nucci Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 This thread has gotten so big, I haven't read the whole thing, so forgive me if this was mentioned. Paul Hamilton just said something that got me thinking... is it possible the Bills made what they thought was a very good offer...Byrd/Parker reject it because they still think they can get more money (this appears to be all about money)... so the Bills agree not to franchise Byrd, let him go out and see if he can get more money elsewhere, and then the Bills get the opportunity to match that offer? Interesting scenario...and it would explain why the Bills are not planning to franchise tag him. Good thought but doubtful. Byrd doesn't seem to want to play for a losing franchise and his 4th DC in 4 years. I don't think they want to tag him again because he probably won't sign until camp starts and whole thing over again from last year.
Gordio Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 They could tag him again next off season. You know that, don't you? But, put that out of your mind for a minute. What's a better option: the Bills with Byrd in 2014 at a very reasonable (by NFL standards) or the Bills without Byrd or an extra draft pick? I'm not sure why the team or any fan would care about anything else. I could be wrong but I don't think they could tag him next year. I think 2 years is the maximum you could tag a player. Anyhow, I don't see the harm in tagging Byrd right now. He is not going to sign the tender until mid August & this buys the Bills some time in trying to A.) work out a long term deal or B.) Trade him. I am pretty sure they will be able to get a first for him or at least a 2nd. It does not make any sense from the Bills stand point not to tag him. Their idiots if they do not.
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I didn't think they could Beerball? I thought two consecutive years was the limit for tagging a guy? Nope, they can tag him again. I believe (it's been a while since I checked) he would get a 20% raise.
plenzmd1 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 This thread has gotten so big, I haven't read the whole thing, so forgive me if this was mentioned. Paul Hamilton just said something that got me thinking... is it possible the Bills made what they thought was a very good offer...Byrd/Parker reject it because they still think they can get more money (this appears to be all about money)... so the Bills agree not to franchise Byrd, let him go out and see if he can get more money elsewhere, and then the Bills get the opportunity to match that offer? Interesting scenario...and it would explain why the Bills are not planning to franchise tag him. Said this a while ago in this thread...put the transition tag on him instead of the franchise. Insures the exact thing you say above.
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I could be wrong but I don't think they could tag him next year. I think 2 years is the maximum you could tag a player. Anyhow, I don't see the harm in tagging Byrd right now. He is not going to sign the tender until mid August & this buys the Bills some time in trying to A.) work out a long term deal or B.) Trade him. I am pretty sure they will be able to get a first for him or at least a 2nd. It does not make any sense from the Bills stand point not to tag him. Their idiots if they do not. you can tag a player 3 years in a row. but in Byrd's case it would be for the average of the Top 5 Quarterbacks (about $17 mil).
marauderswr80 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Are there any reports as to how much the BIlls offered?? CBF 30 million first 3 years, woulda been the highest paid player at his pisition for that period of time....
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Can someone lay out the reasons why the non-exclusive tag won't be considered? What are the disadvantages? I don't know the rules since it's used so seldom, someone please educate me. (I realize that no team would give away 2 first round picks for Byrd, but what's the downside for the Bills?)
Gordio Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I'm sorry, but as I read I gotta ask is your first name...Russ? Jeffrey? or Jim? You are correct kind sir. 3 years is the maximum they could tag them with the 20% increase in year 3. This makes it even better. I would definately tag him again this year & then if they can't work out a long term agreement I would tag him again next year. Not a bad deal for Byrd either. He would get paid $25-$26 million over 3 years. That would of been just as much if not more he would of got if he was allowed to hit the open market.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Yup, piece of cake. Show me the long list of teams willing to pay $11-12M a year for a free safety. It is the same list of teams that will be lining up in 3 weeks to try to sign Byrd off the FA market. If Byrd is really going to command 10 m per in FA, there is going to be a robust market for him. That market won't develop until the Bills tag him. Other teams are not going to indicate a wilingness to trade now because they want Byrd to hit the open market.
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Nope, they can tag him again. I believe (it's been a while since I checked) he would get a 20% raise. My bad...he'd get a 44% raise next season which would take him to just over 12M if my math is correct. So, you'd have Byrd two addition years for a little over 10M/season. Why the heck not? Roll in last year's salary and they've kept Byrd for 3 seasons at less than 10M/season. Here's where I got the 44% raise.
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Can someone lay out the reasons why the non-exclusive tag won't be considered? What are the disadvantages? I don't know the rules since it's used so seldom, someone please educate me. (I realize that no team would give away 2 first round picks for Byrd, but what's the downside for the Bills?) http://football.about.com/cs/football101/a/franchisetransi.htm
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I don't get it. Why did nfl.com say we aren't going to franchise him? What do we have to lose? Best case he plays eventually and does well. Worst case he plays eventually and does well. Most likely to happen will be we get some kind of conditional pick from another team and trade him. I don't understand why we would just let him walk There was a non-story about young guns vs. lifers a while back. Maybe it's about who wears the pants.
NoSaint Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I totally agree. He's going to get 10m a year, IMO. But I think there won't be much want for any of the other Bills FA, we will likely re-sign Chandler, and then sign about three guys like Lawson, Branch, and Legursky, and we won't end up with anything more than a 6th rounder that is really a 7th rounder as a compensory. a 6th rounder is the one thing that it almost 100% couldnt be. if we lost more guys then we signed wed likely get a 3 for him, equal number in and out wed be eligible for a 7, and in the situation you outlined gaining guys we wouldnt be eligible for anything.
bobobonators Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) My bad...he'd get a 44% raise next season which would take him to just over 12M if my math is correct. So, you'd have Byrd two addition years for a little over 10M/season. Why the heck not? Roll in last year's salary and they've kept Byrd for 3 seasons at less than 10M/season. Here's where I got the 44% raise. I would take that any day of the week as a Bills fan. Only concern, however, would probably be the way Byrd reacts to that contract and how many games he plays b/c of "injuries". I mean I understand players wanting long-term deals, but if you're Byrd and you're getting franchised 3 years in a row, you're guaranteed elite money for 3 years, and after that he can still get another 2-3yr contract elsewhere b/c he's still young enough. It's certainly not the end of the world for Byrd by any stretch. Edited March 3, 2014 by bobobonators
NoSaint Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 It is the same list of teams that will be lining up in 3 weeks to try to sign Byrd off the FA market. If Byrd is really going to command 10 m per in FA, there is going to be a robust market for him. That market won't develop until the Bills tag him. Other teams are not going to indicate a wilingness to trade now because they want Byrd to hit the open market. it didnt materialize last year after being tagged though...
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 http://football.abou...chisetransi.htm if I'd have wanted to do the research myself I would have. I want the Cliff Notes version.
NoSaint Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Said this a while ago in this thread...put the transition tag on him instead of the franchise. Insures the exact thing you say above. but by restricting his free agency i believe you lose eligibility for a compensatory pick if you dont match.
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 if I'd have wanted to do the research myself I would have. I want the Cliff Notes version. ohhhhhhh....actually it's less confusing if you do it the long way. starts page 44. https://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/CBA-Download/
boyst Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Nope, they can tag him again. I believe (it's been a while since I checked) he would get a 20% raise. the third year becomes what is effectively a QB's franchise tag. The top 5 paid QB's seasonal average for the third consecutive year of being franchised Or maybe I am wrong? This is so confusing. Just tag the damn guy. Edited March 3, 2014 by jboyst62
Wayne Cubed Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 it didnt materialize last year after being tagged though... That must be what the Bills are thinking as far as I can imagine, if this "source" is to be trusted. Nothing materialized in terms of trade last season and it doesn't appear, from the source, that it is materializing this year. I still think the Bills should tag him and ride it out until July 15th, then if they want to cut him, if they can't find any trading partners. Yea sure, you could get Byrd to play in 2014, but that's unlikely to happen for the full season, so they Bills will have to game plan for another FS/SS combo, which will probably be Williams/Searcy. And if they look good through 8 games (the maximum amount of time Byrd could sit before getting paid) why make the switch to Byrd? I don't get not tagging him still though, just so the ball is in their court, although who knows which side this leak came from.
Recommended Posts