papazoid Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 The Bills own an unimpressive 22-42 record since 2010, so something is amiss at OBD or they'd be better than a team which wins 35% of their games. Not signing a premier UFA who they developed tells me they're closer to rebuilding than competing, and in 2014, it's playoffs or bust. We can belabor the strategy for the player, but the team is at a critical juncture in team history. Either pay the cost to compete or become a quadruple A franchise that never will make the playoffs because they're to busy "saving" that money for other players. we are NOT making the playoffs with or without Byrd..........until they get a Franchise QB.
thebandit27 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 really no use debating this point, if you don't understand this distinction. you seem to believe that Byrd needed to cede his own interest for the sake of the team's interest by positing: "How is that doing what's best for him and the team?" you realize that there is a distinction in that what's best for the team isn't generally the best for him, right? until you understand that basic principle, then really, i can't foresee us getting any further in this discussion. jw John, I have kept every reply I've made to you on topic, without accusing you of not understanding what I've said...I would appreciate the same level of respect from you. I've never once said that Byrd needed to cede his own interest. What I said was in reply to your statement that the Bills' tagging Byrd caused him to miss the off-season... Quite simply put: it didn't. Not in any way, shape, or form. It was Byrd's decision not to show up...he could've done so, as the tag in no way prevents him from doing so. His choice to miss the off-season. His right, as you put it. You blame the team for him missing the off-season, while I do not, because not one other franchise player missed the off-season as Byrd did. The distinction, to me, couldn't be any clearer: Byrd wants the most guaranteed money he can get The team wanted to pay Byrd what they felt he was worth compared to others at his position The end result was Byrd being tagged, offered a 1-year guaranteed contract for $6.9M, a 500% raise Byrd had the choice to sign and show up, or hold out and not show up--he chose the latter What's best for Byrd? To put himself in a position, in spite of the situation, to get the most guaranteed money. He chose to go about that by holding out, while no other player did so. I would argue, based on history (both around the league and with this team), that his best chance to get a long-term deal with lots of guaranteed money would have been to show up to the off-season program in good faith. Hopefully this diatribe demonstrates to you that not only do I understand the distinction you're drawing, but I also understand your position on it...I'd caution you against falling into the trap of thinking that because I don't agree with you, I don't understand.
ALF Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) here's a BIG question.....if he doesn't sign his Franchise Tag Tender BEFORE July 15th......can they trade an unsigned player ? As long as the Bills make him an offer, if another team signs him we would get two 1st rd picks. No other team would give up that much for him so a trade , resign with the Bills, or tag. So I think a trade is ok if he will not sign his tag. In 09 NE tagged Matt Cassel for $14 M , he signed, was traded with LB Vrabel to KC for a 2nd rd pick. KC negotiated a 6 yr $62.7M contract for Matt. Until Byrd signs the tag he can see what other teams will pay him and if the Bills will accept the trade offer or keep the tag on him. Edited January 30, 2014 by ALF
K-9 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Why did you feel the need to repeat ZERO? Dramatic effect. And to make sure that you understood CLEARLY, I repeat CLEARLY, my emphasis (em-FAH-sis). GO BILLS!!! Edited January 30, 2014 by K-9
K-9 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 in the end, Parker and Byrd are going to win (he will be the highest paid safety in football). the bills will only prolong the agony (tag him again). at this point, the bills need to tag and trade. I would not invest $9-10 mil/yr in him. bad feet, bad hip, bad back. I disagree with trading him. He is a bargain at $8.3m for the year and $15.2m for the two years. I hope Parker doesn't screw the pooch with Byrd like he did with Carrington. Not signing the extension the Bills offered cost him some coin going into the off-season. GO BILLS!!!
Delete This Account Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) John, I have kept every reply I've made to you on topic, without accusing you of not understanding what I've said...I would appreciate the same level of respect from you. I've never once said that Byrd needed to cede his own interest. What I said was in reply to your statement that the Bills' tagging Byrd caused him to miss the off-season... Quite simply put: it didn't. Not in any way, shape, or form. It was Byrd's decision not to show up...he could've done so, as the tag in no way prevents him from doing so. His choice to miss the off-season. His right, as you put it. You blame the team for him missing the off-season, while I do not, because not one other franchise player missed the off-season as Byrd did. The distinction, to me, couldn't be any clearer: Byrd wants the most guaranteed money he can get The team wanted to pay Byrd what they felt he was worth compared to others at his position The end result was Byrd being tagged, offered a 1-year guaranteed contract for $6.9M, a 500% raise Byrd had the choice to sign and show up, or hold out and not show up--he chose the latter What's best for Byrd? To put himself in a position, in spite of the situation, to get the most guaranteed money. He chose to go about that by holding out, while no other player did so. I would argue, based on history (both around the league and with this team), that his best chance to get a long-term deal with lots of guaranteed money would have been to show up to the off-season program in good faith. Hopefully this diatribe demonstrates to you that not only do I understand the distinction you're drawing, but I also understand your position on it...I'd caution you against falling into the trap of thinking that because I don't agree with you, I don't understand. and yet, it was in his right to do so. what he got tagged for is not what he was seeking. the bills were fully in their right to tag him. i'm not begrudging them that. but there are and were consequences with that action. just because he got a 500 percent raise shouldn't be something that obligates him to doing one thing or another. he choose not to show up, because the money was guaranteed. and to show up for training camp raised the possibility of him sustaining a significant injury that could risk his future earning power. what was the point to report to camp? under the terms of the CBA, he was NOT in position to gain any more salary because he and the Bills were barred from negotiating again until the end of the season. you say good faith? so, can you state with certainty that if Byrd say, blew out his knee, by slipping on a wet mat along with Kevin Kolb, and missed the remainder of the season that the Bills would come back to Byrd and reward him for showing such good faith with the same offer they had presented him a year earlier? (please say, yes. please say, yes.) and you throw out this phrase "lots of guaranteed money" as if lots is an actual number. it's not. Byrd believes he's owed the guaranteed money he would have likely gotten in free agency. the Bills believe they can get a lower rate. still not entirely sure you understand the distinction between what an employee's rights are in this circumstance. once the July 15 deadline passed, Byrd had nothing to gain by showing up until he was required to. jw Edited January 30, 2014 by john wawrow
K-9 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Well they have till July 15 to work out a long term deal or trade if he's tagged again. Guaranteed money for more than 1 season is risky because of his PF. If the PF is a concern, then it makes even less sense to sign a long term deal which will include more guaranteed money. He's played through PF in the past and has done OK with it. Besides, I have been reassured that if Byrd does get a satisfactory long term deal that he will be "more likely" to "risk" practicing and playing with the condition. GO BILLS!!!
thebandit27 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 This will be my last response to you, and then we're done, since you insist for some reason that I don't understand your distinction, even though I stated quite clearly, for anyone to read, that I do (even going so far as to draw it out). John, I have kept every reply I've made to you on topic, without accusing you of not understanding what I've said...I would appreciate the same level of respect from you. Hopefully this diatribe demonstrates to you that not only do I understand the distinction you're drawing, but I also understand your position on it...I'd caution you against falling into the trap of thinking that because I don't agree with you, I don't understand. still not entirely sure you understand the distinction between what an employee's rights are in this circumstance. once the July 15 deadline passed, Byrd had nothing to gain by showing up until he was required to. I didn't think my request was too much to ask. and yet, it was in his right to do so. His choice to miss the off-season. His right, as you put it. You blame the team for him missing the off-season, while I do not, because not one other franchise player missed the off-season as Byrd did. ^ Right here I'm stating, quite clearly, that I understand it was his right not to show up. It was also his choice. what he got tagged for is not what he was seeking. the bills were fully in their right to tag him. i'm not begrudging them that. but there are and were consequences with that action. just because he got a 500 percent raise shouldn't be something that obligates him to doing one thing or another. he choose not to show up, because the money was guaranteed. and to show up for training camp raised the possibility of him sustaining a significant injury that could risk his future earning power. I did not say it obligates him to show up to off-season workouts. I said he had the choice to...you put it on the team for him not showing up, as though it was their choice. It wasn't...it was Byrd's. I'm certain you see the distinction here. what was the point to report to camp? under the terms of the CBA, he was NOT in position to gain any more salary because he and the Bills were barred from negotiating again until the end of the season. you say good faith? so, can you state with certainty that if Byrd say, blew out his knee, by slipping on a wet mat along with Kevin Kolb, and missed the remainder of the season that the Bills would come back to Byrd and reward him for showing such good faith with the same offer they had presented him a year earlier? There are OTA's, mini-camps, etc. that he could've reported to well before the July 15th deadline. Ones that put him at virtually no risk of injury. In fact, many players show up and don't participate if they're nicked up. All he had to do was show up and be honest with the doctors about his condition. Is he obligated? No. Could he have signed the tender and done so, like every other franchise player did? Yes. You are arguing a straw man if you think that Byrd skipped mini-camp and OTA's because he was worried about slipping on a mat. So allow me to return the favor: based on everything you've seen from this regime, can you say with certainty that Byrd would NOT have gotten a new deal if he--in good faith--signed his tender, reported to OTA's and mini-camps, and been up front about his injury? and you throw out this phrase "lots of guaranteed money" as if lots is an actual number. it's not. Byrd believes he's owed the guaranteed money he would have likely gotten in free agency. the Bills believe they can get a lower rate. You're picking nits now, John. Both sides are well aware of the going rate in terms of guaranteed money on a new contract for a FS; I didn't think I had to define it for the umpteenth time in this thread. If you'd like to continue dialogue, I'm happy to do so, provided you're willing to drop this unfounded notion that I somehow don't understand the distinction between rights and obligations, or that I don't understand the CBA (I've read the language plenty of times, thank you).
BigBuff423 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Just for the info since there continues to be debate about where Byrd fits in and his value, etc. Just for info's sake, not to add fuel to the fire... http://overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=S Edited January 30, 2014 by BigBuff423
Delete This Account Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) This will be my last response to you, and then we're done, since you insist for some reason that I don't understand your distinction, even though I stated quite clearly, for anyone to read, that I do (even going so far as to draw it out). I didn't think my request was too much to ask. ^ Right here I'm stating, quite clearly, that I understand it was his right not to show up. It was also his choice. I did not say it obligates him to show up to off-season workouts. I said he had the choice to...you put it on the team for him not showing up, as though it was their choice. It wasn't...it was Byrd's. I'm certain you see the distinction here. There are OTA's, mini-camps, etc. that he could've reported to well before the July 15th deadline. Ones that put him at virtually no risk of injury. In fact, many players show up and don't participate if they're nicked up. All he had to do was show up and be honest with the doctors about his condition. Is he obligated? No. Could he have signed the tender and done so, like every other franchise player did? Yes. You are arguing a straw man if you think that Byrd skipped mini-camp and OTA's because he was worried about slipping on a mat. So allow me to return the favor: based on everything you've seen from this regime, can you say with certainty that Byrd would NOT have gotten a new deal if he--in good faith--signed his tender, reported to OTA's and mini-camps, and been up front about his injury? You're picking nits now, John. Both sides are well aware of the going rate in terms of guaranteed money on a new contract for a FS; I didn't think I had to define it for the umpteenth time in this thread. If you'd like to continue dialogue, I'm happy to do so, provided you're willing to drop this unfounded notion that I somehow don't understand the distinction between rights and obligations, or that I don't understand the CBA (I've read the language plenty of times, thank you). lots of words. lack of comprehension. he had nothing to gain by showing up early. you like to bring up these comparisons of the other 7 who got tagged. how many of them showed up before signing their deal? i'm picking nits? that's quite a nit to pick when it comes to what "the going rate is" for a free safety. if both sides were well aware of that, then why wasn't a deal done? odd. and you still conveniently overlook the fact that once Byrd's salary was locked in after July 15 passed, what incentive did he have to show up for training camp and before he risked losing a portion of that salary. he wasn't going to get one more penny from the Bills. and he risked his future earnings if he got hurt. but somehow, this was unprofessional on his part? whether or not you choose to continue this conversation is up to you and not of my concern. i simply choose to continue it because i still fail to comprehend much of the basis of your point. jw and i'm pretty sure there are a few cases here in which you've now contradicted yourself. for the purposes of not picking nits, i'll choose not to point them out. Edited January 30, 2014 by john wawrow
papazoid Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Just for the info since there continues to be debate about where Byrd fits in and his value, etc. Just for info's sake, not to add fuel to the fire... http://overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=S based on that...average of the Top 5 is $8.37 mil
K-9 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 based on that...average of the Top 5 is $8.37 mil It's all about the guaranteed money, right? Something tells me Parker is looking for something north of Berry's $25m. I say that because Parker thinks Byrd is the best and deserves highest pay and I strongly doubt he draws the positional distinction. If Byrd were as good a SS as Berry I might consider it. But that's hard for a FREE safety to be. GO BILLS!!!
thebandit27 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 lots of words. lack of comprehension. he had nothing to gain by showing up early. you like to bring up these comparisons of the other 7 who got tagged. how many of them showed up before signing their deal? i'm picking nits? that's quite a nit to pick when it comes to what "the going rate is" for a free safety. if both sides were well aware of that, then why wasn't a deal done? odd. and you still conveniently overlook the fact that once Byrd's salary was locked in after July 15 passed, what incentive did he have to show up for training camp and before he risked losing a portion of that salary. he wasn't going to get one more penny from the Bills. and he risked his future earnings if he got hurt. but somehow, this was unprofessional on his part? whether or not you choose to continue this conversation is up to you and not of my concern. i simply choose to continue it because i still fail to comprehend much of the basis of your point. jw and i'm pretty sure there are a few cases here in which you've now contradicted yourself. for the purposes of not picking nits, i'll choose not to point them out. This is a total copout of a response that addresses zero of the points I made...several of which were both salient and contrary to your diatribe. Furthermore, you once again accuse me of lacking comprehension on the topic, which I'm not going to take from anyone. We're done here.
Delete This Account Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 This is a total copout of a response that addresses zero of the points I made...several of which were both salient and contrary to your diatribe. Furthermore, you once again accuse me of lacking comprehension on the topic, which I'm not going to take from anyone. We're done here. or are we? jw
papazoid Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 It's all about the guaranteed money, right? Something tells me Parker is looking for something north of Berry's $25m. I say that because Parker thinks Byrd is the best and deserves highest pay and I strongly doubt he draws the positional distinction. If Byrd were as good a SS as Berry I might consider it. But that's hard for a FREE safety to be. GO BILLS!!! I agree with ya....I have always maintained the minimum would be $9 mil/yr for 5 years with $27 mil guaranteed (basically the bills could get out after 3 years).
Turbosrrgood Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 lots of words. lack of comprehension. he had nothing to gain by showing up early. you like to bring up these comparisons of the other 7 who got tagged. how many of them showed up before signing their deal? i'm picking nits? that's quite a nit to pick when it comes to what "the going rate is" for a free safety. if both sides were well aware of that, then why wasn't a deal done? odd. and you still conveniently overlook the fact that once Byrd's salary was locked in after July 15 passed, what incentive did he have to show up for training camp and before he risked losing a portion of that salary. he wasn't going to get one more penny from the Bills. and he risked his future earnings if he got hurt. but somehow, this was unprofessional on his part? whether or not you choose to continue this conversation is up to you and not of my concern. i simply choose to continue it because i still fail to comprehend much of the basis of your point. jw and i'm pretty sure there are a few cases here in which you've now contradicted yourself. for the purposes of not picking nits, i'll choose not to point them out. This is fun, you not only call out someone else's comprehension, but also your own.
BillsVet Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 we are NOT making the playoffs with or without Byrd..........until they get a Franchise QB. Are we closer to being a playoff team with Jairus Byrd or shall we let him go for nothing and pass the cost savings on to Detroit? That's how OBD has operated in the past however many years. It's all about the guaranteed money, right? Something tells me Parker is looking for something north of Berry's $25m. I say that because Parker thinks Byrd is the best and deserves highest pay and I strongly doubt he draws the positional distinction. If Byrd were as good a SS as Berry I might consider it. But that's hard for a FREE safety to be. GO BILLS!!! Why differentiate between a SS and FS in comparing salary? And it's worth noting that the slotting of draft picks back in 2010 meant rookies were paid contracts that made them the highest or close to the highest paid in the league. That ended with the 2011 draft after the CBA was agreed to.
Beerball Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 At the same time, getting Schwartz doesn't exactly speak to a financially-restricted hire. Are you familiar with the terms? I assume that they got him somewhat cheaply because Detroit is still paying him.
section122 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Why differentiate between a SS and FS in comparing salary? And it's worth noting that the slotting of draft picks back in 2010 meant rookies were paid contracts that made them the highest or close to the highest paid in the league. That ended with the 2011 draft after the CBA was agreed to. Quite simply because they are completely different positions. Much like OG and OT aren't the same, FS and SS require a different skill set. FS is much more like a CB and is expected to help more in the passing game while SS is more like a LB and expected to help more in the run game.
K-9 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Are we closer to being a playoff team with Jairus Byrd or shall we let him go for nothing and pass the cost savings on to Detroit? That's how OBD has operated in the past however many years. Why differentiate between a SS and FS in comparing salary? And it's worth noting that the slotting of draft picks back in 2010 meant rookies were paid contracts that made them the highest or close to the highest paid in the league. That ended with the 2011 draft after the CBA was agreed to. Because they're asked to do more for one, but Berry and Polamalu are entirely different athletic animals than Bryd or Weddle anyway. Truly uniquely gifted players. Byrd, for all his great instincts and ability, doesn't have what they have in terms of impacting the game on a play by play basis. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts