Max997 Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I would be absolutely shocked if Byrd is playing for the Bills next year even before they resigned Williams but even moreso after I just dont see them having that much money tied up in 2 safetys
Fixxxer Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 aren't the 49ers letting Whitner and a few others go? I know they have to sign Kaepernick so you may be right. Kaepernick wants 18/20 per year, that's a lot.
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Goddam Italians...nothing but trouble since you left the old country. Eaaassyyyyy.....
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I would be absolutely shocked if Byrd is playing for the Bills next year even before they resigned Williams but even moreso after I just dont see them having that much money tied up in 2 safetys They still have a hell of a lot of cap room. I know it's not in the standard playbook to spend that money on safeties but they are young and cheap elsewhere. I'd rather cross the bridge of letting older, more expensive, more injury prone players go after some success. There is plenty of room right now. If this is about keeping Spiller or Byrd down the road, it's no contest as to which player is more easily replaced.
filthymcnasty08 Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Still amazes me that the 49ers have cap room for any marquis FA.
Dopey Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I think that's actually a bull **** answer to cover the simple motivating factor....greed. Byrd wants to make as much money as possible, he doesn't give a **** about his teammates. If the Bills offered him an $18M signing bonus and $10 per he's going to forget all about his teammates and he'll wind up singing somewhere else for $20M and $11 per yer. Normal people take less money for jobs they love everyday. Most of them won't make in their lifetime what Byrd will pay in in taxes. Teammates my ass, it's all about the Benjamin's for Byrd. If it's a 6 yr contract @ $11Mper yr and a $20M bonus, wouldn't you take the extra 8 or so million? I'm gonna guess he didn't know his current teammates since high school or college, so it's not like he is turning his back on his family. Yes, it is about the money, the average career in the NFL is like 3-4 yrs. In my example it's roughly an $8M difference. I think most normal people will go with the extra $$. JMO.
KOKBILLS Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I think Byrd is open to returning because it's still possible that all the possible suitors that are contenders will try to low ball him, and the only teams that get close to the Bills offer will be the Cleveland's of the world...In that case Byrd will likely be happy to return to the Bills...But that scenario seems like a bit of a longshot at this time...
Fixxxer Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I think Byrd is open to returning because it's still possible that all the possible suitors that are contenders will try to low ball him, and the only teams that get close to the Bills offer will be the Cleveland's of the world...In that case Byrd will likely be happy to return to the Bills...But that scenario seems like a bit of a longshot at this time... Parker's ego won't yield, Byrd is gone.
GaryPinC Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Yeah, I don't think Fred Jackson has any interest in misleading the fans. He must have had some contact with Byrd, and believes that the team is still in the mix to sign Byrd. It would be okay with me if he returns. I'm with you 100% Fred's a straight up kind of guy and he's all about the team. i'm open to dating kate upton. Well, how's the offer she made to you? Going to take it or test the market? ;-)
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I think that's actually a bull **** answer to cover the simple motivating factor....greed. Byrd wants to make as much money as possible, he doesn't give a **** about his teammates. If the Bills offered him an $18M signing bonus and $10 per he's going to forget all about his teammates and he'll wind up singing somewhere else for $20M and $11 per yer. Normal people take less money for jobs they love everyday. Most of them won't make in their lifetime what Byrd will pay in in taxes. Teammates my ass, it's all about the Benjamin's for Byrd. Since you don't really know Byrd or how he spends his money, is this very fair? Maybe Byrd is big into philanthropy and wants to start a foundation in addition to securing his family's future in a short career. You're siding with the owners -- who make the real money and, by the way, do so while reaping tons of benefits on the backs of taxpayers -- instead of the players whom the game depends on. I do agree that it's folly for the Bills to not use the tag. But it's pretty clear that the rules the league has set up can end up singling out individual players and restricting their earnings. Meanwhile lesser players at your position on teams with more talent can secure long-term deals.
BigBuff423 Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Since you don't really know Byrd or how he spends his money, is this very fair? Maybe Byrd is big into philanthropy and wants to start a foundation in addition to securing his family's future in a short career. You're siding with the owners -- who make the real money and, by the way, do so while reaping tons of benefits on the backs of taxpayers -- instead of the players whom the game depends on. I do agree that it's folly for the Bills to not use the tag. But it's pretty clear that the rules the league has set up can end up singling out individual players and restricting their earnings. Meanwhile lesser players at your position on teams with more talent can secure long-term deals. In full disclosure, I'm fine with Byrd not playing for the BILLS, would have preferred something in return for him leaving, but eh...what's done is done....however, it gets to me sometimes how fans, and not just you as an individual so I'm not really taking issue with you personally just the opinion you represent - forget what it takes to be an owner...do they make the profit? Yes...but let's remember, it took an owner to buy a team, build a stadium, organize a structure to keep it running and took ALL the risk when the team was founded or in Jerry Jones' case when he bought it...I don't like Jones as a football guy and to me is a meddlesome owner, but he did pony up the dough to buy the Cowboys and then is taking all the financial risk with it...along with Ralph, who some keep saying is "cheap" which, is wearing thin IMHO....furthermore, in nearly every other arena of industry and business the American people stand and clap at the entrepreneur who takes a risk and then becomes a multi-million / billionaire but in football or sports we somehow vilify the owners? Really? Do you think Microsoft or Apple could exist without the menial and low-wage labor of unskilled people or the middle to upper management of educated and ambitious people? Or Wal-Mart or Pizza Hut or Domino's or Netflix or ....you get the point, in nearly every capitalist structure of business there is an owner / leader / management group that takes the risk of starting something, works hard and is driven for it to succeed and then depends on those they employ to make that product / service profitable...so why are the NFL owners made out to be horrible individuals?? Should they make the majority of the profits?? YES!!!! They took the risk and forked over the millions / billions to have a Franchise and so while I love players like Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Bruce Smith, Kyle Williams, Eric Wood, Freddy Jackson, et. al, their skill-set is to play...they have talent and work hard and fill a specific profitable niche so they are rewarded HANDSOMELY for it, to the tune of millions...good for them...Go with God and hopefully bring home a Lombardi Trophy to Buffalo...but can we dial down the vitriol for Ralph and other owners who are reaping rewards on their investment and realize in a somewhat capatilist socieity, it is the owners / entrepreneurs who have the biggest profits because it comes with the biggest risk.....for those who disagree, go take out a 2nd mortgage on their house, borrow from their family, sell all investments and assets to gain cash liquidity and leverage every credit dollar they can muster to start a restaurant or new technology company and come back and tell me (us) the brass set it takes to gamble your future and the welfare of your children's future against your ideas, work ethic, and market demands you can't possibly predict....also, you say the "game depends on players"...and to a point you are correct, but there are only 32 owners, and last I checked there were over 2,000 players and many more who WANT to play...Jerry Rice was once asked why he practices so hard and why he trains so viciously and said, to paraphrase, "I get paid to practice...I play the games for free". His mind-set was to APPRECIATE the joy in playing the game and work for the opportunity to play a game he loves, we need more of that perspective and less of this entitlement bulls*it that is coming through professional sports more and more as years go on.... Edited March 6, 2014 by BigBuff423
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 In full disclosure, I'm fine with Byrd not playing for the BILLS, would have preferred something in return for him leaving, but eh...what's done is done....however, it gets to me sometimes how fans, and not just you as an individual so I'm not really taking issue with you personally just the opinion you represent - forget what it takes to be an owner...do they make the profit? Yes...but let's remember, it took an owner to buy a team, build a stadium, organize a structure to keep it running and took ALL the risk when the team was founded or in Jerry Jones' case when he bought it...I don't like Jones as a football guy and to me is a meddlesome owner, but he did pony up the dough to buy the Cowboys and then is taking all the financial risk with it...along with Ralph, who some keep saying is "cheap" which, is wearing thin IMHO....furthermore, in nearly every other arena of industry and business the American people stand and clap at the entrepreneur who takes a risk and then becomes a multi-million / billionaire but in football or sports we somehow vilify the owners? Really? Do you think Microsoft or Apple could exist without the menial and low-wage labor of unskilled people or the middle to upper management of educated and ambitious people? Or Wal-Mart or Pizza Hut or Domino's or Netflix or ....you get the point, in nearly every capitalist structure of business there is an owner / leader / management group that takes the risk of starting something, works hard and is driven for it to succeed and then depends on those they employ to make that product / service profitable...so why are the NFL owners made out to be horrible individuals?? Should they make the majority of the profits?? YES!!!! They took the risk and forked over the millions / billions to have a Franchise and so while I love players like Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Bruce Smith, Kyle Williams, Eric Wood, Freddy Jackson, et. al, their skill-set is to play...they have talent and work hard and fill a specific profitable niche so they are rewarded HANDSOMELY for it, to the tune of millions...good for them...Go with God and hopefully bring home a Lombardi Trophy to Buffalo...but can we dial down the vitriol for Ralph and other owners who are reaping rewards on their investment and realize in a somewhat capatilist socieity, it is the owners / entrepreneurs who have the biggest profits because it comes with the biggest risk.....for those who disagree, go take out a 2nd mortgage on their house, borrow from their family, sell all investments and assets to gain cash liquidity and leverage every credit dollar they can muster to start a restaurant or new technology company and come back and tell me (us) the brass set it takes to gamble your future and the welfare of your children's future against your ideas, work ethic, and market demands you can't possibly predict....also, you say the "game depends on players"...and to a point you are correct, but there are only 32 owners, and last I checked there were over 2,000 players and many more who WANT to play...Jerry Rice was once asked why he practices so hard and why he trains so viciously and said, to paraphrase, "I get paid to practice...I play the games for free". His mind-set was to APPRECIATE the joy in playing the game and work for the opportunity to play a game he loves, we need more of that perspective and less of this entitlement bulls*it that is coming through professional sports more and more as years go on.... Difference between Jerry Jones and Ralph - or most owners for that matter - is that Ralph's team is in fact taking taxpayer money for the improvements to the stadium, and plenty of teams hold their communities hostage in this way. I can't champion the great entrepreneur when he's just using the powers of wealth, influence and leverage to extort money from taxpayers. If more of that money goes to players instead of to people who are beyond wealthy, I have zero problem with it, and I can't call the player greedy if greed is the foundation for some of these owners. The question here is not about greed. It's about what Byrd's market rate is. That will be established this spring. At the same time I recognize the value of a good attitude and my favorite players are the ones who let the business side of it take care of itself. FWIW.
BigBuff423 Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Difference between Jerry Jones and Ralph - or most owners for that matter - is that Ralph's team is in fact taking taxpayer money for the improvements to the stadium, and plenty of teams hold their communities hostage in this way. I can't champion the great entrepreneur when he's just using the powers of wealth, influence and leverage to extort money from taxpayers. If more of that money goes to players instead of to people who are beyond wealthy, I have zero problem with it, and I can't call the player greedy if greed is the foundation for some of these owners. The question here is not about greed. It's about what Byrd's market rate is. That will be established this spring. At the same time I recognize the value of a good attitude and my favorite players are the ones who let the business side of it take care of itself. FWIW. So, if I understand you correctly - and I'm not saying I do, I'm just asking the question - you think NFL owners are the only entrepreneurs getting tax breaks that help them reduce their overall cost and therefore can afford other things, including personal luxury? Or that players are not people "who are beyond wealthy", and specifically in this case Jairus Byrd is about to reap a pretty lucrative contract, if from no one else the BILLS? In your first post you side to another poster, "you are siding with the owners", and to that I would respond with, well...Yes. I side with them when issues of "fairness" or "market value" are considered and discussed....
A Dog Named Kelso Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Difference between Jerry Jones and Ralph - or most owners for that matter - is that Ralph's team is in fact taking taxpayer money for the improvements to the stadium, and plenty of teams hold their communities hostage in this way. I can't champion the great entrepreneur when he's just using the powers of wealth, influence and leverage to extort money from taxpayers. If more of that money goes to players instead of to people who are beyond wealthy, I have zero problem with it, and I can't call the player greedy if greed is the foundation for some of these owners. The question here is not about greed. It's about what Byrd's market rate is. That will be established this spring. At the same time I recognize the value of a good attitude and my favorite players are the ones who let the business side of it take care of itself. FWIW. We seem to forget that private ventures outside of sports get tax benefits all the time. We hear far more whining for those benefits about sports franchise but if Xerox, IBM, or Wind stream want tax breaks to setup shop there are very few vocal critics. There is a double standard and I am not sure why that is. Edited March 6, 2014 by cklapka
Mike in Syracuse Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Since you don't really know Byrd or how he spends his money, is this very fair? Maybe Byrd is big into philanthropy and wants to start a foundation in addition to securing his family's future in a short career. You're siding with the owners -- who make the real money and, by the way, do so while reaping tons of benefits on the backs of taxpayers -- instead of the players whom the game depends on. I do agree that it's folly for the Bills to not use the tag. But it's pretty clear that the rules the league has set up can end up singling out individual players and restricting their earnings. Meanwhile lesser players at your position on teams with more talent can secure long-term deals. I'm not really siding with anyone. The Bills are doing what they have to do to protect their rights and interests and Byrd is doing what he feels he needs to do to protect his. He's testing the market to see just how much he can get and that's fine. Byrd and his agent's both know full well that he could sign a 10 year $100 million contract but he's never going to see all of that money so the entire discussion of contract term becomes irrelevant. Just stop telling me how much you'd like to come back and how much you love your teammates. What he's not saying is that he'd love to come back and stay with his teammates as long as the Bills are willing to give him more money than any other team. What will be truly telling is when the news of his new contract comes out and the leak of what the Bills offered.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 We seem to forget that private ventures outside of sports get tax benefits all the time. We hear far more whining for those benefits about sports franchise but if Xerox, IBM, or Wind stream want tax breaks to setup shop there are very few vocal critics. There is a double standard and I am not sure why that is. Difference between tax breaks and taxpayer-funded stadium projects. Vast difference, monetarily, and on principle. The first is to say, this entity brings in enough revenue to the community to make up the difference. The latter makes the taxpayer an investor with limited-to-zero return.
snamsnoops Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 i'm open to dating kate upton. Meh, I would def throw it in her but she seems pretty wacky! I guess that is why we have muzzles though.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 So, if I understand you correctly - and I'm not saying I do, I'm just asking the question - you think NFL owners are the only entrepreneurs getting tax breaks that help them reduce their overall cost and therefore can afford other things, including personal luxury? Or that players are not people "who are beyond wealthy", and specifically in this case Jairus Byrd is about to reap a pretty lucrative contract, if from no one else the BILLS? In your first post you side to another poster, "you are siding with the owners", and to that I would respond with, well...Yes. I side with them when issues of "fairness" or "market value" are considered and discussed.... I don't side with the player explicitly. I side with the player's right to establish his market value and I think it's folly to call anyone greedy when everybody in the mix can be characterized as such.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 It makes perfect sense to say that he is open to returning to the Bills. He has just told every other team where the bidding starts. If no one else values Byrd for those numbers, Byrd could return to Buffalo. I doubt though since the signing of Williams that the Bills believe Byrd is coming back.
Rubes Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Man, a lot of people are taking this a little too personally. I don't know Byrd, but from what I read it sounds like he's a pretty stand up guy, not a bull****ter, and probably not a greedy bastard. That's an assumption on my part, but I think it's a fair one. That said, put yourself in Byrd's shoes. The team you're with makes you what we can only guess is a very good offer. But this is, perhaps, a once in a lifetime chance to cash in, and to see what your worth is on the open market. By all accounts, Byrd will be a hot commodity, pursued by several teams. The opportunity for the bidding to skyrocket is fairly good. Is it really such a terrible thing to give it a shot and see how it goes? What if the bidding makes it north of $10-11 million per year? There's the chance of that, and it's reasonable to expect him to see if that happens. Perhaps the deal with the Bills is that he'd give them real consideration if it turns out the market doesn't play out like that, or perhaps if the highest bidders are crappy teams that he has no interest in, as long as they don't tag him. Fine, fair enough. If I'm Byrd, it's worth a look if the offer from the Bills stands. Most of us don't see it that way -- we see crazy numbers like $9 million a year, $10 million a year, $11 million a year, and we don't see a big difference. I mean, who really needs $11 million per year vs $9 million? It's crazy, but most players are interested in pushing things forward. Think about it another way. The reason Byrd is being offered somewhere around $10 million per year is because some guy before him tested the market and got it up to $8 million per year. And some guy before him drove the market up to $7 million per year, and the guy before him up to $5 million per year. Years ago, the league probably cringed when some safety started making $1 million per year. But Byrd, and the rest of the league, has all of those individuals to thank when the market is now set somewhere around $10 million per year. By going out and testing the market, he can help raise salaries even more, so that those who come after him can reap the benefits. He's playing his part. It seems greedy and shallow, but it's how things have evolved over many years now. I'm not saying that's exactly what he's doing, but I would strongly suspect it.
Recommended Posts