BillsWatch Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Technically, another team could sign him now, but would cost them 2 first round picks. Alternatively, they could do a sign and trade for different compensation. IMO, the Bills best move at this point is to wait, because they have all the leverage. As Warren Sapp said, I would like to see Byrd get out there and play to earn his contract next year. Agree to the tender with a condition that he cannot be tagged next year. That's what's best for both. No not best to agree to any condition of not being tagged next year. That would hurt Bills in future negotiations. And Byrd's tag is $6,916,000 not $8.4 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted July 20, 2013 Author Share Posted July 20, 2013 No not best to agree to any condition of not being tagged next year. That would hurt Bills in future negotiations. And Byrd's tag is $6,916,000 not $8.4 million. $8.4 is second tag year money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 No way should the Bills agree not to tag him. Parker loves hardball, so he should get hardball............You knew Clements was gone as soon as that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 This probably ends like the situation with Mike Wallace at Pittsburgh last seaons when he signed a big deal with Miami this spring. Wallace and Bryd's situations are different. Mike Wallace signed with Miami during this offseason as an Unrestricted Free Agent (UFA). he was not under any team control and Pittsburgh did NOT receive any compensation. The previous season (2012) The Steelers placed a first round tender on Wallace as a restricted free agent. Pit would have been able to match any offer, which he did not get, or receive draft pick compensation. He completed the season under that tender, earning the fourth year needed to reach unrestricted free agent status, and was on the open market for any team. Byrd is under Bills team control for 2013 by virtue of the NON-EXCLUSIVE franchise tag. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the Bills have a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive TWO first-round draft picks as compensation. they can keep him under team control for 2 additional seasons if they so choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Agreeing to not franchise Byrd again is insanity. Why make that same mistake again? Levy was too nice and thought he could trust Clements and the Bills took it in the pooper as a result. Byrd can't afford to waste two prime years. Once he and Parker realize the Bills aren't budging he will sign something. Either he plays in 2013 and signs a long term deal or we do a sign-n-trade. The last thing the Bills should do know is cave in any way. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Interesting tweet I just read by Matt Butler (@JMatty_Ice): "Fred Jackson told us he's been in contact with Byrd and he wants to return to the team long term. Just a matter of working out the contract." Followed that with: "Both Dareus and FJ spoke highly of Byrd, calling him a leader on and off the field and want him to re-sign after playing w/ franchise tag." Who is Matt Butler? No idea. But it's some interesting stuff. The posters who say "Byrd wants out of here" may need to rethink matters. Again, I simply think Parker overplayed his hand. There's nothing "ugly" here and I bet Byrd comes to camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Interesting tweet I just read by Matt Butler (@JMatty_Ice): "Fred Jackson told us he's been in contact with Byrd and he wants to return to the team long term. Just a matter of working out the contract." Followed that with: "Both Dareus and FJ spoke highly of Byrd, calling him a leader on and off the field and want him to re-sign after playing w/ franchise tag." Who is Matt Butler? No idea. But it's some interesting stuff. The posters who say "Byrd wants out of here" may need to rethink matters. Again, I simply think Parker overplayed his hand. There's nothing "ugly" here and I bet Byrd comes to camp. If he comes to camp, plays lights out during the season, and doesn't demand to be the highest-paid safety again, all will be forgiven. But talk is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 If he comes to camp, plays lights out during the season, and doesn't demand to be the highest-paid safety again, all will be forgiven. But talk is cheap. this----^ But I'd like to add, if Byrd is going to come to camp, why not just sign his tag and come in now? Get it over with? What's the holdup? Still more money than the almost $7m he'll make this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 this----^ But I'd like to add, if Byrd is going to come to camp, why not just sign his tag and come in now? Get it over with? What's the holdup? Still more money than the almost $7m he'll make this year? No idea. Which is why I said talk is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 No idea. Which is why I said talk is cheap. youll have to forgive me. I just woke up after being the best man at a wedding (wasted) and I swear I was just making a comment based off what another person wrote as well. I agree with you Doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I have a question: If a player can't sign a long term deal at this point, why can they sign a deal that says a team won't tag them a second time? Can't Byrd sign his tender and then sign another deal that says he and the Bills will sign a long-term deal after? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I have a question: If a player can't sign a long term deal at this point, why can they sign a deal that says a team won't tag them a second time? Can't Byrd sign his tender and then sign another deal that says he and the Bills will sign a long-term deal after? PTR that Wouk be logical. But we live in a land of idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Interesting tweet I just read by Matt Butler (@JMatty_Ice): "Fred Jackson told us he's been in contact with Byrd and he wants to return to the team long term. Just a matter of working out the contract." Followed that with: "Both Dareus and FJ spoke highly of Byrd, calling him a leader on and off the field and want him to re-sign after playing w/ franchise tag." Who is Matt Butler? No idea. But it's some interesting stuff. The posters who say "Byrd wants out of here" may need to rethink matters. Again, I simply think Parker overplayed his hand. There's nothing "ugly" here and I bet Byrd comes to camp. the option of signing a long term contract is now gone until after the 2013 season is over. the next delay in signing the 1 year tag will be Parker insisting that as a condition of signing the 1 year deal, the Bills agree to NOT use the franchise tag on Byrd next year. which the Bills will NOT agree to. this stand off will probably mean Bryd does not attend camp, while they continue to negotiate. "IF" Byrd really does eventually want to sign long term with Buffalo, then chances are good he will sign by opening day, ONLY IF HE TELLS HIS AGENT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. if he sits back and lets Parker do his thing, then this goes past opening day. I have a question: If a player can't sign a long term deal at this point, why can they sign a deal that says a team won't tag them a second time? Can't Byrd sign his tender and then sign another deal that says he and the Bills will sign a long-term deal after? PTR After July 15, the franchise player can sign only a one-year deal with his current team. It can be for more than the franchise tender, and it can include other terms, like playing-time or performance triggers that would prevent the tag from being used again. But the duration can be no more than one year. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/10-things-to-know-about-the-franchise-tag/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 the option of signing a long term contract is now gone until after the 2013 season is over. the next delay in signing the 1 year tag will be Parker insisting that as a condition of signing the 1 year deal, the Bills agree to NOT use the franchise tag on Byrd next year. which the Bills will NOT agree to. this stand off will probably mean Bryd does not attend camp, while they continue to negotiate. "IF" Byrd really does eventually want to sign long term with Buffalo, then chances are good he will sign by opening day, ONLY IF HE TELLS HIS AGENT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. if he sits back and lets Parker do his thing, then this goes past opening day. as much as believe Parker will have Byrd sit out all of camp, I do not... For one minute, believe Parker will have him miss any game checks. It'll still be too late at that point IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) as much as believe Parker will have Byrd sit out all of camp, I do not... For one minute, believe Parker will have him miss any game checks. It'll still be too late at that point IMO if their intention is to stay with Buffalo, then I agree. if his intention is to get out of Buffalo, then it goes past week 1. Edited July 20, 2013 by papazoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) if their intention is to stay with Buffalo, then I agree. if his intention is to get out of Buffalo, then it goes past week 1. this I would agree with Edited July 20, 2013 by mrags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 You guys have really clarified this for me. I had no idea how the inner sanctum does business in regard to tags and contracts. Thanks especially Papazoid . As painful as this event is for me to watch , it is very interesting seeing the dynamics and wondering how it will unfold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paupmvp1995 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I think the majority of u on here are living in some fantasy land about Byrd coming in and being a contributing player this season. I will preface that remark w this: If Byrd shows up on time for training camp signing the Franchise tag, than he obviously should be a contributing force on the team going forward. That would be a great scenario. However, I see the odds of that happening as being quite small. If he holds out, he becomes a big distraction to the team moving forward. Marrone and Whaley will not allow that to happen. I believe if the season is approaching and Byrd is not signed he is gone. If he were to sign right before the season starts, he will be traded for whatever we can get. NO WAY the team lets Byrd and Parker dictate how this plays out if he is not on time for training camp. New regime. Management needs to lay the hammer down. Get rid of guys who don't want to be here. (a lot of you will say, what proof do you have that he doesn't want to play here? Wake the F up and connect the dots) No reason that the Williams boys, Meeks and Searcy can not become solid NFL safeties w the right coaching and scheme. And if we are lacking at the position w veteran leadership as training camp progresses, we can always pick up a veteran free agent. Plenty are always available. THAT is most likely how this is all going to play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) I have a question: If a player can't sign a long term deal at this point, why can they sign a deal that says a team won't tag them a second time? Can't Byrd sign his tender and then sign another deal that says he and the Bills will sign a long-term deal after? PTR I think this attempt at a work-around would be addressed by the league in the form of an unfavorable ruling and/or a fine. It would be an obvious attempt to circumvent the July 15th rule and I doubt the NFL would tolerate that. JMO. Edited July 20, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I wish the league would just offer an arbitration process to navigate players through the early years of free agency, suck it up and concede to guaranteed contracts, and 90% of these battles would be over. Baseball never has holdouts because the players know where they stand and they know they won't be punished for taking care of themselves in times of injury. The crux of this conflict is that a player who plays a vicious sport knows that he is one injury away from it being all over. The team knows that it does not want to be on the hook in that same scenario and is trying to create cost control. Arbitration creates cost control without pitting team and player against one another in a stalemate. The ruling is decided, and at the end of the day an unhappy player can offer his services to another team next year. Guaranteed contracts mean that teams can't play these stupid shell games with contracts that aren't worth the paper they're written on, and crazy bonus money. I really don't think any MORE money would get wasted than currently does. What will happen is that the absurd deals simply won't be front-loaded with guaranteed money and backloaded with money the player will never see. You never see holdouts in baseball because the conditions that create them don't exist. This could also have the favorable side-effect of rationing out player money so that they don't get these lump-sum bonuses, and they have time to more carefully plan their financial futures. Can someone smarter than me explain why this wouldn't work, other than blindness caused by the greed of the union and the greed of the owners? I know baseball's player union is stronger, so perhaps this is part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts