YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 not ridiculing. Just saying that NO is poised to have difficulty committing such high $$$ to just a few players. I wish them success because I enjoy the rivalry with Carolina but i am having a hard time seeing how this signing parlays in to future success with out getting good drafts in - and the circle back ti Byrd is that if he wants a true contender its hard to look at NO for that in such a tough division with a lot of issues. Granted they're better then us but we do have an upside...somewhere...maybe...at least..we hope. NO filtered through as the one team that had the cap space (they "MacGyvered" it, but it happened) and willingness to pay him what he wanted and also be in the window with Brees where they are (like Denver and NE) doing everything and anything to make it back to the SB before their HOF QBs turn into pumpkins. In fact,Denver also was interested in Byrd but signed Ward instead because Elway had a value on a FS and it was not Byrd's asking price. It all worked out for Byrd and I think Parker had a handshake deal at the combine with NO that the deal would be done with Byrd, they probably just had to work out the $ with the cap and thats why Byrd left the door open with the Bills in case something fell through. The Bills, although no one knows all the details of the contract offer, likely had the second best offer to NO. It all makes sense when you consider Byrd was asked by ESPN right before FA who had the best fan base and he said NO. He knew it was coming, as long as they could swing the cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 NO filtered through as the one team that had the cap space (they "MacGyvered" it, but it happened) and willingness to pay him what he wanted and also be in the window with Brees where they are (like Denver and NE) doing everything and anything to make it back to the SB before their HOF QBs turn into pumpkins. In fact,Denver also was interested in Byrd but signed Ward instead because Elway had a value on a FS and it was not Byrd's asking price. It all worked out for Byrd and I think Parker had a handshake deal at the combine with NO that the deal would be done with Byrd, they probably just had to work out the $ with the cap and thats why Byrd left the door open with the Bills in case something fell through. The Bills, although no one knows all the details of the contract offer, likely had the second best offer to NO. It all makes sense when you consider Byrd was asked by ESPN right before FA who had the best fan base and he said NO. He knew it was coming, as long as they could swing the cap space. can't argue with this at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Never mind. You trying to put words in my mouth makes this discussion moot. Enjoy your day. GO BILLS!!! How so? You said it was the off season that made the situation farcical. During the off season Byrd did not attend voluntary workouts and he spoke his mind about being tagged. I don't see farce in that. The key to this entire situation, to me, is that Byrd/Parker used every bit of leverage they were allowed by the CBA. The Bills did not. The Bills chose to walk away when they still had bullets in the gun. How does the Bills' handling of Byrd help them the next time they are in the same situation? They handled the Byrd situation the same as they did Clements (except they announced they wouldn't apply the tag a second time as a way of getting him to sign his tender). Next time, with the help of God, they may be negotiating with a franchise QB. What if he doesn't want to play in Buffalo? When did Training camp and Pre Season become voluntary? I don't have a dog in this fight but let's not pretend Byrd didn't play games until October. He reported when he had to so that he could collect his pay. You are correct, TC isn't voluntary but K-9 was talking about the off season and that's what I responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 How so? You said it was the off season that made the situation farcical. During the off season Byrd did not attend voluntary workouts and he spoke his mind about being tagged. I don't see farce in that. The key to this entire situation, to me, is that Byrd/Parker used every bit of leverage they were allowed by the CBA. The Bills did not. The Bills chose to walk away when they still had bullets in the gun. How does the Bills' handling of Byrd help them the next time they are in the same situation? They handled the Byrd situation the same as they did Clements (except they announced they wouldn't apply the tag a second time as a way of getting him to sign his tender). Next time, with the help of God, they may be negotiating with a franchise QB. What if he doesn't want to play in Buffalo? He reported when he had to so that he could collect his pay. You are correct, TC isn't voluntary but K-9 was talking about the off season and that's what I responded to. I was referring to the ENTIRE time between the day he was tagged and when he played his first game last year. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. Would the word tumultuous be preferable to farcical? Actually, just pick any word you'd like to indicate a situation that isn't worth repeating. At least to anyone that sees the value of not wanting to repeat a bad situation. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Not in this case. Byrd's trade value was well-known as far back as the combine as he limited it himself. 20 teams could have come calling 5 seconds before midnight, and it wouldn't have mattered because he was not open to signing an extension beyond one year with anyone who wasn't an immediate SB contender. He was actually open to returning to the Bills under a long-term contract if the right team didn't come through with a FA deal. I don't have any contacts with the Bills currently, but from how it played out that is one of many reasons why they didn't tag him. I like to deal in facts, not suppositions. Fact is Sproles, an over 30 RB was traded. Fact is the Bills said they had exhausted the trade market for Byrd. Supposition Byrd would only sign with a handful of teams. Fact is Byrd quickly found a suitor. Fact is he had trade value. (Sorry, I don't see any way that the Bills exhausted trade options) Fact is the Bills said they couldn't get better for him than a comp pick would yield. Fact is comp picks are based on a team's entire FA effort. Someone smarter than I may be able to tell us where the Bills stand in terms of a 2015 comp pick. I believe that I heard 7th round. Take a 7th round pick in next year's draft and discount it by 1 round and the Bills in essence are getting a UFA (if anything). I'd appreciate some links because while I don't read everything Bills related I do like to keep up. I can't remember hearing that Byrd limited himself to 12 teams. I'd like to read that. I was referring to the ENTIRE time between the day he was tagged and when he played his first game last year. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. Would the word tumultuous be preferable to farcical? Actually, just pick any word you'd like to indicate a situation that isn't worth repeating. At least to anyone that sees the value of not wanting to repeat a bad situation. GO BILLS!!! Tumultuous I can agree with. I've grown to expect it though. Multi-millions being given out to play a game. Egomaniacal owners. Agents (nuff said). It will always be tumultuous. Repeating a bad situation is exactly what the Bills did though. They let an in his prime player walk away. Sadly not nearly the first time they've let that happen. Overall I'm very happy with what Whaley has accomplished this off season (to this point). I does stick in my craw that they did not use every option with Byrd, but, he will not make or break the upcoming seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) I was referring to the ENTIRE time between the day he was tagged and when he played his first game last year. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. Would the word tumultuous be preferable to farcical? Actually, just pick any word you'd like to indicate a situation that isn't worth repeating. At least to anyone that sees the value of not wanting to repeat a bad situation. GO BILLS!!! Yes. While many see the tag as a solution to the problem with not being able to sign Byrd long-term, it only sounds good on the surface. It also seems like a fair way to settle the discrepancy over the value Parker/Byrd feel they have on the open market to what the Bills feel his value is, monetarily, to this team. I mean, the Bills can afford the tag amount under the cap, so just pay him that! But what is in the best interest of the team for this upcoming season?Byrd would be headed for FA again after this season and will be again looking for a huge long-term contract. He was bogged down last season because he felt he was worth more than the tag, more than what the Bills offered him as a long-term deal, and he needed to stay healthy so he could cash in after the season. No one would give him big money of he suffered a major injury. So the Bills should play that out again? He can play timid, or not play at all, as he keeps himself out of harm's way? If a player is playing on a one year tag for a team which he does not see himself wanting to be at long-term if there is a better alternative in his mind out there, his first priority is going to be to stay healthy. Not helping the team win. He would be playing with an eye toward FA - again. He has already proven that he is more worried about staying healthy than just playing the game without fear. There is no guessing game this time. He has shown us he is that kind of player, right or wrong. This is a personality trait. It is difficult to change. Some players have the ability to not let money affect their play. Once they start the season, they leave it all on the field for their teammates and don't worry about getting hurt and how it will affect their bank account. This is part of the player's personality. It is innate. Not the case with Byrd. It isn't wrong. It is human nature. He is looking out for what is best for him. Since he has shown how playing under the tag affects him, the Bills needed to do what was in the best interest of the TEAM and sign him long term, trade him or let him walk. Byrd declined the long-term offer and he had no trade value because he created that with how he approached FA. The worst thing they could do was force him to play under another one year deal, again. Another year of questions about his future, analysis of effort, "injuries," etc. It is taking a huge risk for the Bills to play it that way.I'm a big Byrd fan because of his talent and production. I'll root for him on the Saints when it doesn't affect the Bills. I wanted to see him on this team. But I'd rather see another guy in his place, than another year of him on the one-year tag. It is not a good situation for a young team to see a key player, a well-respected veteran, more worried about themselves than doing what is best for the team. I like to deal in facts, not suppositions. Fact is Sproles, an over 30 RB was traded. Fact is the Bills said they had exhausted the trade market for Byrd. Supposition Byrd would only sign with a handful of teams. Fact is Byrd quickly found a suitor. Fact is he had trade value. (Sorry, I don't see any way that the Bills exhausted trade options) Fact is the Bills said they couldn't get better for him than a comp pick would yield. Fact is comp picks are based on a team's entire FA effort. Someone smarter than I may be able to tell us where the Bills stand in terms of a 2015 comp pick. I believe that I heard 7th round. Take a 7th round pick in next year's draft and discount it by 1 round and the Bills in essence are getting a UFA (if anything). I'd appreciate some links because while I don't read everything Bills related I do like to keep up. I can't remember hearing that Byrd limited himself to 12 teams. I'd like to read that. Tumultuous I can agree with. I've grown to expect it though. Multi-millions being given out to play a game. Egomaniacal owners. Agents (nuff said). It will always be tumultuous. This isn't something he or anyone else told the media, unfortunately, so I doubt you'll find it in a link. I understand how you find the Bills at fault based on what you know, and feel like they should have done more. Just trying to share what I know. Edited March 20, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Fact is the Bills said they couldn't get better for him than a comp pick would yield. Fact is comp picks are based on a team's entire FA effort. Someone smarter than I may be able to tell us where the Bills stand in terms of a 2015 comp pick. I believe that I heard 7th round. Take a 7th round pick in next year's draft and discount it by 1 round and the Bills in essence are getting a UFA (if anything). fact is the first qualifier for a comp pick is bodies in vs bodies out. as weve signed more than we could lose, we arent eligible for ANY comp pick. the 7th is the only option for if those two numbers end up equal. byrd doesnt even become a discussion unless we lose MORE than we sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 This isn't something he or anyone else told the media, unfortunately, so I doubt you'll find it in a link. I understand how you find the Bills at fault based on what you know, and feel like they should have done more. Just trying to share what I know. OK, I'll add it to the supposition list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 OK, I'll add it to the supposition list. Sounds good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Sounds good even if it was just 12 teams hed consider, and only 1-2 out of those might be a suitor.... do you really think a LATE round pick wouldve been the deal breaker? as ive said before, i believe a high pick very well couldve been too much but you really dont think we couldve swung a day 3 pick? and if not, what wouldve been the downside of pulling the tag the day after the draft even if you refuse to pay him the tag amount this year? i argued we should wait and see the free agency plan before judging but having seen that we were going to be aggressive with a lot of mid/low tier guys that were qualified signings....it just doesnt add up right. not the end of the world, but frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 even if it was just 12 teams hed consider, and only 1-2 out of those might be a suitor.... do you really think a LATE round pick wouldve been the deal breaker? as ive said before, i believe a high pick very well couldve been too much but you really dont think we couldve swung a day 3 pick? and if not, what wouldve been the downside of pulling the tag the day after the draft even if you refuse to pay him the tag amount this year? i argued we should wait and see the free agency plan before judging but having seen that we were going to be aggressive with a lot of mid/low tier guys that were qualified signings....it just doesnt add up right. not the end of the world, but frustrating. Waiting until after draft to remove the tag would have been the ultimate screw job to Byrd. Most teams have already allocated salary slots to rosters as they prepare to bring them to OTAs and mini-camps. The dollars just aren't there like they are during the initial free agency period. I'm not sure the upside to the Bills outweighs the negative impact it has on Byrd and his prospects at that later date. Dicey situation. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Waiting until after draft to remove the tag would have been the ultimate screw job to Byrd. Most teams have already allocated salary slots to rosters as they prepare to bring them to OTAs and mini-camps. The dollars just aren't there like they are during the initial free agency period. I'm not sure the upside to the Bills outweighs the negative impact it has on Byrd and his prospects at that later date. Dicey situation. GO BILLS!!! that of course being worst case scenario if you get zero takers even at a 7th round level, and also refuse to pay him. the only reason to refuse to pay him being if you truly believe that byrd screwed the bills last year and overplayed his injury, and was again lining up to refuse to negotiate and play it into october again as some think to be the case.... it becomes a bit less frowned upon i imagine, if theres any indication that is going to happen. although i agree with BB that you just play the man if you dont get offers, as its probably the most value of the 4 options 1) tag and negotiate, just play him if it doesnt work out 2) tag and trade for ANYTHING... could jump to #1 with a respectable pick, but i dont bank on that for obvious reasons. ranked according to a late rounder 3) tag and attempt to negotiate long term or trade, pull tag if it flops atleast you got a chance 4) let byrd go free and hope he really loves you and returns being the order id put the values the team receives from each option they faced given their expected free agency plans. Edited March 20, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Sounds good What else would you call it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Is everyone just going to repeat their personal suppositions about the Byrd fiasco? All of our opinions are just opinions, and we have all made them quite clear to each other, repeatedly, what all of our opinions are. Byrd is gone. It's over. Why can't some people just accept that? If it matters SO much how the Bills do business, get a job application and show the world how it's done. You can't always MAKE people do what you want regardless of contracts and legalities. It costs time and money to pursue such things. Apparently the Bills didn't franchise him. Some agree with that, some don't. It's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 All this discussion about what the Bills offered Byrd, or how they should have tagged him, or signed him early is irrelevant and based on supposition. The fact is that Byrd wanted out of Buffalo. How do I know this? Because he said so! What could be more definitive than his own words? Go back to the article where he talks about choosing NO because it is in a better position to succeed at an elite level, and how Byrd is concerned with his legacy. My supposition is that the Bills could have offered Byrd a much better deal that NO and he still would have left. And I believe that if he was wavering at all in the last twelve months, the failure of the Bills to improve their record and Pettine taking a powder were the nails in the coffin. The man wants to be remembered as one of the greats and he concluded that his chances for that happening in Buffalo were much poorer than in NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 How so? You said it was the off season that made the situation farcical. During the off season Byrd did not attend voluntary workouts and he spoke his mind about being tagged. I don't see farce in that. The key to this entire situation, to me, is that Byrd/Parker used every bit of leverage they were allowed by the CBA. The Bills did not. The Bills chose to walk away when they still had bullets in the gun. How does the Bills' handling of Byrd help them the next time they are in the same situation? They handled the Byrd situation the same as they did Clements (except they announced they wouldn't apply the tag a second time as a way of getting him to sign his tender). Next time, with the help of God, they may be negotiating with a franchise QB. What if he doesn't want to play in Buffalo? He reported when he had to so that he could collect his pay. You are correct, TC isn't voluntary but K-9 was talking about the off season and that's what I responded to. i believe this is why these byrd threads get thousands of hits. this type of bills move has plenty of precedent. but we're all hoping for change. it didn't happen with this fa and it doesn't bode well for the future even under the "new" regime at obd. and what are the odds that the next legitimate drafted star, qb or not, would rather play somewhere other than buffalo at the end of his contract? if that's a deal breaker for the bills to negotiate then there's not even a glimmer of light at the end of the very long tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Jim Rome @jimrome 22h Pro Bowl safety Jairus Byrd told me why he left Buffalo and what he's looking to do on the field in New Orleans. http://cbsloc.al/1g1CTON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Jim Rome @jimrome 22h Pro Bowl safety Jairus Byrd told me why he left Buffalo and what he's looking to do on the field in New Orleans. http://cbsloc.al/1g1CTON At least it wasn't about the money. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 How so? You said it was the off season that made the situation farcical. During the off season Byrd did not attend voluntary workouts and he spoke his mind about being tagged. I don't see farce in that. The key to this entire situation, to me, is that Byrd/Parker used every bit of leverage they were allowed by the CBA. The Bills did not. The Bills chose to walk away when they still had bullets in the gun. How does the Bills' handling of Byrd help them the next time they are in the same situation? They handled the Byrd situation the same as they did Clements (except they announced they wouldn't apply the tag a second time as a way of getting him to sign his tender). Next time, with the help of God, they may be negotiating with a franchise QB. What if he doesn't want to play in Buffalo? Guess: there will be a thread about how much cap savings the Bills made for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 The Bills have $15.5m cap space so far http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/11-Reactions-to-Bills-moves-in-free-agency/d2954750-1030-45c8-a0ee-381b673376d6 Dareus has 1 season left under contract, now is the time to re-sign or trade him if wants to be a FA . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts