Delete This Account

lots of words. lack of comprehension. he had nothing to gain by showing up early. you like to bring up these comparisons of the other 7 who got tagged. how many of them showed up before signing their deal? i'm picking nits? that's quite a nit to pick when it comes to what "the going rate is" for a free safety. if both sides were well aware of that, then why wasn't a deal done? odd. and you still conveniently overlook the fact that once Byrd's salary was locked in after July 15 passed, what incentive did he have to show up for training camp and before he risked losing a portion of that salary. he wasn't going to get one more penny from the Bills. and he risked his future earnings if he got hurt. but somehow, this was unprofessional on his part? whether or not you choose to continue this conversation is up to you and not of my concern. i simply choose to continue it because i still fail to comprehend much of the basis of your point. jw and i'm pretty sure there are a few cases here in which you've now contradicted yourself. for the purposes of not picking nits, i'll choose not to point them out.

and yet, it was in his right to do so. what he got tagged for is not what he was seeking. the bills were fully in their right to tag him. i'm not begrudging them that. but there are and were consequences with that action. just because he got a 500 percent raise shouldn't be something that obligates him to doing one thing or another. he choose not to show up, because the money was guaranteed. and to show up for training camp raised the possibility of him sustaining a significant injury that could risk his future earning power. what was the point to report to camp? under the terms of the CBA, he was NOT in position to gain any more salary because he and the Bills were barred from negotiating again until the end of the season. you say good faith? so, can you state with certainty that if Byrd say, blew out his knee, by slipping on a wet mat along with Kevin Kolb, and missed the remainder of the season that the Bills would come back to Byrd and reward him for showing such good faith with the same offer they had presented him a year earlier? (please say, yes. please say, yes.) and you throw out this phrase "lots of guaranteed money" as if lots is an actual number. it's not. Byrd believes he's owed the guaranteed money he would have likely gotten in free agency. the Bills believe they can get a lower rate. still not entirely sure you understand the distinction between what an employee's rights are in this circumstance. once the July 15 deadline passed, Byrd had nothing to gain by showing up until he was required to. jw

really no use debating this point, if you don't understand this distinction. you seem to believe that Byrd needed to cede his own interest for the sake of the team's interest by positing: "How is that doing what's best for him and the team?" you realize that there is a distinction in that what's best for the team isn't generally the best for him, right? until you understand that basic principle, then really, i can't foresee us getting any further in this discussion. jw in regards to your final point: "I'd love to hear how exercising that right helped him in this scenario..." a better question would be i'd love to hear how it didn't.

it was his RIGHT not to show up. that's a significant distinction. as for the other point, still awaiting an answer. jw

yes, Byrd failed to act professionally because he chose to exercise the rights awarded to him by a collective bargaining agreement, and seek a contract he believed to be fair. and his offseason absence in no way shape, or form hindered the Bills. gotcha jw

sigh. last time i'm answering these questions. Byrd told me on numerous occasions before and during 2012 he was waiting to hear from the Bills. what's unknown is made Byrd the offer presented in Feb. 2013 in Aug. 2012 whether it would have been accepted. my guess is 50-50. i take Byrd's, the Bills and the doctor's word that Jairus' feet were no 100 percent. you miss my point: Byrd played through injuries throughout the first four years of his contract. when it came to playing under a franchise tag, and the uncertainty of what comes next, he was very cautious to ensure he was healthy enough to play without overly risking a significant injury that could hamper him beyond the length of the tag. The Bills offer was not what Byrd expected to get had he been allowed to enter free agency. not sure how many times i have to say this, but value is value, and by tagging Byrd, the Bills did not decrease his value. he was looking for the type of money he would have more than likely attracted in free agency. and people make too much of these assertions that Byrd wants to be the highest paid safety because he is the best safety. no. he was looking for the money he was expecting to get in free agency, which likely would have made him the highest paid safety. ... why is that so difficult for some to comprehend? please, re-read what i wrote. i wrote those on the Bills side have failed to provide a convincing argument. and i would argue they got "a very similar level of play" from Byrd last season. first, he missed 5 games. second, he wasn't ready for the start of the season. third, and most important, Byrd missing the entire offseason in now way helped the Bills. it hurt them (and here, let me increase the size and bold the period at end of this sentence for emphasis). jw oh gawd. puhleeze.

yes. jw

it's you. jw

i'm doing what now? not sure what "blanket excuse" we in the media are providing the Bills. this is the situation they find themselves and it's up to them to extricate themselves from it. i've also been consistent in saying that the Bills failure to make a push in locking up Byrd to a long-term deal a year earlier has contributed to this. rather than spending that money on Mark Anderson, who got paid a lot of money for doing very little, the Bills could have used that money to lock up Byrd. or Levitre. they did neither. i've also been consistent in questioning the Bills in regards to their failure to deliver on a long-term deal after they tagged Byrd. though the tag was below Byrd's market value, the Bills still didn't get what they could have gotten out of Byrd because the contract dispute led the player to miss valuable time in learning the defense through training camp. and then, once the season began, Byrd refused to risk the potential of hurting his future value by being cautious regarding his nagging foot problems. had Byrd been signed to a long-term deal, he would not have missed camp. he would have been better prepared in Pettine's defense and, with the security of a long-term deal, he likely would have went out and played through the pain of the foot problems much earlier than October. value is in the eye of the beholder. the Bills, i'll contend, didn't get the potential value they were counting on getting from a player that ate up $6.9 million salary, and ate up a roster spot through the first five weeks of the season. that spot could have been served to address another position, no? and now the Bills find themselves in essentially the same spot: attempting to lock up Byrd to a long term deal with a franchise tag as a fallback position. and in the meantime, they're bringing in a new coordinator who will be introducing yet another new scheme. so if Byrd is tagged and missed a majority of the offseason, the Bills will be in a position of having committed more than $15 million to a player to be in Buffalo for essentially 7-8 months over two years. no one on the Bills side of this argument has come close to convincing me how the team is getting value for paying a player to not be here for 8 months out of the year. jw

let me get this straight: Byrd was seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 million in guaranteed money and was unable to secure that from the Bills so the Bills tagged him. should the Bills tag Byrd again this season, they will have committed more than $15 million in salary over two years to a player. yes, that's below market in averaging out to $7.5 million a year. here's a few questions, though: -- the Bills overpaid Mark Anderson and got very little out of him. wouldn't it have been better to commit Anderson's money to re-signing Byrd? -- broken down, the Bills spent $6.9 million on Byrd last season but only got 11 games out of him. and he was not present for a majority of the offseason. would anyone consider the Bills getting value for their money? -- should the Bills and Byrd go through the same scenario this offseason, would that be considered a good value? jw

amused by how some here immediately turn against former Bills the moment they leave, questioning their loyalty and motives. it's disappointing from a Bills perspective to lose Mike Pettine. it's quite likely the Bills defense would be served extremely well playing under Pettine for one more year, and have the potential to deliver Buffalo a true playoff contender. that said, why begrudge Pettine for jumping at an opportunity to become a head coach. though it's possible he could have been in line for more stable jobs a year from now, who would guarantee that? and who's to say Pettine isn't confident in his own abilities to help nurture transformational change in Cleveland? he is, after all, a more than capable coach worthy of getting his shot. now he gets his chance to prove it. good for him. if he fails, there is the opportunity for a second chance, despite what some here might say. i seem to recall this Belichick guy bombing out in Cleveland. what's he up to these days? Marv Levy's tenure in KC wasn't exactly an easy one, and yet i hear he's got a bust in Canton. oddly enough, most first-time coaches don't get a chance to "ease" in to good fits. more often than not, a team is changing coaches because of a long string of losing. there's rarely such a thing as a "perfect fit" even in the best of circumstances. can't say it was easy on Seifert replacing Walsh, or Wade replacing Marv. as for bad situations, Sean Payton did pretty good for himself taking over what was considered a dreadful job in New Orleans. so puh-leeze. coaches are judged on the job they do, the situation they're in and how they handle themselves. no one knows if Pettine it going to succeed. we'll find out. jw

GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. jw

the Rogers Centre roof is closed after baseball season, and the facility "winterized," so it remains closed throughout. lack of drainage is also an issue. jw

guess, i'm being consistent, then. actually, i'll do my best to acknowledge being wrong when i'm wrong (because i can be as hard-headed as most). but i don't see how the situation has, at the very least changed, or weakened Jairus' position here as some were speculating -- wishing? -- would happen. jw

t hid his cookies an

yes, but i highly doubt he'll be involved in a DC search. your point? jw

not true. true hmmm. you fail to take into account his earning potential in 2015. which, combined over a 3-year period would, more than top the guaranteed money he was looking for last year. funny thing about this "often injured" label you place on Byrd. in five seasons, he's missed seven of possible 80 games. they're not losing. in fact, Parker has proven his point so far. one way or another, Byrd is more than likely to get the guaranteed money he was seeking when contract negotiations first began in 2013. far too much is made in regards to these "highest paid safety" claims. the key to any deal as any player and agent knows is the guaranteed money. Byrd was expected to be looking for something in the $22-$25 million range. he is well on his way to getting that -- and more. by comparison, what did the Bills get for their money. a Pro Bowl caliber player who wasn't ready for the start of the season and potentially cost them a win or two had he had a full offseason to prepare. foot problems or no, it's quite likely Byrd would have been in a position to be more willing to play in the opener against New England knowing that he had the security of a long-term contract to support his future. then there's the case of Byrd eating up a roster spot while not playing the first five games, and thus forcing the Bills to bring in another safety. it paid off with Leonard, but a case could be made that the Bills could have used that spot for another position -- say QB? -- had Byrd been ready for the start of the season. the Bills, it appears, under-estimated Byrd's resolve to see this through to the end and the contract dispute didn't help them. now they find themselves back at Square 1 having to determine whether they have the stomach to go through this whole riggga-marrolle again. at this point, don't they have to given the money they committed to Byrd last year? jw

you referring to the conductor? jw ha.

wasn't suggesting you suggested Parker failed Byrd. ... the second part of my post was directed at those posters who fail to realize that Eugene Parker is employed to serve his client's interests, not the team his client plays for. and that he's good at what he does. jw

hmmmm. oddly enough, Byrd's return coincided with EJ Manuel's second knee injury. ... but that wouldn't have anything to do with the Bills winning percentage would it? -- oddly enough, people who are down on Eugene Parker and Byrd, by extension, fail to realize that Byrd is in a better position to cash in entering this offseason than he was a year ago. either he gets the lucractive contract he was asking for a year ago from the Bills or he gets the lucrative contract he was asking for a year ago from the Bills from some other team in free agency. or he gets tagged by the Bills and is in line to make about $15 million in two years, which is probably about $7 million short of the guaranteed money he was looking for out of a long-term contract in free agency, and gets another shot at free agency a year later. but please, explain to me how Eugene has failed his client in this situation. jw

she's most definitely the better half. jw

well, geez. what about "dirt" flavor. is that original enough for you? jw

all the way back to their most definitive album, Stadium Arcadium? aka the second to last album they delivered? my goodness, next to Westerberg's 49:00, that was one of the best albums to come out in the 2000s. Frusciante carried that album with depth and maturity and drive and licks that made what preceded them -- especially the navarro years -- a pale shadow. father time made the Chilis with Frusciante one of the most important rock and roll bands -- and far superior to over-produced publum offered by the foo fighters of late -- on the face of the earth the moment that album was cut. Frusciante is the only member of the Chilis to keep Keidis in check, allowing the band to produce an epic two-disc lp that resonates to this very day. jw

perogies. jw

i'll remain whelmed by this unless John Frusciante is part of the act. otherwise ... shrug. they used to be somebody i once knew. jw