Fifth highest cap room in the league...

[Buffalogic]

Buffalo is sitting at 23.8 million in cap room. That is fifth in the league with only the Chiefs, Packers, Bucs, and Saints ahead of them.


With that knowledge, why is it so hard to sign Evans or even Peters? Discuss.

[OpIv37]

first, a lot of players don't want to play in Buffalo. It's a small market and the team has been mismanaged for so long, plus the team doesn't exactly have the greatest history of re-signing elite talent (we let Winfield, Clements and Pat Williams go, but re-sign Aaron Schobel- go figure).

Second, from the player's standpoint, there is HUGE money out there in FA and it goes higher and higher every year. With the opt-out of the CBA, this may change somewhat, but it would be stupid to sign with a team without at least entertaining other offers.

Think of it this way: if your boss offered you a two-year contract with a 10% raise, but you knew other companies in you area were paying 20-25% more than what you make for the same job, would you just sign the offer and take the raise? Or would you go talk to the other companies?

[Dr. Lecter]

For one, we really don't know how "hard" it is to re-sign or extend those guys. It is still early.


Second, negotiations are difficult right now because of the potential of a lock-out. Players want money guarenteed if there is a lock-out so those deals take time.

[YardRat]

They should take the offer the team gives them. Easy.

[clumping platelets]

Deion Sanders rule :eek:

[LifetimeBillsFan]

I just posted this in another thread, but, according to an entry in C.Brown's blog addressing this question, there are limitations on what is allowed in contracts that go beyond 2010 that can really complicate matters. What Brown says in the entry below applies as much to Peters as it does to Evans:

"HOW CBA COULD AFFECT EVANS EXTENSION: Since I was asked on Fan Friday this week and several others asked me by email about the potential impact of the CBA opt out by the owners on a Lee Evans contract extension I was provided with some additional information concerning the CBA opt out's potential effect on an Evans deal. Assuming that an extension for Lee Evans would be more than three years in length there would be new restrictions as to how the contract can be formulated.

First, if there is any guaranteed salary in year 3 (2010) or beyond that guaranteed salary would be reallocated to capped years (2008, 2009) and presumably count against the cap in those years. Half of any guaranteed salary in any league year beyond 2012 will also be reallocated to capped years.

In essence that kind of accounting would limit the Bills' flexibility in 2008 and 2009 in terms of cash on hand to spend on other players, so they would likely avoid putting guarantees in any part of the deal beyond the second year.

Second, the 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: a player with a $500K salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150K ($500K x 30%) beginning in 2010.

This would limit the Bills from sharply increasing his salary in the back half of the contract, although the Bills typically don't resort to that tactic as much as other clubs.

Third, and probably most important, a team can include only three veteran team incentives in a player contract covering 2009 and beyond. These incentives must also be coupled with a playtime requirement. Previously, clubs were limited to eight team incentives and no playtime requirement.

This would limit both parties from finding areas where more money can be earned by Evans based on performance. Based on the above I would assume that an incentive or escalator for making the Pro Bowl would be prohibited since it is not tied to playtime. And that is an incentive commonly found in player contracts who have the potential to make the Pro Bowl.

Suffice to say there will be some more hurdles to clear when it comes to ironing out a contract extension for Lee Evans that both sides feel is fair. Under these new negotiating parameters it will likely take a lot longer for each side to figure out what is a fair and equitable deal.

The purpose of these restrictions is to make it difficult so that the owners and the Players Association get back to the bargaining table to reach a new labor pact. But for the interim it's not doing the Bills and Evans any favors..."
http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?post_id=3524

[Ebenezer]

I just posted this in another thread, but, according to an entry in C.Brown's blog addressing this question, there are limitations on what is allowed in contracts that go beyond 2010 that can really complicate matters. What Brown says in the entry below applies as much to Peters as it does to Evans:

"HOW CBA COULD AFFECT EVANS EXTENSION: Since I was asked on Fan Friday this week and several others asked me by email about the potential impact of the CBA opt out by the owners on a Lee Evans contract extension I was provided with some additional information concerning the CBA opt out's potential effect on an Evans deal. Assuming that an extension for Lee Evans would be more than three years in length there would be new restrictions as to how the contract can be formulated.

First, if there is any guaranteed salary in year 3 (2010) or beyond that guaranteed salary would be reallocated to capped years (2008, 2009) and presumably count against the cap in those years. Half of any guaranteed salary in any league year beyond 2012 will also be reallocated to capped years.

In essence that kind of accounting would limit the Bills' flexibility in 2008 and 2009 in terms of cash on hand to spend on other players, so they would likely avoid putting guarantees in any part of the deal beyond the second year.

Second, the 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: a player with a $500K salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150K ($500K x 30%) beginning in 2010.

This would limit the Bills from sharply increasing his salary in the back half of the contract, although the Bills typically don't resort to that tactic as much as other clubs.

Third, and probably most important, a team can include only three veteran team incentives in a player contract covering 2009 and beyond. These incentives must also be coupled with a playtime requirement. Previously, clubs were limited to eight team incentives and no playtime requirement.

This would limit both parties from finding areas where more money can be earned by Evans based on performance. Based on the above I would assume that an incentive or escalator for making the Pro Bowl would be prohibited since it is not tied to playtime. And that is an incentive commonly found in player contracts who have the potential to make the Pro Bowl.

Suffice to say there will be some more hurdles to clear when it comes to ironing out a contract extension for Lee Evans that both sides feel is fair. Under these new negotiating parameters it will likely take a lot longer for each side to figure out what is a fair and equitable deal.

The purpose of these restrictions is to make it difficult so that the owners and the Players Association get back to the bargaining table to reach a new labor pact. But for the interim it's not doing the Bills and Evans any favors..."
http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?post_id=3524
...as long as those same parameters are applied across the league...

I can also see where the owners hands will have their hands tied and there will be little movement or salary escalation.

[Bert102176]

cause the Bills are cheap when it comes to really good players, but for half way decent players like Dockery they get the BIG $$$$$

[gr8slayer]

cause the Bills are cheap when it comes to really good players, but for half way decent players like Dockery they get the BIG $$$$$
Dockery is better than decent and when you're a team like Buffalo in a boring small market, you're a loser, and people have the idea that you aren't serious about winning you have to overpay for players.