CodeMonkey Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Those restrictions were bargained for. As I said, I understand that. The entire concept makes no sense to me though, agreed to by the union or not. I guess what that shows is that the owners lawyers can kick the **** out of the players lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 it gets discussed every few pages. the guess ive taken is it helps accelerate negotiations to prevent distractions into camp, and diminishes incentive to sit out once games start. thats not to say it eliminates either issue, but generally it should atleast help. Makes sense, and it probably has worked, considering that just about every other tagged guy has signed. But, it still seems kind of like a toothless rule if you can still negotiate a long-term deal (albeit without executing it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 No, the message is "we want you here, and while we can't negotiate an extension we can pay you this season what we were offering long term, as a show of good faith." If this is done quickly then you get a motivated Byrd in camp on time and with an opportunity to show the Bills (and rest of the league) he deserves the money he seeks. Do they want him there? They moved Williams and drafted two S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 His contract was up. Why should he have any restrictions placed on him? I know that's the way it's currently done. I'm just questioning the sanity of it. Because his contract wasn't "up". His contract is subject to the rules of the CBA which state that a team has the option to extend it via the franchise tag. How is this difficult to understand? If you're questioning the sanity of things, how is it that Byrd can show up in November and get credit for playing a full contract year? If it's true that Byrd rejected 5/40m/20m then he's playing hardball. Rewarding that tactic by throwing "good faith" money at him when you're his only option is a horrible tactic. What's the message? If you hold out we'll throw money at you to make you like us? If he really turned that down, I have no sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 it seems to me that Byrd clearly wants out of Buffalo. He is not willing to negotiate at all. His mind is made up. I feel like even if they Bills made him the highest paid safety, he'd still be upset. I think it is time to move one. I think the Bills stocking up on safeties shows that they are of the same mindset as I am. My hope is that they can trade Byrd once he signs his tender. (and secondarily that these young safeties step up and play well). As far as I'm concerned, I don't want a player on the team that does not want to be here. Get him out. I know he is very good and will be hard to replace. But I think it is better for this young team to move forward with players who want to be Buffalo Bills. Byrd clearly doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Makes sense, and it probably has worked, considering that just about every other tagged guy has signed. But, it still seems kind of like a toothless rule if you can still negotiate a long-term deal (albeit without executing it). i think they realized how absurd and unenforceable the alternative would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 His contract was up. Why should he have any restrictions placed on him? I know that's the way it's currently done. I'm just questioning the sanity of it. If I enter into a contract with you to paint my house and you complete the job. Should I have the right to force you to accept another contract with me? Or if you accept a contract from another person the other person has to compensate me? In any other business but the NFL, that would be grounds for a restraint of trade lawsuit. If my Union negotiated that as part of it's bargaining agreement, then yes. Otherwise, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. it seems to me that Byrd clearly wants out of Buffalo. He is not willing to negotiate at all. His mind is made up. I feel like even if they Bills made him the highest paid safety, he'd still be upset. I think it is time to move one. I think the Bills stocking up on safeties shows that they are of the same mindset as I am. My hope is that they can trade Byrd once he signs his tender. (and secondarily that these young safeties step up and play well). As far as I'm concerned, I don't want a player on the team that does not want to be here. Get him out. I know he is very good and will be hard to replace. But I think it is better for this young team to move forward with players who want to be Buffalo Bills. Byrd clearly doesn't. You are confusing wanting to get paid with wanting out of Buffalo. He wants to get paid; here or somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 it seems to me that Byrd clearly wants out of Buffalo. He is not willing to negotiate at all. His mind is made up. I feel like even if they Bills made him the highest paid safety, he'd still be upset. I think it is time to move one. I think the Bills stocking up on safeties shows that they are of the same mindset as I am. My hope is that they can trade Byrd once he signs his tender. (and secondarily that these young safeties step up and play well). As far as I'm concerned, I don't want a player on the team that does not want to be here. Get him out. I know he is very good and will be hard to replace. But I think it is better for this young team to move forward with players who want to be Buffalo Bills. Byrd clearly doesn't. I agree with all of this. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 This is what you call cutting your nose off to spite your face. I'm not sure why people can't separate their fandom from reality in these discussions.. Eugene Parker is a fair but tough negotiaitor according to pretty much every source out there. What happened to Byrd is just 2 sides simply not agreeing to the value of his skills. I think - if I look at it objectively like Joe B discussed ad nauseum on WGR - the Bills made a mistake. But punishing an agent and lowering a player's value also does a couple other things: it spoils the water in future negotiations and, even if it lower's the player's value, it also lowers his trade value. That's lose-lose. Something good NFL teams try to avoid. I have no ill will toward Byrd. As a fan, I'm disappointed at the apparent lack of negotiations. 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Maybe not number one, but he'll certainly get a pay day that the Bills won't give him. Just look at Mario Williams... a sucker of a team gave him $100mil Why would he take it, when another team will probably give him $9-10 mil a year next season? I dont think so. Honestly. What does Byrd have to make a claim he deserves top money? His Int's? Ok well teams can go look at each one of those(18 in four years) and frankly i see Byrd as an opportunist type of FS. He usually benefited from a poor throw then being a play maker. He is nothing special in the run game. And i highly doubt teams scheme around Byrd like they did Reed. Byrd is solid, do not get me wrong. But i think this past FA period we started to see a change. Besides the Dolphins, many teams did not over spend. teams are getting wiser. My opinion. IF(and i have no clue it is true) Byrd wants out of Buffalo, why? because he wants to go to a contender probably? Well both Super Bowl teams just let their safeties walk. Edited July 16, 2013 by atlbillsfan1975 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 it seems to me that Byrd clearly wants out of Buffalo. He is not willing to negotiate at all. His mind is made up. I feel like even if they Bills made him the highest paid safety, he'd still be upset. I think it is time to move one. I think the Bills stocking up on safeties shows that they are of the same mindset as I am. My hope is that they can trade Byrd once he signs his tender. (and secondarily that these young safeties step up and play well). As far as I'm concerned, I don't want a player on the team that does not want to be here. Get him out. I know he is very good and will be hard to replace. But I think it is better for this young team to move forward with players who want to be Buffalo Bills. Byrd clearly doesn't. I think the biggest dropoff in the talent from byrd to the other safties is the big playmaking ability. otherwise, the dropoff isn't huge. There is definitely potential in the safties that we do have signed. I still would like byrd on the team. His big plays are not something just any player can do. But this defense needs more than big plays, they need to play consistent. So hopefully it was coaching that screwed us last year and pettine can turn this D around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 As I said, I understand that. The entire concept makes no sense to me though, agreed to by the union or not. I guess what that shows is that the owners lawyers can kick the **** out of the players lawyers. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Also, Hypothetically, if byrd holds out and doesn't play the first few games, and the other safties play well, that would be very Steeler like result. Letting a vet walk and plugging in someone right away to take their place. I am not saying that will be the result, but it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Because his contract wasn't "up". His contract is subject to the rules of the CBA which state that a team has the option to extend it via the franchise tag. How is this difficult to understand? If you're questioning the sanity of things, how is it that Byrd can show up in November and get credit for playing a full contract year? If he really turned that down, I have no sympathy. Does anyone remember if Peters held out until November or did he report before week 1? CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Does anyone remember if Peters held out until November or did he report before week 1? CBF From memory, he came back as early as september, but when he came back, he wasn't in shape Edit He didn't miss any games, but missed all the camps. Edited July 16, 2013 by DanInUticaTampa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Do they want him there? They moved Williams and drafted two S. If they didn't want him there why franchise him? Why state publicly you're working on a long-term deal? Of course they want him -- just not at the price Parker is asking. Perhaps it's just me, but I think offering to sweeten the one-year deal by offering the same money you offered as a part of your long-term offer shows good faith and allows both parties to take some sort of "win" away from the process. The Bills get Byrd back for a full training camp, and Byrd gets a bit more $$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 From memory, he came back as early as september, but when he came back, he wasn't in shape Edit He didn't miss any games, but missed all the camps. I believe it was literally the day before the first game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 If they didn't want him there why franchise him? Why state publicly you're working on a long-term deal? Of course they want him -- just not at the price Parker is asking. Perhaps it's just me, but I think offering to sweeten the one-year deal by offering the same money you offered as a part of your long-term offer shows good faith and allows both parties to take some sort of "win" away from the process. The Bills get Byrd back for a full training camp, and Byrd gets a bit more $$. Because it would be insane to let him walk out for nothing, especially since they decided to let Levitre walk out for nothing. For all the Parker bashing, how certain are people that all fault is on his side and there isn't a bit of sour grapes fouling the air at OBD after the Peters fiasco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I believe it was literally the day before the first game I think we'll see Byrd do that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I think we'll see Byrd do that as well. Hard to tell. Peters would have been fined if he didn't show up. Byrd won't get fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts