BuffaloBill Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 With a little time behind this trade was it a good one especially when viewed in combination with his new contract? If the Bills could hit the "do it again" or "no way in hell" which button should they hit?
Blokestradamus Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The trade was a good one. An injury-riddled linebacker (who was surplus to requirements) for a talented running back, that's a Bills win. The contract was !@#$ing awful. Essentially tied into the deal until 2019 because of handing him piles of guaranteed money. The only non-rookie RB deals with a higher percentage of guaranteed money are Chris Johnson (1 year, $1.5m, 86.6% guaranteed) and Matt Forte (3 year, $12m, 75% guaranteed). In terms of average salary, he's only behind Peterson and Charles. The amount of production you have to get from him to 'break even' in terms of return on investment is huge. Also bearing in mind that he's the polar opposite of what you think of when you imagine a Greg Roman RB1. I'm glad we've got him but not at the price they had to pay for it to happen. I'm a running back advocate but I'm not sure you shouldn't just keep drafting them, using them while they're cheap and discard them after 4 years.
8-8 Forever? Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 sure glad they have him now, with fatty Karlos out for 4 games (it will take him until October to get in shape anyway). Whaley is a genius, loading up on quality RBs in the offseason and resigning the O Line. go bills. no worries here.
Best Player Available Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The trade was a good one. An injury-riddled linebacker (who was surplus to requirements) for a talented running back, that's a Bills win. The contract was !@#$ing awful. Essentially tied into the deal until 2019 because of handing him piles of guaranteed money. The only non-rookie RB deals with a higher percentage of guaranteed money are Chris Johnson (1 year, $1.5m, 86.6% guaranteed) and Matt Forte (3 year, $12m, 75% guaranteed). In terms of average salary, he's only behind Peterson and Charles. The amount of production you have to get from him to 'break even' in terms of return on investment is huge. Also bearing in mind that he's the polar opposite of what you think of when you imagine a Greg Roman RB1. I'm glad we've got him but not at the price they had to pay for it to happen. I'm a running back advocate but I'm not sure you shouldn't just keep drafting them, using them while they're cheap and discard them after 4 years. ^^^ This comment pretty much sums it up. great back but a costly extension. Didn't like his behavior on more than one occasion. Both on the field (eagles game) and his other more questionable off field antics. here is to hoping he at least earns his gameday checks all season
eball Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The trade was a good one. An injury-riddled linebacker (who was surplus to requirements) for a talented running back, that's a Bills win. The contract was !@#$ing awful. Essentially tied into the deal until 2019 because of handing him piles of guaranteed money. The only non-rookie RB deals with a higher percentage of guaranteed money are Chris Johnson (1 year, $1.5m, 86.6% guaranteed) and Matt Forte (3 year, $12m, 75% guaranteed). In terms of average salary, he's only behind Peterson and Charles. The amount of production you have to get from him to 'break even' in terms of return on investment is huge. Also bearing in mind that he's the polar opposite of what you think of when you imagine a Greg Roman RB1. I'm glad we've got him but not at the price they had to pay for it to happen. I'm a running back advocate but I'm not sure you shouldn't just keep drafting them, using them while they're cheap and discard them after 4 years. Nope. Shady takes up less than 5% of the cap this year, and the Bills can get out of the deal "relatively" painlessly after 2017. If he returns to form (not a given, but also not unlikely) then it was totally worth it.
machine gun kelly Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The trade was a good one. An injury-riddled linebacker (who was surplus to requirements) for a talented running back, that's a Bills win. The contract was !@#$ing awful. Essentially tied into the deal until 2019 because of handing him piles of guaranteed money. The only non-rookie RB deals with a higher percentage of guaranteed money are Chris Johnson (1 year, $1.5m, 86.6% guaranteed) and Matt Forte (3 year, $12m, 75% guaranteed). In terms of average salary, he's only behind Peterson and Charles. The amount of production you have to get from him to 'break even' in terms of return on investment is huge. Also bearing in mind that he's the polar opposite of what you think of when you imagine a Greg Roman RB1. I'm glad we've got him but not at the price they had to pay for it to happen. I'm a running back advocate but I'm not sure you shouldn't just keep drafting them, using them while they're cheap and discard them after 4 years. Ditto.
Big C Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Nope. Shady takes up less than 5% of the cap this year, and the Bills can get out of the deal "relatively" painlessly after 2017. If he returns to form (not a given, but also not unlikely) then it was totally worth it. For a superstar RB, this contract wasn't so bad. It's just that Shady didn't have his best year and then had those off-field issues. But the trade was unquestionably great.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 the trade was amazing. Kiko is not even with the Eagles anymore. As far as the contract goes, I'm not sure. In this thread there is two very different points of opinion on how the contract is structured. When Healthy McCoy is probably the best player on the field. I think he has two more years of max production left before he starts the decline.
hondo in seattle Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The contract isn't great but the Bills did what they had to do. We didn't have a franchise QB at the time (and, arguably, still don't). We didn't even have an established starter. With no franchise QBs on the market, DW did the next best thing and got us a franchise RB. We needed someone to build an offense around.
Blokestradamus Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Nope. Shady takes up less than 5% of the cap this year, and the Bills can get out of the deal "relatively" painlessly after 2017. If he returns to form (not a given, but also not unlikely) then it was totally worth it. RB decline is an issue but I'm not going to guess when it'll hit Shady. There's a chance he can maintain his prior level of play and, if he does, his ROI will be pretty good. At his best, he's mercurially brilliant. Personally, I don't like the 2018 cut idea. $5.25m is a significant cap penalty but I could see them biting that bullet if he's a moron off the field or a dud on it. Still feel like after 2018 would be the ideal point to break ties. When I look at the RB spend of teams like Pittsburgh and Oakland, I feel like they're making better use of resources. It's obviously bound to change if Bell/Murray have big years.
3rdand12 Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 The contract isn't great but the Bills did what they had to do. We didn't have a franchise QB at the time (and, arguably, still don't). We didn't even have an established starter. With no franchise QBs on the market, DW did the next best thing and got us a franchise RB. We needed someone to build an offense around. agree 100% That was how I viewed it
BADOLBILZ Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) The trade and the contract can't be separated. They traded Alonso only for the RIGHTS TO NEGOTIATE a new contract with Shady prior to his imminent release from Philly, when he would have become free to negotiate with all teams. Whether the Bills knew this at the time is a matter of opinion..........I say they didn't otherwise the agent wouldn't have had to make public threats about McCoy not reporting.......but that's just logic at work and apparently others disagree. And the contract was really bad........guaranteeing 2/3 of it was especially ill-conceived. I've heard people here say the Bills "did what they had to do"..........and yet I don't remember all the talk about how the Bills HAD TO GET A FRANCHISE RB prior to the trade. Because that wasn't the talk or the feeling anywhere at all. Truth is that getting a franchise RB is actually NEVER a priority anywhere anymore.........why pay top dollar if the position is handled by committee? And despite their huge outlay for Shady that is exactly what the Bills ended up having to do last season anyway. The upside is they didn't just sign a player to a big contract and then be BAD at the position when he had a bad first season.............the position is easily re-stocked with rookies and street free agents like Karlos and MG so it's not like they gotta' go back out and spend another $40M to replace him if he continues to disappoint. And let me correct C.Biscuit........RB's aren't a dime a dozen they are more like 2 or 3 for $1M...........that may be the NFL equivalent but respect the value of a buck! Edited July 16, 2016 by #BADOL
Captain_Quint Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I like when he makes a 4 yard gain look really difficult and take forever to accomplish by dancing around the LOS or running OB. He was great in the first Jets game. Outside of that he was slightly above average. The trade is eh in my opinion given the contract and what we've got out of him last year. Here we go. Too much bad news in the past couple of days to keep you away. You and BADOL decide to take a break from following the Turkish coup and terrorism stories and pop over here for a bit?
What a Tuel Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) Why do you do this to us OP? The trade and the contract can't be separated. They traded Alonso only for the RIGHTS TO NEGOTIATE a new contract with Shady prior to his imminent release from Philly, when he would have become free to negotiate with all teams. Whether the Bills knew this at the time is a matter of opinion..........I say they didn't otherwise the agent wouldn't have had to make public threats about McCoy not reporting.......but that's just logic at work and apparently others disagree. McCoy was under contract through 2017.... Edited July 16, 2016 by What a Tuel
BADOLBILZ Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 McCoy was under contract through 2017.... Precisely. But the proponents of the new contract like Deranged claim that he ABSOLUTELY wouldn't have played without a new contract. I say.......then why did he sign that deal? Forget what was left on the deal........he had ALREADY been pre-paid for much of 2015-2017 by Philly. Was it so much to ask that he finish out his commitment? The only REAL leverage he had was holding out and the Bills still gave him a fat new contract to keep him happy. I'd argue that there isn't really much of a correlation between keeping players happy and winning. More important to keep players hungry, IMO. Guaranteeing 2/3 of the contract to a player who showed an unwillingness to play out the terms of his prior deal after getting a bunch of it prepaid?.........well......a shaky decision to say the least. Did he half-step at all last year or were the numerous injuries just coincidence/age/mileage related?
BADOLBILZ Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Here we go. Too much bad news in the past couple of days to keep you away. You and BADOL decide to take a break from following the Turkish coup and terrorism stories and pop over here for a bit? I'm honestly not following the situation in Turkey and most of the terror nonsense. New rules: never re-do a RB contract you don't have to and never quarrel with people who are nostalgic for how things were in 700 A.D.
What a Tuel Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 Precisely. But the proponents of the new contract like Deranged claim that he ABSOLUTELY wouldn't have played without a new contract. I say.......then why did he sign that deal? Forget what was left on the deal........he had ALREADY been pre-paid for much of 2015-2017 by Philly. Was it so much to ask that he finish out his commitment? The only REAL leverage he had was holding out and the Bills still gave him a fat new contract to keep him happy. I'd argue that there isn't really much of a correlation between keeping players happy and winning. More important to keep players hungry, IMO. Guaranteeing 2/3 of the contract to a player who showed an unwillingness to play out the terms of his prior deal after getting a bunch of it prepaid?.........well......a shaky decision to say the least. Did he half-step at all last year or were the numerous injuries just coincidence/age/mileage related? So, we didn't trade for his free agency rights. If there was no trade, he wasn't going to free agency. As for giving him a new contract, we gave a top RB what he deserved. His "commitment" to the contract with Philly? I thought the NFL was a business? How often do teams "honor" the last few years of contracts?
YoloinOhio Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) Not as good trade. A Great trade. Don't care how much he makes as long as he is performing. He has so far. Edited July 17, 2016 by YoloinOhio
BADOLBILZ Posted July 17, 2016 Posted July 17, 2016 So, we didn't trade for his free agency rights. If there was no trade, he wasn't going to free agency. As for giving him a new contract, we gave a top RB what he deserved. His "commitment" to the contract with Philly? I thought the NFL was a business? How often do teams "honor" the last few years of contracts? The word around Philly in late February was actually that the Eagles had asked Shady to take a PAY CUT........and that he was going to be released if he declined. There wasn't talk of a trade because of the way they had cut DeSean Jackson prior and the notion that veteran RB's don't have much trade value. So that sure worked out for him.....didn't it? The Bills got played.
Recommended Posts