Tyrod Taylor's contract

[Commish]

Heard an interesting call on WGR yesterday - the caller's theory was that Taylor's contract provides that he's a free agent if he starts more than 50% of the games this season, whereas if he doesn't start 50% of the games, he's locked in for two more years, so there's added incentive to start Cassel at the start of the season.

 

If Taylor's "the man", I can't believe the team wouldn't start him, regardless of the $$s involved.

 

Thoughts?

[ALF]

2017 Voidable (50% playing time in 2015 or 16, or on active roster 5 days after 2016 SB)

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/tyrod-taylor/

[GunnerBill]

So we have him for two year but he can void the last one? If he proves himself the starter and a serviceable starter we will be renegotiating before then regardless I'd have thought.

Edited August 25, 2015 by GunnerBill

[Max Fischer]

Irrelevant to the QB decision. You don't sign someone to not play them because you might lose them.

[YoloinOhio]

I don't think it will matter.

[atlbillsfan1975]

Irrelevant to the QB decision. You don't sign someone to not play them because you might lose them.

I can understand how people may think there is an incentive to do this. I have seen college teams attempt to do it with red shirting a player. However circumstances sometimes prohibit it.

There has always been talk about teams not playing a certain player at pro level because it would kick in an incentive for a bonus or such. I find it hard to believe that this is still a widespread practice. Take into consideration that we are talking about a franchise that hasn't been to the playoffs in over 15 years and I think they will do whatever it takes.

[Best Player Available]

So.........the Bills win two superbowls in a row. Then lose him?

 

DOOMED..............

[Nanker]

Then cut him now and avoid the controversy/quandary/tough decision. It's the only logical thing to do.

[nucci]

Then cut him now and avoid the controversy/quandary/tough decision. It's the only logical thing to do.

or sign him now on the cheap....hometown discount.......etc

[PromoTheRobot]

Then cut him now and avoid the controversy/quandary/tough decision. It's the only logical thing to do.

And wait for our franchise QB.

[wkndjohn2]

^{Players DO NOT void contracts....... but Doug Whaley does. The Bills can void his contract if he turns out to be useless. Fortunately that won't be the case.}

Edited August 25, 2015 by wkndjohn2

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

So, what you're saying is that if Taylor comes out and wins the starting job we get him incredibly cheap for only two years instead of three?

 

Well, if he's the next Russell Wilson or Kaepernick, pay the man. If he's servicable, but not the long term answer, draft a rookie to take his place in 2017. If he sucks, we don't even have to worry about this conversation.

[JohnnyK]

Start some else each game and then bring him in!!!

problem solved!

[A Dog Named Kelso]

^{Players DO NOT void contracts....... but Doug Whaley does. The Bills can void his contract if he turns out to be useless. Fortunately that won't be the case.}

Opt out clause.

Edited August 25, 2015 by A Dog Named Kelso

[John from Riverside]

If at some point this year Tyrod shows he is a servicable starter you can bet the bills renegotiate his contract

[A Dog Named Kelso]

The most interesting piece of the contract, also tied to Taylor's playing time, is a voidable clause. If Taylor plays in over 50 percent of the Bills' plays in either 2015 or 2016, and remains on the roster five days following the 2016 Super Bowl, the third year of the contract voids. This clause would allow, if he received significant playing time in either 2015 or 2016, Taylor to become a free agent for 2017. (If the contract voids, Taylor's third-year signing bonus proration would serve as dead money on the Bills' 2017 salary cap). This type of clause makes considerable sense for Taylor, because his 2017 salary of $1.2 million could be grossly inadequate if he becomes the Bills' starting quarterback and performs well during the 2015 or 2016 season.

 

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/bills-news-notes/2015/3/18/8236345/tyrod-taylor-contract-details-buffalo-bills-qb-nfl-free-agency-2015

[The Jokeman]

Opt out clause.

We now call that "Marroning it"

[1B4IDie]

Heard an interesting call on WGR yesterday - the caller's theory was that Taylor's contract provides that he's a free agent if he starts more than 50% of the games this season, whereas if he doesn't start 50% of the games, he's locked in for two more years, so there's added incentive to start Cassel at the start of the season.

 

If Taylor's "the man", I can't believe the team wouldn't start him, regardless of the $$s involved.

 

Thoughts?

 

There is no F'in way that would matter. Whichever QB gives the team the best chance to win will start; even if they have to get paid 10,000,000 a game and start for the Jets next year in their contract.

 

They are all in for 2015 there is no next year.

[Captain Caveman]

He basically has a 2 year contract under almost any and all circumstances.

[LeGOATski]

it's just incentive for him to do well.