Delete This Account

i'm not going anywhere as far as i'm concerned. i respect the moderators, too. but i take issue with this one comment. jw

again, it's one thing for you or another poster to make this accusation. it's another, in my mind, to have it sanctioned and backed up by a moderator. jw

here's the links: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/158862-byrd-skipping-mandatory-mini-camp/page__st__1220?do=findComment&comment=2847388 http://forums.twobil...40#entry2847498 just redid this post. PTR's post is first, followed a page later by Chandler#81. as for this thread, i'm one of the few non-anonymous posters on this board as far as i know, thus my reputation is being put in question here. it's one thing to have PTR call me that, or any other board member. i've been called worse. but to have a moderator chime in and essentially agree with that remark bumps it up to another level. in my belief, this is not moderation but jumping on the pile and thus opening the door for others to suggest the same. heck, if a moderator can say it, then anyone can. ... that does not fly with me especially when it comes to this insinuation. jw (Edited to add PTR's original post)

i took offense to PTR calling me a shill in the first place. and PTR has since apologized. which is OK with me. accepted. in the heat of discussions, some people do wind up saying some things half-cocked. i've been guilty of that at times. but to have a Global Moderator come out and infer the same accusation crosses the line for me. they should be held to a higher standard in my opinion. jw

i'm not arguing and i didn't start it. jw

I'm not going to let this lie, having a global moderator, Chandler81, inferring that I'm a shill. sorry, didn't have a question. guess it's more of a statement. jw

i'll own that and i accept your apology. thing is, history shows that players in Byrd's situation usually and eventually get paid. the bills have failed in their desire to lock up a player long-term, because it looks far less likely that's going to happen as this goes on. jw

should i get the warning before i question a Global Moderator's approach to decorum or should i wait until i actually do it? jw

i'm not assuming anything. you are. all i'm saying is that he's not losing and the Bills aren't winning. you might have missed it: but i've called it a stalemate. jw

jeesuz holy crap again. Byrd is a free safety. Tony Polamalu is a STRONG safety. jw can't see a best case happening, but then again, i'm merely a shill. and from a Global Moderator no less. geez. jw

whatever folks. i've outlined my point of view on this. agree/disagree call me a "shill" if you want ... well, actually, i take exception to that PTR and Chandler ... but i've simply stated my case. have at it. jw jeesuz. i wrote it looks like they're going to let both walk. and you've made my point. Levitre got "overpaid" by the Titans because he entered the market. Byrd is looking for the same type free-market compensation from the Bills despite being tagged. jw

yep. jw

hey, all i'm saying is that Bills should've known what they were getting into here. a proactive team would've gotten a deal done a year ago. a proactive team would've/should've known what Byrd's price was before electing to tag him. a proactive team would've found ways of negotiating around the fringes on guaranteed money or length or both to get a deal done and not let talks essentially fall apart to the point where there were no talks on the final day. what i don't get is many here keep suggesting that Byrd doesn't have any leverage. given the amount of anger being thrown at him and me -- by explaining Parker's side -- it seems to me that leverage is building into frustration. budging is an option. not budging is also an option. Eugene Parker appears to have a grasp of that. jw

they let Levitre walk and anted up on Byrd. and that's not turned out. now they risk losing out on both within a year's span. not sure how that's smart business. i'm not speaking out of frustration. i'm merely laying out how i see the bills failed in this case. jw

no, i don't at all suggest Parker or his price are infallible. i'm merely explaining his approach. my point is the Bills are attempting to establish a soft market here. Parker ignores that and points to what Byrd would likely have received in free agency. still don't see how this is a gamble on Parker's end. Parker got what he wanted in the end in the Peters' holdout. i'm attempting to approach this from a logical perspective and provide insight. evidently, the Bills under-estimated once again Parker's resolve, too. jw

1) someone was going to make Byrd essentially the top-paid FS this offseason had the Bills not tagged him. it's not a number based on whether Byrd is THE ABSOLUTE best at his position. it's based on the dearth of highly talented FS that would have been on the market. 2) sure tag him again next year, and the Bills will have paid nearly $14 million in guaranteed money to a player with which they're having an issue with regarding, in part, how much guaranteed money he wants over a long-term period. kind of defeats the purpose as Byrd will get paid one way or the other. also, a bad way to do business. 3) you're right, the Sabres didn't get a reputation around the NHL for being cheap with their players -- Briere, Drury, Kennedy, JP Dumont etc -- so why would the Bills in this instance. 4) OK, i'll play the numbers game, too, by noting that you fail to mention that out of the 10 or so players tagged this offseason, only one (1) failed to be signed to a contract by the deadline Monday. Teams use the tag every year. and a majority of those teams are able to get that player signed before training camp to at least one year. jw there is no more room for negotiation except a few minor details regarding the possibility of getting Byrd signed before training camp if the Bills drop any threat of retagging him. this is not a rant. it's my opinion. don't know why you need to react so harshly. ... oh, wait, i do. you've held things against me for quite some time now. ... sorry for expecting anything different. jw

nope, not shilling for anyone. Parker's reputation is that he'll wait things out upon expecting what he believes is fair value for his client. the Bills know this -- or should have going in. there are ways to negotiate around the edges here, but Parker's establishes a number is generally sticks with it. the Bills do not set the market. the market sets the market. and Parker's approach to all negotiations involves establishing a number his client would get in free agency. that the Bills failed to allow Byrd to test free agency is a moot point. it's what Parker believes Byrd would've received is what helps establish his client's value in his mind. argue it however you want. that is Parker's approach. the Bills once again thought they could bluff Parker in this instance. not sure when that's ever been a success, but the Bills failed in this instance once again. and for those who might suggest Byrd is hurting his own value, well, he's actually not. there is the case of Nate Clements, who was tagged by the Bills and still got his big contract the following year. you say, well, Clements at least signed his tag in May. ok, then, there's the case of Jason Peters who was an offseason no-show until two days before the season opener, which he wound up missing. Peters still got his money -- money the Bills were unwilling to pay -- despite all that. teams will spend and over-spend for talent. Parker knows this. the Bills seem to continue to believe that they can get a pass. instead, what they've gotten is the right to retain a solid player who will not be entirely ready for the start of the season. it's like the Seinfeld episode where the car rental company screws up his rental. "anyone can take a reservation (or in this case tag a player), the key is having the car available (or in this case, following through by signing the player to a long-term deal)." the bills did the first and failed on the second. and to tag him once again does very little but to expose the Bills as being the same old franchise around the league, making it even more difficult to attract free agents, forcing the team then to overpay for them. in my opinion, if the Bills were unwilling to play ball with Parker, fully knowing his M.O., then why did they tag him? -- out of spite? -- out of naivety? -- out of a ploy to show the fans they are intent on keeping their own players? if Parker/Byrd can be accused of over-playing their hand, then so can the Bills, because they're certainly not sitting with pocket aces here. it's a stalemate hurting both sides. well, what has it gotten the Bills so far? and there seems to be no indication it will get them anything more than a player playing under a $6.9 million tag who won't likely be ready for the season. my point exactly. jw

asleep? perhaps, yawning in antipathy over what i expect to come. so why waste morsels of pessimism during the "offseason." jw

not entirely sure who's sending a message here. .... back to being skeptical again. jw

wait until you get to "Hard Edges." i'm man enough to say that this song has made me tear up twice through. it's so desperate and yearning. as to bbb, for how do we find time to listen to all this music, well, you make time for what's important. and to me, music is important. and i keep searching for the good stuff. and i continue to uncover it. jw

Chris Knight: "The Trailer Tapes." sonafa ... here might well be the absolutely most under-rated albums to come out over the past 7 years. dag-um this is good. it's sparse and sad and just about every song is perfect. this album is essentially what Mellencamp always wanted to record, but failed. the lyrics are mean and angry, jumping out at you over the understated emphasis of a simple acoustic guitar. i happened upon Knight quite a while ago, and after sampling a few of his albums on itunes, i wound up taking a shot at this one. my god, this is good. it jumps genres, more rustic than country. but it's not folksy. it picks up a hillbilly trail that Steve Earle has well mined. "Rita's Only Fault," is something right down Earle's alley, or Mike Cooley's, or Isbell's. couldn't resist but recommend. this is a must have. jw

yep. hell, trade 'em all. EJ and the whole bunch. none of 'em are any good. start over. and then, before they show signs of being good, trade them all again so Bills fans can go through a never-ending cycle of rebuilding ... oh, waitaminute, i just summed up the last 13 years, didn't i? whoops. jw

pretty much all of them since 2000 in the locker room or at training camp. and a few in a bar or two around town. and David Nelson at the Elmwood Fest. jw

given that someone very close to him recently died of cancer, i would certainly think he opposes it. and given that we spend all this much money on sports, perhaps a reminder that there are those among us suffering through weather-related tragedy or famine, might well be on occasion be appropriate. not sure i get your point, given that there were people chanting Hernandez's name as he was being brought into custody, while a family grieved. there are times when we as a society misses what should be the obvious. not entirely sure what's wrong in bringing perspective to a fast-moving story. just because you might have your head turned on straight, doesn't mean everyone else does, either. but criticize all you like. it's your right. jw

this thread is out-dated, so thought i'd give it a bump. jw