Brandon talks with AP about Byrd's contract

[K-9]

let me get this straight: Byrd was seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 million in guaranteed money and was unable to secure that from the Bills so the Bills tagged him.

should the Bills tag Byrd again this season, they will have committed more than $15 million in salary over two years to a player. yes, that's below market in averaging out to $7.5 million a year.

 

here's a few questions, though:

-- the Bills overpaid Mark Anderson and got very little out of him. wouldn't it have been better to commit Anderson's money to re-signing Byrd?

-- broken down, the Bills spent $6.9 million on Byrd last season but only got 11 games out of him. and he was not present for a majority of the offseason. would anyone consider the Bills getting value for their money?

-- should the Bills and Byrd go through the same scenario this offseason, would that be considered a good value?

 

jw

 

Does Byrd signing a long term deal with the kind of guaranteed money he's looking for preclude him from missing time due to injury?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Gordio]

There's nothing to suggest that this will be the case...they tagged Byrd last season because it was the smart thing to do...they got him at less than market-value. This year, it won't be less than market value, so if they want him long-term, they'll sign him.

 

 

 

Again, they tagged him last year because they got his services for below market. That's not the case this year, so tagging him is more of a last-ditch effort to keep a good player that wants more than you're willing to pay than it is a one-year value contract like last year.

 

Cap-wise, there's probably better ways to manage it this year; cash-wise, it's not only shrewd, it's smart.

 

 

 

Byrd wants to get paid; there's nothing more to it than that. If he gets paid in Buffalo, he'll be happy. If he gets paid somewhere else, he'll be happy too.

 

All things being equal, I believe he'd rather get paid in Buffalo than someplace else.

 

I don't get this logic. I don't care about market value. The Bills are not pressed against the Cap. It is not like if they tag Byrd they are going to have to release 4 Vets to get under the cap. Having Byrd on the team, makes the Bills a better team, so my only conclusion is if they are serious about winning this year & that is the most important thing & they can not come to a long term contract for Byrd they will tag him again. It is really that simple.

[Dawgg]

"Good value" is subjective in this case, as his franchise tender of ~$8.3M is close to what he'd get on a per-year-average basis on the open market. It's certainly not below market like last year.

 

Would I consider it good value? Probably not. Would I rather they tag him for that amount than lose him for no compensation? Absolutely.

 

This is spot on. In theory, the Bills should be willing to take any upper-echelon player on a one-year contract at market value. Would you take Aaron Rodgers for a one-year rental for his annual salary of $20M? I sure would and so too would (or should) the Bills.

 

The operative question here is whether -- in the event a long-term deal cannot be reached -- is it better to tag him or let him walk? My contention is that tagging him would be the better outcome and doing so would be prudent both financially and in terms of the salary cap structure.

 

Byrd will certainly not be happy with a franchise tag, but he won't be unhappy enough to forgo the salary. He was actually ready to play during Week 4 but Marrone elected to sit him out until Week 5 and he made an impact right away. Although his offseason standoff may have given scribes a lot to write about, it didn't appear to be a major team distraction, as contract issues frequently manifest themselves during training camp.

[thebandit27]

I don't get this logic. I don't care about market value. The Bills are not pressed against the Cap. It is not like if they tag Byrd they are going to have to release 4 Vets to get under the cap. Having Byrd on the team, makes the Bills a better team, so my only conclusion is if they are serious about winning this year & that is the most important thing & they can not come to a long term contract for Byrd they will tag him again. It is really that simple.

 

You must've missed where I said this:

 

"Good value" is subjective in this case, as his franchise tender of ~$8.3M is close to what he'd get on a per-year-average basis on the open market. It's certainly not below market like last year.

 

Would I consider it good value? Probably not. Would I rather they tag him for that amount than lose him for no compensation? Absolutely.

 

Obviously, my preference would be to sign him long-term, as I believe he's an asset to the team that won't be easily replaced.

 

This is spot on. In theory, the Bills should be willing to take any upper-echelon player on a one-year contract at market value. Would you take Aaron Rodgers for a one-year rental for his annual salary of $20M? I sure would and so too would (or should) the Bills.

 

The operative question here is whether -- in the event a long-term deal cannot be reached -- is it better to tag him or let him walk? My contention is that tagging him would be the better outcome and doing so would be prudent both financially and in terms of the salary cap structure.

 

Byrd will certainly not be happy with a franchise tag, but he won't be unhappy enough to forgo the salary. He was actually ready to play during Week 4 but Marrone elected to sit him out until Week 5 and he made an impact right away. Although his offseason standoff may have given scribes a lot to write about, it didn't appear to be a major team distraction, as contract issues frequently manifest themselves during training camp.

 

Fully agree.

[Dawgg]

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.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Dawgg

[GA BILLS FAN]

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.

I don't think the media influences the Bills FO decision making. The Bills FO trio makes decisions to maximize profit first, winning is second. They might like it when they are taken off the proverbial hook by the media, but, in the end, this franchise does what it wants. I know Bandit will say otherwise, but with $20M in unspent cap in 2013 and $30M in cap space heading into 2014, we'll all see if this is a new day and a new way of thinking. Still waiting for thatToronto series to get cancelled, crickets.

Edited January 29, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[Dawgg]

I don't think the media influences the Bills FO decision making.

Nor do I. However, the media does influence fans' perception of what the front office is doing. Along with the unique access the media has to the decision-makers in the front office comes a duty of sorts to inform the public in an unbiased fashion.

[GA BILLS FAN]

Nor do I. However, the media does influence fans' perception of what the front office is doing. Along with the unique access the media has to the decision-makers in the front office comes a duty of sorts to inform the public in an unbiased fashion.

+1

[TDRupp]

 

 

This is spot on. In theory, the Bills should be willing to take any upper-echelon player on a one-year contract at market value. Would you take Aaron Rodgers for a one-year rental for his annual salary of $20M? I sure would and so too would (or should) the Bills.

 

The operative question here is whether -- in the event a long-term deal cannot be reached -- is it better to tag him or let him walk? My contention is that tagging him would be the better outcome and doing so would be prudent both financially and in terms of the salary cap structure.

 

Byrd will certainly not be happy with a franchise tag, but he won't be unhappy enough to forgo the salary. He was actually ready to play during Week 4 but Marrone elected to sit him out until Week 5 and he made an impact right away. Although his offseason standoff may have given scribes a lot to write about, it didn't appear to be a major team distraction, as contract issues frequently manifest themselves during training camp.

 

Actually, he said he was ready to play in a Week 5 in Cleveland. So, he was ready to play after missing 4 games and Marrone preferred he be a full go in practice all week with the mindset that he would play in week 6.

 

The one thing the Bills have to weigh is whether they want Byrd even if he does not want to be here (at least on a one year franchise deal). Based on Marrone's comments about letting the D coaches go, they may choose to let him go.

 

I think they should do all they can to sign him in advance of the franchise deadline and if they can't reach a deal try to get Parker to agree to sign the Franchise deal so they can workout a trade way before August.

[BigBuff423]

I don't get this logic. I don't care about market value. The Bills are not pressed against the Cap. It is not like if they tag Byrd they are going to have to release 4 Vets to get under the cap. Having Byrd on the team, makes the Bills a better team, so my only conclusion is if they are serious about winning this year & that is the most important thing & they can not come to a long term contract for Byrd they will tag him again. It is really that simple.

 

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...

[nucci]

I don't get this logic. I don't care about market value. The Bills are not pressed against the Cap. It is not like if they tag Byrd they are going to have to release 4 Vets to get under the cap. Having Byrd on the team, makes the Bills a better team, so my only conclusion is if they are serious about winning this year & that is the most important thing & they can not come to a long term contract for Byrd they will tag him again. It is really that simple.

Yes, it is.

Edited January 29, 2014 by nucci

[GA BILLS FAN]

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...

+1. Spending efficiently is the key and optimizing the trade-offs you will inevitably have to make position by position as you acquire the talent that you want to keep will determine if you are a consistent winner. You have to be willing to spend, first and foremost, you have to be smart how and where you spend and you have to be able to identify talent and in turn make good football decisions.

Edited January 29, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN

[BigBuff423]

+1. Spending efficiently is the key and optimizing the trade-offs you will inevitably have to make position by position as you acquire the talent that you want to keep will determine if you are a consistent winner. You have to be willing to spend, first and foremost, you have to be smart how and where you spend and you have to be able to identify talent and in turn make good football decisions.

 

Agreed.

[billykaykay]

Actually, he said he was ready to play in a Week 5 in Cleveland. So, he was ready to play after missing 4 games and Marrone preferred he be a full go in practice all week with the mindset that he would play in week 6.

 

The one thing the Bills have to weigh is whether they want Byrd even if he does not want to be here (at least on a one year franchise deal). Based on Marrone's comments about letting the D coaches go, they may choose to let him go.

 

I think they should do all they can to sign him in advance of the franchise deadline and if they can't reach a deal try to get Parker to agree to sign the Franchise deal so they can workout a trade way before August.

If Byrd walks, don't we get a compensatory pick ?

[BigBuff423]

If Byrd walks, don't we get a compensatory pick ?

 

If the BILLS don't sign any FA that is of equal value, the BILLS would get one in 2015.

[GA BILLS FAN]

If Byrd walks, don't we get a compensatory pick ?

Most likely. I think compensatory picks are based on a comparison of FA's signed and FA's lost. If there is a deficit Lost > Signed the NFL awards pick(s).

[808]

i don't get why some posters give credit to this front office to do the right thing and retain its young players and bring in quality free agents. these are all hypotheticals when we can look to the past and see that this FO doesn't do those things. they have drafted badly and more often than not blew it in free agency.

 

if they cared about signing players they would have been proactive about getting byrd signed 2 years ago but they did not. they also would not have split the dead money of fits,anderson over 2 years and would have taken the full cap hit this past season.

 

 

And can we end the magical hypothetical about well id rather have them spend that money on OL,LB,WR…..they won't spend it!!! they are not going to spend it. look to the past and you will see that history repeats itself. what makes you think they are going to get this right? blind hog finding a acorn? i want to believe they will get it right sooner rather than later but history says they will muck this up. as bills fans people throw this blind loyalty toward the team and don't look at the bigger picture of whats happening. its like dating a terrible girl who keeps cheating on you and ruining your day. your family and friends say dump that trick and yet you stay with her for some unknown dumb reason. I'm not saying to stop backing the bills but we must be real. until there is a change with the FO this is business as usual….

 

they won't spend the money available and then say they want people who want to be here. want to be a player for a team that is not financially invested in winning. we don't need to be the cowboys or redskins but they need to be committed to keeping its own players. or we can just go ahead and let byrd go and draft a safety early like they did with corners and RBs and OL for the past 10 or so years.

[GG]

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.

 

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.

[thebandit27]

i don't get why some posters give credit to this front office to do the right thing and retain its young players and bring in quality free agents.

 

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.

 

EDIT:

 

And as for quality free agents they've brought in:

 

Mario

Branch

Lawson

Leonhard

 

All in the last 2 years.

Edited January 29, 2014 by thebandit27

[YoloinOhio]

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.

Thank you for being here, Bandit.