birdog1960 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) I agree with you, the Bills unequivocally got worse at Safety. I'm sure someone will take up the counter argument but really there isn't much to back any claim that the Bills improved at Safety. The question would be is a 3 Time Pro Bowl Safety that had 22 Interceptions in 4 years a major contributing factor to improving the number of wins by the Buffalo Bills. Thats what we really want, more wins. Having an all world Free Safety didn't seem to have a direct impact on wins and loses in the last 4 years. Is the drop off to a pedestrian, off the street Free Safety going to cause the Bills to lose more games? I don't know. this is quite a threshold and i believe would not be considered orthodox in most franchises: the player must guarantee more wins or he can be replaced by a lesser player at his position. is that in the part of the gm handbook that i missed? isn't "building a winner" the term often used to describe the grand scheme? teams win games. better teams win more games. better players make up better teams. byrd is a better player. n.o. is a better team. the bills aren't. Edited March 19, 2014 by birdog1960
Beerball Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 We still don't know the offer, so I'll go with the assumption Whaley offered what he thought his value was - whatever the # may be, and that if there was real trade value with a tag, it would have happened. You really believe that Byrd had no trade value? In your heart of hearts you don't see anyone willing to give up a mid-round pick for him? Really? Yet NO turns the tables and trades Sproles who is quickly signed to a 2 year extension. A RB over 30 has trade value but an all pro safety moving into his prime does not. You really believe that?
BobbyC81 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I usually use this site. It has been pretty accurate. http://overthecap.co...Bills&Year=2014 I do like the workout/active roster bonus they gave to Spikes though considering the 1 year deal. Especially considering the reports that he worked out on his own while with Pats.
1B4IDie Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 a 7th round pick wouldve been more than we are getting. we would all complain its all we got, but its more than we are currently getting. if there was ANY trade value, the tag was the way to go. Actually the Bills likely would get more through a Compensatory pick, so I'd think Whaley would be targeting for a 3rd or higher. If they trade him for a 7th they don't get the comp pick. In my Mind I do not understand how the Bills were not able to get a 3rd or higher for Byrd at some time in the last 2 years but what is done is done. this is quite a threshold and i believe would not be considered orthodox in most franchises: the player must guarantee more wins or he can be replaced by a lesser player at his position. is that in the part of the gm handbook that i missed? isn't "building a winner" the term often used to describe the grand scheme? teams win games. better teams win more games. better players make up better teams. byrd is a better player. n.o. is a better team. the bills aren't. I personally would prefer not to find out and keep Byrd on the roster. However since we have to lie in the bed that the Bills FO made, I suspect that the 2014 Wins and Losses total won't take a hit with the loss of Byrd. I don't respond to your posts because I find strawman arguments tedious. You are master debater with yourself.
K-9 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) You really believe that Byrd had no trade value? In your heart of hearts you don't see anyone willing to give up a mid-round pick for him? Really? Yet NO turns the tables and trades Sproles who is quickly signed to a 2 year extension. A RB over 30 has trade value but an all pro safety moving into his prime does not. You really believe that? Byrd needed to sign his tag in order to be traded. If no trade could be arranged with a team he wanted to go to, why would Byrd agree to a sign and trade? The Bills and Parker explored trade opportunities last year right up until he signed his tag in August and the best offer was a 4th from Minny. I don't think Byrd wanted to go there. Best case scenario was to tag him and then have a repeat of last year's farce. Of course Byrd has trade value, just not as a designated franchise tagged free agent. In retrospect, the best time to trade him was in 2012 before his deal expired. But the Bills wanted to re-sign him and I can understand why they didn't purse offers back then. GO BILLS!!! Edited March 19, 2014 by K-9
birdog1960 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Actually the Bills likely would get more through a Compensatory pick, so I'd think Whaley would be targeting for a 3rd or higher. If they trade him for a 7th they don't get the comp pick. In my Mind I do not understand how the Bills were not able to get a 3rd or higher for Byrd at some time in the last 2 years but what is done is done. I don't respond to your posts because I find strawman arguments tedious. You are master debater with yourself. there's no strawman. your reasoning distilled: the bills goal is to win more games. byrd doesn't help the bills win more games (which is far from a conceded premise). therefore, re signing him doesn't make sense. am i missing something? can this be extrapolated to every other player in every other position?
NoSaint Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Actually the Bills likely would get more through a Compensatory pick, so I'd think Whaley would be targeting for a 3rd or higher. If they trade him for a 7th they don't get the comp pick. In my Mind I do not understand how the Bills were not able to get a 3rd or higher for Byrd at some time in the last 2 years but what is done is done. unfortunately having signed 5 free agents, lost just 1 and not having 4, yet alone a 5th left to lose... we will not get a pick. if we sign more than we lose we are ineligible, if we sign and lose the same amount the only pick we could get is a 7th. we would have to lose more qualifying players than we gained in order to discuss a mid round pick for byrd. we arent close and unless we cut rivers, IR williams during camp, and more... and moats/carrington both sign elsewhere before the qualifying signing window closes.... there just isnt a path to picks at this point. knowing that we were going to be very active with low/mid tier guys and throwing contracts at the likes of williams and rivers that they were unlikely to pass up makes it look like the talk of compensatory picks was simply a way to kick the outrage down the line. Byrd needed to sign his tag in order to be traded. If no trade could be arranged with a team he wanted to go to, why would Byrd agree to a sign and trade? The Bills and Parker explored trade opportunities last year right up until he signed his tag in August and the best offer was a 4th from Minny. I don't think Byrd wanted to go there. Best case scenario was to tag him and then have a repeat of last year's farce. Of course Byrd has trade value, just not as a designated franchise tagged free agent. In retrospect, the best time to trade him was in 2012 before his deal expired. But the Bills wanted to re-sign him and I can understand why they didn't purse offers back then. GO BILLS!!! you dont think that we couldve arranged a trade to new orleans for a 5th round pick? not even a 7th? Edited March 19, 2014 by NoSaint
1B4IDie Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 there's no strawman. your reasoning distilled: the bills goal is to win more games. byrd doesn't help the bills win more games (which is far from a conceded premise). therefore, re signing him doesn't make sense. am i missing something? can this be extrapolated to every other player in every other position? So you're saying the goal of the Bills is to win less games? unfortunately having signed 5 free agents, lost just 1 and not having 4, yet alone a 5th left to lose... we will not get a pick. if we sign more than we lose we are ineligible, if we sign and lose the same amount the only pick we could get is a 7th. we would have to lose more qualifying players than we gained in order to discuss a mid round pick for byrd. we arent close and unless we cut rivers, IR williams during camp, and more... and moats/carrington both sign elsewhere before the qualifying signing window closes.... there just isnt a path to picks at this point. knowing that we were going to be very active with low/mid tier guys and throwing contracts at the likes of williams and rivers that they were unlikely to pass up makes it look like the talk of compensatory picks was simply a way to kick the outrage down the line. you dont think that we couldve arranged a trade to new orleans for a 5th round pick? not even a 7th? Hmm, the comp pick is straight numbers game? I thought there was some type of judgment on quality. Interesting information.
NoSaint Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Hmm, the comp pick is straight numbers game? I thought there was some type of judgment on quality. Interesting information. its a two tiered qualifying system. first is just straight bodies in, bodies out. if you lost more than you gained then you start cancelling out guys on the two lists and see who is left on the losses side. those guys slot in pretty straight forward (despite mysterious rumors of all kinds of factory) based on annual average salary. byrd at 9m would be like a 3rd/4th if we lost more guys.... but we didnt, and seemingly cant without a big surprise (or more accurately several surprises) if we had lost more guys youd start the slotting and i havent looked at the numbers recently so dont quote these or anything but itd be along the lines of 9m+ average nets a 3rd, 6-9 gets a 4th, 3-6 gets a 5th, and so on... i just completely made those up on the spot though. Edited March 19, 2014 by NoSaint
K-9 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 unfortunately having signed 5 free agents, lost just 1 and not having 4, yet alone a 5th left to lose... we will not get a pick. if we sign more than we lose we are ineligible, if we sign and lose the same amount the only pick we could get is a 7th. we would have to lose more qualifying players than we gained in order to discuss a mid round pick for byrd. we arent close and unless we cut rivers, IR williams during camp, and more... and moats/carrington both sign elsewhere before the qualifying signing window closes.... there just isnt a path to picks at this point. knowing that we were going to be very active with low/mid tier guys and throwing contracts at the likes of williams and rivers that they were unlikely to pass up makes it look like the talk of compensatory picks was simply a way to kick the outrage down the line. you dont think that we couldve arranged a trade to new orleans for a 5th round pick? not even a 7th? Was N.O. a foregone conclusion BEFORE Byrd hit the market and several other teams balked? In retrospect, sure, we should have called N.O. first. But I don't think Byrd was gonna sign that tag, regardless. GO BILLS!!!
YoloinOhio Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) You really believe that Byrd had no trade value? In your heart of hearts you don't see anyone willing to give up a mid-round pick for him? Really? Yet NO turns the tables and trades Sproles who is quickly signed to a 2 year extension. A RB over 30 has trade value but an all pro safety moving into his prime does not. You really believe that? I mentioned in one of the other Byrd threads... yes, his trade value is impacted negatively by placing the franchise tag on him. Different scenario than Sproles. Edited March 19, 2014 by YoloinOhio
NoSaint Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Was N.O. a foregone conclusion BEFORE Byrd hit the market and several other teams balked? In retrospect, sure, we should have called N.O. first. But I don't think Byrd was gonna sign that tag, regardless. GO BILLS!!! So you think to spite us Byrd would've refused to negotiate with other teams and demanded they not pay picks for him? He REALLY wanted to get to free agency that bad? Otherwise, yea let him go negotiate a deal and entertain whatever offer he brings back even if it's not high. And if that doesn't work you can always play him or pull the unsigned tag down the line. No the saints weren't a forgone conclusion for me but that he'd see pay in that order and be worth a pick was. It was a matter of how high of a pick. Edited March 19, 2014 by NoSaint
1B4IDie Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 So you think to spite us Byrd would've refused to negotiate with other teams and demanded they not pay picks for him? He REALLY wanted to get to free agency that bad? Otherwise, yea let him go negotiate a deal and entertain whatever offer he brings back even if it's not high. And if that doesn't work you can always play him or pull the unsigned tag down the line. No the saints weren't a forgone conclusion for me but that he'd see pay in that order and be worth a pick was. It was a matter of how high of a pick. Um … he did that in 2013. Parker was under orders to find a trading partner.
NoSaint Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Um … he did that in 2013. Parker was under orders to find a trading partner. And we fielded offers. If you were going to let him walk this year field those offers and ACCEPT one of them this time. And if none come and you refuse to play him then pull the tag after the draft. Edited March 19, 2014 by NoSaint
BackInDaDay Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Byrd isn't a game changer. We'll be fine back there as long as A Williams stays healthy and keeps bringing the wood.
1B4IDie Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 And we fielded offers. If you were going to let him walk this year field those offers and ACCEPT one of them this time. And if none come and you refuse to play him then pull the tag after the draft. I hear you on the hard line.
K-9 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 So you think to spite us Byrd would've refused to negotiate with other teams and demanded they not pay picks for him? He REALLY wanted to get to free agency that bad? Otherwise, yea let him go negotiate a deal and entertain whatever offer he brings back even if it's not high. And if that doesn't work you can always play him or pull the unsigned tag down the line. No the saints weren't a forgone conclusion for me but that he'd see pay in that order and be worth a pick was. It was a matter of how high of a pick. It's not a question of Byrd spiting the Bills. It's a question of Byrd doing what's in his best interests to do. It made no sense for him to sign the tag and take a chance on a trade to a team he didn't find preferable. Secondly, why would he NOT test the free agency waters he was so intent on testing? Again, there was no compelling reason at the time for him to do that. NO TEAM, including the Saints was a foregone conclusion BEFORE he put his services up for auction. Several teams appeared to have balked at his asking price until New Orleans stepped up. By that time it was far too late to do a sign and trade. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) It's not a question of Byrd spiting the Bills. It's a question of Byrd doing what's in his best interests to do. It made no sense for him to sign the tag and take a chance on a trade to a team he didn't find preferable. Secondly, why would he NOT test the free agency waters he was so intent on testing? Again, there was no compelling reason at the time for him to do that. NO TEAM, including the Saints was a foregone conclusion BEFORE he put his services up for auction. Several teams appeared to have balked at his asking price until New Orleans stepped up. By that time it was far too late to do a sign and trade. GO BILLS!!! If you don't think that telling him "were tagging you but your free to bring back any and all offers" and letting it be known we'd entertain a mid-late round pick would have generated a single taker, I'm not sure what to say other than agree to disagree. Byrd wouldn't have to sign his tag til the day we signed his trade papers and could've signed his new contract within the hour. Your acting like he had to sign it today and risk being shipped anywhere we wanted. He could've fully negotiated a deal start to finish before signing anything. While I understand a stance that a team wouldn't want to trade a first rounder and pay 9m, I think we both know he could've gotten a 7th out of a team willing to give up that kind of money (or anything remotely acceptable for him). Clearly Parker had some degree of confidence in byrds value being VERY high or he would've sign the long term deal in buffalo. And even if all that proved wrong, you've still given no downside for a team that had a plan to be active in free agency eliminating comp picks to atleast tag and feel free to withdraw it later. The only reason it was too late is because we chose to release our rights to him (which would've cost nothing til he signed the papers). Edited March 20, 2014 by NoSaint
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 If you don't think that telling him "were tagging you but your free to bring back any and all offers" and letting it be known we'd entertain a mid-late round pick would have generated a single taker, I'm not sure what to say other than agree to disagree. Byrd wouldn't have to sign his tag til the day we signed his trade papers and could've signed his new contract within the hour. Your acting like he had to sign it today and risk being shipped anywhere we wanted. He could've fully negotiated a deal start to finish before signing anything. While I understand a stance that a team wouldn't want to trade a first rounder and pay 9m, I think we both know he could've gotten a 7th out of a team willing to give up that kind of money (or anything remotely acceptable for him). Clearly Parker had some degree of confidence in byrds value being VERY high or he would've sign the long term deal in buffalo. And even if all that proved wrong, you've still given no downside for a team that had a plan to be active in free agency eliminating comp picks to atleast tag and feel free to withdraw it later. The only reason it was too late is because we chose to release our rights to him (which would've cost nothing til he signed the papers). I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. GO BILLS!!!
Passepartout Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Well Byrd is lost. Oh well, got to find someone to replace him! And move onward to the draft!
Recommended Posts