BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 how much will go to Byrd? ~ half of it
BigBuff423 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Somebody will make him the highest paid FS in league history, but probably not the Bills. Do you think $8.5 million would be fair? Because supposedly the Bills could have signed him long term for that amount last year but they thought it was too much. Now this year it looks like a "fair" price. Another FO screw up if true. He'll get 10 or close to it somewhere for a 5 year contract At this point, you Tag and trade him...if nothig more than for the message of "don't hold out and demand more money when you've been given a fair deal this year"...in recent years the BILLS have proven their wiling to reward the players that show up to play in their final year...and IF Byrd had simply signed the tender and then not done the hold out b.s. I think you would have seen a long-term deal done...but who really knows....at this point, too many sour grapes in my hand - trade him and move forward.
mattsox Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 That he is not worth the money he's demanding...pay him well, but $10 mil / yr is too much for a Safety, IMO of course Players are ridiculous. They want to be paid big and be on a winning team. Well guess what? Will pay you fairly, but we need to sign other players too to make it worth your while as well. They are NEVER looking at the BIG picture!
BigBuff423 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Players are ridiculous. They want to be paid big and be on a winning team. Well guess what? Will pay you fairly, but we need to sign other players too to make it worth your while as well. They are NEVER looking at the BIG picture! "Never" might be a bit of an overstatement...but on the whole, I agree with you. Player says, "I've got to think of my family", it's a awww shucks way of saying, I want my millions so my family and I can live in the lap of luxury unitl I'm pooping in a wheelchair and having strippers shower me with their....whoops, too far... Meanwhile, there's a "Sanitary Engineer", or as we used to call them, um - Janitors, who's trying to "think of their family" for $13 / hour...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 "Never" might be a bit of an overstatement...but on the whole, I agree with you. Player says, "I've got to think of my family", it's a awww shucks way of saying, I want my millions so my family and I can live in the lap of luxury unitl I'm pooping in a wheelchair and having strippers shower me with their....whoops, too far... Meanwhile, there's a "Sanitary Engineer", or as we used to call them, um - Janitors, who's trying to "think of their family" for $13 / hour... I never really understood capitalism or the free market either. If I am an important member of a multi-billion dollar business why should I be entitled to what the market warrants? I guess that I should just take what I'm told and be happy?
papazoid Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 the bills could be $50 million under and it WON'T MATTER.....Tyrd's #1 priority is to become an UFA. it is a virtual certainty Tyrd will become a UFA no latter than 2015. he's NOT accepting any long term offer from buffalo. the bills ONLY option is to tag him and then likely trade him before a repeat of him not signing the tender or reporting to camp.
yungmack Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 At this point, you Tag and trade him...if nothig more than for the message of "don't hold out and demand more money when you've been given a fair deal this year"...in recent years the BILLS have proven their wiling to reward the players that show up to play in their final year...and IF Byrd had simply signed the tender and then not done the hold out b.s. I think you would have seen a long-term deal done...but who really knows....at this point, too many sour grapes in my hand - trade him and move forward. The Byrd situation is repeated every time a player rises to elite status. Is your solution then that every time this happens to one of the Bills draftees, the team should get rid of them? If so, know that this is a recipe for eternal mediocrity.
Dorkington Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 That number will likely go up with a couple of releases too. Now the question is, will our FO actually spend money to build this team to contention? Or will they build it up just enough to sell hope to the fans, while maximizing profits? I lean towards the latter.
Mr. WEO Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Let's all forget we are fans motivated by just wanting to build and keep a great team that piles up win upon win. Let's all put our strict businessmen hats on for a second. Now that we're all looking at it from business perspective I have a question: Would we be at a competitive disadvantage if we had to earmark 65% of revenues to player costs, which includes things besides just salary, vs. a team that only has to spend 35% to cover player costs? Just from a business perspective. GO BILLS!!! This may be an issue for the next owner, but not the current one. The salary cap is covered by the network contracts. The rest of revenue is for staff and debt payment, for the most part. RW has no obvious team debt. He banks 20-40 million most years, so the point of total revenue percent spent on players salaries is moot in Buffalo.
CodeMonkey Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) The excuse is that hte bills need to extend players like Spiller and Dareus as well. YOu can't keep everyone and I would say both those players make a bigger impact on the team than Byrd. I'm not sure that's true for Dareus, but maybe. Spiller????? Not a chance. Not yet in his career anyway. Edited February 20, 2014 by CodeMonkey
BB2004 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Just read the NFL is giving a 5% increase in the cap this year as the Bills were going to carry almost $19 Mill over from last year this would put them at $25 Mill for this years cap . Whats the excuse now to not sign Byrd ? http://blogs.buffalo...ry-cap-ceiling/ I would not make him the top paid safety in the league but certainly paying him in the top 5 of the safeties in the league makes sense.
BillsVet Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I disagree, I'm with the majority of fans here who hope the Bills win the Salary Cap Superbowl. It's the only thing that matters - having a better cap situation than the other 31 teams. Never before in the history of sports has a fan base been more concerned about an owner saving money. And never before in the history of sports has that same fan base been more critical of players who dare to go against their team and want more than what the team wanted to spend. Every Bills player that has any sort of conflict with the team in recent years instantly becomes a pariah. Amazing when you consider the track record of futility this franchise has exhibited going back almost 15 seasons.
BigBuff423 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) The Byrd situation is repeated every time a player rises to elite status. Is your solution then that every time this happens to one of the Bills draftees, the team should get rid of them? If so, know that this is a recipe for eternal mediocrity. No, based on position...let's say EJ miraculously turns in to Peyton 2.0, you pay him..period. When Dareus is ready for a new contract, you pay him...period. When Glenn, if he keeps producing and getting better, you pay him...period. Kiko as well...but Safeties, RBs, TEs, and to a lesser extent WRs you just don't over-pay for the *PLAYER*, you pay for the *POSITION* and Offensive / Defensive Line along with QB and Corners are the types of positions that demand top tier money and where you spend most of your Cap money....Safeties, RBs, some LBs, and TEs become interchangeable at a certain value point....so while I find it a bit too expensive given where this team is right now, paying Super Mario super money at least addresses a *POSITION* where you spend the money, although I would argue you could probably get better value and almost as good production as some of the guys coming on the market this year that will give you better bang-for-buck...but, whatever, it is what it is.... Edited February 20, 2014 by BigBuff423
marauderswr80 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Tag, trade, be done, move on In that order!
section122 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Players are ridiculous. They want to be paid big and be on a winning team. Well guess what? Will pay you fairly, but we need to sign other players too to make it worth your while as well. They are NEVER looking at the BIG picture! I never really understood capitalism or the free market either. If I am an important member of a multi-billion dollar business why should I be entitled to what the market warrants? I guess that I should just take what I'm told and be happy? My feelings on this are that players can't have their cake and eat it too. If you want to be the highest paid and the market bears it good for you. If you want to take a bit of a discount it will invariably help the team around you be stronger which would help in winning. It all boils down to what the player is looking for. Tom Brady has routinely taken less money than he is worth which has allowed the Pats* to put a stronger team around him. Peyton Manning has routinely taken huge deals which lead to him having a weaker supporting cast. I don't fault players for either approach but I think most fans ideally would prefer the stars on their teams want to win more than get paid. That is almost never the case but there are examples of it. This may be an issue for the next owner, but not the current one. The salary cap is covered by the network contracts. The rest of revenue is for staff and debt payment, for the most part. RW has no obvious team debt. He banks 20-40 million most years, so the point of total revenue percent spent on players salaries is moot in Buffalo. Boy I have to agree with you twice in the same thread The networks cover player salaries completely. They don't cover expenses but that number varies from year to year for such things as perfomance bonuses etc... The Bills have no debt and have been very profitable for the last several years. Not surprising either is the fact that teams that are successful are much more profitable. Think about it, the Bills have zero national appeal, have no bandwagon support, and have been a non factor for over a decade which means that it is hard to generate new fans (read young people). All 3 of these things can be changed but putting the emphasis on winning. It would become chic to support small town Buffalo much like Green Bay, Bandwagon support is huge for profitability as they need to buy gear to show their support, and young fans become season ticket holders, raise their kids to be fans, etc..
Kellyto83TD Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Just read the NFL is giving a 5% increase in the cap this year as the Bills were going to carry almost $19 Mill over from last year this would put them at $25 Mill for this years cap . Whats the excuse now to not sign Byrd ? http://blogs.buffalo...ry-cap-ceiling/ Well I start with he isn't worth the money he is asking, no safety is. We can talk about keeping our own talent all we want but its stupid fiscal policy to overpay for lesser positions. The Bills nor any other team can keep a player from being stupid and listening to their idiot agents whom are known !@#$s. Byrd has priced himself out of the Bills market and I pray Whaley is smart enough NOT to pay him and take a large cap dent for just a single safety. BTW What has our record been with him here? So apparently he wouldn't be greatly missed when he departs. Now I do franchise his ass again since the cap went up and get what I can trade wise for him
Kirby Jackson Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) My feelings on this are that players can't have their cake and eat it too. If you want to be the highest paid and the market bears it good for you. If you want to take a bit of a discount it will invariably help the team around you be stronger which would help in winning. It all boils down to what the player is looking for. Tom Brady has routinely taken less money than he is worth which has allowed the Pats* to put a stronger team around him. Peyton Manning has routinely taken huge deals which lead to him having a weaker supporting cast. I don't fault players for either approach but I think most fans ideally would prefer the stars on their teams want to win more than get paid. That is almost never the case but there are examples of it. Boy I have to agree with you twice in the same thread The networks cover player salaries completely. They don't cover expenses but that number varies from year to year for such things as perfomance bonuses etc... The Bills have no debt and have been very profitable for the last several years. Not surprising either is the fact that teams that are successful are much more profitable. Think about it, the Bills have zero national appeal, have no bandwagon support, and have been a non factor for over a decade which means that it is hard to generate new fans (read young people). All 3 of these things can be changed but putting the emphasis on winning. It would become chic to support small town Buffalo much like Green Bay, Bandwagon support is huge for profitability as they need to buy gear to show their support, and young fans become season ticket holders, raise their kids to be fans, etc.. If you look at the Brady situation he never takes less actual money; he takes team friendly deals. There is a difference. I do agree with your point on the different players wanting different things. From my experiences working in sports I can count on 1 hand the guys that I have encountered that would rather take a hometown discount. A lot are smart enough to say the right things and keep negotiations out of the media. The overwhelming majority understand that it is a business and their earning window is short, especially in the NFL. The higher injury risk and non guaranteed deals leave the players little choice. I will not begrudge someone for maximizing their value in any industry. I have lost really good employees to other companies for better opportunities. I did not necessarily want to lose them but they have to do what is in the best interest of themselves and their families not necessarily what is in the companies' best interest. Edited February 20, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
BigBuff423 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 If you look at the Brady situation he never takes less actual money; he takes team friendly deals. There is a difference. I do agree with your point on the different players wanting different things. From my experiences working in sports I can count on 1 hand the guys that I have encountered that would rather take a hometown discount. A lot are smart enough to say the right things and keep negotiations out of the media. The overwhelming majority understand that it is a business and their earning window is short, especially in the NFL. The higher injury risk and non guaranteed deals leave the players little choice. I will not begrudge someone for maximizing their value in any industry. I have lost really good employees to other companies for better opportunities. I did not necessarily want to lose them but they have to do what is in the best interest of themselves and their families not necessarily what is in the companies' best interest. But rarely do you keep said employee when he tells you he wants more money and then refuses to show up for work...in the NFL, you get paid anyways and get a raise....so, to me how the player handles the issue is as much about character and ethics as it is about protecting their financial future....
Kirby Jackson Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) But rarely do you keep said employee when he tells you he wants more money and then refuses to show up for work...in the NFL, you get paid anyways and get a raise....so, to me how the player handles the issue is as much about character and ethics as it is about protecting their financial future.... I am not sure that I understand? The NFL is such an odd model because the only money that you are promise is the guaranteed portion. I think that most have an idea of what their market value is in any business. If you are sure that you can get that number or responsibility/opportunity (whatever you are seeking) then guys go for it. There are a lot of factors though: cost of living, schools for their kids, taxes, team culture, facilities, teammates, coaching staff, playing time, etc... that determine where a player goes. It is not just strictly about the contract amount. Edited February 20, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Mr. WEO Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Before you start spouting off about "profits" can you please link me to a team financial statement that itemizes all income and expenses? I'll wait. $12.6m in operating income. $250.7m in operating income. One is not like the other. Take off the fan hat and put on the business hat. GO BILLS!!! Operating income is earnings before expenses, interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization. Since the Bills don't own the stadium, there is really no interest or amortization. If you think the Bills are losing money, maybe you can link that. Even so, the question remains, after all the expenses are paid, why does it matter how much "the Bills" have laying around in the pile compared to other teams? How does it out them, currently at a disadvantage that their operating income is so much less than the Cowboys? Boy I have to agree with you twice in the same thread Painful, isn't it!
Recommended Posts