thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Unless he gave the Bills a chance to match the offer I'd say it's a safe bet. I realize we may never know, but I haven't even heard it rumored that he did. IMO what you're saying--if indeed he didn't give the team a chance to match--is a different issue. "He didn't want to be here", in the context that it's been used on this board repeatedly, implies that the lack of a long-term deal in Buffalo stemmed from his not wanting to be on this team anymore. The context in which you're discussing--that he reached free agency, got a whopper of an offer in a city that he liked, and subsequently accepted without giving Buffalo a chance to match--implies an altogether different meaning; simply that he got a taste of what was out there and liked it better than the prospect of coming back here for the same money. Know what I mean?
NoSaint Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) IMO what you're saying--if indeed he didn't give the team a chance to match--is a different issue. "He didn't want to be here", in the context that it's been used on this board repeatedly, implies that the lack of a long-term deal in Buffalo stemmed from his not wanting to be on this team anymore. The context in which you're discussing--that he reached free agency, got a whopper of an offer in a city that he liked, and subsequently accepted without giving Buffalo a chance to match--implies an altogether different meaning; simply that he got a taste of what was out there and liked it better than the prospect of coming back here for the same money. Know what I mean? and even then, if the gap was considerably wide (id count 1.5m-2m per year average over the course of a 6 year offer if we trust the low/mid 7s vs 9m signed) and whaley was pretty firm in the dollars he was comfortable with - im not sure how much of a chance he owed us, or if one would even have been expected at that gap. if docs rumor is to be believed, it sounds like it was likely a "we got this offer" "go sign it" and wouldve been about a 10 second conversation if it was far above our ceiling and as you point out theres a big difference between "i dont want to be in buffalo" and "id rather be in this specific situation" Edited May 21, 2014 by NoSaint
Big Turk Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) It's a question I've had for a while, but even more so now that the dust of this offseason is starting to settle. If the Bills brass thinks they're ready to win now, which they've repeatedly said they are, than why let Byrd walk. Why not retain his rights for 1 more year for $8.29 million? It just doesn't make sense given the attitude that this is a year we can push for the playoffs. I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, but if the Bills brass does......they should've 100% tagged Byrd. There's a huge void at safety right now, IMO. Because having a disgruntled employee who is gonna sit out for the whole preseason and then have a "fake injury" for half the season isn't what they wanted. Sometimes getting the wrong people off the bus are as important as getting the right people on the bus, if not more important...he simply didn't want to be here...get over it. We will be just fine without him. Edited May 21, 2014 by matter2003
bbb Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 It's a question I've had for a while, but even more so now that the dust of this offseason is starting to settle. If the Bills brass thinks they're ready to win now, which they've repeatedly said they are, than why let Byrd walk. Why not retain his rights for 1 more year for $8.29 million? It just doesn't make sense given the attitude that this is a year we can push for the playoffs. I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, but if the Bills brass does......they should've 100% tagged Byrd. There's a huge void at safety right now, IMO. Didn't the win now at all costs start after Ralph died, which I believe was after Byrd left.
Luxy312 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 It's a question I've had for a while, but even more so now that the dust of this offseason is starting to settle. If the Bills brass thinks they're ready to win now, which they've repeatedly said they are, than why let Byrd walk. Why not retain his rights for 1 more year for $8.29 million? It just doesn't make sense given the attitude that this is a year we can push for the playoffs. I don't happen to agree with that sentiment, but if the Bills brass does......they should've 100% tagged Byrd. There's a huge void at safety right now, IMO. To a degree, the question treats the potential tag of Byrd as simply a paper/John Madden move. Unfortunately, all of the realities that come with that potential move come into play. The Bills front office doesn't see a significant void at safety, and thus no reason to tag Byrd for $8.29 million. That price would have been considerably more than the value the organization perceived from his position. Basically, the front office believes they can win without him. Although that already makes for a complete argument by itself, you could simply look at what happened last year and expect more of the same THIS year. I.e. Byrd sits out the first 6 games of the season and then miraculously heals such that he can guarantee collecting his compensation for the season. So if we did get him back for those last 10 games, he would essentially be making $829K a game which would translate to $13.26 million if you consider the 16 game season. Just dumb on Buffalo's part. Now add in that he's a distraction in the locker room and a "me first" attitude kind of guy. Team chemistry is pretty much shot at that point. Rinse and repeat in 2015 while they have a few important guys coming to the end of their contracts and it's a mess. The Bills did EXACTLY what they should have. They tried to sign him to a contract and it didn't work. Instead, they resign and almost equally good Aaron Williams and Alan Branch to a longer deal, plus picked up Corey Graham, Keith Rivers, and Brandon Spikes. ALL of which combined I may remind you cost less than Byrd.
NoSaint Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Because having a disgruntled employee who is gonna sit out for the whole preseason and then have a "fake injury" for half the season isn't what they wanted. Sometimes getting the wrong people off the bus are as important as getting the right people on the bus, if not more important...he simply didn't want to be here...get over it. We will be just fine without him. If we did a poll and could somehow prevent people from looking up the answer, I am pretty sure a LARGE percentage of the anti Byrd posters would totally miss the fact that he declared himself medically ready right after our week 4 matchup - it may have even been a September date he announced it.
YoloinOhio Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 If we did a poll and could somehow prevent people from looking up the answer, I am pretty sure a LARGE percentage of the anti Byrd posters would totally miss the fact that he declared himself medically ready right after our week 4 matchup - it may have even been a September date he announced it. It was in between the Ravens game on Sun 9/29 and the Browns game on Thurs 10/3.
NoSaint Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 It was in between the Ravens game on Sun 9/29 and the Browns game on Thurs 10/3. Yup. I think there is a surprisingly large contingent that believes he sat most of the season and only played the minimum games to accrue a year of service based on some comments that float around. Or atleast people that want to portray that, even if they know it to be untrue.
Big Turk Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Yup. I think there is a surprisingly large contingent that believes he sat most of the season and only played the minimum games to accrue a year of service based on some comments that float around. Or atleast people that want to portray that, even if they know it to be untrue. The point that having him here when he didn't want to be here was not going to do anything to help build the type of culture they are attempting to build here is more important than him missing a few less games than most people thought. Its irrelevant. He didn't want to be here, his teammates knew it, this is a very young team that doesn't need that around them when they are being molded by the coaching staff...whether it works is another question, but he definitely would not have helped...
CardinalScotts Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 he does the my foot hurts thing again...misses camp etc. moving on
Thurman#1 Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) Unless he gave the Bills a chance to match the offer I'd say it's a safe bet. I realize we may never know, but I haven't even heard it rumored that he did. Bills: $7.5 mill. We love you. This is our best offer. Why don't you sign it? Saints: $9 mill. Whattya say? Byrd: Yeah, just let me check with my old team. There's probably a great chance they'll match. We've only been negotiating for two years. Come on. You don't give a team an option to match unless they ask you to or you seriously think they'd consider matching. And they don't ask you to if they're offering a lot less than market value and know it, and don't want to pay more. The point that having him here when he didn't want to be here was not going to do anything to help build the type of culture they are attempting to build here is more important than him missing a few less games than most people thought. Its irrelevant. He didn't want to be here, his teammates knew it, Kid yourself if you want, his teammates didn't know anything of the sort, nor did he. If they'd paid him the money, he'd still be here. I agree that keeping him here against his will would have been a distraction, as it was last year, but they had another option ... pay him what he wanted ... market value, which was always going to be somewhere around $9 mill per year. Our very first public look at the figures involved here was before the 2014 season from Mark Kelso, who said that the Bills were offering $7 mill and Byrd wanted $9 mill. The Bills apparently in that 14 or 15 months raised their offer around half a mill per year. As usual, Parker knew his client's market value, and got it for him. He was paid what $7 Million last year under the tag.. You are saying he was within his rights to fake a foot injury? Is that how you voice displeasure? You guys act like it's a fact. In fact, the Bills doctors - who we all apparently completely believe are better than other medical staffs on the Kouandjio decision - totally back Byrd up on his injury. I would have liked that. But we don't know if there would have been any takers. Remember the first day of free agency? Lots of Safeties were being signed, and while Byrd was regarded as the top Safety to get, he was one of the last ones to sign. All the teams that were deemed as needing help at Safety(Browns, Eagles & Rams) all passed on him. A lot of teams were not all that keen on giving Byrd the type of money he was asking for. The Saints were the ones who swooped in and saved the day for Byrd, and nobody had them on the radar. I would have liked to have tagged and traded Byrd, I just wonder if we could have found someone who was willing to trade with us, considering the steep price it would cost. Actually, there's no particular reason to think those teams "passed on" him. In Byrd's introductory press conference in NOLA, he was asked to describe the process by which he ended up flying down to the Saints first. It was really funny because the reporters were desperately trying to guide him into saying something along the lines that he'd loved the Saints best all along, and he - politely - absolutely refused to go along with that. Instead he kept saying that there'd been a bunch of offers, that he'd referred all the offers to Parker, and that Parker told him the best offer was NOLA, so he flew there first. Those teams you're saying "passed on" Byrd might have easily in fact give him offers, and those offers might easily have been almost as good as the Saints offer, or maybe even a bit higher but the Saints were offering more guaranteed money or better terms otherwise. The teams might have seen him flying down and panicked and signed somebody else, especially after the first safety signed so early. What you've got there is a guess. Nothing wrong with guessing as long as you don't act like it's a fact. Edited May 22, 2014 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) I always figure that there are many aspects that us fans just simply aren't aware of. It's understandable to look at the Byrd situation and wonder why we didn't try for some sort of recompense, but it is not an uncommon situation in the NFL. When we signed Mario we gave no compensation for a premiere talent. Swings and roundabouts. One other way we could have gotten recompense, though. We could have pulled an Ozzie and not signed any FAs that hadn't been cut. If we'd handled it that way there's a good chance we'd have managed to get a 4th, maybe even a 3rd out of it from comp picks . But not gotten a few FAs some folks here are high on. I myself like the Ravens model, used by a few other teams like the Pack. They collect extra picks, use them, and have a higher chance of getting a few good players with a bunch of extra shots at it over the years. This limits the free agents they can look at to guys who've been cut. But gets them extra draft picks. IMHO a good trade, and it's not a coincidence that it's good teams who're using this strategy. Teams that got a 3rd rounder this year as a comp pick: Steelers, Packers, Ravens, Niners. Edited May 22, 2014 by Thurman#1
NoSaint Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 The point that having him here when he didn't want to be here was not going to do anything to help build the type of culture they are attempting to build here is more important than him missing a few less games than most people thought. Its irrelevant. He didn't want to be here, his teammates knew it, this is a very young team that doesn't need that around them when they are being molded by the coaching staff...whether it works is another question, but he definitely would not have helped... If you believe that, so be it, but no need to act like he sat til week 10 either with the "miss most of the season" stuff or as someone else said "show up just for his pension"
Recommended Posts