Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

[OpIv37]

Ok, we've already established that spending money on FA's does not necessarily equal wins. But imagine this very plausible (but hypothetical) scenario:

Buffalo spends up to the cap, using roster bonuses and other techniques to avoid amortizing. The end result is that we're at or near the cap, but we could easily be $12 million under if those bonuses were structured differently. We go into the season with Spikes, Ellison and Crowell as our starting LB's. Well, what if Spikes doesn't return to form, or one of them gets injured and we have to start someone like Haggan or (gulp) Wire? Our LB's will get owned like they did last year.

Meanwhile, Cato June signs with someone and his cap hit for this year is in the $10 million range. Will you feel like the FO did everything they could to win?
Again, this is a hypothetical scenario- I'm not saying it's going to happen. The same could be said about the OL with Dockery and Steinbach, for example.

To simplify: if this team doesn't pursue a FA in a position of need because of the "cash to cap" strategy and poor play at that position leads to more losses next year, will you feel like this FO is demonstrating a commitment to winning?

I sure as hell won't.

[patmoran2006]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

It demonstrates a committment to saving money.. nothing more.. nothing less

[RockStar36]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

Cash to cap tells me that they are trying to be smart financially and that they don't want to screw the team/cap up for future years but they aren't doing everything in their power to make the team great (signing Steinbach, June, etc..). At this point I'm just willing to wait and see what actually happens.

[patmoran2006]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

I dont necessarily think the Bills should get heavily involved in FA this year anyway, regardless of their policy/slap to the fans in terms of spending money.

Next year's cap goes up by like $9 million, and if the Bills dont spend a lot this year they are going to have a TON of cap room next year, likely the most in the entire NFL. But then again, it really doesn't matter because as long as Wilson is alive, they are done going after FA's like Spikes, Fletcher, MIlloy, Adams, Vincent, etc.

So I guess the bright spot is we'll have a ton of cap money next year too.. The downfall is that if your replacing FLetcher and Clements with Youboty and Ellison, and using more bargain FA's and rookies to fill more holes, its only February and you can already forget about the playoffs (yet, again) for 2007.

[OpIv37]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

Cash to cap tells me that they are trying to be smart financially and that they don't want to screw the team/cap up for future years but they aren't doing everything in their power to make the team great (signing Steinbach, June, etc..). At this point I'm just willing to wait and see what actually happens.

I understand wanting to be careful with the cap in the future, and that's one of the reasons why I think re-signing Clements would be a bad move. But there are ways of giving signing bonuses without completely hosing your future cap- other teams do it all the time.

I'm not saying that we should just recklessly pursue big name FA's, but if there is someone out there who's worth it, it would be just as stupid to NOT pursue that player because of "cash to cap".

[patmoran2006]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

One thing I will say in marv's defense is I dont think there are too many FA's that are "worth it".. but it really doesnt matter.

Next year we'll have more cap room than this year, probably more than any team in the NFL, the FA pool will be much deeper, and we'll still be doing the same **** we did last year and this .. "not much"

[OpIv37]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

Next year's cap goes up by like $9 million, and if the Bills dont spend a lot this year they are going to have a TON of cap room next year, likely the most in the entire NFL. But then again, it really doesn't matter because as long as Wilson is alive, they are done going after FA's like Spikes, Fletcher, MIlloy, Adams, Vincent, etc.

see, I don't really see how the extra cap room helps us. In fact, I think it HURTS us. All it does is inflate player salaries.

Does anyone REALLY think Clements is as good as Champ Bailey? Well, he's not, but he's the best corner in FA this year so it doesn't matter. He's going to get a Champ Bailey contract anyway.

So, player's salaries will go higher and higher and the Bills won't be able to compete financially with such a huge percentage of revenues going towards salaries. At best they'll be forced to spend the cap minimum and suck every year, and at worst they'll be forced to leave Buffalo.

[patmoran2006]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

They are the Bengals of the 1990's right now.

[Don't Panic]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

I feel like this philosophy can work some years, but if this is going to be status quo at OBD, we are in trouble long-term. Marv clearly said they'd look at going after 4 or 5 guys. That means about $7 million in SB + 1st year money per. Decent players, not great.

Remember, whatever we don't use in cap room this year (officially) will carry over to next year. That means we will have cap room every year, but not really use it. That means we have to hit with mid-level FAs every year, something I doubt can be done consistently.

[TigerJ]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

If it appears the Bills are several years away from a serious playoff run, I think Cash to Cap is a viable strategy to try and make incremental improvements without breaking the bank. If the Bills are close, Cash to Cap could deprive the Bills of the flexibility to go the extra mile to get past the hump. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I think the Bills fit the latter position better than the former, so I'm not thrilled with it.

[OpIv37]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

If it appears the Bills are several years away from a serious playoff run, I think Cash to Cap is a viable strategy to try and make incremental improvements without breaking the bank. If the Bills are close, Cash to Cap could deprive the Bills of the flexibility to go the extra mile to get past the hump.

agreed- and last year, we were 7-9 and technically in the playoff hunt until Week 15. Is this the time to make the push? I don't know, but I have a feeling we could see some regression if a move isn't made.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

What happens if everything clicks this year and we are 6-2 midpoint?? Then do we realize that 1 or 2 big pickups might put us at or near a SB run??

The good part about this is if we get good results with what we have, we have cap room to make the changes to really get great results.

[madness]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

I understand wanting to be careful with the cap in the future, and that's one of the reasons why I think re-signing Clements would be a bad move. But there are ways of giving signing bonuses without completely hosing your future cap- other teams do it all the time.

I'm not saying that we should just recklessly pursue big name FA's, but if there is someone out there who's worth it, it would be just as stupid to NOT pursue that player because of "cash to cap".

Marv said it himself, the goal is to win the SB. I can't honestly believe for a minute that the philosophy would prohibit an opportunity to pursue a big name FA if the situation arises. Otherwise, it just becomes contradictive to the goal.

I view this whole thing as... not only are they trying to put a winning product on the field, they are going to do it with mortgaging the future sot that winning product can continue. Will it work? I don't know and since nobody here can tell the future, all we can do is wait and see.

[OpIv37]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

Marv said it himself, the goal is to win the SB. I can't honestly believe for a minute that the philosophy would prohibit an opportunity to pursue a big name FA if the situation arises. Otherwise, it just becomes contradictive to the goal.

I view this whole thing as... not only are they trying to put a winning product on the field, they are going to do it with mortgaging the future sot that winning product can continue. Will it work? I don't know and since nobody here can tell the future, all we can do is wait and see.

I'm sure Marv and Jauron and the players WANT to win the SB. Whether or not Ralph gives Marv the financial leeway to do that is another issue.

[patmoran2006]

Re: Does "cash to cap" really demonstrate a commitment to winning?

If it appears the Bills are several years away from a serious playoff run, I think Cash to Cap is a viable strategy to try and make incremental improvements without breaking the bank. If the Bills are close, Cash to Cap could deprive the Bills of the flexibility to go the extra mile to get past the hump. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I think the Bills fit the latter position better than the former, so I'm not thrilled with it.

The Bills SHOULDN'T be several years away from a playoff run. They should be able to make a playoff run this year.

case in point
* They won 7 games last year and we're actually legitimately in the playoff week until they lost in week 16.
* Their QB really grew up as the season went on.
* They have all of their coaches of importance returning, so they've had full year to implement their system.
* They have a good nucleus of young players, including Lee Evans, who's quickly becoming one of if not the most dangerous WR in the NFL.
* Their division isn't that strong. Miami flat-out sucks, the Jets benefited by beating up on weak teams and have a lot of holes, NE is still good but are weak in spots not too mention they have a lot of aging players, especially on defense.

There is NO reason why the Bills shouldn't be a contender going into the season.

But there is one reason why they won't be.. And it's because Wilson is officially more concerned about saving money than putting a winner on the field and exciting their fans.

* We're going to let our top two FA's walk and replace them with rookie or second year unproven starters. Meanwhile almost every other team in the league is using their cap space to either tag or lock up their top Free Agents. When Marv said our top priority with our "monies" will be to resign our own, he really means resigning all of the mediocre players (Gandy, Kelsay, etc) that symbolize while we are a below average team almost every season.

* Despite the fact that only two teams in the entire NFL have more cap space than Buffalo, and last I checked we're not the only smaller market team in the NFL, we will be among if not the single least active team in the market.

* Instead of hiring a creative, up-to-date GM who understands football and caponomics of this era, Wilson hired a guy in Levy (and I do love Marv) who serves as little more than a mouthpiece for Wilson and the front office.

So if we're several years away from contending, it's because of the complete bull**** that's fed to us from OBD. Attendance dropped at the end of last year, despite a playoff push.. What do you think is going to happen this time around when we let two of our most popular players walk away and replace them with farrrrrrrrr cheaper options?