boyst Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Tell me this: if you're a free agent LB looking at teams, do you pick the team that held onto Jairus Byrd as your last line of defense, or the team that let him walk away for nothing? You pick a team that is going to pay you. Look at Miami last off season. They ditched some big talent the two years before then they signed everyone.
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Actually, it's much more like comparing a top-5 second baseman and a fringey #2-3 starter. Smith is no ace. But circumstances made him easier to trade. Had he been franchised, he still would have been tradeable but they may not have lined up on value. The big point is that it's easier to trade a QB who isn't franchised. Regardless, my response was to your point that "we've sucked with 'em, we can suck without 'em." (not quoting you, but the gist of it IMO.) I think that's a silly approach. You need more good players, always, in the NFL. What is different about this year vs. last? Again, it's their right. It's business. You do this in hopes of negotiating something better for both parties. The upshot of all of this is that Byrd doesn't want to be here and that the Bills are respecting that... which may be admirable in the book of some. To me it signals a compromised commitment to winning. This year is different because they saw what happened last year when he was tagged, and b) he does not want to sign a long-term deal here, so the tag is pointless. It would be a short-term thinking on a team that is building, not needing one piece in one year.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 You pick a team that is going to pay you. Look at Miami last off season. They ditched some big talent the two years before then they signed everyone. Miami ≠ Buffalo.
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Tell me this: if you're a free agent LB looking at teams, do you pick the team that held onto Jairus Byrd as your last line of defense, or the team that let him walk away for nothing? If I am a free agent LB looking at teams, I don't care what they got in return for their FA safety. But I a, glad they didn't force him to play somewhere he didn't want to sign for the 2nd yr in a row just because the CBA says they can. And I am glad he isn't going to spew his "100%" nonsense for 5 games while everyone else is playing at 80% because he doesn't give a care about the team. Edited March 4, 2014 by YoloinOhio
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 This year is different because they saw what happened last year when he was tagged, and b) he does not want to sign a long-term deal here, so the tag is pointless. It would be a short-term thinking on a team that is building, not needing one piece in one year. Which is why we'll likely be "building" again this time next year. The proof will be in what they do to replace one of the 4 best performers on the defense. If I am a free agent LB looking at teams, I don't care what they got in return for their FA safety. Look at this less literally. What I meant is, we have plenty of track record to judge these guys on, and if they let Byrd walk without replacing him or bettering the team in other ways, I would be less interested as an FA.
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Which is why we'll likely be "building" again this time next year. The proof will be in what they do to replace one of the 4 best performers on the defense. Look at this less literally. What I meant is, we have plenty of track record to judge these guys on, and if they let Byrd walk without replacing him or bettering the team in other ways, I would be less interested as an FA. I think they will replace him and better the team in other ways.
Reed83HOF Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I wholeheartedly believe that. I think if they gave him the biggest contract in the league for a safety, a contract that some other team is going to offer him, IMO, he would be signed right now. He wanted to be paid for what he was worth. He wasn't a #1 pick. His contract has been peanuts for four straight years. He wants to be paid at the top of the league, which is what the market will dictate IMO. And then they could have released him after 3 years, or kept and overpaid him if they were on the verge of something big years from now. Last year I buy into this; this year everything is too damaged. I honestly don't think he will resign with us even if we offer top dollar. That being said $10 mill is too much for a FS. What bothers me is that this fulfills the impression (said by Takeo and others) we don't keep our own... Am not being a kool-aid drinker or a doomsday; but I really feel like this franchise is screwed and we are just biding our time. Honestly, the names change; but it really is rinse and repeat. Polian; yes you tag him.... That was the real day our franchise died....
dubs Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Actually, it's much more like comparing a top-5 second baseman and a fringey #2-3 starter. Smith is no ace. But circumstances made him easier to trade. Had he been franchised, he still would have been tradeable but they may not have lined up on value. The big point is that it's easier to trade a QB who isn't franchised. Regardless, my response was to your point that "we've sucked with 'em, we can suck without 'em." (not quoting you, but the gist of it IMO.) I think that's a silly approach. You need more good players, always, in the NFL. What is different about this year vs. last? Again, it's their right. It's business. You do this in hopes of negotiating something better for both parties. The upshot of all of this is that Byrd doesn't want to be here and that the Bills are respecting that... which may be admirable in the book of some. To me it signals a compromised commitment to winning. I agree with you In the sense that if I was GM, I probably would have tagged him and tried to trade him. I just can't knock the bills for deciding to let a guy go that clearly didn't want to be here and might have been a risk holding onto.
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Which is why we'll likely be "building" again this time next year. The proof will be in what they do to replace one of the 4 best performers on the defense. Look at this less literally. What I meant is, we have plenty of track record to judge these guys on, and if they let Byrd walk without replacing him or bettering the team in other ways, I would be less interested as an FA. We will be doing that anyway when he leaves next year after the 2nd tag. Keeping him here against his wishes delays the development of his replacement,
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 We will be doing that anyway when he leaves next year after the 2nd tag. Keeping him here against his wishes delays the development of his replacement, What about trading him, even for a seventh rounder? Even to give the team first crack at a player who might get cut and become a free agent? Better than nothing, no? Are we all agreeing that no team would trade ANYTHING for exclusivity with Byrd? Good management is creative. It is a poor management tactic to throw up your hands and say "I give up" six months before the season starts. I think they will replace him and better the team in other ways. See: Andy Levitre, Nate Clements, Jason Peters. You ditch your best players for pennies on the dollar, or you can let them go and hope you get better eventually. The Bills are not a premier destination that you can just lure talent to. This thing needs to be built and yet it feels like they have to hit "re-set" on some aspect of the team all too regularly.
Mike in Syracuse Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 It'll be interesting to see if his plantar fasciitis ever returns. Can you imagine being the team that pays him $10M per and he can't play because his feet hurt!
dubs Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I know this is about Byrd, but the only thing that really matters to Buffalo's success is EJs development. If he takes a step forward, this team wins more. If not, Byrd, Watt, Sherman, Keuchley, and Sheldon Richardson wouldn't get this team to a Super Bowl.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I know this is about Byrd, but the only thing that really matters to Buffalo's success is EJs development. If he takes a step forward, this team wins more. If not, Byrd, Watt, Sherman, Keuchley, and Sheldon Richardson wouldn't get this team to a Super Bowl. On this we agree. Byrd could steal them a playoff win, but QB is certainly the biggest driver of success.
Chilly Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 It's called a sign and trade, people. Which requires a trade partner to give you more than what you'll get from the conditional. Won't happen on a one year deal
KOKBILLS Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I know this is about Byrd, but the only thing that really matters to Buffalo's success is EJs development. If he takes a step forward, this team wins more. If not, Byrd, Watt, Sherman, Keuchley, and Sheldon Richardson wouldn't get this team to a Super Bowl. Too true...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Which requires a trade partner to give you more than what you'll get from the conditional. Won't happen on a one year deal If you're trading him to a team that wants him enough to offer him top money, it does - especially if 1) partner is offering anything more than a 6th and 2) you intend to adequately replace Byrd while upgrading at OL, WR, TE or LB. The comp picks will even out and the NFL generally isn't generous with them. The only ways in which the comp pick outweighs a traded pick, in my estimation, are if the Bills do not spend much at all on FAs, if they only pick up guys who get released, or if no one at all will make a trade offer. The first scenario is dire, while the second and third are less plausible.
Mickey Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Which requires a trade partner to give you more than what you'll get from the conditional. Won't happen on a one year deal Exactly correct and yet soooo many people just can't seem to understand that basic point.
dubs Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 If you're trading him to a team that wants him enough to offer him top money, it does - especially if 1) partner is offering anything more than a 6th and 2) you intend to adequately replace Byrd while upgrading at OL, WR, TE or LB. The comp picks will even out and the NFL generally isn't generous with them. The only ways in which the comp pick outweighs a traded pick, in my estimation, are if the Bills do not spend much at all on FAs, if they only pick up guys who get released, or if no one at all will make a trade offer. The first scenario is dire, while the second and third are less plausible. I haven't done this, but I'm guessing over the course of the last year Whaley has gauged the market for Byrd. Finding a trading partner might not be as simple as it seems. They'd have to find a team that 1) needs a FS, 2) values the safety position as worth 10+m and 3) has the cap room to make that offer 4) is willing to give up a pick. Definitely could happen, but maybe the FO did the analysis and determined there weren't any teams that fit that category.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Exactly correct and yet soooo many people just can't seem to understand that basic point. I believe someone would trade more than a sixth. That's my opinion and it can't be proven or disproven. Does it seem possible that no one would offer more? Sure. It is just as possible that the Bills are rolling the dice that they could do better with the comp pick.
auburnbillsbacker Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I believe someone would trade more than a sixth. That's my opinion and it can't be proven or disproven. Does it seem possible that no one would offer more? Sure. It is just as possible that the Bills are rolling the dice that they could do better with the comp pick. If the Bills get a comp pick for Byrd it would mean that the did very little in free agency, since the players you sign count against you.
Recommended Posts