Byrd Skipping mandatory mini-camp

[ganesh]

There were rookies who were unsigned that were issued playbooks.

 

EJ Manuel participated in numerous practices before he finally signed. Presumably he was issued a playbook.

 

Technicalities! Technicalities!....I suppose what the rookies receive is really a partial playbook until they sign their contract.

[Niagara Bill]

Why do you think that? and it is always about the money.

Parker has always been about the money. He has shown that is his only concern...see M. Crabtree as an example. I am not saying that is bad for his client, but as a Bills fan who wants the best for the team our goals make the team approach and his approach on money only significantly different. There is no middle when you are not on the same page. I spent 30 years bargaining labor contracts. I have met "Parkers". Why do you never tell the car salesman that you love the car. Because he is about "money" and you about " the car and money" and he wins.

[dave mcbride]

 

 

I don't either. But, not leaving a dollar on the table, as is Parker's style, is just plain stupid.........How is that working out for Albert Pujols for stupidly leaving St. Louis, where he was Babe Ruth.

It doesn't strike me as wise to compare a doormat like the Bills with the second greatest franchise in MLB history ...

[uncle flap]

Thought this might be worth revisiting, via Chris Brown:

 

Here are two very interesting answers that Byrd gave me in a one-on-one interview with Buffalobills.com last December.

I asked him knowing that his father played for one NFL club his entire career, would it influence him in wanting to re-sign with the Bills (keep in mind this was before he was designated as the franchise player).

“No,” said Byrd. ”I mean he really didn’t have a chance back then. When he talked that was kind of pre-free agency and it got started right toward the end of his career so it wasn’t really something that was big back then. The game has changed a lot.”

I then asked him besides money what would play into his free agent decision making when assessing a situation.

“You’ve just got to look at where the team is headed, what’s going on with the situation,” he said. ”You’ve got to take in a lot of things. That’s something that when the time comes I have to do.”

 

Full interview here: http://www.buffalobi...7f-a9925003891c

 

I'm beginning to think Byrd probably wants to be on a legitimate contender, or at least is posturing as such in an effort to make the Bills overpay. I don't think simply making him the highest paid safety is overpaying in and of itself; the question is: By how much does he want to be the highest paid safety?

 

The "source" that says no talks are to be expected is obviously from Parker's camp, or Parker himself. This was reported by Tim Graham, who wrote a ballwashing piece on Parker in the Sunday paper a few weeks ago. This says to me that Parker is the one unwilling to negotiate. Especially when the Bills have time and time again kept a tight lid on their contract negotiations. Do I take everything that comes out of the FO at face value? Of course not, but Bills don't have anything to gain by leaking or acknowledging that negotiations are at a standstill.

 

I'm not criticizing Parker for his tactics, but for the "just pay the man" crowd, it's worth noting that an agent "publicly" refusing to negotiate is an obvious ploy to smear the FO and generate fan hostility.

 

The optimist in me sees an eleventh hour deal being struck in a front loaded contract with a lot of guaranteed money. A win-win, in my book. Both Overdorf and Parker, two hardballers, can save face by creating the appearance that a last minute deal means the other side caved.

 

The pessimist in me sees Byrd simply not wanting to stay with the Bills for any amount of money, and the real negotiations are getting the Bills adequately compensated for Byrd's departure.

Edited July 9, 2013 by uncle flap

[simpleman]

I am not a Bryd detractor. I think he is a an excellent D back. But beyond the emotional boost we give our own players, I can not see overpaying him. Searching on the Internet I tried to see how he compared to his peers at FS. The best rating I could find for him was this, at 8th.

http://www.footballnation.com/content/2012-2013-final-nfl-free-strong-safety-rankings/22622/

 

 

Statistically he was way down the list of FS. Granted you have to consider circumstances. There are the unmeasurables that add to the players value.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&statisticPositionCategory=DEFENSIVE_BACK&season=2012&seasonType=REG&experience=&tabSeq=1&qualified=true&Submit=Go

 

Yes he is talented, but do the facts show he is the best FS in the league, NO! Why make someone the highest paid FS, if they are not the best. Also I question spending so much of our very limited cap space at a player at his position. We are headed for a cap crisis next year, even though we don't have a problem this year. I can't see putting a cap hit on him of 8 mill or more a year. Not using fan emotion, but using logic and reason..

[TheMadCap]

I don't give a tin $%& if they pay him 101 million dollars. It ain't my money. I want him on my team. It's not like we are a championship caliber team like when Henry Jones was being difficult in '91...

[Dorkington]

PFT says we're not even planning on talking to him before the deadline?! That makes no sense. His agent, who helped Peters out of town, appears to be doing the same thing all over again. What should we trade him for?

 

http://profootballta...ls-jairus-byrd/

 

Sounds like we have a number we're willing to go up to, probably nothing against Byrd, but more along the lines of what our cap looks like in the coming years. Shame, I like Byrd, but I doubt he'll be a Bill much longer.

[BillsfanAlberta]

I like Bryd a lot, not sure he is the best safety in the NFL at least top ten. Realistically now, I think the chance of him staying on the Bills is becoming thinner and thinner,I think the Bills might have to over pay him to stay I'm not sure the Bills are willing to do that

[Nanker]

I wonder what Pettine, Donnie Hendrrson, and Samson Brown think of Byrd's talent and how he fits in their scheme. I wonder how much their evaluation factors into The Bills' price that they're willing to pay.

 

Seems to me that Pettine walked away from a similar situation where the team's new GM shipped a highly talented DB out of town. I wonder what his thoughts are on the subject. Will not having Byrd here affect his chance to make a mark as a new DC in the NFL? Yes, I know he was a DC in NY last year, but Curtis Modkins was the OC here for the past three years too folks.

He's been a company soldier since his hiring and I'd expect nothing less. But I'm sure he has an opinion on Byrd and the negotiation's trajectory.

[All_Pro_Bills]

Last time Parker played hardball with the Bills he steamrollered them into moving Peters to the Eagles which resulted in a lucrative contract deal for his client and the Bills getting a #1 in return. Whether or not it was all just business or not I suspect there were some hard feeling inside OBD over the transaction and the events that led to it.

 

I'd like to see Bryd in the starting line up on opening day but it appears Parker is playing the same hand again looking to force the Bills to substantially raise their offer or in the event of not reaching an agreement move his client to another team that is willing to meet his asking price. I'm not taking sides but IMO, Parker is overplaying his hand this time for a couple reasons, one from a performance perspective and the other business.

 

1) With or without Byrd the Bills aren't expected to make much noise in the AFC this year. With the expectation of a losing and rebuilding season what difference will it make in the win or loss column if Byrd is playing or not? It isn't like him being absent is going to mean making or missing the playoffs. So if the agent advises his client to sit then let him sit out the season or sign the offer. When the checks stop coming then perspective may change. From a win/loss standpoint the team should be under no pressure to cave in and sign a deal that might be less than ideal.

 

2) This is for all intents and purposes a new regime, Brandon, Whaley, and Marrone. And the first thing you don't want to do is cave in to pressure the first time up to the plate with an agent playing hardball. You need to make the point that you're not going to be pushed around. If you cave in then every agent is going to come after you and if holding the line results in some short term sacrifice to get the point across that you are not going to be bullied and pushed around then so be it.

[mitchmurraydowntown]

Byrd just needs to sign his tender & get on the same page, top 4 pay at your position is a pretty good payday.

[eball]

I admittedly didn't search this thread, but I'd really like to hear from some of the more vocal "critical" voices around here as to what they think the Bills should do. I'm talking about folks like BillsVet or JohnC -- put your opinion out there before something happens so we know where you stand. It's always easier to criticize the decision after the fact.

 

-- Should the Bills pay Byrd "market value" (as determined by recent S contracts) and extend him long term? Why or why not?

 

I'll be interested in any responses. This is going to be Whaley's first "big" decision of his tenure as GM, and will likely shape how many here view him going forward.

[Dorkington]

Do we know what the Bills are currently offering him?

[thebandit27]

I wonder what Pettine, Donnie Hendrrson, and Samson Brown think of Byrd's talent and how he fits in their scheme. I wonder how much their evaluation factors into The Bills' price that they're willing to pay.

 

Seems to me that Pettine walked away from a similar situation where the team's new GM shipped a highly talented DB out of town. I wonder what his thoughts are on the subject. Will not having Byrd here affect his chance to make a mark as a new DC in the NFL? Yes, I know he was a DC in NY last year, but Curtis Modkins was the OC here for the past three years too folks.

He's been a company soldier since his hiring and I'd expect nothing less. But I'm sure he has an opinion on Byrd and the negotiation's trajectory.

 

My opinion is that the Revis and Byrd situations are starkly different. Revis is the game's best corner (when he's not facing Stevie that is), and was a key piece of a defense that got the Jets to the AFC Championship game twice. Byrd is a top 5-10 FS and a cog in the wheel that doesn't have the same level of impact; you'll never see Byrd taking the oppositions #1 receiving threat out of the game.

 

As for Pettine, I don't think he can afford to care. To do his job, he simply has to make due with the talent he's given. Would he prefer to have Byrd? I'm sure. Is it keeping him awake at night? I doubt it.

 

Just my 1 cent.

 

Last time Parker played hardball with the Bills he steamrollered them into moving Peters to the Eagles which resulted in a lucrative contract deal for his client and the Bills getting a #1 in return. Whether or not it was all just business or not I suspect there were some hard feeling inside OBD over the transaction and the events that led to it.

 

I'd like to see Bryd in the starting line up on opening day but it appears Parker is playing the same hand again looking to force the Bills to substantially raise their offer or in the event of not reaching an agreement move his client to another team that is willing to meet his asking price. I'm not taking sides but IMO, Parker is overplaying his hand this time for a couple reasons, one from a performance perspective and the other business.

 

1) With or without Byrd the Bills aren't expected to make much noise in the AFC this year. With the expectation of a losing and rebuilding season what difference will it make in the win or loss column if Byrd is playing or not? It isn't like him being absent is going to mean making or missing the playoffs. So if the agent advises his client to sit then let him sit out the season or sign the offer. When the checks stop coming then perspective may change. From a win/loss standpoint the team should be under no pressure to cave in and sign a deal that might be less than ideal.

 

2) This is for all intents and purposes a new regime, Brandon, Whaley, and Marrone. And the first thing you don't want to do is cave in to pressure the first time up to the plate with an agent playing hardball. You need to make the point that you're not going to be pushed around. If you cave in then every agent is going to come after you and if holding the line results in some short term sacrifice to get the point across that you are not going to be bullied and pushed around then so be it.

 

To be fair, Peters signed after training camp and before the season. He wasn't traded until next off-season, when Buffalo decided they didn't want to give him top 3 OT money. Perhaps I'm simply taking issue with the semantics, but I'd hardly call that "steamrolling" the team. Eventually, the player reported and played.

 

Of course, the difference there was that Peters was under contract; Byrd is not. Regardless, I suspect it will play out the same way for this season: Byrd will eventually sign and report prior to the start of week 1. I also suspect that, prior to that happening, one side will gain some leverage over the other, whether it's Byrd's side (via injuries in camp) or the team (via other players like one of the Williamses stepping up in the pre-season).

 

Do we know what the Bills are currently offering him?

 

No, but Wawrow was in here a few weeks back intimating that the annual dollar amount was below the value of the tag at last point of discussion.

[Mr. WEO]

I admittedly didn't search this thread, but I'd really like to hear from some of the more vocal "critical" voices around here as to what they think the Bills should do. I'm talking about folks like BillsVet or JohnC -- put your opinion out there before something happens so we know where you stand. It's always easier to criticize the decision after the fact.

 

-- Should the Bills pay Byrd "market value" (as determined by recent S contracts) and extend him long term? Why or why not?

 

I'll be interested in any responses. This is going to be Whaley's first "big" decision of his tenure as GM, and will likely shape how many here view him going forward.

 

He's been franchised. Let him sit out if he wants to not get paid. Test his resolve. See what you have on the bench.

 

This is too easy.

[eball]

Another thought on this situation, specifically as it relates to Eugene Parker.

 

While Parker is bashed a lot it's clear to see he follows a very simple, straightforward philosophy when it comes to negotiating contracts. He does his research, determines what he believes fair market value is for the player, gets the player's approval to take that position, and then remains firm.

 

I presume he is willing to listen to a team's opposing viewpoint regarding value, but unless those arguments are particularly compelling you find yourself at an impasse. That appears (from an outsider's perspective) to be what has happened with Byrd, and one can also assume the difference in valuation is significant enough we shouldn't expect to see a "split the difference" sort of resolution.

 

My very uninformed opinion is that Byrd will sign the tender towards the end of training camp on the condition the Bills agree not to franchise him next year.

[Dorkington]

No, but Wawrow was in here a few weeks back intimating that the annual dollar amount was below the value of the tag at last point of discussion.

 

Ouch.

[NoSaint]

Another thought on this situation, specifically as it relates to Eugene Parker.

 

While Parker is bashed a lot it's clear to see he follows a very simple, straightforward philosophy when it comes to negotiating contracts. He does his research, determines what he believes fair market value is for the player, gets the player's approval to take that position, and then remains firm.

 

I presume he is willing to listen to a team's opposing viewpoint regarding value, but unless those arguments are particularly compelling you find yourself at an impasse. That appears (from an outsider's perspective) to be what has happened with Byrd, and one can also assume the difference in valuation is significant enough we shouldn't expect to see a "split the difference" sort of resolution.

 

My very uninformed opinion is that Byrd will sign the tender towards the end of training camp on the condition the Bills agree not to franchise him next year.

 

I agree with the first half - and as long as hes doing so accurately, cannot fault him for doing so. Whether his market value matches his value to the bills may be a different discussion, and one that i think has earned parker quite the bad reputation.... but really, if a player is worth more than a team is willing to pay, i cant fault the player (and agent) seeking to get that payment. as a fan its lame, but on a purely practical business level - we would all seek the compensation package that best matches our priorities and value.

 

the last bit - i dont think parker or byrd are terribly worried about playing under an escalated tag if this drags to next year. it sounds like the two year total wouldnt be far off what they are looking for in the first two years of a contract anyway.

[PromoTheRobot]

Thought this might be worth revisiting, via Chris Brown:

 

 

 

Full interview here: http://www.buffalobi...7f-a9925003891c

 

I'm beginning to think Byrd probably wants to be on a legitimate contender, or at least is posturing as such in an effort to make the Bills overpay. I don't think simply making him the highest paid safety is overpaying in and of itself; the question is: By how much does he want to be the highest paid safety?

 

The "source" that says no talks are to be expected is obviously from Parker's camp, or Parker himself. This was reported by Tim Graham, who wrote a ballwashing piece on Parker in the Sunday paper a few weeks ago. This says to me that Parker is the one unwilling to negotiate. Especially when the Bills have time and time again kept a tight lid on their contract negotiations. Do I take everything that comes out of the FO at face value? Of course not, but Bills don't have anything to gain by leaking or acknowledging that negotiations are at a standstill.

 

I'm not criticizing Parker for his tactics, but for the "just pay the man" crowd, it's worth noting that by an agent "publicly" refusing to negotiate is an obvious ploy to smear the FO and generate fan hostility.

 

The optimist in me sees an eleventh hour deal being struck in a front loaded contract with a lot of guaranteed money. A win-win, in my book. Both Overdorf and Parker, two hardballers, can save face by creating the appearance that a last minute deal means the other side caved.

 

The pessimist in me sees Byrd simply not wanting to stay with the Bills for any amount of money, and the real negotiations are getting the Bills adequately compensated for Byrd's departure.

Especially when you consider how much contempt the BN has for the Bills (and the Sabres, for that matter.) If you are looking for a stooge to help you put pressure on a franchise why not call a BN reporter?

 

PTR

[Nanker]

My understanding of Parker's position is that Byrd was "under paid" during his rookie contract and he wants enough money now to compensate Byrd for being "under paid" for those years too in addition to getting top dog dollars for his next years.