Schopp: Anyone else smell a sale?

[BLeonard]

http://wgr550.com/pages/8669316.php?pid=67946



While my sentiment was similar this summer I encountered less resistance this year than ever before. Fatigued fans, desperate to see the Bills just be competitive some year, either stayed quiet or joined the chorus of angry birds.

This summer's fashionable complaint? That the team has stopped trying to win. In the past we've had shaky (being nice) draft picks and other assorted questionable (also nice) moves. This year, a feeling piqued by the Lee Evans trade, fans have asked if Ralph Wilson even cares anymore.

Wilson owning the team and running it this way has fan morale at an all-time low. I was at a Bisons game last night that might have had more fans in attendance than the Bills' preseason finale -- and that's with tens of thousands of Bills tickets paid for not being used. Think about that. Moreover, people at the ballpark actually seemed happy. Who would have felt good leaving the stadium last night?


-Bill

[mrbojanglezs]

same story different year, schopp doesn't bring anything new to the table

[better days]

same story different year, schopp doesn't bring anything new to the table

Maybe so, but that quote was spot on.

[Beebe's Kid]

It is right on if you had an attachment to Lee Evans. I was a huge Lee fan, but after last year it became apparent that he was not going to be a big part of the future. He dropped passes, alligator armed others, and was a non factor all season.

It is hard that the same people that slam the team for "not wanting to win" do not want them to get rid of high priced players that don't produce. That seems like not wanting to win from a different angle, doesn't it? "I don't care if he is not a good player, and he makes a nice sized salary that could be distributed elsewhere; he is a nice guy."

I felt we should have gotten more for Lee, but it is not the seller's price that get's the deal done.

Schopp is just like the rest of the media in Buffalo; bitter because they can't get access. Really, there is not a lot separating any of them from any of us, is there? They just get paid to piss and moan. Their reporting is as much the fact that they all have bruised egos and an axe to grind as it is anything else.

It is a shame that they get an audience that encourages their perpetuation of negativity, but there isn't a real alternative, is there?

Maybe a little winning would help us out.

[YardRat]

Schopp is a dick-****. He and Sully take terms beating off to each others comments.

[Novacane]

Those GR morons spent the first hr of their show Fri afternoon talking about how small the crowd was Thursday and how that shows fans are starting to not support the Bills. Why would anyone want to go to a game where the scrubs play the entire game? Duh!!!! WGR sucks nuts.

[more cowbell]

I would rather have bullets in both of my ears than listen to Mike Schopp speak.

[zone]

Those GR morons spent the first hr of their show Fri afternoon talking about how small the crowd was Thursday and how that shows fans are starting to not support the Bills. Why would anyone want to go to a game where the scrubs play the entire game? Duh!!!! WGR sucks nuts.

Not to mention that it was at 6:30 on work night.

[mrbojanglezs]

Those GR morons spent the first hr of their show Fri afternoon talking about how small the crowd was Thursday and how that shows fans are starting to not support the Bills. Why would anyone want to go to a game where the scrubs play the entire game? Duh!!!! WGR sucks nuts.

well to be fair to them, they were making a point. Their main point was the bills announced that there was like 40,xxx tickets sold for that preseason game, so that means that season ticket sales is at a MAX that number, likely less. That is the point they were making

[PromoTheRobot]

The only smell is coming from Schopp's drawers.

PTR

[OpIv37]

It is right on if you had an attachment to Lee Evans. I was a huge Lee fan, but after last year it became apparent that he was not going to be a big part of the future. He dropped passes, alligator armed others, and was a non factor all season.

It is hard that the same people that slam the team for "not wanting to win" do not want them to get rid of high priced players that don't produce. That seems like not wanting to win from a different angle, doesn't it? "I don't care if he is not a good player, and he makes a nice sized salary that could be distributed elsewhere; he is a nice guy."


Here's the problem: do we have a player that's equal to or better than Lee? No. Did we take the money we saved on Lee, or any of the rest of our cap space, and somehow use it to make the team better? No.

That's why people say we are not trying to win.

Lee's not productive? He's not part of the future? Fine. Use the money on someone who is. But don't cut the only proven WR on this team when we have a bad OL and a mediocre QB, pocket the cash, and hide behind some BS about the future.

This team has been selling us a better future that never arrives for 10 years now. It's surprising that some people can't see it.

[Novacane]

well to be fair to them, they were making a point. Their main point was the bills announced that there was like 40,xxx tickets sold for that preseason game, so that means that season ticket sales is at a MAX that number, likely less. That is the point they were making


OK Mike ;)

[Meathead]

oh i smell something all right. smells like schopp

[Jan Reimers]

Schopp is absolutely right. Why butcher the guy for "telling it like it is?"

We trade Lee for nothing, and then do nothing to improve our O-line, which is probably the worst in the league.

[Night Train]

Excessive cost savings will make anyone speculate on an alterior motive.

They were able to score some bargains at LB (Barnett, Morrison) but bargains on the OL (with actual talent) don't exist.

Ralph always reacts adversly to failure. He handed the entire team over to TD a few years back and he sank it. He then put the beancounters back in control. Same with overpaying for Dockery & Walker. Now everyone on the OL must be drafted ( low first contract ) or signed off the street.

Cash to cap means no future debt and a smooth sale. I sure some groups have actually contacted the Bills behind the scenes, just to let their group be known down the road. He may have heard something but it makes ratings for talk radio.

Take it at face value.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

So I read this thread and see the vast majority of posts add nothing to the conversation, see the name "Schopp" and just start attacking Mike Schopp. Hey, how about addressing the concerns he raises?

[PromoTheRobot]

So I read this thread and see the vast majority of posts add nothing to the conversation, see the name "Schopp" and just start attacking Mike Schopp. Hey, how about addressing the concerns he raises?

He doesn't raise any. He raises a bunch of circumstantial information that he and Sully interpret as meaning there is a sale afoot. There is no evidence, just the opinion of two people who dislike this team.

PTR

[Demon]

Those GR morons spent the first hr of their show Fri afternoon talking about how small the crowd was Thursday and how that shows fans are starting to not support the Bills. Why would anyone want to go to a game where the scrubs play the entire game? Duh!!!! WGR sucks nuts.

They must not suck that much if you listened for atleast an hour... or you really need to find a hobby. lol

[Rustbelt]

People didn't go because it was the last game at 6:30 on a weeknight. They sold out and are close to selling out the other early games. Schopp just wants the Bills to falter to validate everything he gets paid to ***** and moan about.

[PromoTheRobot]

They must not suck that much if you listened for atleast an hour... or you really need to find a hobby. lol

Well there aren't exactly a lot of alternatives for Bills news. Honestly guys like Mikey82 do a better job than the hacks at WGR, Coach Sal being the exception.

PTR

[OpIv37]

Well there aren't exactly a lot of alternatives for Bills news. Honestly guys like Mikey82 do a better job than the hacks at WGR, Coach Sal being the exception.

PTR
Please stop for a second and consider the irony of saying that AM radio is the only option for Bills news as you POST ON THE INTERNET.

[TrEd FTW]

Still bashing Schopp for being negative? This fan base has Stockholm syndrome.

[Goobylal]

So if the Bills are setting-up to be sold because they traded Evans, who isn't making the most money, why sign all the players over the off-season that they did? And is Schoop implying the team will be sold and moved?

[OpIv37]

So if the Bills are setting-up to be sold because they traded Evans, who isn't making the most money, why sign all the players over the off-season that they did? And is Schoop implying the team will be sold and moved?

All what guys that we signed?

Barnett- 3 years at $4 million a year
Brad Smith- 4 years at less than $4 million a year.

Even Merriman's deal only runs through 2012.

This team has no big-money long term deals. Maybe it's because Ralph is cheap, maybe it's because he's posturing to sell, but for whatever reason, this team remains reluctant to take on long-term financial liabilities. Concluding that the team will be sold is not the only possible interpretation, but it is a logical one.

[Goobylal]

All what guys that we signed?

Barnett- 3 years at $4 million a year
Brad Smith- 4 years at less than $4 million a year.

Even Merriman's deal only runs through 2012.

This team has no big-money long term deals. Maybe it's because Ralph is cheap, maybe it's because he's posturing to sell, but for whatever reason, this team remains reluctant to take on long-term financial liabilities. Concluding that the team will be sold is not the only possible interpretation, but it is a logical one.
Williams, Merriman, Thigpen, Barnett, Smith, Morrison, and reportedly Stevie and Parrish. All are signed for at least 2 years. When is the sale occurring?

[OpIv37]

Williams, Merriman, Thigpen, Barnett, Smith, Morrison, and reportedly Stevie and Parrish. All are signed for at least 2 years. When is the sale occurring?

2 years is nothing. Even if we sold next off-season, whoever buys the team is out of the contracts in 1 year. And they're all cheap and front-loaded, except Merriman's which is incentive-loaded.

If you look at other NFL teams and the future contractual liabilities they have, most teams FAR exceed the Bills.

[Jan Reimers]

I think player contracts would be a very small factor in the decision to spend $800M or so to buy this franchise. In fact, the lack of big, long term deals would likely favor the less wealthy buyers over the megabucks guys who would move the team.

[don137]

I would be shocked if RW sells this team before he dies. His estate would be double taxed if he sold before he died-once for the capital gains on the sale and once on the estate sale. Makes absolute no sense at all.
IMO, he is being cheap because he is putting profits ahead of fielding a competitive team. I think Ralph gave up on winning a championship in his lifetime.

[OpIv37]

Still bashing Schopp for being negative? This fan base has Stockholm syndrome.

I prefer to think of it as the fan base having battered woman syndrome.

Every summer we talk about how the team's improved. Then the games start, and they play so poorly it's like kicking us down the basement stairs.

Then when we get out of the hospital, we can't wait to go back to them, thinking they finally turned the corner. "THIS time will be different!"

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[trapezeus]

i wonder if the rumors of pegula's team doing the preliminary valuations of the bills for a possible purchase will pick up if the sabres are just smoking the first part of the season away.

Pegula may be like, "you know I love how much fun it is to have a town love you. Especially when the team is so ****ty before your reign. It's easy to be loved and raise expectations by simply not being an *******, all the time!"

[Goobylal]

2 years is nothing. Even if we sold next off-season, whoever buys the team is out of the contracts in 1 year. And they're all cheap and front-loaded, except Merriman's which is incentive-loaded.

If you look at other NFL teams and the future contractual liabilities they have, most teams FAR exceed the Bills.
Thigpen, Smith, and Williams got good-sized deals that are at least 4 years long. Stevie will probably also get a sizable deal that is at least 4 years long. Why do these deals? Why not make them 2 year deals as well?

But again, so what if Ralph is getting the team ready to be sold? Isn't that what everyone wants?

[OpIv37]

Thigpen, Smith, and Williams got good-sized deals that are at least 4 years long. Stevie will probably also get a sizable deal that is at least 4 years long. Why do these deals? Why not make them 2 year deals as well?

But again, so what if Ralph is getting the team ready to be sold? Isn't that what everyone wants?

They're deals are "good-sized" by Bills standards, not by NFL standards. The 4 year deals are heavily front-loaded and very cheap in the out years, so any potential owner would have the ability to get them off the books for a fair cap hit.

No matter how you shake it up, these deals are not evidence that Ralph won't sell the team. He's still keeping payroll low and limiting obligated payments. It doesn't prove that he's selling the team either, but it does help him if he does want to sell.

As far as if it's what everyone wants, it depends on who buys it. Most of us would be thrilled if Ralph finds an owner who will keep the team in Buffalo and appalled if he sells to someone who will move the team.

Personally, I think either option would be better than what we have now. Obviously, my preference is that he sells the team to someone who will keep them in Buffalo and do what Pegula is doing for the Sabres: show immediate commitment to winning. And losing my football team is the last thing in the world that I want, but I just can't take this half-assed bull**** much longer. Ralph won't commit to winning and this team has virtually no chance of winning as long as he keeps running them in this manner. As painful as it would be, in the long run I'd be better off without the Bills than with a couple more decades of consistent failure under Ralph.

[Goobylal]

They're deals are "good-sized" by Bills standards, not by NFL standards. The 4 year deals are heavily front-loaded and very cheap in the out years, so any potential owner would have the ability to get them off the books for a fair cap hit.

No matter how you shake it up, these deals are not evidence that Ralph won't sell the team. He's still keeping payroll low and limiting obligated payments. It doesn't prove that he's selling the team either, but it does help him if he does want to sell.

As far as if it's what everyone wants, it depends on who buys it. Most of us would be thrilled if Ralph finds an owner who will keep the team in Buffalo and appalled if he sells to someone who will move the team.

Personally, I think either option would be better than what we have now. Obviously, my preference is that he sells the team to someone who will keep them in Buffalo and do what Pegula is doing for the Sabres: show immediate commitment to winning. And losing my football team is the last thing in the world that I want, but I just can't take this half-assed bull**** much longer. Ralph won't commit to winning and this team has virtually no chance of winning as long as he keeps running them in this manner. As painful as it would be, in the long run I'd be better off without the Bills than with a couple more decades of consistent failure under Ralph.
Well, the team will eventually have to be sold because Ralph is already in his 90's and isn't going to live forever. Whether these contracts represent a desire to clear cap room so that the next owner will have a better situation seems fanciful at best, especially since a true salary floor is coming in 2013 and the Bills are presently well below it.

And given the choice, I'd keep a horrible Bills team over no team at all. But of course, I hope that the team gets sold to a group that wants to keep the team in Buffalo and will spend money like it's water on GM's, coaches, and players (and while I love what TP's doing with the Sabres, it's a different economic scale entirely). But I'll just settle for keeping the team where it is.

[trapezeus]

i'm telling you OP, ralph's medicine is sub .500 football. the second they raise their record above .500 for season end, ralph's passing away.

and the way he has this team set up like a firing squad, (no one ever knows who killed the prisoner), he's going to live another 35 years.

[better days]

I prefer to think of it as the fan base having battered woman syndrome.

Every summer we talk about how the team's improved. Then the games start, and they play so poorly it's like kicking us down the basement stairs.

Then when we get out of the hospital, we can't wait to go back to them, thinking they finally turned the corner. "THIS time will be different!"

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I feel more like the wife that knows she will take a beating but is so in love she will put up with it.

[better days]

Well, the team will eventually have to be sold because Ralph is already in his 90's and isn't going to live forever. Whether these contracts represent a desire to clear cap room so that the next owner will have a better situation seems fanciful at best, especially since a true salary floor is coming in 2013 and the Bills are presently well below it.

And given the choice, I'd keep a horrible Bills team over no team at all. But of course, I hope that the team gets sold to a group that wants to keep the team in Buffalo and will spend money like it's water on GM's, coaches, and players (and while I love what TP's doing with the Sabres, it's a different economic scale entirely). But I'll just settle for keeping the team where it is.

The fact is a team can be very successful on a BUDGET. Packers, Steelers, Saints, Bucs are just a few examples of teams that win without spending all that much money.

[OpIv37]

And given the choice, I'd keep a horrible Bills team over no team at all. But of course, I hope that the team gets sold to a group that wants to keep the team in Buffalo and will spend money like it's water on GM's, coaches, and players (and while I love what TP's doing with the Sabres, it's a different economic scale entirely). But I'll just settle for keeping the team where it is.

I'd rather keep a horrible Bills team than have no team at all. I'd also rather have a whole ham-and-pineapple pizza for lunch and wash it down with a 2 litre of Mountain Dew than have a salad and a Diet Pepsi.

But, despite what I'd rather have, I'm better off in the long run with the salad.

Same with the Bills. In an ideal world, the Bills would just win, but since that won't happen, we'd all be better off in terms of time, money and stress levels if we didn't have a team at all than having one that's as bad as the Bills.

[Goobylal]

I'd rather keep a horrible Bills team than have no team at all. I'd also rather have a whole ham-and-pineapple pizza for lunch and wash it down with a 2 litre of Mountain Dew than have a salad and a Diet Pepsi.

But, despite what I'd rather have, I'm better off in the long run with the salad.

Same with the Bills. In an ideal world, the Bills would just win, but since that won't happen, we'd all be better off in terms of time, money and stress levels if we didn't have a team at all than having one that's as bad as the Bills.
That's your opinion. And if it's that much of a problem for you, you should consider walking away.

[OpIv37]

That's your opinion. And if it's that much of a problem for you, you should consider walking away.

then I wouldn't be a fan.

[Extremebillsfan247]

So if the Bills are setting-up to be sold because they traded Evans, who isn't making the most money, why sign all the players over the off-season that they did? And is Schoop implying the team will be sold and moved?

Actually Lee Evans was a small example of a much bigger picture. I've said this in another thread, I am thinking this team will be under new ownership by the start of the 2013 season. What happens in 2013? it's the year teams will be forced into a cap minimum. Sure, the Bills can theoretically do the same thing they are doing now financially speaking. But, Ralph Wilson isn't a guy that likes being told how to spend his money. I'm thinking he is looking for a way out, while Russ Brandon is tasked with doing his best to keep the finances manageable, and attractive to a potential buyer. It's all speculation and really means nothing at this point. But, it's a theory I'm warming up to pretty quickly.

[OpIv37]

Actually Lee Evans was a small example of a much bigger picture. I've said this in another thread, I am thinking this team will be under new ownership by the start of the 2013 season. What happens in 2013? it's the year teams will be forced into a cap minimum. Sure, the Bills can theoretically do the same thing they are doing now financially speaking. But, Ralph Wilson isn't a guy that likes being told how to spend his money. I'm thinking he is looking for a way out, while Russ Brandon is tasked with doing his best to keep the finances manageable, and attractive to a potential buyer. It's all speculation and really means nothing at this point. But, it's a theory I'm warming up to pretty quickly.

Translation: we are being Major League'd.

There was a guy who no longer posts here that was saying this maybe 3-4 years ago. At first I didn't buy it, but about a year or two ago, it started making more and more sense. This off-season, it became the only thing that made sense. And it wasn't just me, either. A lot of long-time fans who have generally been more positive than me started seeing it this way as well.

Of course, like you said, it's all speculation. We have no proof of this. But, we wasted a whole year under Chan and Nix before even starting to break the team down. We gave away our only proven WR for a 4th round pick NEXT year, We're ~$20 million below the salary cap, yet we have no proven WR's, no proven OL's (except Wood), our LB's are relying on Merriman to stay healthy (which he hasn't done in years), and we are inexperienced at S well.

If this is all part of a youth movement, how do they explain Kelsay or keeping Parrish but not Evans? Why did they wait a year before breaking it down?

If they really want to win now, why are they sitting on $20 million in cap space? Why wasn't something done about the OL?

Are we really expected to believe that football professionals think they can win by conducting business in this manner?

When you look at the whole picture, the only theory that makes sense is the Major League'd one. Nothing else holds water.

[OpIv37]

The fact is a team can be very successful on a BUDGET. Packers, Steelers, Saints, Bucs are just a few examples of teams that win without spending all that much money.

Did they win at over 20% BELOW the salary cap?

The reality is that we will never be able to spend as much as teams like Dallas or Washington. But there's a happy medium between overpaying for mediocre room service food at the hotel and eating Ramen noodles every night.

Right now, Ralph is holding his pot out the window in the rain so he doesn't have to pay for the water to cook the Ramen noodles.

[ZAZusmc03]

Did they win at over 20% BELOW the salary cap?

The reality is that we will never be able to spend as much as teams like Dallas or Washington. But there's a happy medium between overpaying for mediocre room service food at the hotel and eating Ramen noodles every night.

Right now, Ralph is holding his pot out the window in the rain so he doesn't have to pay for the water to cook the Ramen noodles.

That was a beautiful analogy. Brought tears to my eyes.

[Goobylal]

Actually Lee Evans was a small example of a much bigger picture. I've said this in another thread, I am thinking this team will be under new ownership by the start of the 2013 season. What happens in 2013? it's the year teams will be forced into a cap minimum. Sure, the Bills can theoretically do the same thing they are doing now financially speaking. But, Ralph Wilson isn't a guy that likes being told how to spend his money. I'm thinking he is looking for a way out, while Russ Brandon is tasked with doing his best to keep the finances manageable, and attractive to a potential buyer. It's all speculation and really means nothing at this point. But, it's a theory I'm warming up to pretty quickly.
Again, unless Ralph is preparing the team to be moved to another city +/- sold, it's not a big deal, and something many people have been hoping would happen. Moreover there are several groups/individuals interested in keeping the Bills in Buffalo. And considering he hasn't moved the team despite the opportunity to do so (and a golden one now with LA), I doubt he's looking to sell to someone ready to move the team.

[Billz_fan]

Did they win at over 20% BELOW the salary cap?

The reality is that we will never be able to spend as much as teams like Dallas or Washington. But there's a happy medium between overpaying for mediocre room service food at the hotel and eating Ramen noodles every night.

Right now, Ralph is holding his pot out the window in the rain so he doesn't have to pay for the water to cook the Ramen noodles.

This is spot on and a thing of beauty :laughter:


Good one :up:

[Goobylal]

Read the Nix' interview thread. Case closed.

[better days]

Did they win at over 20% BELOW the salary cap?

The reality is that we will never be able to spend as much as teams like Dallas or Washington. But there's a happy medium between overpaying for mediocre room service food at the hotel and eating Ramen noodles every night.

Right now, Ralph is holding his pot out the window in the rain so he doesn't have to pay for the water to cook the Ramen noodles.

YES. The Bucs won 10 games last year, & it should have been 11. They lost a game they should not have due to refs error & the NFL admitted it but you still don't get the win.

I'm not sure how much the Steelers & Pack are below the cap, but they don't spend money like the Cowboys or Redskins.

Other than that, I agree with you. The Bills will have to spend more in 2 years & should have some guys coming up for contracts at that time, so that is a good thing.

[better days]

Read the Nix' interview thread. Case closed.

I'M NOT BUYING what Nix is selling. He is just trying to appease us.

[Goobylal]

I'M NOT BUYING what Nix is selling. He is just trying to appease us.
Believe what you want. But fans will only be appeased by how the performs, not what he says.

[OpIv37]

Read the Nix' interview thread. Case closed.

because there's no way in hell a GM would lie to the media to make the guy who writes his paychecks look better to fans right?

[Goobylal]

because there's no way in hell a GM would lie to the media to make the guy who writes his paychecks look better to fans right?
Given the candor of his responses to other questions, it's more plausible to believe he was telling the truth. And there's a difference between answering a question "is Ralph cheap" and saying "no, not at all" versus "no, I've actually had to stop him from wanting to sign higher-priced players."

As I've been saying all along, it makes NO sense that Evans was a salary dump when a) they are/were so far under the cap, b) he was making so little, c) they paid him $1.1M in bonus, d) Gailey criticized him for being a one-trick pony weeks before being traded, and e) they signed players to bigger contract before and after Evans was traded.

[YardRat]

I actually tuned in yesterday afternoon for a little bit while I was on the road. Schopp just loooovves Haley as a head coach...That should tell you something about his level of intelligence.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Again, unless Ralph is preparing the team to be moved to another city +/- sold, it's not a big deal, and something many people have been hoping would happen. Moreover there are several groups/individuals interested in keeping the Bills in Buffalo. And considering he hasn't moved the team despite the opportunity to do so (and a golden one now with LA), I doubt he's looking to sell to someone ready to move the team. I never mentioned a moving of the team in this thread. That is an entirely different subject matter.

[better days]

Given the candor of his responses to other questions, it's more plausible to believe he was telling the truth. And there's a difference between answering a question "is Ralph cheap" and saying "no, not at all" versus "no, I've actually had to stop him from wanting to sign higher-priced players."

As I've been saying all along, it makes NO sense that Evans was a salary dump when a) they are/were so far under the cap, b) he was making so little, c) they paid him $1.1M in bonus, d) Gailey criticized him for being a one-trick pony weeks before being traded, and e) they signed players to bigger contract before and after Evans was traded.

As Op has said, it is not a cap move it is a MONEY saving move. The Jags also denied that Garrard was cut to save money.

Believe what you want. Some people are gullible.

[OpIv37]

Given the candor of his responses to other questions, it's more plausible to believe he was telling the truth. And there's a difference between answering a question "is Ralph cheap" and saying "no, not at all" versus "no, I've actually had to stop him from wanting to sign higher-priced players."

As I've been saying all along, it makes NO sense that Evans was a salary dump when a) they are/were so far under the cap, b) he was making so little, c) they paid him $1.1M in bonus, d) Gailey criticized him for being a one-trick pony weeks before being traded, and e) they signed players to bigger contract before and after Evans was traded.

a) it's not about cap space, it's about pure cash.
b) it's not about how little he was making, it's about the fact that he makes more than the guys we'll be playing in his place.
c) of course a coach is going to criticize a player the team isn't going to keep- it's called PR.
d) this makes no sense. If Ralph has a maximum that he is willing to spend, of course they'd have to clear Evans before they signed someone else.

[Goobylal]

a) it's not about cap space, it's about pure cash.
b) it's not about how little he was making, it's about the fact that he makes more than the guys we'll be playing in his place.
c) of course a coach is going to criticize a player the team isn't going to keep- it's called PR.
d) this makes no sense. If Ralph has a maximum that he is willing to spend, of course they'd have to clear Evans before they signed someone else.
a) so it's about "pure cash," but they paid Evans $1.1M in bonus money before trading him, for "pure cash" reasons? Doesn't make sense (no wait, the FO is so inept that they realized after they paid him the bonus that they had to trade him :rolleyes:).
b) so then, when will Kelsay be getting traded or cut? After all, he makes more than all the other LB's. And don't look now, but the Bills are working on a large extension for Johnson.
c) Gailey criticized Evans' route-running several weeks before he was traded. Maybe Gailey knew back then that Evans was going to be traded?
d) given that the Bills were working on an extension with Williams, and are working on extensions with Johnson and Parrish, how exactly is this "maximum" calculated? Do you fancy Ralph said "I need to put Evans' $2.6M in my pocket, before I spend $6M/year on extending Williams and Johnson?" How does he know how much Johnson will ultimately get, to know whether trading Evans was enough?

Look, had Gailey been effusive in his praise for Evans at any time, or had the Bills not paid Evans his bonus, or if Evans had been the leading WR the past couple years, or if Evans had had a huge salary, I'd be somewhat inclined to agree with you. But given the sum total, I don't.

[OpIv37]

a) so it's about "pure cash," but they paid Evans $1.1M in bonus money before trading him, for "pure cash" reasons? Doesn't make sense (no wait, the FO is so inept that they realized after they paid him the bonus that they had to trade him :rolleyes:).
b) so then, when will Kelsay be getting traded or cut? After all, he makes more than all the other LB's. And don't look now, but the Bills are working on a large extension for Johnson.
c) Gailey criticized Evans' route-running several weeks before he was traded. Maybe Gailey knew back then that Evans was going to be traded?
d) given that the Bills were working on an extension with Williams, and are working on extensions with Johnson and Parrish, how exactly is this "maximum" calculated? Do you fancy Ralph said "I need to put Evans' $2.6M in my pocket, before I spend $6M/year on extending Williams and Johnson?" How does he know how much Johnson will ultimately get, to know whether trading Evans was enough?

Look, had Gailey been effusive in his praise for Evans at any time, or had the Bills not paid Evans his bonus, or if Evans had been the leading WR the past couple years, or if Evans had had a huge salary, I'd be somewhat inclined to agree with you. But given the sum total, I don't.

A) Maybe they couldn't find a trading partner for Evans before they were CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to pay him the bonus or cut him, and after losing Whitner and Poz for nothing, they didn't feel they could afford to lose Evans for nothing.

B) For some reason that I will never understand, this org has a hard-on for Chris Kelsay. I admit that it doesn't make sense that they would keep Kelsay and cut Evans, but giving Kelsay a new contract in the first place didn't make sense.

C) I'm sure Gailey knew that something was in the works with Evans.

D) I don't know exactly how Ralph calculates what he's willing to spend, but there is no doubt that he likes to save money and no doubt that he has no intentions of spending up to the cap. But, if Ralph's maximum salary is, say, 100m and we're at 96m, then it makes perfect sense to say "I need to get rid of $2m in salary before I can spend $6 million more re-signing players."

[Goobylal]

A) Maybe they couldn't find a trading partner for Evans before they were CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to pay him the bonus or cut him, and after losing Whitner and Poz for nothing, they didn't feel they could afford to lose Evans for nothing.

B) For some reason that I will never understand, this org has a hard-on for Chris Kelsay. I admit that it doesn't make sense that they would keep Kelsay and cut Evans, but giving Kelsay a new contract in the first place didn't make sense.

C) I'm sure Gailey knew that something was in the works with Evans.

D) I don't know exactly how Ralph calculates what he's willing to spend, but there is no doubt that he likes to save money and no doubt that he has no intentions of spending up to the cap. But, if Ralph's maximum salary is, say, 100m and we're at 96m, then it makes perfect sense to say "I need to get rid of $2m in salary before I can spend $6 million more re-signing players."
So you're sticking with the "Ralph is so money-hungry that he had to trade Evans, but was willing to waste $1.1M just so the team could get a 4th round pick" theory? Just checking.

[YardRat]

I've actually made a conscious effort to tune into GR for a few minuted each day to try and catch a comment or two.

Today's gem from Schopp (paraphrasing)...

"The Cleveland Browns will be a playoff team, and they easily could be 8-3 after their first 11 games."

OK...

[BLeonard]

So you're sticking with the "Ralph is so money-hungry that he had to trade Evans, but was willing to waste $1.1M just so the team could get a 4th round pick" theory? Just checking.

In all fairness, how do you know the Bills didn't try to trade Evans before that bonus hit? Also, how do you know that there wasn't a clause in the trade stating that Baltimore pick up that bonus? I'm not saying either case is true, but either (or both) certainly could be true... Also, this off-season wasn't a typical off-season, so making moves wasn't nearly as easy as it might have been with a normal off-season. Had this been a normal off-season, they might have dealt him before the bonus was due and gotten them a pick this year.

But, the bonus is really irrelevant, if I understand Op's thought process... What he's saying is this:

Salary cap is $120 mil... Ralph refuses to spend more than $100 mil total.

Keeping Evans would have put them at $96 mil, meaning only $4 mil more that Ralph is willing to spend... Trading Evans saves $2 mil of that, knocks them down to $94 mil and allows them to sign a guy at $6 mil and still hit Ralph's $100 mil mark. Make sense?

-Bill

[Goobylal]

In all fairness, how do you know the Bills didn't try to trade Evans before that bonus hit? Also, how do you know that there wasn't a clause in the trade stating that Baltimore pick up that bonus? I'm not saying either case is true, but either (or both) certainly could be true... Also, this off-season wasn't a typical off-season, so making moves wasn't nearly as easy as it might have been with a normal off-season. Had this been a normal off-season, they might have dealt him before the bonus was due and gotten them a pick this year.

But, the bonus is really irrelevant, if I understand Op's thought process... What he's saying is this:

Salary cap is $120 mil... Ralph refuses to spend more than $100 mil total.

Keeping Evans would have put them at $96 mil, meaning only $4 mil more that Ralph is willing to spend... Trading Evans saves $2 mil of that, knocks them down to $94 mil and allows them to sign a guy at $6 mil and still hit Ralph's $100 mil mark. Make sense?

-Bill
I think we can all agree that any mandate to save money would be coming from Ralph, since the money goes into his pocket, right? Let's also assume that Ralph ordered Nix/Overdorf to trade Evans because he's so greedy and stingy, that he absolutely HAD to have Evans' gigantic salary back, despite making the team worse because there's no way in heck that the Bills could possibly replace Evans' production from the past few years. Are you with me so far? So given the choice between saving an additional $1.1M by cutting (doubtful you get anyone to trade for him with a $1.1M bonus looming) Evans before paying the bonus, or wasting that $1.1M and getting a 4th rounder in trade, Ralph opting to do the latter and waste $1.1M of his money for a 4th rounder (which doesn't do his pocketbook any good) doesn't make a lick of sense. Do you follow?

As for the amount Ralph is willing to spend, I know where Op was going. The problem is that if the Bills sign Stevie and/or Parrish, the money spent goes over $100M, meaning any projections beforehand were moot. IOW it was a floating number, which also doesn't make sense.

[OpIv37]

I think we can all agree that any mandate to save money would be coming from Ralph, since the money goes into his pocket, right? Let's also assume that Ralph ordered Nix/Overdorf to trade Evans because he's so greedy and stingy, that he absolutely HAD to have Evans' gigantic salary back, despite making the team worse because there's no way in heck that the Bills could possibly replace Evans' production from the past few years. Are you with me so far? So given the choice between saving an additional $1.1M by cutting (doubtful you get anyone to trade for him with a $1.1M bonus looming) Evans before paying the bonus, or wasting that $1.1M and getting a 4th rounder in trade, Ralph opting to do the latter and waste $1.1M of his money for a 4th rounder (which doesn't do his pocketbook any good) doesn't make a lick of sense. Do you follow?

As for the amount Ralph is willing to spend, I know where Op was going. The problem is that if the Bills sign Stevie and/or Parrish, the money spent goes over $100M, meaning any projections beforehand were moot. IOW it was a floating number, which also doesn't make sense.

As you yourself pointed out, the Bills signed people both before AND after they traded Evans. Maybe, just maybe, they were ok paying the $1.1m bonus and keeping Lee's salary BEFORE they signed Barnett and Smith, but after they signed him, they were too close to their internal cap. Ever think of that?

As far as Evans' production, granted, it wasn't great. But... who do we have on this roster that has proven that they can get equal or better production at the NFL level? NO ONE. Who did we add- or even extend- with the money we saved by trading Evans? NO ONE.

As far as the $100 million, that was merely a number used for an example. I don't know what their internal cap number is, but it's irrelevant. Maybe they want to sign Parrish and Stevie but weren't willing to do it unless they cleared some other salary first.

Oh, and btw, they HAVEN'T actually signed either one of these guys, so at this point, that portion of your argument is based on nothing more than conjecture.

Until Ralph does something with the money he saved by trading Lee to make the team better, then it's a salary dump. There is simply no way around it.

[Goobylal]

As you yourself pointed out, the Bills signed people both before AND after they traded Evans. Maybe, just maybe, they were ok paying the $1.1m bonus and keeping Lee's salary BEFORE they signed Barnett and Smith, but after they signed him, they were too close to their internal cap. Ever think of that?

As far as Evans' production, granted, it wasn't great. But... who do we have on this roster that has proven that they can get equal or better production at the NFL level? NO ONE. Who did we add- or even extend- with the money we saved by trading Evans? NO ONE.

As far as the $100 million, that was merely a number used for an example. I don't know what their internal cap number is, but it's irrelevant. Maybe they want to sign Parrish and Stevie but weren't willing to do it unless they cleared some other salary first.

Oh, and btw, they HAVEN'T actually signed either one of these guys, so at this point, that portion of your argument is based on nothing more than conjecture.

Until Ralph does something with the money he saved by trading Lee to make the team better, then it's a salary dump. There is simply no way around it.
There's really nothing more to say here. I already gave you all the evidence you need. You just don't want to hear it, and are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to support your "internal cap" theory. Again, a miser, which you're claiming Ralph is, doesn't waste ANY money, period! Given that, and since Gailey was never a fan of Evans, the obvious conclusion is that the Bills had no real use for Evans, he realized it, asked for a trade, and the Bills obliged.

[OpIv37]

There's really nothing more to say here. I already gave you all the evidence you need. You just don't want to hear it, and are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to support your "internal cap" theory. Again, a miser, which you're claiming Ralph is, doesn't waste ANY money, period! Given that, and since Gailey was never a fan of Evans, the obvious conclusion is that the Bills had no real use for Evans, he realized it, asked for a trade, and the Bills obliged.

lmao at the stubbornness and the willing to believe in the organization above all else that some people exhibit.

Ralph was CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to pay Lee the bonus money. It wasn't up to him. The only thing he could have done differently is cut him before paying the bonus, but Russ Brandon knows PR. Look how the fans reacted to the trade. How do you think they would have reacted to an outright cut?

On top of that, here's a basic math lesson: $1.1 million is less than $3 million. Think any team is going to trade for Lee knowing they have to give him that bonus immediately? A miser wouldn't waste $1.1 million, but a businessman- which Ralph is also- would spend $1.1 million to save $3 million in a heartbeat.

We traded away a starter who made a mere $3 million when we are already almost $20 million below the cap and now we're sitting at over $20 million below the cap, and yet you act like this idea of an internal cap is crazy. Hmmm.....

The move saved money and didn't make the team better. But you have this pathological need to defend the organization, so you ignore that fact as well as the plethora of other possibilities beyond what you think happened.

And on a related note, you put FAR too much stock into what coaches and GM's tell the media. Just because they say it to a reporter doesn't make it correct.

[Goobylal]

lmao at the stubbornness and the willing to believe in the organization above all else that some people exhibit.

Ralph was CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to pay Lee the bonus money. It wasn't up to him. The only thing he could have done differently is cut him before paying the bonus, but Russ Brandon knows PR. Look how the fans reacted to the trade. How do you think they would have reacted to an outright cut?

On top of that, here's a basic math lesson: $1.1 million is less than $3 million. Think any team is going to trade for Lee knowing they have to give him that bonus immediately? A miser wouldn't waste $1.1 million, but a businessman- which Ralph is also- would spend $1.1 million to save $3 million in a heartbeat.

We traded away a starter who made a mere $3 million when we are already almost $20 million below the cap and now we're sitting at over $20 million below the cap, and yet you act like this idea of an internal cap is crazy. Hmmm.....

The move saved money and didn't make the team better. But you have this pathological need to defend the organization, so you ignore that fact as well as the plethora of other possibilities beyond what you think happened.

And on a related note, you put FAR too much stock into what coaches and GM's tell the media. Just because they say it to a reporter doesn't make it correct.
For everything, I go by what I see and hear, and then put it all together. Evans is a good WR, but has never been, and never will be, a true #1 WR. I've been saying this for about 3 years now. He's been just the #2 WR for the Bills the past 2 years, and that encompasses 2 different regimes and starting QB's. He's limited in the routes he runs and doesn't block well, which were things Gailey, and later Nix, criticized him for. He's not the missing piece for the Bills, and he won't be the missing piece for the Ravens. His 37 catches for 578 yards and 4 TD's won't be hard to replace. Heck, rookie David Nelson had 31 catches for 353 yards and 3 TD's in 15 games and just 3 starts.

And again, I don't have to make up silly scenarios to justify my stance. A "pure money" move would have had Evans cut before he got his bonus. Because saving $3.75M versus $2.6M, for someone desperate to keep to an "internal cap," would make far more sense than wasting $1.1M just to get a 4th rounder OR for PR. But your stubbornness won't let you accept it.

[OpIv37]

For everything, I go by what I see and hear, and then put it all together. Evans is a good WR, but has never been, and never will be, a true #1 WR. I've been saying this for about 3 years now. He's been just the #2 WR for the Bills the past 2 years, and that encompasses 2 different regimes and starting QB's. He's limited in the routes he runs and doesn't block well, which were things Gailey, and later Nix, criticized him for. He's not the missing piece for the Bills, and he won't be the missing piece for the Ravens. His 37 catches for 578 yards and 4 TD's won't be hard to replace. Heck, rookie David Nelson had 31 catches for 353 yards and 3 TD's in 15 games and just 3 starts.

And again, I don't have to make up silly scenarios to justify my stance. A "pure money" move would have had Evans cut before he got his bonus. Because saving $3.75M versus $2.6M, for someone desperate to keep to an "internal cap," would make far more sense than wasting $1.1M just to get a 4th rounder OR for PR. But your stubbornness won't let you accept it.

My stubbornness? You're the one hung up on the bonus money as if they had a choice. The bonus money was nothing but a contractual obligation.

And btw, the Bills and Johnson are not close to a deal according to LaCanfora. So, there goes that part of your argument as well.

[Goobylal]

My stubbornness? You're the one hung up on the bonus money as if they had a choice. The bonus money was nothing but a contractual obligation.

And btw, the Bills and Johnson are not close to a deal according to LaCanfora. So, there goes that part of your argument as well.
I don't know why you (continue to) think they had no choice with the bonus. As I've said, they could have cut Evans before paying it, and saved even more money, since that was what it was all about, right?

And the Bills and Johnson being far apart only strengthens my argument. A deal will get done, but not at what the Bills expected originally. So any "internal cap" gets blown to bits. But I suppose that after they sign Johnson, they'll be releasing someone to recoup the additional money, right?

[OpIv37]

I don't know why you (continue to) think they had no choice with the bonus. As I've said, they could have cut Evans before paying it, and saved even more money, since that was what it was all about, right?

And the Bills and Johnson being far apart only strengthens my argument. A deal will get done, but not at what the Bills expected originally. So any "internal cap" gets blown to bits. But I suppose that after they sign Johnson, they'll be releasing someone to recoup the additional money, right?

So, they could have let Evans, Poz and Whitner all go for nothing? Technically, yes, but not without experiencing a fan revolt. The Evans move still saved Ralph over $2 million even WITH the bonus money. Yes, they could have saved more, but there is another cost that you are simply ignoring because it doesn't fit the narrative about the Bills' FO that exists in your head.

They'll recoup the extra money on Johnson somehow. Maybe it won't come in the form of a release of a player, but maybe they won't re-sign Parrish or extend someone else, or maybe they'll use Johnson's contract as an excuse not to sign any FA's next year.

Seriously, we never spend on FA's, we let our own players walk, we are sitting at $20 million below the salary cap and we consistently have amongst the lowest paid coaches in the NFL. And you're trying to say that it's not about money with Ralph? Give me a ****ing break.

[Goobylal]

So, they could have let Evans, Poz and Whitner all go for nothing? Technically, yes, but not without experiencing a fan revolt. The Evans move still saved Ralph over $2 million even WITH the bonus money. Yes, they could have saved more, but there is another cost that you are simply ignoring because it doesn't fit the narrative about the Bills' FO that exists in your head.

They'll recoup the extra money on Johnson somehow. Maybe it won't come in the form of a release of a player, but maybe they won't re-sign Parrish or extend someone else, or maybe they'll use Johnson's contract as an excuse not to sign any FA's next year.

Seriously, we never spend on FA's, we let our own players walk, we are sitting at $20 million below the salary cap and we consistently have amongst the lowest paid coaches in the NFL. And you're trying to say that it's not about money with Ralph? Give me a ****ing break.
So, getting a 4th rounder for Evans prevented a revolt, after losing Whitner and Poz for nothing (despite both being replaced with better players)? LOL!

And again, saving $4.7M is far better than saving $2.6M. If you want to continue with the tired "pure cash move" theory.

As for what you said about recouping the money from Johnson's contract elsewhere, let me know when it happens. Although I'd rather they didn't extend Parrish's contract. He's on the wrong side of 30 and can't stay healthy. And Williams and Johnson (among many others) are the Bills "re-signing their own players." You see, they re-sign the guys they feel are worth it.

[OpIv37]

So, getting a 4th rounder for Evans prevented a revolt, after losing Whitner and Poz for nothing (despite both being replaced with better players)? LOL!

And again, saving $4.7M is far better than saving $2.6M. If you want to continue with the tired "pure cash move" theory.

As for what you said about recouping the money from Johnson's contract elsewhere, let me know when it happens. Although I'd rather they didn't extend Parrish's contract. He's on the wrong side of 30 and can't stay healthy. And Williams and Johnson (among many others) are the Bills "re-signing their own players." You see, they re-sign the guys they feel are worth it.

No, getting a 4th for Evans lessened the revolt because people were pretty pissed off about it.

Poz was replaced by a guy who is probably better than him. Whitner was replaced by...well, the guy who was on the bench behind him. I was never a Whitner fan and I hope Wilson is better, but he hasn't proven it yet. Of course, admitting that would go against your pathological need to believe in anything the FO does.

Re-signing guys is nice. Here's the problem: we suck. We can't keep letting guys walk like we used to do, but at the same time, we need to add more talent. And we're sitting at $20 million below the cap with the excuse that we're going to use the money to extend our own guys (at some point, maybe, if they agree to our low ball offers.... but I digress).

At what point are we going to get better? And I mean REALLY better- not just guys that you think are better because, well, you have to.

[Goobylal]

No, getting a 4th for Evans lessened the revolt because people were pretty pissed off about it.

Poz was replaced by a guy who is probably better than him. Whitner was replaced by...well, the guy who was on the bench behind him. I was never a Whitner fan and I hope Wilson is better, but he hasn't proven it yet. Of course, admitting that would go against your pathological need to believe in anything the FO does.

Re-signing guys is nice. Here's the problem: we suck. We can't keep letting guys walk like we used to do, but at the same time, we need to add more talent. And we're sitting at $20 million below the cap with the excuse that we're going to use the money to extend our own guys (at some point, maybe, if they agree to our low ball offers.... but I digress).

At what point are we going to get better? And I mean REALLY better- not just guys that you think are better because, well, you have to.
Stop with the "fan revolt" winning out over saving $2M more in cash. Anyone who is sorry to see Evans go isn't NOT revolting because they got a 4th rounder in trade. A 4th rounder next year does nothing for the team right now. What would have happened is what did happen, which was outrage over the "pure cash move," but no real revolt.

The funniest part is that Evans' production from the last few years will be easily replaced. And Evans gets to play for a contender.

Whitner versus Wilson is six of one, half a dozen of another. I doubt more than a handful of people will be sorry to see him go and wanted the Bills to re-sign him. He's not a difference-maker or team leader. Keeping him keeps you mediocre, and that's the same reason I wanted/am glad they let Poz walk. Re-signing Williams and working on Johnson are good moves though, and it's looking like Merriman was as well.

As for "when do we get better?" how about seeing how this year goes first?