maryland-bills-fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I think you Franchise him. Give yourself until Camp to work a signing and trade. Then if it really is that bad you can rescind the tag and let him walk in August, after all the FA money is spent. There is zero risk for The Bills to use the tag. Sorry to disappoint you, but you are flat out wrong. If we tag Byrd, it is true we hold the rights to him "playing" in 2014. We get to pay him ~ $9 million dollars and he gets the money regardless. Last year he proved that he could get away with claiming a foot problem and miss 5 games. This year he could claim to have the same problem for the first 12 games, and show up for the last 4 or more games to show everyone he was really okay and dogging it. The Bills couldn't do squat to stop that, every team in the league would know he was pouting and taking most of a year off and he would be a well rested $9M richer FA the following year. The Bills couldn't even say boo about it, because the could get sued for trying to lower his earnings out of spite. Does this sound familiar, like what he did last year or the whole thing with the Philly OT? Parker is a sleeze ball and Bird, played along. THAT is what WOULD have happened. Sorry to burst your little idealistic bubble.
BaaadThingsMan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Oh and....f&$# you Jairus Byrd and Eugene the Prick!!
fansince88 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 As George Jefferson used to say, dont let the door knob hit ya where the good Lord split ya. bubye Jarius
Solomon Grundy Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Either you want to be here or not, plain and simple! According to reports the Bills were gonna offer $10 mil/yr, but not good enough for Byrd. You gotta love me or leave me alone.
K-9 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Is Alan Branch not an asset? Not only is he an asset, Alan Branch is every bit the football player Andy Levitre is. GO BILLS!!!
ExWNYer Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The fact is, that was a POSSIBLE outcome that was made certain by what they did today, which is a big mistake, IMO. By tagging him, that was just a probability not a certainty. If it were up to me, I would have tagged him and tried to make a trade. If none were to be had that was worth it, I would have kept him and made him play. Some say he wouldn't, but I predict he'd play at least the 10 games he played this year, and probably 14-16. I agree with the bolded and that was my preference, as well; however, I'm not convinced that they could've traded him. He would've had to sign the tender before a trade could be made. He & Parker probably would've dug in their heels and done exactly as they did last year. At that point, all you get is a bitter player who won't sign long-term. Could they have traded him before the deadline in the fall? Possibly, but it's more difficult task than at this time of year when rosters aren't set and there is greater cap flexibility. You also run the risk of a three-ring circus & a divided locker room. I'm not happy with this at all but there is culpability on the part of all involved.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Not only is he an asset, Alan Branch is every bit the football player Andy Levitre is. GO BILLS!!! Yep, that's why that was a terrible point.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 This thread is becoming high-quality entertainment far more than can be said about the bills
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 He would lose 5 million guaranteed for what? To show the Bills he's mad at them? No, to a) minimize the risk of injury; b) potentially force a trade because the team will be at wit's end. With regard to (a), all he needs to do is showcase his talents in the final few games and position himself for a huge payday in 2015. Which he'd get because he's extremely good. It's interesting to me that the new safety tag number is greater than last year's plus a 20 percent raise, so he's getting screwed, relatively speaking. He'd have gotten the new number, not 20 percent above the new number. The system in this case would have exacted no penalty on the Bills for using the tag in consecutive seasons on him.
26CornerBlitz Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 @ChrisBrownBills How Whaley values safety position http://wp.me/plmrg-9Lp
stony Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Your joking right ? He's getting a huge check somewhere. Pro bowler attached to his name with plenty of turnovers forced. Nope. I don't think he'll much more than what the Bills offered. Joe Buscaglia just said the offer probably raised eyebrows throughout the league. If he thinks he's getting much more, I think he'll be surprised. It won't be the first time an agent over-valued his client. Does it mean he's not gonna get a great deal? No. I just don't see a 60 Million offer like some are suggesting. Edited March 3, 2014 by stony
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I agree with the bolded and that was my preference, as well; however, I'm not convinced that they could've traded him. He would've had to sign the tender before a trade could be made. He & Parker probably would've dug in their heels and done exactly as they did last year. At that point, all you get is a bitter player who won't sign long-term. Could they have traded him before the deadline in the fall? Possibly, but it's more difficult task than at this time of year when rosters aren't set and there is greater cap flexibility. You also run the risk of a three-ring circus & a divided locker room. I'm not happy with this at all but there is culpability on the part of all involved. I think the point is what they did today is give up before they had to give up. That's not what you should do. if they tagged him and tried to trade him and THEN found out no one caved like Philly and the Falcons did for Peters and Price, or no one offered a second rounder at the last second when it appeared they were going to lose Byrd to another team OR the Bills put out word they were going to keep him be damned, THEN you take off the tag and let him walk like they did today. At least you exercised your option. As I said before in this thread, with what they did and said, Byrd and Parker would have been idiots to sign for less than 65m-6 and 30m guaranteed with the Bills.
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 We're not getting a comp pick for Levitre. We lost 2 people (Levitre, Reinhart) and signed 2 people (Lawson, Branch). There is zero chance of getting a comp pick for Levitre. And no, you are not reading my opinion correctly. That's not necessarily accurate. The CBA language stipulates what you're saying as the diet qualifier for a comp pick. However, because there are 32 picks to mete out, and not enough teams that qualify for the 32 picks, a weighted formula is applied for teams that break even on FAs. Thanks for clarifying that what it looked like you were saying is not in fact how you feel. Would you be willing to further explain?
Pills -N- Bills Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Why? How do his remarks have anything to do with you as a Bills fan or Bills fans in general? It's one guy on a message board...You're feeding the troll...Don't be a drama queen... Its a damn message board people are or SHOULD be able to say whatever the hell they want, i was just venting and expressing my opinion at the current time, isnt that what message boards are for? People get so caught up in what other people say on a forum. Like there is some sort of white collar proper forum etiquette.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Nope. I don't think he'll much more than what the Bills offered. Joe Buscaglia just said the offer probably raised eyebrows throughout the league. If he thinks he's getting much more, I think he'll be surprised. I think you're right. The bottom line is that Byrd is a very good player, not a great player. Earl Thomas is a great player at the position. As were Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu for a good chunk of their careers. Byrd isn't quite on that level. NFL teams know this.
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 far more than can be said about the bills I disagree...I wouldn't watch them otherwise. Just curious: do you watch them?
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 No, to a) minimize the risk of injury; b) potentially force a trade because the team will be at wit's end. With regard to (a), all he needs to do is showcase his talents in the final few games and position himself for a huge payday in 2015. Which he'd get because he's extremely good. It's interesting to me that the new safety tag number is greater than last year's plus a 20 percent raise, so he's getting screwed, relatively speaking. He'd have gotten the new number, not 20 percent above the new number. The system in this case would have exacted no penalty on the Bills for using the tag in consecutive seasons on him. a) IMO he's not going to trade 5 million for the chance to not get hurt. 1-2 million maybe. 5 mil, no. b) that is exactly why you do tag him, to try to get a trade and get something good out of him. I still think we let him walk and sign a few FAs and our comp pick will be a #6, at the beginning of the 7th round, which is basically worthless.
thebandit27 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Nope. I don't think he'll much more than what the Bills offered. Joe Buscaglia just said the offer probably raised eyebrows throughout the league. If he thinks he's getting much more, I think he'll be surprised. It won't be the first time an agent over-valued his client. Does it mean he's not gonna get a great deal? No. I just don't see a 60 Million offer like some are suggesting. I just keep coming back to this thought: does Byrd deserve $3M/year more than Kam Chancellor?
stony Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Its a damn message board people are or SHOULD be able to say whatever the hell they want, i was just venting and expressing my opinion at the current time, isnt that what message boards are for? People get so caught up in what other people say on a forum. Like there is some sort of white collar proper forum etiquette. You're 100% right. You can and should state your opinion. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess his reaction stemmed from you wishing career-ending injuries to him. Just a guess.
BillsVet Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I just keep coming back to this thought: does Byrd deserve $3M/year more than Kam Chancellor? Byrd will get what the market pays him, not what his worth is relative to another safety.
Recommended Posts