Brandon talks with AP about Byrd's contract

[Dawgg]

Agreed that it would be insane for the Bills to just let Byrd walk. The point that I, and I believe jw, are making is that if the Bills offered Byrd what he wanted last year, they'd have an effective 3 year deal with Byrd for $22 million, instead of paying him $15 million for two years' of FP pay. That's the part that doesn't make sense from a spending standpoint.

 

True. I believe the logic behind franchising him and waiting a year was the installation of a new coaching staff and defensive system, which rendered the "wait a year" strategy prudent. Sure, they could have been more expedient by signing him in advance, but the additional data collected by watching him play in a new scheme was worth the waiting period.

 

Where we sit today, I think we are in agreement that is no excuse (salary cap or otherwise) for the front office to let Byrd walk without receiving adequate compensation in return.

[thebandit27]

Thank you for being here, Bandit.

 

Ya know something Yolo? I've got no issue with criticizing the team; none at all actually. I just prefer that folks who do so stick to the facts and not a straw man like "we never re-sign our own" when it couldn't be further from the truth.

[Dawgg]

Let me help you out there:

 

Stevie

Freddie

Wood

Urbik

Pears

Chandler

Kyle

Branch

McKelvin

 

Those are just the current players that got new deals in the last 2 years. I suppose it's natural, however, to ignore all of that and focus on the guys they didn't re-sign...which, interestingly, you didn't mention a single one.

 

The only player on that list who was top-5 in his position group was maybe Kyle Williams -- and the Bills treated him with extraordinary respect, signing him to lucrative extensions twice before his contract had expired. As for Wood, the Bills paid him top-5 center money despite his failure to stay healthy for an entire season. I'm not disputing that decision, I laud the decision. But my point is that aside from maybe Kyle, Byrd is unique in that he was drafted by the team and established himself as one of the top 3-5 players in his position group.

[thebandit27]

The only player on that list who was top-5 in his position group was maybe Kyle Williams -- and the Bills treated him with extraordinary respect, signing him to lucrative extensions twice before his contract had expired. As for Wood, the Bills paid him top-5 center money despite his failure to stay healthy for an entire season. I'm not disputing that decision, I laud the decision. But my point is that aside from maybe Kyle, Byrd is unique in that he was drafted by the team and established himself as one of the top 3-5 players in his position group.

 

Although I'd argue that Wood is indeed a top 5 center (which reading your comments you may, in fact, agree with--tough to tell exactly), I can see what you're getting at with your comments.

 

I suppose then, that--taking your stance on the top 5 issue as a given--there really isn't an example of how Buffalo would approach it with Byrd, except to say that they did what was necessary to keep him last year, by hook or by crook.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion they'll do the same this year.

[GG]

Where we sit today, I think we are in agreement that is no excuse (salary cap or otherwise) for the front office to let Byrd walk without receiving adequate compensation in return.

 

Correct, and given the money in question relative to Byrd's performance on the field, adequate compensation is a first round pick. Since I don't envision a team parting with a first round pick AND signing Byrd to market level contract, I don't see how Bills get fair compensation for Byrd, other than signing him to a market deal. That's why leverage is still on Parker's side and why I think Bills will reach a deal with him.

[Dawgg]

Although I'd argue that Wood is indeed a top 5 center (which reading your comments you may, in fact, agree with--tough to tell exactly), I can see what you're getting at with your comments.

 

I suppose then, that--taking your stance on the top 5 issue as a given--there really isn't an example of how Buffalo would approach it with Byrd, except to say that they did what was necessary to keep him last year, by hook or by crook.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion they'll do the same this year.

 

I agree that Wood is a top-5 center and even if he isn't his intangibles and leadership make him an important part of the team. I don't fault them for making that decision to extend him.

 

I think you're right -- there isn't much of a precedent for the Bills because quite frankly, they haven't had many top-5 players at their positions during these years of futility. The closest example I can think of is Jason Peters, who had established himself as a top-5 player. In his case, the the team DID get a good return, acquiring Philadelphia's first round pick (which ironically turned into Eric Wood). I hope you're right that they do whatever is necessary to keep Byrd on the roster, even if it means tagging him.

 

EDIT: The second example of a top-5 player was Nate Clements. Believe it or not, that was the perception when he was coming into his free agent year (that he was a top-5 corner) and Marv's decision to sign away the team's right to franchise him a second time hurt the team in a big way. I'm glad the Bills didn't do this with Byrd this time around.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Dawgg

[thebandit27]

I agree that Wood is a top-5 center and even if he isn't his intangibles and leadership make him an important part of the team. I don't fault them for making that decision to extend him.

 

I think you're right -- there isn't much of a precedent for the Bills because quite frankly, they haven't had many top-5 players at their positions during these years of futility. The closest example I can think of is Jason Peters, who had established himself as a top-5 player. In his case, the the team DID get a good return, acquiring Philadelphia's first round pick (which ironically turned into Eric Wood). I hope you're right that they do whatever is necessary to keep Byrd on the roster, even if it means tagging him.

 

I can't envision a different scenario unfolding, but as I say in my sig-line, I've been wrong before.

[BillsVet]

If ONLY it were that simple. Paying Byrd top dollar means subtracting that dollar from somewhere else. The reason why there is so much parity in the NFL is due to the salary cap and there's no Yankees or Red Sox in the NFL that can just "buy" a bunch of guys they want. It means making every dollar stretch and putting the dollars in *POSITIONS* of value and not necessarily players. It's why QBs, LT, DE, and Corners can demand such money, they are positions of value. While some Safeties are exceptional, they just shouldn't be paid from dollars designed to go elsewhere on the team. The BILLS took Leonhard off the trash pile of wasted FA talent and put to good use his abilities. Was he / is he as good as Byrd?? Hell NO! But...there are other talented and young Safeties that can fill in and make a good set of plays for the BILLS. And when you consider this team needs some serious upgrades at the Offensive line, a Beast of a LBer to help with the run, and probably could use a Vet corner and / or WR, that money begins to dry up quickly, especially when you consider Dareus is going to need a contract soon, and it could be argued he plays a bigger role in the Defense's ability to improve than Byrd's. If it were as simple as throwing dollars at guys you wanted on a team, the Redskins and Cowboys would be atop the NFL every year...but Drafting good players, making key acquisitions in FA, and spending the dollars to the positions of significance is how you get a winner and then maintain winning....look at the teams who have done that this year and in the last 10 years...

 

This is not a zero sum game as you portray it. Spending money on Byrd doesn't necessarily mean someone else goes. How many times have we seen teams, like Dawgg mentioned the 49ers did, keep multiple names and let 1 guy go.

 

Contracts can be re-worked, cap hit projected over more years, etc. Buffalo's issue remains a reluctance to pay for elite talent and with games decided frequently by 7 points or less, it's elite talent that means the difference between wins and losses.

 

Let me help you out there:

 

All in the last 2 years.

 

And yet they went 6-10 both seasons, firing 1 HC in the process. It's symbolism over substance actually. The onus remains on the front office and coaching staff to get this team into the playoffs now. Didn't someone once tell us about a proverbial baby?

 

Besides, about three of those players could be considered, at the time of their re-signing, top 5 talents at their positions. The issue is keeping your top talent, not just your middle of the road to perhaps above average talent. And I'm counting Mario, Kyle and Wood as the top talent. The rest are relatively mid-level talent and their contracts bear this out.

[thebandit27]

And yet they went 6-10 both seasons, firing 1 HC in the process. It's symbolism over substance actually. The onus remains on the front office and coaching staff to get this team into the playoffs now. Didn't someone once tell us about a proverbial baby?

 

The question was posed as to why the FO gets credit for re-signing their own talent--my list was the answer.

 

Besides, about three of those players could be considered, at the time of their re-signing, top 5 talents at their positions. The issue is keeping your top talent, not just your middle of the road to perhaps above average talent. And I'm counting Mario, Kyle and Wood as the top talent. The rest are relatively mid-level talent and their contracts bear this out.

 

So what top 5 talents did they not re-sign? About the closest I can come up with is Levitre, and he's definitely not a top 5 OG in this league IMO (nor did he play like one this year by any account).

[TDRupp]

I think this point bears emphasizing. When scribes like Wawrow simply accept the assertion that tagging Byrd a second time would be a poor strategy for the Bills both from a salary cap perspective and from a team distraction perspective, they essentially are providing the front office with an excuse to let him walk.

 

If this front office is as committed to winning as it claims in rhetoric, then the Bills will do whatever it takes to retain Byrd for next season. If they can't get him signed long-term, tag him. If they can't get him to sign long-term after tagging him, trade him to the highest bidder (aim for 2nd round pick). If they can't get value for him in a trade, simply make him play at the franchise tender next season. Anything short of this strategy tells me that their promises of ("we aim to keep our best players") ring hollow.

 

Letting an upper echelon safety walk in free agency, receiving nothing in return and saying "we tried" simply does not and should not hold water. Sometimes teams need to make tough choices. The 49ers chose to let Goldson walk because they paid big $ to Willis and Bowman and have a number of upper echelon players ready for extensions (Kap, Crabtree, Iupati, etc). The Bills have no such issue -- with a comparative dearth of upper echelon talent on the Bills' roster, the media should not be providing the front office with a blanket excuse for letting a young top-notch player walk.

 

Problem is, it is REAL difficult to make a trade in late August for a player that wants a huge contract and can't sign one until after the season. This is especially true if you expect to receive the same compensation in the trade as you could get, all things being equal, before the draft or before training camps begin. It is even more true if that player has a lingering injury in late August.

 

This is the catch-22 scenario that Eugene Parker is likely hoping the Bills see and instead choose to either pay Byrd top dollar or let him become an UFA.

Edited January 29, 2014 by TDRupp

[Dawgg]

Correct, and given the money in question relative to Byrd's performance on the field, adequate compensation is a first round pick.

 

The only qualm I'd have with the above statement is that there is a 3rd factor that impacts the compensation in addition to $ and performance: position. Safety is simply not among the premium positions that fetches a first round pick in return (like DE, LT, QB, and Peerless Price). I think that if Byrd refuses to sign and the Bills can secure a second-rounder for him, it would be a decent consolation price for Jim Overdorf (who unfortunately does the trade negotiations for the team).

[Gordio]

If ONLY it were that simple. Paying Byrd top dollar means substracting that dollar from somewhere else. The reason why there is so much parity in the NFL is due to the salary cap and there's no Yankees or Red Sox in the NFL that can just "buy" a bunch of guys they want. It means making every dollar stretch and putting the dollars in *POSITIONS* of value and not necessarily players. It's why QBs, LT, DE, and Corners can demand such money, tthey are positions of value. While some Safeties are exceptional, they just shouldn't be paid from dollars designed to go elsewhere on the team. The BILLS took Leonhard off the trash pile of wasted FA talent and put to good use his abilities. Was he / is he as good as Byrd?? Hell NO! But...there are other talented and young Safeties that can fill in and make a good set of plays for the BILLS. And when you consider this team needs some serious upgrades at the Offensive line, a Beast of a LBer to help with the run, and probably could use a Vet corner and / or WR, that money begins to dry up quickly, especially when you consider Dareus is going to need a contract soon, and it could be argued he plays a bigger role in the Defense's ability to improve than Byrd's. If it were as simple as throwing dollars at guys you wanted on a team, the Redskins and Cowboys would be atop the NFL every year...but Drafting good players, making key acquisitions in FA, and spending the dollars to the positions of signficance is how you get a winner and then maintain winning....look at the teams who have done that this year and in the last 10 years...

 

Yes I agree with this in theory, however when the Bills are $20 million under the cap as they were last year, there is no reason at all to let a guy like Byrd walk if winning is the number one goal of the organization, which clearly in Buffalo is not the case.

[nucci]

Bottom line is Bills can afford to sign Byrd and keep most other top players if they choose to do so.

[GG]

The only qualm I'd have with the above statement is that there is a 3rd factor that impacts the compensation in addition to $ and performance: position. Safety is simply not among the premium positions that fetches a first round pick in return (like DE, LT, QB, and Peerless Price). I think that if Byrd refuses to sign and the Bills can secure a second-rounder for him, it would be a decent consolation price for Jim Overdorf (who unfortunately does the trade negotiations for the team).

 

Correct, which makes signing Byrd the best proposition the Bills can make, from a value standpoint. They don't have an equal replacement on the bench; they wouldn't need to waste a draft pick to replace him; and they likely wouldn't get equivalent value from a draft choice.

[Beerball]

Agreed that it would be insane for the Bills to just let Byrd walk. The point that I, and I believe jw, are making is that if the Bills offered Byrd what he wanted last year, they'd have an effective 3 year deal with Byrd for $22 million, instead of paying him $15 million for two years' of FP pay. That's the part that doesn't make sense from a spending standpoint.

3/22 vs. 2/15 is about as equal as you can get.

 

The worst solution here would be to let Byrd walk away.

Next would be a trade. (you don't know what that/those pick(s) will turn into.

Next would be tagging him again.

Next would be tagging him again after next season. (that would drive the cost to 3 years 27M)

Best would be signing him to a multi-year deal.

 

Nobody argues these points.

[BillsVet]

The question was posed as to why the FO gets credit for re-signing their own talent--my list was the answer.

 

So what top 5 talents did they not re-sign? About the closest I can come up with is Levitre, and he's definitely not a top 5 OG in this league IMO (nor did he play like one this year by any account).

 

The question is more nuanced than simply signing a team's own players. It's re-signing the right players and I consider elite talent to be those who are voted to NFL All-Pro Teams as voted on by the Associated Press. Players voted to the Pro Bowl are in a similar grouping.

 

Let's face it, Scott Chandler, Erik Pears, Kraig Urbik, Fred Jackson, Alan Branch, and Steve Johnson aren't in that category. I would consider them at or slightly above replacement level. OTOH, replacing Mario Williams or Jairus Byrd is exceedingly more difficult, so letting them is a lot more challenging to fill their shoes.

 

In the past 8 off-seasons, Buffalo has traded away or permitted players to leave via UFA far too many times. I needn't list the names, but each time we were told that it was the best option and this approach has helped then to 9 straight 9 or more loss seasons.

[BigBuff423]

This is not a zero sum game as you portray it. Spending money on Byrd doesn't necessarily mean someone else goes. How many times have we seen teams, like Dawgg mentioned the 49ers did, keep multiple names and let 1 guy go.

 

Contracts can be re-worked, cap hit projected over more years, etc. Buffalo's issue remains a reluctance to pay for elite talent and with games decided frequently by 7 points or less, it's elite talent that means the difference between wins and losses.

 

 

 

And yet they went 6-10 both seasons, firing 1 HC in the process. It's symbolism over substance actually. The onus remains on the front office and coaching staff to get this team into the playoffs now. Didn't someone once tell us about a proverbial baby?

 

Besides, about three of those players could be considered, at the time of their re-signing, top 5 talents at their positions. The issue is keeping your top talent, not just your middle of the road to perhaps above average talent. And I'm counting Mario, Kyle and Wood as the top talent. The rest are relatively mid-level talent and their contracts bear this out.

 

It's not *my* portrayal, it is how the NFL business is today. Every dollar committed to one player is unattainable to another. And when it comes to Safeties, they just don't deserve that type of money. And at some point there is going to be a position, i.e. LT and QB, that will command that type of money and when you continuously play Russian Roulette with the cap ceiling, you're bound to get bit. The Patriots continue to field exceptional teams without having the cap restrictions and letting players just like Byrd take a walk or trading him while the value is there. That's what I'm an advocate for, trading him. Not letting him walk and not signing him to a top tier FA type of money. Let him go somewhere else if that's the kind of money he believes he deserves. I would rather pay OL and DL for the same dollars than a Safety. As for their reluctance to pay for "elite talent" all that hogwash went out the windwo when they made Super Mario the richest Defensive player in the NFL. The BILLS demonstrated their willingness to pay, and over pay, for elite talent when warranted. Byrd is not worth it.

 

Yes I agree with this in theory, however when the Bills are $20 million under the cap as they were last year, there is no reason at all to let a guy like Byrd walk if winning is the number one goal of the organization, which clearly in Buffalo is not the case.

 

Again, just because they have the cap space THIS year does not mean they need to spend all the way up to the cap just for the hell of it...there are contracts in waiting and players that will need to be assigned that have *POSITIONS* of value and Byrd is not one of them. I would tag and trade him. But, alas that will just mean the BILLS let him walk or they give him the largest contract ever given to a Safety...ridiculous

[Dawgg]

Again, just because they have the cap space THIS year does not mean they need to spend all the way up to the cap just for the hell of it...there are contracts in waiting and players that will need to be assigned that have *POSITIONS* of value and Byrd is not one of them. I would tag and trade him. But, alas that will just mean the BILLS let him walk or they give him the largest contract ever given to a Safety...ridiculous

 

A few points.

1. The cap rises every year, as the teams' share of TV revenues continues to rise dramatically. Factor in the NFL's plans for expanded playoffs, additional Thursday and possible Friday games and sponsorship levels that are the envy of other professional sports leagues, it stands to reason that the salary cap number will continue to rise.
    
   
2. The Bills simply don't have top-5 caliber players at other positions, aside maybe from Dareus. The 49ers let Dashon Goldson walk because they had Crabtree, Kaepernick, Iupati, Willis and Bowman to pay. All of those players are elite. The Bills have no such issue problem.
   

Bottom line: the Bills can sign Byrd and accommodate the other players you speak of, while still maintaining cap flexibility.

[BigBuff423]

A few points.

1. The cap rises every year, as the teams' share of TV revenues continues to rise dramatically. Factor in the NFL's plans for expanded playoffs, additional Thursday and possible Friday games and sponsorship levels that are the envy of other professional sports leagues, it stands to reason that the salary cap number will continue to rise.
    
    
   
2. The Bills simply don't have top-5 caliber players at other positions, aside maybe from Dareus. The 49ers let Dashon Goldson walk because they had Crabtree, Kaepernick, Iupati, Willis and Bowman to pay. All of those players are elite. The Bills have no such issue problem.
   

Bottom line: the Bills can sign Byrd and accommodate the other players you speak of, while still maintaining cap flexibility.

 

And a few years, did anyone see Peyton leaving Indy?? So, what if by some freak of events Aaron Rodgers became available for ANY reason and the BILLS would LOVE to pursue Rodgers but due to over paying for good, but not players who will make a long-term difference, and all their cap money is leveraged for the future, they are unable to make a solid and blockbuster offer to get Rodgers here?? I know it will most likely never happen, but again who thought Peyton was leaving Indy, under any circumstances??? So, if those dollars are tied up and a player of Rodgers' caliber comes available that would absolutely make a difference on this team, what say you then?? So many assumptions are made about what is available and what can be done, but poorly planning for contingencies and spending to the ceiling every year is a mismanagement of funds...let....Byrd....go. And get trade value in return, maybe for a real impact player.

[Gordio]

 

And a few years, did anyone see Peyton leaving Indy?? So, what if by some freak of events Aaron Rodgers became available for ANY reason and the BILLS would LOVE to pursue Rodgers but due to over paying for good, but not players who will make a long-term difference, and all their cap money is leveraged for the future, they are unable to make a solid and blockbuster offer to get Rodgers here?? I know it will most likely never happen, but again who thought Peyton was leaving Indy, under any circumstances??? So, if those dollars are tied up and a player of Rodgers' caliber comes available that would absolutely make a difference on this team, what say you then?? So many assumptions are made about what is available and what can be done, but poorly planning for contingencies and spending to the ceiling every year is a mismanagement of funds...let....Byrd....go. And get trade value in return, maybe for a real impact player.

 

Absolutely. It is going to speak volumes this offseason how the Byrd situation play out as to how serious the Bills are about becoming relevant again.