Byrd Skipping mandatory mini-camp

[NoSaint]

 

4) OK, i'll play the numbers game, too, by noting that you fail to mention that out of the 10 or so players tagged this offseason, only one (1) failed to be signed to a contract by the deadline Monday. Teams use the tag every year. and a majority of those teams are able to get that player signed before training camp to at least one year.

 

 

i imagine he skips camp, but its still possible he signs and shows up, no? I havent really monitored once the deadline passed, so i dont know if a definitive statement is out there.

[K-9]

It absolutely does matter. You asked when the last time a Pettine defense succeeded without a playmaking free safety. If you want to call Baltimore's D a Pettine defense, that's just not true. The corollary you're trying to make is that Pettine values safety play; him having coached OLBs in Baltimore does nothing to support that idea.

 

Leonhard's lack of production is indicative that he wasn't a playmaker, which is what you asked about to begin with. If you want to talk value, that's a different story because it can't be objectively defined. That said, the Jets' D clearly placed far, far more value on CB play than they did on safety play based on both scheme and salary allotment.

 

 

 

Both...the tag doesn't discriminate, and the best safeties in the league are hybrids of both spots (Reed, Polamalu, Berry).

 

 

 

Guaranteed money gets paid regardless of how it gets spread throughout the contract. You're talking about savings versus the cap on a per annum basis, I'm talking about cap impact plus real cash savings to apply to new contracts, which is how the Bills have to look at it in order to responsibly run their organization.

 

If Byrd wants to be disgruntled making a guaranteed salary of $6.9M this year, let him. He gets to choose his attitude.

 

You have your opinion on it, and I understand that. Mine is that kowtowing to the demands of a top-10 safety that wants to be paid as the best in the game is a poor investment.

 

Agree entirely here.

 

But the more I think of it, Polamalu is actually underpaid because the Steelers aren't taking into consideration that sometimes he's their best LB as well. He's just a fantastic athlete.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Delete This Account]

But you did say the Bills are "failing" so I'm assuming you see Parker holding the higher ground here. I'm sorry I suggested you were acting as a shill. I know you don't do that. But I must disagree strongly with you take on WGR today. You make a lot of assumptions and bring up ghosts from the past that have little bearing here.

 

PTR

 

i'll own that and i accept your apology. thing is, history shows that players in Byrd's situation usually and eventually get paid. the bills have failed in their desire to lock up a player long-term, because it looks far less likely that's going to happen as this goes on.

 

jw

[papazoid]

bryd's #1 priority is long term GUARANTEED money.

 

that opportunity is now gone for this season.

 

therefore, in order to reduce his risk of injury, he will forego about half of his $6.9 Tag and show up in week 10.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I think the Bills have done their math and know what they are going to have to pay Spiller and Wood when their contracts are up and I think that may play into why they are not willing to offer what Parker wants.

 

If it were me, I would much rather have Spiller and Wood

 

CBF

[JohnC]

That one small word is the fly in the ointment. Parker isn't asking for reasonable, he's asking for the moon.

 

How much do the Bills really save if they tag him this year (which they did) and then again tag him next year? If that happens then the annual salary difference is not significant. Just because you have the ability to play contract hardball doesn't mean that it is the smartest approach to take.

 

I would rather pay a productive player such as Byrd a little more than over pay a middling talent such as Fitz an over valued contract, which they did. The Bills are far from being cap strapped. They not only have room to give Bryd a fair market contract but they also have roster flexibility for more cap adjustments (savings).

 

The Bills have been bad for a generation. They have had a losing record either 8 or 9 times out of the past ten years .You get better by locking up your best players, not by squeezing them

[thebandit27]

bryd's #1 priority is long term GUARANTEED money.

 

that opportunity is now gone for this season.

 

therefore, in order to reduce his risk of injury, he will forego about half of his $6.9 Tag and show up in week 10.

 

I doubt that will happen. I think he'll show up for week 1.

 

How much do the Bills really save if they tag him this year (which they did) and then again tag him next year? If that happens then the annual salary difference is not significant. Just because you have the ability to play contract hardball doesn't mean that it is the smartest approach to take.

 

I would rather pay a productive player such as Byrd a little more than over pay a middling talent such as Fitz an over valued contract, which they did. The Bills are far from being cap strapped. They not only have room to give Bryd a fair market contract but they also have roster flexibility for more cap adjustments (savings).

 

The Bills have been bad for a generation. They have had a losing record either 8 or 9 times out of the past ten years .You get better by locking up your best players, not by squeezing them

 

The irony here is that Fitz's contract made him the 18th highest-paid QB in the NFL at the time, and had multiple out clauses. He actually wasn't over valued with regard to his salary and where he fell in the NFL QB rankings (statistically I mean).

 

They'd be paying $15.2M guaranteed over two years (both in salary cap space and in real cash) versus paying ~$25M up front plus base salaries. In real cash, they save upwards of $10M. In cap space, they probably forfeit $3M-$4M per season. To me, cap space is a non-factor.

 

Make no mistake; I do understand your point. I just disagree.

 

Thing is, they weren't good with Byrd, so how much of an impact can he really be said to have had in his 4 years here? I know, it's not all on him, but if the team can't win more than 6 games with him here, how can the same team justify giving him $9M+ per season? For that much money, I want a guy that can singlehandedly change the fortunes of my defense.

Edited July 18, 2013 by thebandit27

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

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

 

Could NOT have said this better myself. I totally agree with everything you said. I just read John's blurb and had mentally outlined a response that was virtually identical to yours. Thanks for saving me the time and the typing!

[BillsVet]

Bottom line is that Bills are on the hook for $7 million to Byrd this year, and probably $8 million next year if he's tagged. So they'll use up $15 million in two years compared to the $20 million guaranteed over four years that Parker is looking for. Great cap planning by the Bills' master.

 

Maybe this is why Overdorf can only negotiate one contract at a time.

 

And who does Overdorf report to? His contract negotiations, given the cap, can greatly affect what the personnel guys want to do in free agency and of course who to re-sign. I'd love to know who sets parameters for a contract offer or the process involved. Something tells me Brandon immerses himself in that, which potentially cuts or hinders the personnel guys.

 

The more things change...

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

i'll own that and i accept your apology. thing is, history shows that players in Byrd's situation usually and eventually get paid. the bills have failed in their desire to lock up a player long-term, because it looks far less likely that's going to happen as this goes on.

 

jw

 

That's fine. As long as we are compensated by draft picks on his way out the door, I'm good with it. Parker has the right to play hardball, but so do the Bills. In the end, it comes down to what makes sense for the team financially over the long-haul. The Steelers and New England have been quite successful in letting guys go when their perceived value exceeds what the team is willing to pay.

 

The idea that somehow the Bills should just cave into Parker is ridiculous. Two can play the game. And just because Peters eventually got paid notwithstanding his rather slovenly performance does not mean that when all is said and done, Byrd will end up better off through Parker's tactics.

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

It doesn't matter that Ryan was the DC in Baltimore and Pettine ran LBs. They imported the defense to NYJ, and Pettine will run a similar defense. Leonhard's lack of production is irrelevant to the value the coaches placed on his role in the defense. Plus, my point on this is to counter the logic that's been tossed that Pettine doesn't value safeties in his defense. So the straw isn't as flimsy as you suggest.

 

So are we comparing strong or free safeties?

 

Goldson's guarantees are over more than three years.

 

Bills only win financially in the first year of the tag, when they get Byrd to play at $7 million. Next year, the tag salary will go up and Bills will lose flexibility in applying that cap to Byrd vs Wood. Plus, you'll have another holdout by Byrd.

 

So in the end, the Bills will save $2 million, but will have a disgruntled player whose agent will likely orchestrate a move at some point. And will have to find a capable replacement for one of the top players in the league. But hey, the Bills sure have tought Parker a lesson.

 

And then each January, people wonder why Bills are among the perennial laughing stock.

 

Lather rinse repeat.

 

You do realize that most teams combine salary and guaranteed bonus money to roughly approach a cap hit that is even over the length of the deal right. The days of teams backloading deals by paying a guy $20 Million up front and then paying him the smallest possible salary for the first years is over. It is highly unlikely that Byrd's cap hit at any time during the length of his deal will vary much from the average yearly price of the contract.

 

Therefore, there is little difference between paying him two one year salaries that are guaranteed, and paying him a big chunk of change up front and plus salary. If you back load a contract where most of the salary is at the back, your going to be back negotiating an extension or cutting the guy before he gets there anyway, at which time any unamortized bonus money hits the cap after he's gone.

 

 

 

Maybe this is why Overdorf can only negotiate one contract at a time.

 

And who does Overdorf report to? His contract negotiations, given the cap, can greatly affect what the personnel guys want to do in free agency and of course who to re-sign. I'd love to know who sets parameters for a contract offer or the process involved. Something tells me Brandon immerses himself in that, which potentially cuts or hinders the personnel guys.

 

The more things change...

 

Problem is, your assuming that the premise of GG's post is correct. It isn't as I posted above. The Bills would be paying him salary on top of the bonus for the first two years, otherwise it's only a two year deal! If you backload a contract as GG suggests, as soon as the salary escalates, so does the cap hit and suddenly you are really crippled and looking at cutting the player or trying to renegotiate.

 

The days of backloaded contracts are over. Teams have long since learned that only leads to cap hell later on. The cap hit for any deal Byrd would likely sign would be roughly equivalent to what the Bills would pay for Byrd under the tag.

[eball]

You do realize that most teams combine salary and guaranteed bonus money to roughly approach a cap hit that is even over the length of the deal right. The days of teams backloading deals by paying a guy $20 Million up front and then paying him the smallest possible salary for the first years is over. It is highly unlikely that Byrd's cap hit at any time during the length of his deal will vary much from the average yearly price of the contract.

 

Therefore, there is little difference between paying him two one year salaries that are guaranteed, and paying him a big chunk of change up front and plus salary. If you back load a contract where most of the salary is at the back, your going to be back negotiating an extension or cutting the guy before he gets there anyway, at which time any unamortized bonus money hits the cap after he's gone.

 

 

 

Problem is, your assuming that the premise of GG's post is correct. It isn't as I posted above. The Bills would be paying him salary on top of the bonus for the first two years, otherwise it's only a two year deal! If you backload a contract as GG suggests, as soon as the salary escalates, so does the cap hit and suddenly you are really crippled and looking at cutting the player or trying to renegotiate.

 

The days of backloaded contracts are over. Teams have long since learned that only leads to cap hell later on. The cap hit for any deal Byrd would likely sign would be roughly equivalent to what the Bills would pay for Byrd under the tag.

 

This is what I was trying to suggest when GG snarkily told me I don't know diddly poo about the cap, economics, and blah blah blah.

[GG]

It absolutely does matter. You asked when the last time a Pettine defense succeeded without a playmaking free safety. If you want to call Baltimore's D a Pettine defense, that's just not true.

 

If you're going to pick apart my argument, it would be helpful if you picked up my statement, not your interpretation of what you think I may have said. I never said the bolded.

 

As for the other contention, John C is spot on. You are comparing dollars spent on a long term deal vs annual FP tags. To do a proper comparison, you have to count how much Bills would have to spend in FP tag salary for the equivalent number of years that the guarantees are for. In this case, using Goldson as a baseline, there are $22 million in guarantees over the five year contract. Let's assume that the guarantees are in the first three years. That means that if Bills were to pay Byrd only the franchise tags for three years, they be out $24 million.

 

Regarding Fitz - while the contract dollars were in line with an average QB, he needed to be here for another year to lessen the cap hit. That's why not addressing Byrd this year is crazy, because by pushing more cap problems into 2014 the Bills will have less flexibility to sign Wood or other players.

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

This is what I was trying to suggest when GG snarkily told me I don't know diddly poo about the cap, economics, and blah blah blah.

 

Let's do an example. Let's say the Bills cave in and give Byrd a 5 year $45 Million dollar contract with $25 Million up front.

 

That means that the $25 million dollar guarantee would be amortized over 5 years at $5 Million per year. You have to pay a salary, so what teams used to do was pay minimal salary for the first couple of years. So let's say the Bills pay him only $1 Million in salary for the first three years. That's what teams used to do. That means his cap hit for the first three years is only $6 Million per year: The bonus of $25 Million is amortized over the 5 year deal at $5 Million per year, plus the salary of $1 Million equals $6 Million.

 

In year four, you have to start escalating salary, because you have only paid the guy $28 Million of the $45 Million in the first three years. So that means they have to pay him $17 Million over the last 2 years. So say you split remaining the salary at $8.5 Million per season. That means his cap hit the last two years jumps to $13.5 Million. And if you are doing this with Wood and CJ, their cap hits are going to jump about the same time.

 

On top of that, let's say Byrd gets injured in year 2 and can't play at the same level anymore. So in year three, the Bills have to release him because they need the roster spot. His cap hit would then accelerate to $15 Million in dead money!

 

Teams have long since learned NOT to do this anymore. They might take a small benefit for the first year or two on cap space, but it is small. Most teams, especially like the Bills who have cap space, do NOT take more cap space, but rather use the cap space up front by paying more of the salary early on in the deal. In any event, they typically now make the cap hit average out to about the same on a year-to-year basis. In this case, that would be 9 Million per year.

 

Highly unlikely the Bills would ever create a cap hit lower than what they are seeing through use of the franchise tag over the first two years of a long-term deal.

 

 

[Rubes]

Look, folks, I really think this has nothing to do with Parker trying to be a greedy bastard or the Bills trying to teach Parker/Byrd a lesson. Assuming—yes, this is an assumption— that Parker decided that Byrd should be the highest paid FS in the league, based on what he believes he would get on the open market, the Bills had only the following options:

 

#1. Don't place the tag on him and let him walk. In this case, the Bills get nothing, and Byrd very likely gets what he wants.

 

#2. Don't place the tag on him and negotiate. In this case, Byrd is a FA and can negotiate with other teams as well. If the Bills don't think he should be the highest paid FS in the league, they get nothing. Some other team very likely does, and Byrd gets the money he wants.

 

#3. Place the tag on him and negotiate. If the Bills don't think he should be the highest paid FS in the league, they can retain him at a lower price for a year. Byrd can negotiate with other teams as well, but although other teams may be willing to pay him what he wants, it's unlikely they will do that AND give up high draft picks. This is also a deterrent to a sign & trade, but it's possible. In this case, the Bills get either Byrd for a year (most likely), or 1 or 2 high draft picks (less likely). If they keep Byrd for a year, we're at it again next year. Unless there is disaster (terribly injury) or an unexpectedly poor performance this year, Byrd will be in the same position next offseason, will still expect to be the highest paid FS in the league, and the Bills will still have the same three options.

 

Would the Bills do the same thing again next year, and tag him, but without negotiating a long-term contract as the highest-paid FS in the league? They could, I suppose, but it's unlikely -- it doesn't help the team to have a guy who doesn't participate in offseason workouts and camps. So in the end, either next year or the year after, the Bills will take option #1 (Byrd gets what he wants, Bills get nothing), option #2 (Byrd gets what he wants, Bills get nothing), or option #3 (Byrd gets what he wants, Bills get draft picks).

 

Any way you look at it, barring something unforseen like injury, Parker/Byrd is going to eventually get the money he wants. The Bills can retain Byrd on a yearly basis under less than ideal circumstances, but eventually it will come down to whether (a) the Bills want to be the ones to pay Byrd the money he wants, or (b) some other team pays Byrd the money he wants while surrendering one or two high draft picks to the Bills.

 

If no other team is willing to do that, it leaves the two parties in a tag-based stalemate, as John put it, which is a lose-lose for both.

[BuffaloBob]

 

 

If you're going to pick apart my argument, it would be helpful if you picked up my statement, not your interpretation of what you think I may have said. I never said the bolded.

 

As for the other contention, John C is spot on. You are comparing dollars spent on a long term deal vs annual FP tags. To do a proper comparison, you have to count how much Bills would have to spend in FP tag salary for the equivalent number of years that the guarantees are for. In this case, using Goldson as a baseline, there are $22 million in guarantees over the five year contract. Let's assume that the guarantees are in the first three years. That means that if Bills were to pay Byrd only the franchise tags for three years, they be out $24 million.

 

Regarding Fitz - while the contract dollars were in line with an average QB, he needed to be here for another year to lessen the cap hit. That's why not addressing Byrd this year is crazy, because by pushing more cap problems into 2014 the Bills will have less flexibility to sign Wood or other players.

 

Dude, you are completely ignoring the fact that teams will also pay salary over the first years of the contract in addition to the guarantees. You cannot look simply at he guarantees. As I said in several posts here, most teams will not structure contracts that push salary into the back end of a contract anymore. It just creates problems. The Bills are not pushing out any problems into the future by not locking up Byrd now. The cap hit for Byrd over two years under the tag is less or at the very least equal to that they would be under a long-term deal.

 

And in fact, they are BETTER off because they are only guaranteeing a portion of the total that would be guaranteed under a long-term deal on a yearly basis. If Byrd suffers a torn ACL in week one, the Bills are only out $7 Million. If they signed him to long-term deal with $21 Million up front, they will have paid him $21 Million and would be worrying about how well he comes back from the injury.

 

There are a lot of good financial reasons to pay him the franchise tag this year and even next. It is Byrd who suffers because the guarantees are on a yearly basis instead of up front all at once. This is why a player should be willing to at least temper his perceived market value a bit to get the bigger up-front guarantee.

 

Agents like Parker play the "hold-out" game because they are trying to punish the team for using that leverage. They don't want their player to sign for less in exchange for long-term security, they want every dollar they can get, AND get the guarantees up front. The only way they can negate a team's leverage is to play the hold-out game.

[thebandit27]

If you're going to pick apart my argument, it would be helpful if you picked up my statement, not your interpretation of what you think I may have said. I never said the bolded.

 

 

Wow...apparently I did get slightly off track there...my apologies.

 

I guess my point is that the emphasis of the D isn't placed on safety play. Ed Reed is a HOF safety, so yes, the Baltimore D took advantage of his skill set. The safety play for the Jets from 2009 to 2011 was middling and certainly not of the play-making caliber, and yet it had little affect on the overall defensive performance.

 

As for the other contention, John C is spot on. You are comparing dollars spent on a long term deal vs annual FP tags. To do a proper comparison, you have to count how much Bills would have to spend in FP tag salary for the equivalent number of years that the guarantees are for. In this case, using Goldson as a baseline, there are $22 million in guarantees over the five year contract. Let's assume that the guarantees are in the first three years. That means that if Bills were to pay Byrd only the franchise tags for three years, they be out $24 million.

 

Indeed, it's not apples to apples in a life cycle cost/benefit analysis. Financially, given that a 3rd franchise tag would mandate a 44% increase from the previous year's salary, there's zero chance of that happening, so the assumption is that he'd be an unrestricted, untagged FA after the 2nd tag. It's under this scenario that my previous statement of:

 

In real cash, they save upwards of $10M. In cap space, they probably forfeit $3M-$4M per season

 

applies to the discussion. Again, only the guaranteed money (plus base salaries in the first 2 years of the assumed long-term deal) can be compared with regard to cap hit and actual cash spent.

 

Regarding Fitz - while the contract dollars were in line with an average QB, he needed to be here for another year to lessen the cap hit. That's why not addressing Byrd this year is crazy, because by pushing more cap problems into 2014 the Bills will have less flexibility to sign Wood or other players.

 

Theoretically, yes. You also have to factor in capt hits that come off the books. They could save a good amount of money by cutting Brad Smith and/or Mark Anderson...ditto for Erik Pears. Plus they should have enough room to extend at least one of Wood, Spiller, or Chandler this season even with Byrd's tag on the books.

[Nanker]

The fallacy of Parker's stance is the cash value he's ascertained for Byrd is on a clean deal and does not account for the fact that The Bills have an equity stake in the player's career. That has value.

 

It's something like going to buy a car. You can get a shiny new Lexus for $55k on a clean deal. But you have a trade-in that you want to use to lower the price. You think your trade-in is worth $10k on the dealer's lot - and it is. But the dealer is 't going to give you the full 10k for your car. He'll give you $6k.

 

Byrd's not free to make a clean deal and Parker doesn't want to move off of getting top money - like he would get on a clean I encumbered deal. Wow! Aren't The Bills being selfish to want some compensation for their player and they're willing to stand in the way of him getting 125% of what he's worth?

 

What businessman would depreciate a real asset to zero and jettison it, or liquidate inventory that they own just to enable somebody else to come along, pick it up and have it?

[Maddog69]

I think JW is just trying too hard to blame the Bills for the Byrd situation.

Both sides have their own agendas, opinions, priorities and desired outcomes.

Both sides have certain rights and certain levers in the siuation.

Both sides are exercises their rights as they see fit. It may end up where one side wins and the other side loses. It may end up that both sides win and it may end up that both sides lose. But in this particular situation, I cannot fault the Bills for their actions to this point. I am unwilling to lump any past failings into the discussion. I am looking at strictly this situation and how it affects the best interest of each party in the long term.

 

In my opinion, if there is any blame to be placed for the current situation, I believe it should be placed at the feet of Byrd/Parker. If reports are correct, the Bills made a fair proposal to which Byrd has never countered. That is not a negotiation. Maybe the sides could have worked out a mutually beneficial deal if Byrd and Parker would have come to the table. We will see how it plays out.

[GG]

The days of backloaded contracts are over. Teams have long since learned that only leads to cap hell later on. The cap hit for any deal Byrd would likely sign would be roughly equivalent to what the Bills would pay for Byrd under the tag.

 

Actually, those days are not gone. What is gone is the massive upfront bonus, followed by small annual salaries in the first couple of years, with a huge jump in year four of a deal. New contracts replaced the big upfront bonus with smaller guaranteed bonuses in the first three years of the contract, such that in the first three years the cap hit is roughly equal to the cash payout. The fourth year bump in salary is still there for the obvious reason to renegotiate the deal at that time.

 

Bills are benefiting from the tag now because it's $1 million lower than the cap hit, and probably $2-$3 mil lower than the actual cash outlay they would pay under a long term contract. So by saving $2 million this year, they guaranteed a bigger contract mess next year. Congratulations. Aaron Williams better step up.