reduces the cap number the year the voidable season is paid, especially if a bonus.

 

This is a good overview of void years and is current to the best of my knowledge:

https://sumersports.com/the-zone/void-years-explained/

 

[Jabba The Hutt]

14 minutes ago, SquirminThurman said:

The cap is only an accounting tool. It effectively shows what season the money reports as an accounting debit to the team.

 

IIRC bonus money on voidable years gets dangerous because that money is guaranteed, whereas salary in voidable years is not. That means the owner has to have the money and be willing to fork it over when the contract with void year bonuses is signed. This is long before it is actually accounted for against the cap. So the rich teams, or owners with deep pockets still have an advantage.

 

IMO the Bills are dipping their toes into dangerous voidable year territory. Having a voidable year or two for a player like Hyde or Floyd makes some sense, but when guys like Matakevich start getting voidable years added, things are starting to go sideways. It makes it tough to cut fringe players. If not cut, it reduces the cap number the year the voidable season is paid, especially if a bonus.

 

This is a good overview of void years and is current to the best of my knowledge:

https://sumersports.com/the-zone/void-years-explained/

 

Do those goals need to be met only during regular season or do playoff sacks count towards meeting the goal as well?

[Alaska Darin]

59 minutes ago, SquirminThurman said:

The cap is only an accounting tool. It effectively shows what season the money reports as an accounting debit to the team.

 

IIRC bonus money on voidable years gets dangerous because that money is guaranteed, whereas salary in voidable years is not. That means the owner has to have the money and be willing to fork it over when the contract with void year bonuses is signed. This is long before it is actually accounted for against the cap. So the rich teams, or owners with deep pockets still have an advantage.

 

IMO the Bills are dipping their toes into dangerous voidable year territory. Having a voidable year or two for a player like Hyde or Floyd makes some sense, but when guys like Matakevich start getting voidable years added, things are starting to go sideways. It makes it tough to cut fringe players. If not cut, it reduces the cap number the year the voidable season is paid, especially if a bonus.

 

This is a good overview of void years and is current to the best of my knowledge:

https://sumersports.com/the-zone/void-years-explained/

The only real problems with the cap are when you're playing big money to players late in their career and they retire with multiple years left (think Drew Brees) and a big pro-rated bonus that now has to be accounted in at best a 2 year window or when you miss on someone (usually a QB) with a big salary/bonus.

 

The rest of it can be massaged an infinite number of times with the biggest penalty being the loss of middling veterans in favor of draft choices/UDFAs.

[Taro T]

31 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

The only real problems with the cap is when you're playing big money to players late in their career and they retire with multiple years left (think Drew Brees) and a big pro-rated bonus that now has to be accounted in at best a 2 year window or when you miss on someone (usually a QB) with a big salary/bonus.

 

The rest of it can be massaged an infinite number of times with the biggest penalty being the loss of middling veterans in favor of draft choices/UDFAs.

 

And still expect us to see fairly soon, if not this year then next, the Bills losing the luxury of having ~6-7 STers on the roster strictly for STs besides the 3 specialists because they are paying Allen close to the going rate for an elite QB.  And it will likely be a good thing as it will force them to keep young guys on the roster that can develop into starters rather than simply having them raided by the Jints.

 

The ST's may take a slight hit, but the way the rules keep evolving to elimate the value of the ST's in the grand scheme, who really cares?  As long as the specialists are good at their jobs, it doesn't matter if they aren't particularly good at coverage provided they aren't attrocious at it.  And if the D is getting teams going 3 & out or 5 and out and Josh Allen is about to step onto the field, does it really matter much if the PR only gets 4 yards rather than 7 per return?

 

Replacing Martin with a Rick Tuten would be a bad thing, but they should be able to keep a Martin on the roster.

 

(Sorry, guess this isn't really directed directly at the cap, but it is directed at a change in philosophy that will be necessitated by the reality of having a veteran squad.)

[SquirminThurman]

55 minutes ago, Jabba The Hutt said:

Do those goals need to be met only during regular season or do playoff sacks count towards meeting the goal as well?

hey jabba. my post was mostly about adding void years and replying to Ann. I think you may have replied to the wrong post or are asking details about Floyd's contract?

 

There would be no incentives tied to voidable years. As most of us know the voidable year is just an 'accounting trick' to kick signing bonus money down the line against the cap. Most performance bonuses and roster bonuses have to be paid in the year the condition is met for the bonus. As for performance metrics like '12 sacks in the season' that would be up to the language in the contract for that rostered year.

[SquirminThurman]

1 hour ago, Alaska Darin said:

The only real problems with the cap are when you're playing big money to players late in their career and they retire with multiple years left (think Drew Brees) and a big pro-rated bonus that now has to be accounted in at best a 2 year window or when you miss on someone (usually a QB) with a big salary/bonus.

 

The rest of it can be massaged an infinite number of times with the biggest penalty being the loss of middling veterans in favor of draft choices/UDFAs.

IMO yes and no. A lot of it has to do with the structure of the contract. 90% of the time voidable years are signing bonus money. So with Brees they kept restructuring salary and roster bonuses (which can not be spread into voidable years, at least haven't seen it yet) for current cap relief. Since those signing bonuses are guaranteed, more risk is assumed on an ageing player.

 

And yep, all signing bonus money has to be paid and accounted for in a 2 year window (escalates).

Edited June 18, 2023 by SquirminThurman

[SquirminThurman]

20 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And still expect us to see fairly soon, if not this year then next, the Bills losing the luxury of having ~6-7 STers on the roster strictly for STs besides the 3 specialists because they are paying Allen close to the going rate for an elite QB.  And it will likely be a good thing as it will force them to keep young guys on the roster that can develop into starters rather than simply having them raided by the Jints.

 

The ST's may take a slight hit, but the way the rules keep evolving to elimate the value of the ST's in the grand scheme, who really cares?  As long as the specialists are good at their jobs, it doesn't matter if they aren't particularly good at coverage provided they aren't attrocious at it.  And if the D is getting teams going 3 & out or 5 and out and Josh Allen is about to step onto the field, does it really matter much if the PR only gets 4 yards rather than 7 per return?

 

Replacing Martin with a Rick Tuten would be a bad thing, but they should be able to keep a Martin on the roster.

 

(Sorry, guess this isn't really directed directly at the cap, but it is directed at a change in philosophy that will be necessitated by the reality of having a veteran squad.)

I think I made a similar post about the accumulation of the Bills void year cap hits rising and it forcing them to go younger and develop through the draft. I agree with you that with ST rules changes that is definitely an area that will have to have the strategy readdressed.

[Alaska Darin]

19 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And still expect us to see fairly soon, if not this year then next, the Bills losing the luxury of having ~6-7 STers on the roster strictly for STs besides the 3 specialists because they are paying Allen close to the going rate for an elite QB.  And it will likely be a good thing as it will force them to keep young guys on the roster that can develop into starters rather than simply having them raided by the Jints.

 

The ST's may take a slight hit, but the way the rules keep evolving to elimate the value of the ST's in the grand scheme, who really cares?  As long as the specialists are good at their jobs, it doesn't matter if they aren't particularly good at coverage provided they aren't attrocious at it.  And if the D is getting teams going 3 & out or 5 and out and Josh Allen is about to step onto the field, does it really matter much if the PR only gets 4 yards rather than 7 per return?

 

Replacing Martin with a Rick Tuten would be a bad thing, but they should be able to keep a Martin on the roster.

 

(Sorry, guess this isn't really directed directly at the cap, but it is directed at a change in philosophy that will be necessitated by the reality of having a veteran squad.)

GMBB likes multi-faceted players on both sides of the ball, so when they're weighing drafted players a guy like Shorter will get the nod because he can play a ST role. 

 

I agree with you 100% that having ST specialists are likely going to be a thing of the past or dramatically reduced.  It was kind of a reactionary thing because we gave up so many big plays McD's first season here but once you have success with something it's hard to move away from it.  The new rules may very well force good teams to reconsider paying specialists anything above vet minimums.

 

The cap is supposed to go up quite a bit with the new TV deal and the Covid thing in the rearview mirror.  I'm curious about what that'll mean and how the team handles Josh's inevitable next big deal.

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, Alaska Darin said:

GMBB likes multi-faceted players on both sides of the ball, so when they're weighing drafted players a guy like Shorter will get the nod because he can play a ST role. 

 

I agree with you 100% that having ST specialists are likely going to be a thing of the past or dramatically reduced.  It was kind of a reactionary thing because we gave up so many big plays McD's first season here but once you have success with something it's hard to move away from it.  The new rules may very well force good teams to reconsider paying specialists anything above vet minimums.

 

The cap is supposed to go up quite a bit with the new TV deal and the Covid thing in the rearview mirror.  I'm curious about what that'll mean and how the team handles Josh's inevitable next big deal.

If he wins us a couple of SuperBowls, he’ll become a part owner of The Bills. 

[Ann]

I want to plop this somewhere. Here looks good:

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

On 6/18/2023 at 1:41 PM, Nanker said:

If he wins us a couple of SuperBowls, he’ll become a part owner of The Bills. 

 

Can he be, though?

 

I mean...can he own the Bills and Dolphins at the same time?

[Alaska Darin]

RBs are obviously all over Twitter complaining about their contracts.  For reference: