papazoid 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" i'm with ya, except tagging him next year is not happening. next years tag value will be the average of the top 5 highest paid QB's which will be in the $17-$20 mil range by then.
1billsfan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) 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. At least it gives them a year for a plan to fill that hole. Maybe even the 1st round pick next year is used for a safety. It also gives them the possibility of trade offer from another team that will get them a pick or swap of picks for this coming draft. There is absolutely no reason that I see not to tag Byrd. If they don't do it, then this team is officially a clown organization. Edited March 3, 2014 by 1billsfan
RealityCheck 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" And then...?
snamsnoops Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Byrd is a really good FS. I would be pissed to see him walk, he has game changing ability. We drafted him. Then i remember this teams hasnt sniffed post season in well over a decade. Why would they pay a FS 10M a season!!!!!! Nope, I understand it is a passing league and the S position will require more $$ in the future, but to pay a FS 10m, who at this point is probably a little disgruntle over being tagged last year and possible being tagged again. I was all for theme signing or tagging him... Today i am thinking it isnt worth it. Get a decent comp pic next year! wooooooooooo hooooooooooooo
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 At least it gives them a year for a plan to fill that hole. Maybe even the 1st round pick next year is used for a safety. It also gives them the possibility of trade offer from another team that will get them a pick or swap of picks for this coming draft. There is absolutely no reason that I see not to tag Byrd. If they don't do it, then this team is officially a clown organization. there is a big reason......what if Byrd plays his 100% healthy games....only this time he misses 8-10 games, shows up sometime before week 10 and then goes out again late season. then you've paid $8.4 mil for half a season or less. plus the distraction of everyone talking about the bills and byrd in a negative way.
Miyagi-Do Karate 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" I agree with the concept, but the wording might need to be tweaked. I would just tell him he is tagged. If he would like to continue to negotiate, we are open to it. If he would like to explore a potential trade or would like us to do so for him, we are open to it. If he does what he did last year, that's his right. We will just proceed as we are authorized to do under the CBA. No hard feelings.
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 What seems to missing from this discussion is the larger context of the league. I may be wrong, but I'm presuming Byrd has indicated that he'll sit out 10 if he's tagged. I wouldn't blame him either given the context. What I'm referring to is the league's cap situation. It went up a lot - to $133-134 million, and teams have to spend up to 89 percent of the cap. There are a lot of teams which are quite far under this amount, and some of those teams see themselves as "almost there" in terms of competitiveness. They have to spend their money somehow, and it's always better to spend it on elite players who are difference makers. In virtually every account I've read, Byrd is regarded as a top-3 FA prospect. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets $12 million per year from some team, with a hefty amount of it guaranteed ($25-30 million). What the Bills offer with the franchise tag is a mere $8.4 million -- a LOT less. Plus he knows that the Bills can't franchise him next year because they'd have to pay him QB franchise money. So, the plan would be to sit out 10 games, show up for the rest, and then get out of town. He'll get paid next year too. The fact that he sat out for the Bills will not be held against him despite what people here might hope.
KOKBILLS Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 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. Maybe Byrd would want to stay if the Bills absolutely blew him away with an offer...Maybe... But if Byrd was asked to give a list of the top 10 teams he would like to play for I doubt very much the Bills would be on that list...And I'm not blaming him for that either...It's understandable... Byrd and his Agent are negotiating because it can do nothing but help frame his market value...It's all good information for them, it does not hurt them, and maybe the Bills give him an offer he can't refuse... I'm not sure it's a matter of whether or not Byrd wants to be in Buffalo anyway...Maybe it's better to say that he would rather play elsewhere if all thing were equal...
maryland-bills-fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 How is it that Byrd missing 6 games with plantar faciitis doesn't hurt him on the open market? Because everybody and their grandmother knows that was a fake injury. It can not be proven by any objective test like a X-ray or MRI or whatever. He had all summer to get it cured but somehow that wasn't enough time. If we tag him, then it will flare up again for 8 games. Franchise salaries are not docked for missing games. What probably has already happened is Parker has threatened another unproveable medical holdout. All it takes is a raised eyebrow by him and the Bills know the fix is on. The Bills can not accuse him of lying/cheating/faking or they have a big lawsuit on the hands that they know they can not win. Life stinks doesn't it. (((insert best dead lawyer joke here: XXXXXX)
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Because everybody and their grandmother knows that was a fake injury. It can not be proven by any objective test like a X-ray or MRI or whatever. He had all summer to get it cured but somehow that wasn't enough time. If we tag him, then it will flare up again for 8 games. Franchise salaries are not docked for missing games. What probably has already happened is Parker has threatened another unproveable medical holdout. All it takes is a raised eyebrow by him and the Bills know the fix is on. The Bills can not accuse him of lying/cheating/faking or they have a big lawsuit on the hands that they know they can not win. Life stinks doesn't it. (((insert best dead lawyer joke here: XXXXXX) It's not a holdout if he hasn't signed the deal.
turftoe Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 It would be stupid to just let Byrd walk. It's time to Tag and Trade. Tell his agent to find a trading partner. There will be teams interested in trading once he gets the tag. No team is going to show interest at this point since they are waiting to see if they can get him without compensation. I would ask for a late first or an early second. There are plenty of teams with a need for safety that would be willing to deal.
maryland-bills-fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Okay folks here is the reality. #1 Byrd is threatening to only play part of next year if the Bills franchise him. He got away with it last year and can do it again. The Bills can not accuse him of that without getting their backside sued for lowering Byrd's earnings potential.......#2 Byrd thinks he is worth $10M a year plus, and he might find a fool to give him that money. He will get more money if the new team does not have to compensate the Bills for a trade, and (with #1) can make that the situation...............These things are true, unchangeable and just get used to them....................... #3 The Bills must have shopped Byrd last year and every moment since as a backup plan. Even if they didn't, there are 31 other teams who are competitive and have been making what they feel are fair offers. (they want to win just as much as anybody). They did not get any offers that got them much better than the compensation for losing a free agent. They are not getting any better offers now, and frankly every team can see how this is going to play out. .............#4 Byrd is not worth more the $6-7M a year, in my opinion and I hope he is greatly disappointed. I think anybody who is a Byrd fan and refuses to see how Byrd is scheissing on Buffalo is a fool and idiot. ...................#5 It is not a great loss. I would rather play an average FS (not a special position in our defense) $5M and use that extra $5M that might have gone to Byrd, add it to another $5M and get the best free agent veteran right offensive tackle. THEN not draft a ROT in the first round and get a stud WR instead. Which way do you think the Bills would look better?
Fan in Chicago 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. Despite what you and I think about EJ, I am sure we both agree that he should have had a good supporting cast around him. Levitre was an important cog of the OL and should have been kept or a good replacement obtained. Also, it was highly premature to have let David Nelson go as he had very good hands and was a great outlet/short reception option. Another point is that, I don't know why keeping Byrd and Levitre are mutually exclusive. There is enough money to have kept both.
plenzmd1 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 It would be stupid to just let Byrd walk. It's time to Tag and Trade. Tell his agent to find a trading partner. There will be teams interested in trading once he gets the tag. No team is going to show interest at this point since they are waiting to see if they can get him without compensation. I would ask for a late first or an early second. There are plenty of teams with a need for safety that would be willing to deal. that is never, ever happening.You are forgetting they still have to pay him, plus give up a first...never in a million years
maryland-bills-fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 It's not a holdout if he hasn't signed the deal. That eyebrow has already been raised. Maybe last year, maybe early this year.
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 At least it gives them a year for a plan to fill that hole. Maybe even the 1st round pick next year is used for a safety. It also gives them the possibility of trade offer from another team that will get them a pick or swap of picks for this coming draft. There is absolutely no reason that I see not to tag Byrd. If they don't do it, then this team is officially a clown organization. I fully agree that they should tag Byrd. The only reason I can think of is that they are close enough to the situation to know that they'd have a malcontent on their hands, and don't want to deal with it. Personally, I'd tag him anyway...then again, I'm not the person that has to deal with any locker room ramifications resulting from taking the hard line.
GunnerBill Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The best trade offer the wole of last year was a 4th. The Bills are calculating that the risk nobody trades for him and then he sits out as many games as possible with an "injury" whilst we pay him $8.4million is not worth to potential extra 4th round pick. If there was even a chance that there was a team out there willing to talk 2nd rounder the Bills would be tagging him.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 What seems to missing from this discussion is the larger context of the league. I may be wrong, but I'm presuming Byrd has indicated that he'll sit out 10 if he's tagged. I wouldn't blame him either given the context. What I'm referring to is the league's cap situation. It went up a lot - to $133-134 million, and teams have to spend up to 89 percent of the cap. There are a lot of teams which are quite far under this amount, and some of those teams see themselves as "almost there" in terms of competitiveness. They have to spend their money somehow, and it's always better to spend it on elite players who are difference makers. In virtually every account I've read, Byrd is regarded as a top-3 FA prospect. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets $12 million per year from some team, with a hefty amount of it guaranteed ($25-30 million). What the Bills offer with the franchise tag is a mere $8.4 million -- a LOT less. Plus he knows that the Bills can't franchise him next year because they'd have to pay him QB franchise money. So, the plan would be to sit out 10 games, show up for the rest, and then get out of town. He'll get paid next year too. The fact that he sat out for the Bills will not be held against him despite what people here might hope. yes it would because he won't be ready to play, his teammates (while normally want a player to get what he can) would think he screwed them, the team will likely play the last few games out of the playoffs and he won't look nearly like a 12 million a year player. I think it could hurt him substantially. I think he threatens to sit out but doesnt.
maryland-bills-fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Despite what you and I think about EJ, I am sure we both agree that he should have had a good supporting cast around him. Levitre was an important cog of the OL and should have been kept or a good replacement obtained. Also, it was highly premature to have let David Nelson go as he had very good hands and was a great outlet/short reception option. Another point is that, I don't know why keeping Byrd and Levitre are mutually exclusive. There is enough money to have kept both. I do not agree with our having to pay excessive amounts for "Tiny Tim" Levitre. He was a finess, good-feet pass blocker and by 20 pounds the lightest guy on the o-line. He could not get push on the big nose tackles in our division and does not fit the power running game that Marrone is putting in place here.
Big Turk Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 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. His flip phone would fit in quite well in Cleveland... Hey, as a Turkish person I find that offensive, lol
Recommended Posts