NoSaint Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 If I'm the Bills I don't take anything less than a first round pick. And when nobody pays that price I tag him again next year. probably pretty close to why we are here, and why we likely will be again come march
dave mcbride Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I agree, but if Parker's willing to do it, why shouldn't the Bills? I'm not saying we should IR Byrd. But I do think we should just tell him that unless he gets us at least a second round pick in next year's draft, he ain't going anywhere. So just get out on the filed and play. Well, you'd be paying $7 million for literally nothing. That doesn't make sense to me. The player is always the winner in that contest.
White Linen Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Sorry if this was already brought up I didn't read every post, but I would hate for the Byrd situation to develop into an issue with Carrington if he plays at a high level this year.
The Big Cat Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Well, you'd be paying $7 million for literally nothing. That doesn't make sense to me. The player is always the winner in that contest. First: it's OPM. Second: the Bills are daring him to win the battle/lose the war. Yeah, Byrd wins in the short term, and really the Bills don't win at all. But Byrd would be the true loser in this scenario. So, if the Bills are facing two no-win options, but one of them forces the other guy back to the table...
GG Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Here's the closest we have to it: https://twitter.com/...801383921500160 Adam BenigniVerified account @AdamBenigni Source: #Bills Byrd demanding to be highest paid safety in NFL. Told Bills were willing to offer top 4-5 money. #Impasse @wgrz Yup, there are no direct quotes from the agents, and usually you don't hear the player's negotiating position directly. But there's been enough reporting from various "sources" as to what each side's position was. But I will also put my broken record on. The demand that Byrd be the highest paid safety in the game came from that Benigni tweet, and I think mischaracterizes the situation. I believe that Parker's demand is that Byrd get the highest paid safety contract in 2013 free agency, which would likely make him the highest paid safety. To me that's a big distinction. The contract mark gets reset each spring, and the guys who are free agents at the time benefit from the contract escalations. The Goldson deal established the mark, and Byrd's deal should have been in line with that deal.
NoSaint Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 This line of thought is predicated on the fact that Byrd obviously has no desire to play for us anymore whereas his PF will miraculously be a minor issue on another team and he'll play at a pro bowl level elsewhere. i wasnt speaking to you specifically, necasarily. i dont remember what your opinion was two weeks ago when he was showing up and we had no idea about the issue. many started on the "no way will he be in shape or have any chance of learning the playbook" then went to "omg hes faking an injury" to "HES CHRONICALLY INJURED YOU CANT PAY HIM" to "trade him for a first rounder so he can contribute to a super bowl run" in the matter of 2 weeks. when a single person goes through that entire progression, you have to question a little bit if they are thinking rationally or just grasping at reasons to be angry
The Wiz Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I want to be the highest paid safety to get put on IR when I have surgery done on my foot. Sounds like a good case to pay the guy.
BuffaloBob Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Well, you'd be paying $7 million for literally nothing. That doesn't make sense to me. The player is always the winner in that contest. You're looking at the short-term only. NFL teams, and the Bills in particular, have a choice whether to continue to let Eugene Parker play this game. The player doesn't win in this case either. Yes, he gets his 6.9 Mil for not a lot of production, but he hurts himself in the long run. You can tell me all you want that some team will pony up big cash, and I have no doubt one will. But it won't be top safety money, I would bee willing to bet my life on it. Not after clearly playing the game like he has, not after performing poorly because "him not happy." And moreover, it sends a message to Eugene: Don't overplay your hand and expect us to cave in to you in the future. I see that as a win for the Bills.
thebandit27 Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Yup, there are no direct quotes from the agents, and usually you don't hear the player's negotiating position directly. But there's been enough reporting from various "sources" as to what each side's position was. But I will also put my broken record on. The demand that Byrd be the highest paid safety in the game came from that Benigni tweet, and I think mischaracterizes the situation. I believe that Parker's demand is that Byrd get the highest paid safety contract in 2013 free agency, which would likely make him the highest paid safety. To me that's a big distinction. The contract mark gets reset each spring, and the guys who are free agents at the time benefit from the contract escalations. The Goldson deal established the mark, and Byrd's deal should have been in line with that deal. If, and I stress if, that's the case, then I can get on board with the mindset. That said, I think you're making a leap in logic that I haven't seen supported by any evidence or even hearsay, which isn't the case with the "highest paid" talk. Know what I mean?
dave mcbride Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 First: it's OPM. Second: the Bills are daring him to win the battle/lose the war. Yeah, Byrd wins in the short term, and really the Bills don't win at all. But Byrd would be the true loser in this scenario. So, if the Bills are facing two no-win options, but one of them forces the other guy back to the table... What does OPM stand for?
SlamnSam Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Its a business. I'm not mad at Byrd, I would love to have him on the team, more disappointed to hear something like this I thought this was a game that players get paid for. This isn't business, this is a player that doesn't understand the game, all he understands is getting paid. You play this game because you love to compete, not because its a business.
The Wiz Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 i wasnt speaking to you specifically, necasarily. i dont remember what your opinion was two weeks ago when he was showing up and we had no idea about the issue. many started on the "no way will he be in shape or have any chance of learning the playbook" then went to "omg hes faking an injury" to "HES CHRONICALLY INJURED YOU CANT PAY HIM" to "trade him for a first rounder so he can contribute to a super bowl run" to "no longer on the team" in the matter of 2 weeks. when a single person goes through that entire progression, you have to question a little bit if they are thinking rationally or just grasping at reasons to be angry The 5 stages of grieving Bills fans.
dave mcbride Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 You're looking at the short-term only. NFL teams, and the Bills in particular, have a choice whether to continue to let Eugene Parker play this game. The player doesn't win in this case either. Yes, he gets his 6.9 Mil for not a lot of production, but he hurts himself in the long run. You can tell me all you want that some team will pony up big cash, and I have no doubt one will. But it won't be top safety money, I would bee willing to bet my life on it. Not after clearly playing the game like he has, not after performing poorly because "him not happy." And moreover, it sends a message to Eugene: Don't overplay your hand and expect us to cave in to you in the future. I see that as a win for the Bills. Parker seems to have a lot of success negotiating long term contracts with other teams. I suspect that he'll be fine even if the Byrd situation plays out as you suggest. There are 31 other NFL teams.
papazoid Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 don't panic...play it out.....let Tyrd & Parker pull their tactics... do NOT trade him unless the deal blows you away (at least one or two first rounders). say publicly you have no interest in trading Tyrd. a long term contract is still your goal (good faith). make him report daily for rehab (peer pressure). keep him under team control (tag him next year).
ko12010 Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I hope they don't trade him. I hope he grows moss on his azz as he rides the pine for entire year. If he doesn't want to contribute to the team's success, then why should the team contribute to his success? !@#$ you Byrd and double-!@#$ you Parker. Me too. Plus, he hurt himself with the whole Plantar fasciitis business. Teams aren't going to want a guy with a condition that's likely recurring like PF
SBUffalo Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I hope they don't trade him. I hope he grows moss on his azz as he rides the pine for entire year. If he doesn't want to contribute to the team's success, then why should the team contribute to his success? !@#$ you Byrd and double-!@#$ you Parker. Because that's how you have dead money laying around to players who hate it here. Trade him for something useful and move on. Since the Bengals just drafted a TE in the first round, do you think they'd do Byrd for Gresham?
dave mcbride Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Because that's how you have dead money laying around to players who hate it here. Trade him for something useful and move on. Since the Bengals just drafted a TE in the first round, do you think they'd do Byrd for Gresham? The Bengals are keen on running an offense with two good tight ends, which is good strategy. No way do they make that trade.
K-9 Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 don't panic...play it out.....let Tyrd & Parker pull their tactics... do NOT trade him unless the deal blows you away (at least one or two first rounders). say publicly you have no interest in trading Tyrd. a long term contract is still your goal (good faith). make him report daily for rehab (peer pressure). keep him under team control (tag him next year). All I've heard publicly from the Bills is that they want to re-sign him to a long term deal. GO BILLS!!!
BuffaloBob Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Parker seems to have a lot of success negotiating long term contracts with other teams. I suspect that he'll be fine even if the Byrd situation plays out as you suggest. There are 31 other NFL teams. I'm well aware of that, but once again, the ONLY franchised player he represents this year out of like 7 or 8 is also the only one that is playing this game. All of the others signed their tag, came into camp and are playing for next year. This sort of tactic doesn't obviously show up in EVERY one of his other client's negotiations. He needs to be taught a lesson. The Bills are spanking him right now, and while it may hurt the Bills as much as it hurts him and Byrd, I think it is totally worth it.
NoSaint Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Not after clearly playing the game like he has, not after performing poorly because "him not happy." And moreover, it sends a message to Eugene: Don't overplay your hand and expect us to cave in to you in the future. I see that as a win for the Bills. i know! can you believe it! he doesnt even have an interception yet this year! not even a tackle! can we atleast let him play poorly before we criticize him for poor play? im pretty sure he played hurt last year in a scheme that the coach himself might not have understood yet alone the players and did pretty well. thats not to say he will for sure this year but he definitely hasnt proven he wont.
Recommended Posts