Maddog69 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 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 Hi John - I like and respect your writing and I enjoy your participation here but I could not disagree with you more about "why tag him". 1.) The Bills reportedly made a very fair initial contract offer. They are reportedly offered top 5 money in their initial offer. Byrd/Parkers response was to not counter at all. How are the Bills supposed to "negotiate the edges" if Parker/Byrd will not negotiate in good faith 2.) Byrd is an asset. Why would the Bills simply allow him to walk away for free. They have him under their control for 2 seasons minimum. Why let that go for nothing? That would be ridiculously irresponsible. If he can find a team willing to meet his demands, then the Bills either match it or get fair compensation. Why should they Bills give that away? 3.) This is a negotiation. If one side is unwilling to negotiate, you're opinion is that the other side should just give in? Thats not how business works. Thats not how life works (unless you're a married man, LOL). I sense your frustration and mirroring of what the Bills fans feel. We just want Byrd signed. But to say the Bills should not have tagged him if they did not plan to cave to all of his demands doesn't make any sense to me. This situation is exactly why the owners wanted the tagging system in the CBA. Just imagine the column you would have written if the Bills had just let Byrd walk without tagging him. Jerry Sullivan would have had a field day with that.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 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 You assume Byrd was open to negotiation last year. When exactly was Parker retained as Byrd's agent? You also overlook the fact the Bills were in the midst of a major reorganization at that time. I'm still not following your logic, John. The first assumption you make is that the price Parker sets is infallible. You just said the market sets the price but then state that Parker always knows what that number is. So basically you are saying the Bills should pay whatever Byrd is asking for because (in your opinion) these things never work out well for the Bills. You cite the Peter's case, and while he did get his fat deal the Bills also got two draft picks and jettisoned a player who let himself go and spent half his career in Philly on IR. (And funny how Parker isn't offering the Eagles a rebate because Peters is playing below his contract. I guess his concern is only focused on players who are being underpaid.) I also don't follow your statement on why the Bills tagged Byrd. You are advocating that the Bills let him walk because they have no intention of meeting his demand. Why? Why shouldn't the Bills use every card in their hand? if Byrd is as valuable as you and others contend he is then there must be some team willing to trade for him. Yet I have not heard any team being remotely interested in giving up picks for Byrd. Is it because safeties are too easily replaceable? Ironic, no? I'm of the opinion that Byrd and Parker gambled on the Bills folding and are now in a tenuous position, despite the pressure being put on the team by some in the media. This is a negotiation. And if one side digs their heels that is not a reason to capitulate. PTR
peterlaw Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000218672/article/earl-thomas-as-good-as-any-safety-carroll-has-seen Earl Thomas. The best coverage safety in football ? Surely some mistake !! :-)). Lets ask Eugene for his opinion.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) 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. Where did you find that quote? I never posted that. Look here. That quote is from Wawrow. PTR Edited July 18, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Like you suggested in the interview, I believe the Bills should have started and completed negotiations for an extension before his rookie deal expired. I agree CBF
bbb Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 If Parker sets his price and that's it, what is the use of negotiations? John - do you know how it worked with Walter Jones/Parker - he kept getting tagged and then signing it right before the season right? And, then after 3 years of so finally signed a long term contract? Is that what might happen here?
PromoTheRobot Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I agree CBF Which General Manager was supposed to do that? The one who was getting replaced? PTR
thebandit27 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Like you suggested in the interview, I believe the Bills should have started and completed negotiations for an extension before his rookie deal expired. This doesn't seem to be in concert with JW's other comments that Parker bases his starting point in negotiations on what the player would get on the open market. In consideration of when the negotiation takes place, why would his approach change? Seems to me like--if what JW says is true regarding Parker's approach--the team simply would've been in the same spot...albeit a year earlier.
Doc Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 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. It's done nothing to the Bills because the season hasn't started yet and they've been training his replacment. If he's not ready for the start of the season, he won't start at the beginning of the season.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) This doesn't seem to be in concert with JW's other comments that Parker bases his starting point in negotiations on what the player would get on the open market. In consideration of when the negotiation takes place, why would his approach change? Seems to me like--if what JW says is true regarding Parker's approach--the team simply would've been in the same spot...albeit a year earlier. JW is saying that Parker is infallible because he knows exactly what every player ought to be paid...which, ironically, is usually the most at his position. PTR Edited July 18, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
GG Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 If Parker sets his price and that's it, what is the use of negotiations? John - do you know how it worked with Walter Jones/Parker - he kept getting tagged and then signing it right before the season right? And, then after 3 years of so finally signed a long term contract? Is that what might happen here? And in that case, didn't Parker get exactly what he was asking for his client? Did Bills look beyond 2013 in their stance in Byrd's negotiations? Sure they can tag him again next year. But that would limit their ability to use the tag on the other guys whose contracts are expiring after 2013. Bills had two key free agents heading into this season. They decided to to let one walk without even tossing out a near market number to him. To me that indicates that they valued the other guy more, who was franchised. So how do you get your organization in a position that you could lose both key players within two years? And remind me again of a defense that Pettine has been involved in recently that didn't place a premium on a playmaking safety? Lather, rinse, repeat.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 It's done nothing to the Bills because the season hasn't started yet and they've been training his replacment. If he's not ready for the start of the season, he won't start at the beginning of the season. If the Bills shouldn't make moves that waste money then maybe we shouldn't have cut Fitz because we'd be paying him for nothing?
K-9 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) The Bills tried to "bluff" Parker? Placing the franchise tag on a player is the epitome of laying your cards on the table, the opposite of a bluff, in fact. It serves to publicly announce your willingness to open the negotiations at 6.9m a year. If anything, Parker assumes he can bluff the Bills by suggesting Byrd demand a salary as the highest paid S in the league, when it's obvious to most observers, both professional and otherwise that Byrd, while certainly a good player, is certainly not the best at the position. If Parker knows he can get another team to make Byrd the highest paid player, then why hasn't he? He's not precluded from seeking that. If anything, Parker is trying to bluff the Bills. And he's been called. Why did they tag Byrd? Spite and naivety are simply ridiculous items to throw out there. While it may serve to show some fans that they are committed to retaining their homegrown talent, the simple and most obvious answer is that they tagged him because they think Byrd is worthy of that designation, the commensurate pay it indicates and, most importantly, they wish to be compensated for the loss of a player they place such a high value upon. As for Byrd's value declining in any way, it's too early to tell. It most assuredly will if he sits out the season, so that's out. Him not being ready to play upon reporting may also decrease his value if that should result in injury. His value to the Bills may certainly decrease if they get adequate play from those slated to replace him. But none of what may effect his value is controlled by the Bills anyway. It's his decision and his decision only whether to get himself in camp and start proving why he should be the highest paid safety in the league. Finally, the Byrd and Peters situations are entirely different scenarios, regardless of the fact that Parker represents both players. GO BILLS!!! Edited July 18, 2013 by K-9
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I would be very interested in hearing if Parker countered the Bills initial offer or basically said this is our number and we are sticking to it. CBF
26CornerBlitz Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I would be very interested in hearing if Parker countered the Bills initial offer or basically said this is our number and we are sticking to it. CBF Quite a bit of this is conjecture as neither side has taken to direct public commentary on the matter.
eball Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) This doesn't seem to be in concert with JW's other comments that Parker bases his starting point in negotiations on what the player would get on the open market. In consideration of when the negotiation takes place, why would his approach change? Seems to me like--if what JW says is true regarding Parker's approach--the team simply would've been in the same spot...albeit a year earlier. Exactly. The whole "why didn't we negotiate an extension last year" crowd repeatedly ignores or forgets this premise. Agents like Parker know what values they are setting for their clients before the "walk year" and you need two parties to negotiate. Parker doesn't negotiate -- he sets a price and says "take it or leave it." Some teams will pay, and it makes sense for certain positions and certain situations. This wasn't one of them. Edited July 18, 2013 by eball
Chandler#81 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 If it reads like a shill and smells like a shill.. What's with all the past-tense talk, JW? '..the Bills failed; ..the Bills failed; ..does little but expose the Bills as being the same old franchise.' This negotiation is no where near finished, but one can't tell that from your rant. It's not only possible, it's quite likely the Bills and Byrd will eventually come to agreement and sign a lengthy contract here. Your 'insight' notwithstanding.
stony Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 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. Every year, a player becomes the highest paid player in the history of the NFL at their respective position. I wouldn't necessarily beat this point home because the salaries of players reflect inflation and not necessarily the notion that a particular player is an "all-time great" as "highest-ever" implies. Signing a deal that makes him the highest paid player at his position just creates a new number another team will have to top when their pro-bowl players come up for a new contract.
Doc Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 BTW, when should the Bills have open discussions with Byrd, prior to this season? After his rookie year? After his 2010 and 2011 lackluster seasons? I seriously doubt they were even offering $6.9M/year after those seasons, and I doubt Parker would have taken it.
stony Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 The Bills tried to "bluff" Parker? Placing the franchise tag on a player is the epitome of laying your cards on the table, the opposite of a bluff, in fact. It serves to publicly announce your willingness to open the negotiations at 6.9m a year. If anything, Parker assumes he can bluff the Bills by suggesting Byrd demand a salary as the highest paid S in the league, when it's obvious to most observers, both professional and otherwise that Byrd, while certainly a good player, is certainly not the best at the position. If Parker knows he can get another team to make Byrd the highest paid player, then why hasn't he? He's not precluded from seeking that. If anything, Parker is trying to bluff the Bills. And he's been called. Why did they tag Byrd? Spite and naivety are simply ridiculous items to throw out there. While it may serve to show some fans that they are committed to retaining their homegrown talent, the simple and most obvious answer is that they tagged him because they think Byrd is worthy of that designation, the commensurate pay it indicates and, most importantly, they wish to be compensated for the loss of a player they place such a high value upon. As for Byrd's value declining in any way, it's too early to tell. It most assuredly will if he sits out the season, so that's out. Him not being ready to play upon reporting may also decrease his value if that should result in injury. His value to the Bills may certainly decrease if they get adequate play from those slated to replace him. But none of what may effect his value is controlled by the Bills anyway. It's his decision and his decision only whether to get himself in camp and start proving why he should be the highest paid safety in the league. Finally, the Byrd and Peters situations are entirely different scenarios, regardless of the fact that Parker represents both players. GO BILLS!!! GO BILLS!!! I'm curious given his production and durability, what safeties you would rather have on your team for the next 5 years? Why haven't they? Giving up picks and 40mil is rough on any team.
Recommended Posts