Shaw66

I agree. Especially the last 3.

Look at it this way: It's February 2016. You're Tyrod Taylor sitting with Whaley, who says the Bills will make two offers and you can take whichever one you want: 1. $6 million guaranteed for 2016. After that we can cut you. If we don't cut you, you get $40 million guaranteed for three years, and you get $15 million a year, not guaranteed, for two years after that. You're a free agent after the 2021 season. 2. $6 million guaranteed for 2016. $30 million guaranteed for the next two years. You're a free agent after the 2018 season. I think Taylor takes deal 2 all day, every day. Problem for Taylor was that the Bills weren't offering deal 2 last year. They were only offering deal 1. What happened was that the Bills wanted the opportunity to cut Taylor sometime after the 2015 season without it costing them so much. So they asked Taylor to renegotiate. This time around Taylor got the balance of deal 2. And the Bills got the right to get out of the deal after 2017 and again after 2018.

No, it makes complete sense. He hadn't made any real money through 2015. He'd made maybe a total of $3 million in the NFL, and he signed a contract worth, most likely, $46. That's why he did it. He was taking serious chips off the table. A year later, he gave some of those chips back to buy his freedom, but his first big deal with Buffalo was still worth $36 million in the bank.

He put money in the bank. The six-year deal gave him $6 million in 2016 alone, plus another $40 guaranteed. He'd made nothing up till then. It was a good move for him. Then this year he gave a bit of it back - $10 million out of $46 - so that he could be a free agent again. He's been very smart about this.

No. You just don't want to agree. Under his first Bills contract he was going to make about $3 million in three years; with incentives it could have been $6 million. Under his second Bills contract he got $6 million for his second year in Buffalo (so he did better in 2016 than he would have done in 2016 and 2017 under his first deal), and $40 million for his next three years (unless the Bills cut him before March 11, 2017). Clearly a better deal than where he was, in terms of money. But he gave up the ability to be a free agent in 2017 and left himself at Buffalo's mercy through 2021. In his third Bills contract, he gave up the last $10 million so that he could be a free agent in 2019. Why? Because he's confident he can do better from 2019 through 2021 as a free agent than under the terms of the his second Bills contract. He views it as a better deal for him. To recap, he went from $3-6 million in three years under his first contract to $46 million under his second contract to $36 million (adding 2016 back in for comparison sake) under his third contract, with the right become a free agent in 2018 (the prime of his career) instead of 2021 (the beginning of the tail end of his career). If it's a better deal for him, why did the Bills do it? They did it because THEY wanted the option to get out in a year or two, also. Just as Taylor was betting on his upside and was willing to give something up for it, the Bills wanted protection on their downside. Both sides got what they wanted.

Try to keep up. Why did he sign the six-year deal? Because his contract at the time was worth $1 million or something like that for 2016, but under the contract he signed he got $6 million. So he got a guaranteed increase in compensation of $5 million for 2016. And he got a guaranteed $40 million after that. He gave up his freedom, but he got, in total $45 million guaranteed. A year later, he had the $6 million and he had about $40 million guaranteed coming. By renegotiating, he gave up $10 million guaranteed but he got his freedom back so that, as Happy says, he can cash in on his contract beginning in 2019. Through 2015, Taylor had been playing football for NFL chump change. Then in 2016 he made $6 million. Call it $3 million after tax. If he's smart, and I think he is, he banked $2 million. He was looking at an offer of $30 million for two years, essentially guaranteed. After tax, $15 million, he'll bank $10 million. So at age 30 he'll have $12 million in the bank, which will pay him $400.000 for life. So he's all set. Now he gets to play for two years with a chance to cash in on a big contract, over $100 million. He's positioned himself well. I'm telling you: If he has a 94 passer rating in 2017, the Bills will be negotiating with him in a year, and they'll be in the $100 million range. Taylor is likely to be the winner. He didn't take a pay cut.

David West has done it for two years in a row in the NBA. He's a professional athlete. $10 million this season, $10 million last season.

I think Kraft and Brady have a handshake deal that will pay Brady millions for being a team ambassador after he retires.

Hi Thurm - Thanks. I think you have to look at what's guaranteed and then what's likely. Guaranteed was $40, and what's likely now is $30. Why is it likely? Because there's no upside to the Bills cutting him after 2017, because the cap hit is almost as bad as keeping him. So unless he becomes a public relations problem, the Bills will always keep him for 2018. Even if they've found another starter, he's a better backup than they could find anywhere else. So I'm pretty sure Taylor looked at it as giving up $10 million. However, if you review what's been said and and the contract history, I think the conclusion that these negotiations are a lot less about the money and a lot more about the option to terminate the contract. That is, it's always been about Taylor's freedom to make a new deal and who has the option to set him free. He left Baltimore and wanted to go someplace where he could start. He didn't seem to spend any time or energy on getting a lot of money; he wanted to go somewhere where he had a good chance to start and where he would have a short contract. He signed a three year deal with Buffalo, but a major part of the deal for Tyrod was that he could opt out after two years. So what happened? He played well his first year and the Bills were unhappy about the fact that Taylor could leave after year two. That meant that if Taylor had a good year two, the Bills would have to give him something like five years at $20 million per to keep him, and the Bills knew that they weren't going to be willing to commit that much to him after year two. They wanted to see him for at least three years. So they go to Taylor and suggest renegotiating, so the Bills could have a full three years and then cut him without penalty if they wanted to. Taylor said no, because the option at the end of year two was what he wanted. He wasn't going to give up the option for nothing. He asked for a long-term deal with big money. Bills said no to the money, yes to the long-term IF the option to end it all without penalty at the end of year two came back to the Bills. Taylor said ok, he'll give up the option to get out because he has guaranteed money. Year two happens and Taylor underperforms, in comparison to year one and also in terms of what's good enough to win in the NFL. Now the Bills are on the hotseat. They have the option to end the deal and avoid the guarantees, but they aren't sure about Taylor. If Taylor is the year-one QB, the contract is a bargain. If he's the year-two QB, they're overpaying and they may want to move on. Meanwhile, Taylor doesn't have the same doubts. He's started for two years, he knows he can play in the league. His seasons are nothing like the seasons Manuel and most young QBs have in the league. He's seen guys bounce around the league. He knows for the next seven years he can get FItzpatrick-McCown money all day long. He's better than they are, and someone will always pay him to play or to be a quality backup on a contending team. That's his cushion. He knows that he's always going to be able to make the money he's guaranteed under his current contract. What he wants is to get the option back. He wants the leverage to be able to say in a year or two that he wants more money, more than he'd get locked up with the Bills through 2021 or whenever. So I think Taylor looked at it and said, "I'm guaranteed $40. Under the two-year deal we're talking about, I'm almost certainly going to get $30. I'm almost certainly going to get the additional $10 in the next one or two years after that. So the guarantee of $40 doesn't mean a lot; I'm going to get the $40 either way. But under the new deal, my upside in 2019, 2020 and 2021 is much higher. The salary cap is going up. If I play well, I can get over $20 a year, maybe even $25 a year." I think Taylor listened to that, has confidence in his abilities and his future, and said "this is easy - I'll get the $40 either way, and the new deal gives me options." Bills, likewise, liked the deal because THEY got the option to terminate without major pain after 2018. What the Bills gave up is the opportunity to have Taylor on the cheap if he turns out to be good. I think what very well could happen is that in 2017 Taylor has a good year - say a passer rating around 94, which is his average. That would be at or around top 10. Bills win 9-10 games. And next February or March, Taylor and the Bills are renegotiating AGAIN. Why? Because at that point the Bills don't want to go into 2018 with Taylor playing on a one-year deal. If he has another good season, his price tag will go WAY up - as I said, in the low- to mid-20s. So they'll be talking about a new deal, 4-5-6 years, just like the last one, worth more than the deal the Bills just got away from, and with more than half of it guaranteed. If Taylor has another mediocre season, Bills go looking for a new QB, keep Taylor for 2018 and then negotiate or let him walk. What happened is that Taylor gave up some money to get out from under a long term deal. The Bills gave up the bargain price for a starting QB in order to get out from under the long-term future. They're both betting on what Taylor does in the next two seasons. If Taylor didn't want to make that bet, he would have refused to renegotiate and called the Bills' bluff.

This is a good point. I don't think that an agent has that conversation sitting at the table with the Browns, because that would risk the tampering charge. But I think the agent has that conversation sitting at the table with the Packers or the Raiders or the Falcons. What's the difference? Everyone understands that the Falcons aren't looking for a QB. There's pretty no much NO likelihood that the Falcons would be interested in him. So that's just casual conversation between two guys in the business. Agent might even say "I'm guessing I can get a team to give him $X million a year," and the GM might say "I doubt anyone would go that high" or "yeah, you probably could get that." Browns' GM isn't saying that, because that looks like a negotiation, and everyone is at risk. Falcons GM, over a cup of coffee, I agree that those conversations probably take place. And those conversations gave Tyrod's agent some idea of what he might be able to do if Tyrod were about to become a free agent.

Of course I do. You read what KC got fined for tampering with Maclin. Do you think all the other teams and agents are talking? Don't you think KC would be raising holy hell? Jets got fined just for the owner saying he'd like to have Revis come back. $100,000 for nothing more than that. Most people in the civilized world play by the rules most of the time. The overwhelming majority, the overwhelming amount of the time. That's true if there are penalties and they are enforced. Are there cases here and there where someone says something to someone and someone says something back? Probably. But not many. If you're a GM and you know that the Chiefs got fined in six figures AND lost two draft picks for talking to Maclin, are you really going to talk to Taylor?. In that case Maclin was going to become a free agent, but they talked before the so-called tampering period began. In this case, Taylor had NO RIGHT to be a free agent, so it would have been tampering with a player under contract. Moreover, I believe every GM was pretty sure the Bills would keep Taylor, because they know as well as most people that you don't cut a decent starting QB when you have NO ONE even remotely able to play as well as Taylor. So why would your risk draft picks and fines to talk to a player who most likely was NOT going to become a free agent anyway? It makes no sense that any GM would be talking to Taylor's agent under those circumstances. Remember, the Maclin case was finally decided only a year ago. Two draft picks for talking to someone early. The penalty for talking to someone who isn't even scheduled to become a free agent has to be worse.

What are you missing? The league mad it very obvious what kind of early discussions are permissible and what kind are not, and they began passing out penalties for violators. Yes, BEFORE the new rule people cheated. Not any more.

Teef - That's exactly why they installed the three-day rule. They knew teams were cheating, and it was reasonable to cheat. But the rule was written to allow the early discussions only if the player's contract is expiring. For a guy who's contract is expiring, his team has the EXCLUSIVE right to negotiate with him. That's the single benefit that survives from the old days when there was no free agency. It's exclusive. But everyone realized that if by the last two or three days of the guy's old contract he and the team hadn't agreed to a new deal, then there probably WOULDN'T be a deal. Plus, the players were saying "how can I know whether what my old team is offering is in the market if I can't talk to some other teams who are interested." So the NFL legalized the "cheating," but only if the guy's contract was expiring. It doesn't apply when a team is talking to one of its players about renegotiating. There are NO informal permissible informal conversations between the Chiefs, say, and Sammy Watkins just because the Bills and Sammy may be talking about an extension. Absolutely can't do it. So, as someone pointed a few pages back, here's what happened to the Chiefs for talking to Jeremy Maclin early: "Kansas City will forfeit its third-round pick in the 2016 NFL Draft and its sixth-round pick in the 2017 NFL Draft and pay a fine of $250,000. In addition, Head Coach Andy Reid has been fined $75,000 and General Manager John Dorsey has been fined $25,000." In 2015, Woody Johnson said about Revis “I’d love for Darrelle to come back” when he was still under contract with the Patriots. Jets got fined $100,000 just for saying that. No negotiations, no contract discussion, no nothing. Just a public statement. The NFL takes it seriously. So I think what's naive is to think that some team is going to say to Taylor on the QT "we'll give you $18 million a year for four years, guaranteed," knowing that statement like that could cost them multiple draft picks and some serious money. Especially when they look at how Taylor has produced over the past two years and can see that it would be near lunacy for the Bills to let him go. Why take that risk. The conversations that happened almost certainly went like this: "Hi agent. Thanks for the call. Tyrod's not a free agent, so we can't talk right now. I won't put any kind of number out there. If your man becomes a free agent, we definitely would be interested - please don't sign anywhere without giving us a call. What? No, I won't speculate about a range, or anything like that. You should know, because if we do that it could cost you your license to represent players. Thanks for understanding."

I think you're right, but we're saying the same thing. I'm not worried so much about what year he gets paid; I'm looking at his total compensation that he was guaranteed. I believe he was guaranteed about $40 million if the Bills didn't cut him by the March deadline this year. That $40 million was going to get paid over the next three seasons. (Again, I'm not sure, but I think that's about right.) Now he's got $15 million guaranteed, this season. If the Bills keep him for 2018, he gets another $15 million. Then he's a free man. So what did he give up? In terms of guaranteed money, I think he gave up about $25 million. That is, if he'd said no to a restructure and the Bills had kept him (which I believe they would have), he would have had $25 million more guaranteed, and he would have been under contract through the 2021 season, earning about $15 million a year. What did he get in exchange? Well, there's a very high likelihood the Bills would under any circumstances keep him for 2018 (cutting him would create a lot of dead cap money, so even if the Bills somehow had come up with the second coming of Peyton Manning in his prime, they still would keep Tyrod as the backup because they get no benefit cutting him). So Tyrod has a virtual guarantee on another $15 million. Career-ending injury is his only real risk there. So that means Tyrod is down "only" $10 million for the 2019 season; that is, I think his new deal means he "gave back" about $10 million in exchange for his ability to test the free agency market again in 2019. What I'm saying is that's a pretty good bet on his side, because unless his career really blows up in the next two seasons (and he certainly doesn't believe that will happen), he's going to get at least $10 million from someone in 2019. He'll be 30 years old, prime age for a QB. That's even under the second-coming-of-Peyton scenario, because under that scenario the league will view him as a starter who was beaten out by a Hall of Famer; he won't be damaged goods. If under the more realistic scenario, if for two seasons he's a starter hanging in or around the top 10 QBs, he'll get more than $20 million a year on a five or six year deal (remember, the salary cap is still rising), which will be a huge raise for him over what he would have made under his old deal. If he's a starter hanging in or around the top 20 QBs, he'll get a deal worth $10 million or more for a few years, which is what his old deal was worth. Why? Because if he's a starter around the top 20, he'd be a real improvement for a half dozen teams whose current experiment at QB is failing and who need a QB to start now while they look for the next savior. Fitzpatrick and McCown have been worth $5 million a year getting hired into exactly that situation, and Taylor has played better than both. So the new deal is bad for Tyrod only if his career blows up on him, because of a really big on-field deterioration or a major off-field screw up of Vick-like or Rice-like proportions. Taylor has confidence in himself, so he was willing to take that bet. In other words, Taylor took a pay cut because he doesn't believe there's a real chance that he actually will end up any less money than his old contract guaranteed him, and in exchange he got the freedom to make a lot more money if, as he believes will happen, he takes the Bills to the playoffs once or twice in the next two seasons.

No. If he didn't restructure, he was still under contract with the Bills. What anyone expected doesn't matter; when he's under contract, unless the contract is expiring, it is strictly against the rules for any other team to talk to him about his future. Teams get penalized doing it.

He's getting paid the same thing, or a bit more, than he was going to get paid under the old contract. That's not a pay cut. What he gave up was guaranteed money for 2019. He did that because he was willing to bet, quite reasonably, I think, that absent injury he always will be able to get a one-year $15 million deal in 2019. Why? Well, if he gets beaten up by a real star in Buffalo, he'll be in demand as an average starter when he becomes a free agent in 2019. And if he becomes a star in Buffalo, he'll be worth a LOT more than his old contract would have given him. LIke $50 million more. Only downside to his current deal is if he falls apart completely and no one wants him in 2019. Even then, he's probably always worth $3 million. Look at Fitzpatrick. He's averaged about $5 million a year for nearly 10 years. Josh McCown got a three year $14 million deal from the Browns. He got $6 million from the Jets for a year. I don't think Tyrod was worried about making some money in 2019.

I'm not an expert, but I think you really misunderstand what the rules are. First, the Bills didn't "pick up" the option on Taylor's contract. Taylor was under contract. The Bills had a deadline by which they could cut him without suffering touch cap and guarantee consequences. If the Bills did nothing, Taylor simply remained under contract with the Bills. The only way Taylor would have become a free agent would have been if the Bills had cut him. Under those circumstances, teams can't talk to Taylor. Do you think if there was a rumor the Pats were going to cut Brady, teams could negotiate with him. And I don't think in those situations, teams talk contract terms with players. As others have pointed out, there are serious penalties. Imagine if the Bills could just call up Aaron Rodgers and suggest to him how much they'd pay him to come to Buffalo. The league is worried that players would start tanking seasons so their teams would negotiate to get out of deals. it would be a disaster. Unless the guy is about to become a free agent, teams aren't going to talk to him.

Notice that your analysis is based on the assumption that the Bills would cut Taylor. There's no evidence of this. And I don't think the Bills ever intended to cut him. That's the real reason teams didn't make serious big offers to him. They knew there was no point. But I also agree that Taylor didn't want to leave. Good fans, liked the coach, great running back and receiver. I'm sure the conversation went like this: "we want you here but we need help on your contract." "I want to be here and I like my contract. I let you tie me up for six years at a price below what I'm going to be able to earn in another year or two." "well, maybe, maybe not. If you believe that, lets tear up the long-term deal and do another two-year deal." "sounds good to me."

This is the kind of stuff I referred to in my post. I try to follow the news pretty carefully, and especially back a few months ago when there were all these reports, and I never saw a report saying anyone with any authority within the Bills organization had said the Bills would let Taylor go. This Bleacher Report you cite says only "As Rodak noted, however, the Bills were expected to release Taylor if he did not agree to the restructured deal." So far as I know, the only people who ever said the Bills were expected to cut Taylor were reporters and columnists. It just doesn't make any sense. The Bills were committed to paying Taylor about $40 million, I think, for three seasons. $13 million a season. He's been a mid-range starter in the NFL for two seasons, and $15 a year is cheap for a mid-range starter. But what happens if the Bills come up with Dak II and they have to take a big cap hit. So what? If you have a franchise QB, who cares? the Cowboys took the hit. If it happened, the Bills would have a starter at $3 million and a backup at $15. So what? That's less than most teams have invested in QBs. I'm sure the Bills never intended to cut Taylor. They wanted to change the contract, and they gave Taylor his freedom to make the change.

I don't know the draft. I don't know the QBs. I think what the Bills are doing is what they say they always do, and what I believe ALL teams do: They evaluate ALL the players who may be of interest so that they can put together their board. They rank players in order and, generally, they take the highest player who is left on their board. Now, if they have a QB at 10 and he's there, will they take him? I doubt it, but I don't know. But if they have a QB at 14 and he's sitting there when their turn comes up in the second round, they're taking him. So I think that's why they're looking at all these guys. They need to know what they think about each of these guys, because an opportunity may arise to steal someone. Like it or not, that's why they traded up for Ragland - they thought he had a much higher draft rank than where he had fallen, and they traded up not to miss out on him.

Someone told me to come look at this thread, so I did. Of course, it's impossible to read the whole thing or, frankly, to even follow the last couple of pages. Anyway, I'll tell you what I think about Tyrod. A lot of you know me and maybe you've heard it before. 1. I like Taylor. Great athlete, good arm, dedication, running is a plus. I've heard all the arguments about anticipation, throwing people open, seeing the field, throwing over the middle, too short. All possible, but I'm not convinced of any of that, not yet. Could be true, but I think he's still growing, and I want to see another year out of him. 2. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the Bills were going to cut Taylor. There were plenty of rumors, and so far as I could tell, they all were started by the press, that the Bills were going to cut him and that Whaley didn't want him. Everyone got all excited about that. No one got excited when, in the last few weeks, all the press rumors were that the Bills would keep him. Why do I doubt they'd cut him? Because he played starter-quality football for two seasons, because starters are hard to find and because the Bills couldn't expect to find a starter in the draft or free agency. The Bills were NOT going to start over at quarterback. They might keep looking for one better than Taylor; I think they should. But they are not going to leave themselves in the same position they did with Manuel - a rookie start or a journeyman failure as the only options. Taylor is a legitimate threat at QB, and until the Bills get someone better, they are not going to let him go. 3. So what was going on with Taylor's contract? My theory is this: Taylor is ambitious, wants to start, has a lot of confidence in himself and expects to get paid eventually. He took a cheap contract to be a starter in Buffalo when he left the Ravens. Why did he take so little? Because he had the option to get out after two seasons, and he knew if he started somewhere he'd get paid a lot more. That's exactly what happened. He played well his first season in Buffalo, and the Bills didn't want to lose him after the second season and they didn't want to have to match some other team's offer. Still, they wanted the right to cut him if he flopped his second season. Taylor didn't want to get tied up long-term unless he got some real money. So they negotiated the six-year deal, Taylor gets decent money if he stays and the Bills get the option to get out of the deal if they didn't like his 2016. So then Taylor has a decent but uninspiring 2016 and the Bills aren't sure they want him on the terms of the contract. Plus, they want some cap relief. So they talk to Taylor, not to cut him but to get the right to cut him in another year without a huge cap hit. Taylor says you can't have it both ways. If you want the right to get out, then I want to have the right to get out too. So they agree to a two-year deal. For two years Taylor gets paid more or less what he would have made in two years under the deal. What did Taylor give up? The third year guaranteed. Why did he do that? Because he's confident in his ability, and it's much more likely than not that he can get $10 million a year somewhere in 2019, in which case he's no worse off than he was under his original Buffalo deal. In other words, because the Bills wanted to keep Taylor for 2017 and maybe 18 before committing to him long-term, Taylor got the right, again, to be a free agent in the prime of his career. Good deal for both sides. 4. Why was there no more interest in Taylor? As someone pointed out, he wasn't a free agent and it's tampering to talk contracts with someone who isn't a free agent. It happens, I know, when a guy's contract is expiring, but Taylor's contract wasn't expiring. If anyone had talked contract with Taylor, that would have affected the Bills' ability to renegotiate - they would have screamed tampering. Teams lose draft picks for tampering. Don't think for a minute teams weren't interested. Six teams, at least, would be markedly improve their QB situation with Taylor. You think the Jets woudn't have grabbed him? And don't argue that no one was interested because Taylor is a marginal QB. Taylor's stats for 2016 were mediocre; in 2015 they were great. He played all of 2016 injured. He didn't have his #1 receiver, and he didn't have much of anything else in the receiving department. He played for a dysfunctional head coach. Taylor would have gotten $15 million a year for a few years if he'd hit the market, probably more. Now he's going to start for the Bills for 2017. If he has a season like he did in 2015, guess what? The Bills will be back at the negotiating table AGAIN, because they won't want him to be come a free agent in 2018. If he has a mediocre 2017, they'll roll the dice and let him play out his contract. If he's great in 2018, it'll cost the Bills a lot to keep him. If he's mediocre, they'll let him walk and he'll get $20-30 million guaranteed someplace else. 5. OF COURSE, McDermott wanted to keep him, and if you want to say it was driven by fear, fine. You can call it fear, but it's better described as brains. You're taking over a team that led the league in rushing for two consecutive years in no small part because you have the best running QB in the league. He also happens to have a passer rating around the top 10 in the league over the past two seasons. You're going to let him go so WHO can be your QB? WHO? It would be a colossally dumb move in your first year as an NFL head coach to dump your team's starting QB in favor of no one just so you can put your mark on the team. Who would do that?