Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Before TSW went down for the software upgrade pretty sure somebody'd said they save ~$3.6 this year & ~$5.6 next year versus having him on the roster. He's off the books after that but that's a lot of dead cap until then.

 

From ESPN:

 

The Bills will save $5.73 million off their 2017 salary cap and $2.375 million off their 2018 salary cap. They also shed the 2019 through 2021 years of Dareus' deal at cap numbers of $16.985 million, $16 million and $14.65 million.

Posted

Way to be timely, drunkie. :p

OJ to Niners for a 1st, two 2nds, a 3rd and a 4th.

 

Niners assume $733 thousand contract.

Posted

This is one of those things where you look at it and wonder if it's just insane enough to work.

 

The consideration coming back isn't nearly enough, IMO, even given his huge cap hit, but wow, this was ballsy.

Posted

From ESPN:

 

The Bills will save $5.73 million off their 2017 salary cap and $2.375 million off their 2018 salary cap. They also shed the 2019 through 2021 years of Dareus' deal at cap numbers of $16.985 million, $16 million and $14.65 million.

Thank you. Seems like a good move
Posted

I'm stunned. I legitimately can't believe we found a taker.

But yet several internet personas are killing the Bills for this. Complete unawareness of a) how bad hes been b) what an albatross that contract was.

Posted

But yet several internet personas are killing the Bills for this. Complete unawareness of a) how bad hes been b) what an albatross that contract was.

 

We're saving $5.7 million this season and $2.4 million next season.  I don't think the albatross contract holds much water here, since we're not saving that much. It's highly unlikely that a replacement for $5.7 million and $2.4 million will come close to his talent.  I think it's much more likely that he was traded because of his attitude and off the field issues.  If he's been a cancer in the locker room, that is also a huge factor.

Posted (edited)

Appreciate the content upthread, but I still don’t understand the practical upshot of this deal’s cap implications.

 

In any case: I love this deal.

 

Ahh. Never mind. I get it now.

Edited by That Aud Smell
Posted

Appreciate the content upthread, but I still don’t understand the practical upshot of this deal’s cap implications.

 

In any case: I love this deal.

 

Ahh. Never mind. I get it now.

I think that we don't have to pay him for 4 years now. Now it only hurts 4 two
Posted

It's already hard enough to win in Buffalo. Now we get to try with less money.

 

Yeah?

We have more money, but one less Dareus. His talent can't be replaced for the meager savings, but his production probably can be. I think it's likely a wash, to be honest.

Posted

I think that we don't have to pay him for 4 years now. Now it only hurts 4 two

I'm pretty sure his contract went through the 2021 season, so 5 years. But yes, we're off the hook for his roughly $15M/yr cap hit in '19, '20 and '21.
Posted

It's already hard enough to win in Buffalo. Now we get to try with less money.

 

Yeah?

I read the reports as indicating that the team gains modest amounts by trading him — it’d have cost more to keep him.

Posted

I read the reports as indicating that the team gains modest amounts by trading him — it’d have cost more to keep him.

It would've, (actual #'s upthread) ~$5.6MM this season & $3MM next year. They now have that money available & 1 less rostered DT.

 

Next season they'll have $14MM less to spend than a team w/ no dead cap space & a DT slot to fill. Or they could've spent $17MM & had Dareus. Apparently they thought they'll be better off w/ no Dareus & $3MM to spend on something else.

Posted

It would've, (actual #'s upthread) ~$5.6MM this season & $3MM next year. They now have that money available & 1 less rostered DT.

 

Next season they'll have $14MM less to spend than a team w/ no dead cap space & a DT slot to fill. Or they could've spent $17MM & had Dareus. Apparently they thought they'll be better off w/ no Dareus & $3MM to spend on something else.

So, it's less they have to spend, and less they get to spend?

 

If so, then like I said, we get to try and win with less money. Awesome.

Posted

So, it's less they have to spend, and less they get to spend?

 

If so, then like I said, we get to try and win with less money. Awesome.

For this year & next, correct.

Posted

For this year & next, correct.

Just to clarify, the "awesome should have been "awesome". (isn't that the Sarcasm font?)

 

I don't care about what they have to spend. Something something "drill a well."

 

I do care, though about what we get to spend, and that sucks.

Posted

For what this regime is trying to do, it was imperative that they move him.

They would have cut every player from those 90s Cowboy teams.

 

Hope it works.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...