BuffaloBob

That's fine. As long as we are compensated by draft picks on his way out the door, I'm good with it. Parker has the right to play hardball, but so do the Bills. In the end, it comes down to what makes sense for the team financially over the long-haul. The Steelers and New England have been quite successful in letting guys go when their perceived value exceeds what the team is willing to pay. The idea that somehow the Bills should just cave into Parker is ridiculous. Two can play the game. And just because Peters eventually got paid notwithstanding his rather slovenly performance does not mean that when all is said and done, Byrd will end up better off through Parker's tactics.

Could NOT have said this better myself. I totally agree with everything you said. I just read John's blurb and had mentally outlined a response that was virtually identical to yours. Thanks for saving me the time and the typing!

Ya see, this is exactly what I'm talking about! "Leverage, Parker continued, depends not about what you have, but what you're willing to do." He cites the prisoner, willing to bloody himself as a way to get leverage for a cigarette. The prisoner in this case is willing to do harm to himself to get that leverage. That is why I think it's time teams turned this around on Eugene. Teams should be willing to do some things that may not be in their best interest to break this leverage he tries to create. Let Eugene know the team is willing to bloody itself a bit to neutralize his created leverage! Might make him think twice about his own position in the future.

Ummmm, no. Sour grapes is when you are told you can't have something your way or something you wanted, and then you say, "Oh I didn't really want it that badly anyway, so I don't care." This is more possibly, "cut off your nose to spite your face." That means you are acting to your detriment to prove your point or to exact some retribution. And sure, I have no problem with that because perhaps in the long run, it does have an overall positive effect because Mr. Parker then knows that when playing the Eugene Parker playbook against me, it isn't going to get him anywhere because I will act against my best interests to be sure it hurts him and his client as well. Well< I could have certainly made him play his THREE years he still had left on his contract, which was not a lot of money, and I could have made him play special teams for it!

Well, whatever you want to say about his stats, they do not support making him the highest paid safety in the NFL.

It has nothing to do with sour grapes, at least for me. I'm glad Peters is not on this team, and that Wood is. But I didn't like how Parker handled that situation either, and if I had been the GM of the Bills, once Parker started playing from his little handbook, I would have made Peters come in EVERY year of his previously signed contract, I would have made him play for that contract no matter how out of shape he was and how crappy he played, and then I would have franchised his azzz every year I could have and THEN AND ONLY THEN, I would have extracted picks for him and booted his butt to the curb for those picks. And if that's how Parker wants to play this one out, then I would do the same here as well. I would let Parker know exactly how things would be played from here on out should these circumstances arise again.

Exaggerate much? First and foremost, the kid committed to doing the Manning camp. If he didn't want to do it, he shouldn't have agreed to do it. Following through on one's commitments is hardly equivalent to blowing the people to whom you have made such a commitment, regardless of who they are. It wasn't a situation where he was less than enthusiastic, or somehow not effective in carrying out his duties. The guy got loaded and went AWOL. Really? Is it so hard to see the concern one might have for his lack of respect, courtesy and even professionalism with regard to how he'll behave in the future? And really? Half the coaching staff of the Broncos suspended for DWI? So that would be what? 10 or more coaches given a typical coaching staff? How did I miss that? I am aware of two personnel executives suspended for DWI, but surely you couldn't be talking about them given they are actually NOT coaches and even if they were would not get anywhere near 50% of the staff in any event.

What so hard to understand. As an organization, you draft and develop a player. He wants to be able to play his first contract and then leave unfettered for brighter pastures. The team wants to at least get something for him if he's going to walk to some other team. The franchise tag simply gives the team a chance to get that done, one way or the other. Why is that so hard to understand? You could just as easily say, why not do away with the draft. Let players come in and sign with whomever they want from the outset. These players are being treated as "partners" with the league when it comes to economics. The compensation for the players is based on a percentage of revenue. Revenue is broadly defined to include almost everything the league earns. Outside of sports leagues, this rarely if ever happens. It's called quid pro quo. We restrict (at least for a while) your freedom of employment for the good of the league (competitive balance, etc.) and in exchange you get treated as if you are our partners in a business where it is the owners that are putting up the capital investment. The franchise/transition tags are simply one provision by which that freedom of employment is restricted for one player per year for each team. And the terms are pretty damn good for the players in the process. They are guaranteed top five money, if they play the salary is guaranteed, and if they are reasonable, a long term deal can be worked out that will pay them handsomely for their services. And if they are tagged consecutively, the price tag goes up considerably. Plenty of safeguards on both sides. But then there is the Eugene Parker playbook.

This has nothing to do with fandom. I don't like the way Parker operates in these situations. I think it's harmful to both sides, and I think he needs to be taught a lesson. So YES! ABSOLUTELY, cut the nose off to spite the face! I want Byrd to feel the pain his representative is causing by taking this: "I am the arbiter of your market value, and if I can't get it, I will play every little weasel trick in the book to make the team suffer" approach to negotiation. The guy needs to be made to recognize that playing these situations by the Eugene Parker playbook ain't gonna work without repercussions that his client will also suffer. There is no freakin justification for taking the position that his client should be the highest paid safety in the league. And then acting as though it's the Bills that are idiots for not seeing it that way and seeking to further extract pain from them for it. I don't care what other people say about Parker. Screw him and the horse he rode in on. Bring the pain baby!

Ummmm, no. I'd pay $6.9 million to play him on special teams. And that of course, is assuming that he continues his little strategy of holding out until the last minute. If he shows for camp, he gets to play. And after I tagged him next year, I'd trade him for whatever picks I could get for him. There is no way after that he'd get anywhere near what he is asking for a contract price.

I frankly am at the point where I would like to see the Bills punish Parker, even if it is detrimental to the Bills. I say, let him sit out training camp and come in not in football shape and not prepared to play in Pettine's defense. Let him sit on the bench and harm his future value. No deals with agreement not to use the tag. No trades to other teams this year. Let him hold himself out into obscurity. And then tag him again next year.

I just found these articles seemingly confirming the demand to be the highest paid safety: http://nfl.si.com/2013/07/15/jairus-byrd-nfls-highest-paid-safety-buffalo-bills/ http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2013/7/15/4523720/jairus-byrd-buffalo-bills-contract-impasse-unlikely-to-end-today[/url] I have seen numbers as high as $9.87 Million a year for Polamalu. No freakin way the Bills should go for that! Parker needs to have his head removed from his arse. The Bills need to play hardball on this one!

Actually, there is some inaccuracy here. First, Byrd cannot hold out, not play, and collect his franchise tag money. He has to play to be paid. Also, he has to play before some date in November or he doesn't even get credit for the season as an accrued year of service. Secondly, he was given a non-exclusive Franchise Tag, which means compensation is a 1st and a 3rd for a team to sign him to an offer sheet that the Bills don't match. Finally, the Bills could still trade him for whatever compensation they want before July 15th, although the trading team would want to be sure he would sign a long-term deal before then. So it doesn't have to be a 1st and a 3rd if done that way instead.

I agree. He leaves mother and child alone in the world, although on would presume not penniless, at least until the vics family sues for wrongful death. What a Delta Bravo this guy is.

Are you really still engaging in this exercise of mental masturbation? They also have video of him at the industrial park with a gun in his hand. They apparently have a boatload of physical and surveillance evidence placing him at the scene. Even if he bragged over the phone and you could convince someone he MIGHT be talking about that shooting in Florida, it ain't gonna be enough. I know, now you're going tell me how maybe he typed or wrote out a confession document and signed it and mailed to himself in a sealed envelope, he kept a gun powder residue sample from his hand, placed the unregistered weapon in plastic with his fingerprints carefully preserved thereon, recorded a memo to self on his cell phone which he also carefully preserved in plastic telling in vivid detail how he just shot is friend and how deeply remorseful or happy he was about it, and actually called the cops and let them know that any time they want him, he's available for questioning and he'll be happy to show up with all of his carefully preserved forensic evidence for their perusal and careful study! Hey, maybe he even recorded a video of him with his stricken friend laying on the ground which he has since posted on the Internet!

Don't know if anyone posted this yet here, but YIKES! Here's a tweet from reporter Wesley Lowery: Prosecutor: Police have #Hernandez on tape with firearm and saying "you can't trust anyone anymore" before picking up Lloyd. That doesn't sound good for Aaron. Link:http://sports.yahoo....-184503162.html

Here's a tweet from reporter Wesley Lowery: Prosecutor: Police have #Hernandez on tape with firearm and saying "you can't trust anyone anymore" before picking up Lloyd. That doesn't sound good for Aaron. Link:http://sports.yahoo....-184503162.html

Even if the vic kept the bullet fragments, it's inadmissible, so I'm not sure what he could have done that was so smart. After four months, there is going to be no ADMISSIBLE physical evidence linking Hernandez to a crime. There is ZERO chance that a DA would file a criminal case based on his civil suit at this point. He or she would be fired for being unbelievably incompetent and stupid. I do not agree with you that they could. Such a filing would likely require an indictment showing probable cause for arrest and to support the criminal charges. Any such attempt would be laughed out of a courtroom. Yeah, sure it could happen. And monkeys could fly out of my butt! You think the cops maintain evidence for a case with no investigation because the vic was uncooperative? He refused to cooperate before he even went to the hospital. They questioned him at the scene where he was found and he refused to cooperate with him. Even if they have bullet fragments, good luck finding that gun now. And if it was unregistered to Hernandez, even if they found it somewhere, how do you ascribe the shooting to him, let alone that it was in his possession at that time?

There might have been a sworn affidavit that accompanied the civil complaint, but not necessarily. In an civil trial, the vic would have to get on the stand to testify under oath but his credibility would be shredded by his past and his lack of cooperation the authorities when it happened. The lack of admissible physical evidence linking Hernandez to the shooting would seal the deal even in the civil case.

You think Hernandez still has that gun? You think the hospital still has the bullet or fragments? Even if the gun is around, you can't prove it was fired four months ago. Even if the hospital kept bullets fragments, which I assure they did not because that's not their thing, it would be inadmissible because of chain of custody issues. Dude, please. It is NOT a compelling case. It's a loser. The civil case itself is a crap shoot. The vic is hoping he can knock down a settlement because without physical evidence the likelihood he gets a verdict in his favor in a civil trial is slim to none. The only reason he gets slim in the civil case is that the burden of proof is more likely than not (better than 50-50). Beyond a reasonable doubt is better than 99%. The criminal case is dead. It ain't happening.

You have to PROVE a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an extremely high burden of proof. Even in a circumstantial case, you have to have SOME physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime. It's not enough to say, we can prove the defendant was with the vic that night, the vic was shot, the vic claims it was the defendant, even though he filed no report, wouldn't tell the police who shot him or any of the details, I rest my case! Any physical evidence linking Hernandez to this shooting is long gone, or certainly corrupted through improper handling. No DA in his/her right mind brings this case without physical evidence tying Hernandez to the crime. It's Crim Law 101!

First off, what crime are you going to charge Hernandez with? Attempted murder? Criminal negligence? Where is the gun? Where is the physical evidence that the shot was fired by Hernandez? Where's the car that he was driving with the bullet hole or the gun shot residue? You could certainly compel the vic to appear, but you would have no control over what he said. He could simply decline to answer, based on the 5th amendment. He could say it was negligence but not intentional. Moreover, the defense could then cross-examine him about his failure to report or cooperate with authorities, the lack of physical evidence and his sudden need to sue for money but not press charges to attack his credibility. Not to mention he's a convicted drug dealer himself. There is no way any competent DA is going to bring a case he or she can't win. You have to convict Hernandez of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. What physical evidence that could have connected Hernandez to a crime is long gone. It's the vic's word against Hernandez. That just ain't gonna get you a conviction in a criminal trial, especially when the credibility of the vic is going to be so suspect.

You do realize that any testimonial evidence from the civil case would be inadmissible in the criminal case given that the witness is available to give the testimony in person right? Otherwise, there is no opportunity to cross-examine the witness based on his testimony in front of the jury, right? At the very least, he would have to be available and corroborate his civi trial testimony and be available to the defense for cross-examination. There is no way a criminal case proceeds based on evidence given in the civil case without cooperation from the vic. It would be a waste of time an money and the judge would probably throw it out before it ever got to a jury.

You do realize that for a criminal case to proceed, they would have to know that the vic would be willing to testify right? There is apparently no other witness to the shooting, or if there is, the vic has not so alleged. Without the vic being willing to get on the stand and swear under oath what happened, the proceedings in the civil trial will not be enough to convict, so no DA proceeds with such a case unless the vic cooperates. The case is already corrupted as it is. There would likely be no forensic evidence available, or if there is, its handling would likely not be sound enough for a criminal case. It would be a tough case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt even if the vic is willing to cooperate now.

Absolute nonesense! It is NOT the lawyer's job to be the gate-keeper for clients. In fact, it may well turn out in any case that there was some wrong that is ultimately righted, and most times as a laywer you may not even know that until you get into discovery. If every lawyer was required to make some sort of morality judgment before taking a case, justice would often not be served. Take the shady guy accused of murder. If every lawyer decided not to represent him because of a shady past and thus a question as to his guilt, how does he get justice if he is in fact innocent of the charges. There are all kinds of services provided for people that may not be a good idea under the circumstances, but if the client wants to purchase the services, so be it. Stop making excuses for the greedy idiots who try to scam the system by hiring a lawyer. And by the way it is quite often that a lawyer ends up trying to steer the client in the most constructive direction. In the case of the lawyer who took this particular case, he is not going to take it if he doesn't think he has a chance to be successful, as it is no doubt a contingent fee. Lawyers don't like wasting their time for no compensation.