Byrd Skipping mandatory mini-camp

[PromoTheRobot]

Not if Overdorf lurks behind the shadows & the nominal GM is still castrated.

 

Emporer Overdorf.

 

PTR

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

If I was the Bills I would make this offer.

 

You are unwilling to move from your position that your client should be the highest paid safety in the league and we are unwilling to meet that demand. So we are at an impasse. Therefore, you have the teams permission to seek a trade with one of the other 31 teams in the league but under specific conditions. We will trade your client to another team, and expect compensation of a 1st round draft choice in return, but the contract with that other team must make your client the highest paid safety in the league. And the contact must be structured and administered in what is considered standard and normal terms. If after 2 weeks you are not able to work such a deal with another team then you agree to come back to the bargaining table and act in good faith to reach and agreement that is acceptable and fair to both parties. That will settle the value argument and move towards some resolution.

 

Remeber, Byrd is a free agent right now and Parker has every right to negotiate with the other 31 teams right now, only with an extra third rounder thrown into the equation.For arguments sake, lets say the Bills were willing to take only the 1st.

 

Te only problem with this is you are forgetting the value of the #1 pick. In theory, that pick should provide great play at minimal relative cost for 4 years. So a team that acquires Bird at compensation to highest safety in league is paying way more than Tampa has invested in Goldson for example, or Pitt in Troy and SD on Weddle.....or even Buffalo would have in Byrd.

 

Thats why players hate the tag and you see zero teams make offers on tagged players, it is cost prohibitive for a new team to make the offer.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Remeber, Byrd is a free agent right now and Parker has every right to negotiate with the other 31 teams right now, only with an extra third rounder thrown into the equation.For arguments sake, lets say the Bills were willing to take only the 1st.

 

Te only problem with this is you are forgetting the value of the #1 pick. In theory, that pick should provide great play at minimal relative cost for 4 years. So a team that acquires Bird at compensation to highest safety in league is paying way more than Tampa has invested in Goldson for example, or Pitt in Troy and SD on Weddle.....or even Buffalo would have in Byrd.

 

Thats why players hate the tag and you see zero teams make offers on tagged players, it is cost prohibitive for a new team to make the offer.

 

That's the point though.

 

Make it abundantly clear what other teams are willing to give up for Byrd so that Parker comes back to the negotiating table with the Bills with a realistic level of expectation, and knowing full well exactly how much leverage he really has (not much).

[Nanker]

He's already done his due diligence wrt Byrd's contract value to the other teams in the league. I think he can't get a deal with another team unless he gets The Bills to cave on the compensation issue. Ideally he wants Byrd unencumbered so he can make a clean deal with the new team. The Bills are crazy to take anything less than a #1 for him.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

He's already done his due diligence wrt Byrd's contract value to the other teams in the league. I think he can't get a deal with another team unless he gets The Bills to cave on the compensation issue. Ideally he wants Byrd unencumbered so he can make a clean deal with the new team. The Bills are crazy to take anything less than a #1 for him.

 

You're right because Parker already has a very good idea of what Byrd is really worth.

 

And like any agent, that won't stop him from fabricating arguments that Byrd is worth more than his actual value.

[26CornerBlitz]

7/18 AP sports writer John Wawrow on Jairus Byrd and the Bills: http://www.wgr550.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=6458737

[Doc]

7/18 AP sports writer John Wawrow on Jairus Byrd and the Bills: http://www.wgr550.co...ntentId=6458737

Why did they tag him? Really John?

[mitchmurraydowntown]

Expectations were set way too high in the Byrd camp, talk about an overplay.

[JohnC]

Why did they tag him? Really John?

 

What in the interview do you disagree with? Byrd is seeking a fair-market contract. He would be a fool not to. What he is seeking and the amount paid on the restricted deal (on an annual basis) are not that far off. For a team with a dearth of talent and a near generational losing record isn't it better to keep talent than let it walk? There is no doubt that the organization is exercising the levearge that it has. But to what end? Is using that leverage going to make the Bills a better team this year or next? Odds are that he won't return back to the team until the season starts. Will the defense be better with his late arrival? I doubt it.

 

The Bills have the cap room and they have roster flexibility that could give them even more cap space. Playing management hardball just because you have the ability to do it is not going to help this losing franchise win more games.

[Best Player Available]

7/18 AP sports writer John Wawrow on Jairus Byrd and the Bills: http://www.wgr550.co...ntentId=6458737

Thanks for posting that. Makes one wonder what if any change in philosophy has taken place at OBD.

[PromoTheRobot]

Why did they tag him? Really John?

Wow, John. Am I hearing his point correctly? The Bills should have just let Byrd walk because they are unwilling to bend over for Parker?? This is a negotiation. Is JW's point the Bills should pay everyone what they want? Sounds like he is shilling for Parker.

 

Unless JW has some incredible inside skinny he is making some Grand Canyon scale leaps in his argument. Did it ever occur to him that Parker/Byrd may be overplaying their hand?

 

PTR

Edited July 18, 2013 by PromoTheRobot

[Nanker]

Byrd is a "nice to have" but not at any price.

I do not believe he alone will make the secondary that much better. I think Pettine's coaching will have more impact on the D than any single player.

 

I would like Byrd on the roster long term, but I can't get worked up thinking that we'll never see the playoffs again if he isn't signed.

[H2o]

Byrd is a "nice to have" but not at any price.

I do not believe he alone will make the secondary that much better. I think Pettine's coaching will have more impact on the D than any single player.

 

I would like Byrd on the roster long term, but I can't get worked up thinking that we'll never see the playoffs again if he isn't signed.

 

[eball]

What in the interview do you disagree with? Byrd is seeking a fair-market contract. He would be a fool not to. What he is seeking and the amount paid on the restricted deal (on an annual basis) are not that far off. For a team with a dearth of talent and a near generational losing record isn't it better to keep talent than let it walk? There is no doubt that the organization is exercising the levearge that it has. But to what end? Is using that leverage going to make the Bills a better team this year or next? Odds are that he won't return back to the team until the season starts. Will the defense be better with his late arrival? I doubt it.

 

The Bills have the cap room and they have roster flexibility that could give them even more cap space. Playing management hardball just because you have the ability to do it is not going to help this losing franchise win more games.

 

JohnC, even if Byrd reports on the last day before the season starts, his presence on the roster makes the Bills' secondary better at some point this season. People act as though the franchise tag is a "punishment" to players -- it's not. They get a guaranteed payday at the top of their profession, and they are still free to negotiate with whomever they choose. I absolutely support the Bills' decision to make sure they get something in return for Byrd if he wants to leave. The salary they'll pay this year is not at all restrictive with respect to anything else they want to do.

[Delete This Account]

Wow, John. Am I hearing his point correctly? The Bills should have just let Byrd walk because they are unwilling to bend over for Parker?? This is a negotiation. Is JW's point the Bills should pay everyone what they want? Sounds like he is shilling for Parker.

 

Unless JW has some incredible inside skinny he is making some Grand Canyon scale leaps in his argument. Did it ever occur to him that Parker/Byrd may be overplaying their hand?

 

PTR

 

nope, not shilling for anyone. Parker's reputation is that he'll wait things out upon expecting what he believes is fair value for his client. the Bills know this -- or should have going in. there are ways to negotiate around the edges here, but Parker's establishes a number is generally sticks with it.

the Bills do not set the market. the market sets the market. and Parker's approach to all negotiations involves establishing a number his client would get in free agency. that the Bills failed to allow Byrd to test free agency is a moot point. it's what Parker believes Byrd would've received is what helps establish his client's value in his mind.

 

argue it however you want. that is Parker's approach.

the Bills once again thought they could bluff Parker in this instance. not sure when that's ever been a success, but the Bills failed in this instance once again.

 

and for those who might suggest Byrd is hurting his own value, well, he's actually not.

there is the case of Nate Clements, who was tagged by the Bills and still got his big contract the following year.

you say, well, Clements at least signed his tag in May.

ok, then, there's the case of Jason Peters who was an offseason no-show until two days before the season opener, which he wound up missing. Peters still got his money -- money the Bills were unwilling to pay -- despite all that.

 

teams will spend and over-spend for talent. Parker knows this. the Bills seem to continue to believe that they can get a pass.

instead, what they've gotten is the right to retain a solid player who will not be entirely ready for the start of the season.

 

it's like the Seinfeld episode where the car rental company screws up his rental.

"anyone can take a reservation (or in this case tag a player), the key is having the car available (or in this case, following through by signing the player to a long-term deal)." the bills did the first and failed on the second.

 

and to tag him once again does very little but to expose the Bills as being the same old franchise around the league, making it even more difficult to attract free agents, forcing the team then to overpay for them.

 

in my opinion, if the Bills were unwilling to play ball with Parker, fully knowing his M.O., then why did they tag him?

 

-- out of spite?

-- out of naivety?

-- out of a ploy to show the fans they are intent on keeping their own players?

 

if Parker/Byrd can be accused of over-playing their hand, then so can the Bills, because they're certainly not sitting with pocket aces here. it's a stalemate hurting both sides.

 

 

Why did they tag him? Really John?

 

well, what has it gotten the Bills so far?

and there seems to be no indication it will get them anything more than a player playing under a $6.9 million tag who won't likely be ready for the season.

 

What in the interview do you disagree with? Byrd is seeking a fair-market contract. He would be a fool not to. What he is seeking and the amount paid on the restricted deal (on an annual basis) are not that far off. For a team with a dearth of talent and a near generational losing record isn't it better to keep talent than let it walk? There is no doubt that the organization is exercising the levearge that it has. But to what end? Is using that leverage going to make the Bills a better team this year or next? Odds are that he won't return back to the team until the season starts. Will the defense be better with his late arrival? I doubt it.

 

The Bills have the cap room and they have roster flexibility that could give them even more cap space. Playing management hardball just because you have the ability to do it is not going to help this losing franchise win more games.

 

my point exactly.

 

jw

Edited July 18, 2013 by john wawrow

[26CornerBlitz]

nope, not shilling for anyone. Parker's reputation is that he'll wait things out upon expecting what he believes is fair value for his client. the Bills know this -- or should have going in. there are ways to negotiate around the edges here, but Parker's establishes a number is generally sticks with it.

the Bills do not set the market. the market sets the market. and Parker's approach to all negotiations involves establishing a number his client would get in free agency. that the Bills failed to allow Byrd to test free agency is a moot point. it's what Parker believes Byrd would've received is what helps establish his client's value in his mind.

 

argue it however you want. that is Parker's approach.

the Bills once again thought they could bluff Parker in this instance. not sure when that's ever been a success, but the Bills failed in this instance once again.

 

and for those who might suggest Byrd is hurting his own value, well, he's actually not.

there is the case of Nate Clements, who was tagged by the Bills and still got his big contract the following year.

you say, well, Clements at least signed his tag in May.

ok, then, there's the case of Jason Peters who was an offseason no-show until two days before the season opener, which he wound up missing. Peters still got his money -- money the Bills were unwilling to pay -- despite all that.

 

teams will spend and over-spend for talent. Parker knows this. the Bills seem to continue to believe that they can get a pass.

instead, what they've gotten is the right to retain a solid player who will not be entirely ready for the start of the season.

 

it's like the Seinfeld episode where the car rental company screws up his rental.

"anyone can take a reservation (or in this case tag a player), the key is having the car available (or in this case, following through by signing the player to a long-term deal)." the bills did the first and failed on the second.

 

and to tag him once again does very little but to expose the Bills as being the same old franchise around the league, making it even more difficult to attract free agents, forcing the team then to overpay for them.

 

in my opinion, if the Bills were unwilling to play ball with Parker, fully knowing his M.O., then why did they tag him?

 

-- out of spite?

-- out of naivety?

-- out of a ploy to show the fans they are intent on keeping their own players?

 

if Parker/Byrd can be accused of over-playing their hand, then so can the Bills, because they're certainly not sitting with pocket aces here. it's a stalemate hurting both sides.

 

 

 

 

well, what has it gotten the Bills so far?

and there seems to be no indication it will get them anything more than a player playing under a $6.9 million tag who won't likely be ready for the season.

 

 

 

my point exactly.

 

jw

 

Like you suggested in the interview, I believe the Bills should have started and completed negotiations for an extension before his rookie deal expired.

[thebandit27]

nope, not shilling for anyone. Parker's reputation is that he'll wait things out upon expecting what he believes is fair value for his client. the Bills know this -- or should have going in. there are ways to negotiate around the edges here, but Parker's establishes a number is generally sticks with it.

the Bills do not set the market. the market sets the market. and Parker's approach to all negotiations involves establishing a number his client would get in free agency. that the Bills failed to allow Byrd to test free agency is a moot point. it's what Parker believes Byrd would've received is what helps establish his client's value in his mind.

 

argue it however you want. that is Parker's approach.

the Bills once again thought they could bluff Parker in this instance. not sure when that's ever been a success, but the Bills failed in this instance once again.

 

and for those who might suggest Byrd is hurting his own value, well, he's actually not.

there is the case of Nate Clements, who was tagged by the Bills and still got his big contract the following year.

you say, well, Clements at least signed his tag in May.

ok, then, there's the case of Jason Peters who was an offseason no-show until two days before the season opener, which he wound up missing. Peters still got his money -- money the Bills were unwilling to pay -- despite all that.

 

teams will spend and over-spend for talent. Parker knows this. the Bills seem to continue to believe that they can get a pass.

instead, what they've gotten is the right to retain a solid player who will not be entirely ready for the start of the season.

 

it's like the Seinfeld episode where the car rental company screws up his rental.

"anyone can take a reservation (or in this case tag a player), the key is having the car available (or in this case, following through by signing the player to a long-term deal)." the bills did the first and failed on the second.

 

and to tag him once again does very little but to expose the Bills as being the same old franchise around the league, making it even more difficult to attract free agents, forcing the team then to overpay for them.

 

in my opinion, if the Bills were unwilling to play ball with Parker, fully knowing his M.O., then why did they tag him?

 

-- out of spite?

-- out of naivety?

-- out of a ploy to show the fans they are intent on keeping their own players?

 

if Parker/Byrd can be accused of over-playing their hand, then so can the Bills, because they're certainly not sitting with pocket aces here. it's a stalemate hurting both sides.

 

 

So, in your opinion, the Bills should make a "solid player" the highest paid safety in the history of the league? And not doing so is proof that nothing at 1 Bills Drive has changed?

 

Consider me in EXTREME disagreement with both of those statements.

 

Byrd is not worth making the highest paid safety in NFL history (which, if he wants a contract that makes him the highest paid in the NFL today, is exactly what he's asking for). So in that case, I agree with the Bills. Tag him, see what the other guys on the roster can do in Pettine's defense, and perhaps tag him again next year.

 

What, exactly, is the issue here?

 

And to answer your question, the Bills tagged Byrd to retain his rights for this year. Why wouldn't they do that? Are you saying that he's not worth keeping at $6.9M on a 1-year deal? If that's the case, how can you condone paying him $9M/year or more?

 

The whole take is confounding to me...

 

EDIT: I'd also like to add that I don't subscribe to the idea that the tagging of Byrd sends a bad message to free agents around the league. Teams use the tag every single year, and many of those players don't get long-term deals. In this year alone, I believe only 1 of 10 players got one; I highly doubt that free agents will pick the Bills out of those 9 teams that didn't negotiate long-term deals as the one team to hold it against.

Edited July 18, 2013 by thebandit27

[eball]

It's funny, I really haven't heard much criticism of how the Bills have handled the Byrd situation outside of the Buffalo media. I listen to SiriusXM NFL Radio almost daily, and nobody's saying the Bills botched this or should be paying what everyone believes Byrd/Parker are asking for.

 

I get the sense the Buffalo beat writers are a little miffed that everyone at OBD isn't as open and forthcoming as they'd like. While I'm sure everyone is trying to keep his/her journalistic integrity, there appears to be some subconscious (and not so subconscious) sniping going on.

Edited July 18, 2013 by eball

[Malazan]

in my opinion, if the Bills were unwilling to play ball with Parker, fully knowing his M.O., then why did they tag him?

 

PTR

 

Are you really advocating that if they didn't intend to sign him to the contract at the number he wanted that they should have just let him walk?

 

That is...an...'interesting' point of view.

[Lurker]

Why did they tag him? Really John?

Should have stayed on vacation, me thinks...