NoSaint Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 8 teams used the franchise tag last year. down from 21 the year prior and 13 the year before - I would hardly qualify it as rare.
boyst Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 ESPN - Dolphins' deal with CB Brent Grimes worth $32M over 4 years, includes $16M guaranteed, source tells ESPN
Bill from NYC Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 He's way better than you seem to think he is, Bill. If you want to see the value of good safety play, I suggest looking no farther than the Seattle Seahawks. Byrd is at that level, and other teams know it. Cam Chancellor was 4.62. Dashon Goldson was 4.65. Ed Reed was 4.57. Before you say he's slow, look at the times of other top safeties. Top-line speed at the safety position ain't all its cracked up to be. Donte Whitner was 4.4. Who is the better player - Whitner or Byrd? All of your points are well taken. This is why I am fine with the Bills slapping the tag on him. I didn't like seeing Bradham fly by him and it's enough of a concern to make me wonder about 50 mil. to a possibly hobbled safety. Again, I am for tagging him and sending a message.
ALF Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The Bills could have traded Levitre and Byrd when they had 1 year remaining on there regular contracts and at least have draft picks in return instead of nothing. Not like we needed them in the playoffs for there final year here.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Because he does not want to be here ? BS.... They wouldn't even be negotiating if that were true. What makes sense to me is the Bryd camp believes they can get more with 32 bidders than with 1.
Bill from NYC Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The Bills could have traded Levitre and Byrd when they had 1 year remaining on there regular contracts and at least have draft picks in return instead of nothing. Not like we needed them in the playoffs for there final year here. I'm probably in the vast minority but imo letting Levitre walk was a far worse move than losing Byrd. We actually kept Byrd for a season. We let go of Levitre, and brought in a rookie qb who seems to need all the help he can get, and I'm being kind.
Big Turk Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 we over pay for bad talent and extend the high risk players who don't deserve it. Fitz, Kelsey, Moorman. Kelsey did less then Bryan Scott - a player who was under appreciated and played a position easy to fill. Thus he was not appreciated by the FO. We bring in Langston Walker and take out Jason Peters. We bring in Manny Lawson to fjnally replace a role at LB when w take out Poz. We didn't seem to over pay for Lawson but no one expected him to contribute like he did in 2013 - a season in which he was still proven to be mediocre at run support. Succesful teams don't create their own holes by losing talent they developed. They continuously bring up and look to upgrade, at the least. The Pats lose a mediocre starter and they have a mediocre 2nd year man to fill in immediately. The Bills execute poor planning It will all change once we start winning consistently and players WANT to be part of it. Until it happens we are stuck in the same spot. I like the pieces in place to make that happen, much as I do with the Sabres...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I have never read anywhere that the $30 million was guaranteed. Here is what Wawrow said: "Without revealing the full value and length of the offer, one person said Byrd would have been paid about $30 million over the contract's first three seasons." "Guaranteed" is the crux of the matter. Apologies. Thought I read that, but I can't find it now. So perhaps it's about the guaranteed money and perhaps it's about term. I doubt the 10 mil per year is an issue. Edited March 3, 2014 by over 20 years of fanhood
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 All of your points are well taken. This is why I am fine with the Bills slapping the tag on him. I didn't like seeing Bradham fly by him and it's enough of a concern to make me wonder about 50 mil. to a possibly hobbled safety. Again, I am for tagging him and sending a message. I'd love it they stuck it to him but 8 million is a lot to prove a point. You know he's not going to camp and will be "injured" and the drama will continue. I have no problem if they use the money to get hmm.. linebacker.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I'm probably in the vast minority but imo letting Levitre walk was a far worse move than losing Byrd. We actually kept Byrd for a season. We let go of Levitre, and brought in a rookie qb who seems to need all the help he can get, and I'm being kind. I agree but for a slightly different reason: they had no backup plan for Levitre's departure. They had Plan A: Colin Brown. Plan B was you're fired. At least with Byrd, they've got a glut of young safeties (AW, Duke, Meeks) waiting in the wings.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I'd love it they stuck it to him but 8 million is a lot to prove a point. You know he's not going to camp and will be "injured" and the drama will continue. I have no problem if they use the money to get hmm.. linebacker. This is the real point. How much is an all pro FS worth to the rebuild if you can back fill with an up and comer on the roster who can be adequate while you put the cash into another need and more critical spot.
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I agree but for a slightly different reason: they had no backup plan for Levitre's departure. They had Plan A: Colin Brown. Plan B was you're fired. At least with Byrd, they've got a glut of young safeties (AW, Duke, Meeks) waiting in the wings. I'm sure jim leonhards flip phone is ringing they might want to lock up his last year here.
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I'm probably in the vast minority but imo letting Levitre walk was a far worse move than losing Byrd. We actually kept Byrd for a season. We let go of Levitre, and brought in a rookie qb who seems to need all the help he can get, and I'm being kind. I'm not shocked that the rookie struggled in some aspects...I certainly don't think it's damnable I agree but for a slightly different reason: they had no backup plan for Levitre's departure. They had Plan A: Colin Brown. Plan B was you're fired. At least with Byrd, they've got a glut of young safeties (AW, Duke, Meeks) waiting in the wings. Yes, the biggest issue was the mis-evaluation on Brown. I get why it happened, as he did acquit himself pretty nicely at center in some spot duty...just not having a backup plan to him was crippling at that position.
YoloinOhio Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I'm sure jim leonhards flip phone is ringing they might want to lock up his last year here. That is both mean and funny. FWIW he has said he is only playing one more year before retiring.
Jamie Nails Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 That is both mean and funny. FWIW he has said he is only playing one more year before retiring. Checking his AOL account for an email from Buddy. He isn't coming back, especially with Petitine gone
YoloinOhio Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 down from 21 the year prior and 13 the year before - I would hardly qualify it as rare. The point it started out looking like a great option for the teams then it wasn't when the players reacted like they were being sent to a Turkish prison.... therefore going down and a bad look these days unless it is simply to buy more time to get a deal done where both sides WANT to get a deal done. Checking his AOL account for an email from Buddy. He isn't coming back, especially with Petitine gone His flip phone would fit in quite well in Cleveland...
section122 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The only thing I can think of is Byrd and his agent Eugene Assclown told the Bills if they franchise and try to trade him, they will refuse to report to that team. That would keep a trade from happening. And Byrd can sit until week 10 I believe and not play and still get his year in. I still say tag him Many people have said this so it is directed only at you but.... Byrd, if he were to be tagged, could not employ the same tactic as this year. Does anyone really think a team would be willing to pay 3 years 30 million to someone who has missed time the last 2 years due to injury? It would hurt his stock much more than the isolated incident of this year. Even if he says it isn't an injury but he isn't happy with the organization's designation. He is telling every team that he isn't interested in helping the team out he is interested in helping himself out. This would also scare away some potential suitors. Add in the fact that he will be 28 next year and a 10 million per year salary would be even harder to get for 3+ years. Tagging him definitely seems to be the smart thing to do unless as some have speculated, that the Bills have made their final offer and told him if he can get more good for him and if not the offer will be here. I could see that as a positive and a way to actually improve their reputation with players around the league. The Bills will treat you fairly would be the takeaway. I have never read anywhere that the $30 million was guaranteed. Here is what Wawrow said: "Without revealing the full value and length of the offer, one person said Byrd would have been paid about $30 million over the contract's first three seasons." "Guaranteed" is the crux of the matter. It may well be but how many big deals get negated in the first 3 years? The only way that happens is if Byrd doesn't live up to the deal both this year and next. Even if injured next year he would certainly get year 2 to show he had recovered and more than likely even year 3 as the first would be dismissed as it takes time to get your game back. The chances of him not getting at least 3 years completed are infinitesimally small to me. Now there may be a steep cliff after the first 3 years but I would be surprised if it dropped to 4 mill as KTD estimated.
GaryPinC Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 +1. Using the tag flies in the face of further building a team that can persist for years to come. Tagging a player is a simple way of keeping him out of free agency for an additional year, but it’s seldom used around the league. Because of the huge dollar figure associated with tagging a player (and renting them, in effect), it often has the secondary effect of disgruntling a player that the given team wants to keep... hence Byrd, 2013. Teams have largely shied away from the process of tagging players at all. There are few reasons beyond buying time that teams have to apply the franchise tag. If they upset a star player like Byrd again, he’ll likely leave at the end of the season anyway, and we’ve seen toxic players tear teams apart from the inside out. Teams, in general, don’t want to have players in their locker rooms that don’t want to be there themselves. Players know this league is a business. It is the rules of the league that the Bills can use the tag and does Byrd make us a better team? How do FA's view our FO if we are not trying to put our best team on the field? The FO seems to have been respectful about the whole process, whatever the past they now risk sending the message that they are weak. Certainly the "lifers" spat points to that and not tagging him would also IMO. As others have queried, what NFL GM is going to talk trade about a player who's about to become a FA? The tag is the only leverage we've got left to get any kind of value in a trade.
boyst Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Everyone is getting too fancy. If I am the Bills I walk in to the room and do this "Here is the deal. We are tagging you this year and next year. We expect you to be here for OTA's but know you will not be here until July. That's fine with us. Buy us a Big Mac and milkshake and we will call it even. If you piss on our leg we will fine you for even batting an eyelash. If you want out of here you find someone to take you and give us a first or a 21 yr old Peyton Manning. There are no deals and we feel it is worth tagging you two more seasons. By the way. Here is a deal for what is fair 6 years, $56mm with $18mm garuanteed the first two years alone. If you like it, drop it off signed with my secretary. If not, see you in July. Good day"
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Everyone is getting too fancy. If I am the Bills I walk in to the room and do this "Here is the deal. We are tagging you this year and next year. We expect you to be here for OTA's but know you will not be here until July. That's fine with us. Buy us a Big Mac and milkshake and we will call it even. If you piss on our leg we will fine you for even batting an eyelash. If you want out of here you find someone to take you and give us a first or a 21 yr old Peyton Manning. There are no deals and we feel it is worth tagging you two more seasons. By the way. Here is a deal for what is fair 6 years, $56mm with $18mm garuanteed the first two years alone. If you like it, drop it off signed with my secretary. If not, see you in July. Good day" That's fine in theory, but there are a few caveats to this approach: 1) Tagging Byrd this year works; tagging him next year means committing to a 44% raise, which would be a salary of $12.1M for one-year, guaranteed in full. 2) Unless Byrd signs the deal, he cannot be fined. Only players under contract can be fined. If he decides to sit out and not sign the tender until after week 10, there isn't a single thing the team can do about it other than rescind the tag and make him an UFA 3) He won't report in July...August at the earliest.
Recommended Posts