ALF Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 A bridge contract based on good incentives is the safe way to go for now.
BarleyNY Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) Seems like we got to almost the exact same place with the same line of reasoning. Bridge deal thoughts: - If Taylor played this season and was franchised next he would get about $3M and $21M, respectively. A franchise in 2018 would be about $25M. (Using rounded numbers for now.) - There's pretty much no risk for the Bills in that situation. All of that is on Taylor. - There's no way Taylor plays under a tag in 2017. He's on a very cheap "show me" year which implies that he'll get paid market value based on his performance in 2016. - A bridge deal would keep Taylor around through the 2017 season for sure and with no tag or renegotiation until after that season. - The franchise tag in 2017 would be about his average per season market value if he plays about as well as last season. That's not an opinion of whether or not his performance last season is worth that, only that it would be market value. So how about a 3 year deal like this?: $12M signing bonus 2016: salary of $1M fully guaranteed, cap hit of $5M (actually $5.133M due to previous SB) 2017: salary of $11M fully guaranteed, cap hit of $15M 2018: salary $25M + $5M roster bonus, cap hit of $34M ($4M of which would be dead cap if Taylor was not paid his roster bonus and became a free agent) Obviously this is a 2 year deal. Taylor would get the same 2 year payout of $24M, but he'd get cash now and the security of $24M guaranteed. The Bills wouldn't have to use their tag on him next season or deal with him refusing to sign it - and they'd get the same 2 year payout. Taylor's agent would get to crow about a 3 year, $54M deal with $51M in new money. The Bills would have two seasons to watch Taylor grow and determine his value, probably the same time Rex has to produce. After 2017 a new deal could be reached or ties could be severed with no real consequences. Thoughts? I hope this is Sal's logic and not the Bills because it's terrible business. The Bills currently have Tyrod under contract for an extremely team friendly deal for this year. Why would you possibly give him a huge raise this season, with no commitment for future years, other than to be just nice and throw around Terry Pegula's money? If he's going to get a significant raise for this year than he needs to commit to at least 2 additional years for maybe $15-$16 million per year. It's not smart to give someone a huge raise just because, and if it were to do down this way I'd have serious concerns about not only Whaley but the Pegulas. You would think they would be better negotiators than that. Let's assume the following: Tyrod plays out his contract this year for $3M Tyrod gets franchise tag for '17 and makes $21M Tyrod gets franchise tag for '18 and makes $25M What we essentially have is a 3 year $49M deal. That's just under $16.5M per year, which is a great deal assuming he's playing well, and if he totally craps the bed you don't need to give him the franchise tag so it protects the team against an implosion. Obviously, it's not ideal to absorb huge franchise tag cap hits, which is why the Bills are probably eager to do an extension, but in no way should the Bills offer more than that $49M over the first 3 years. Just bad business deal if they do, which they did do with Shady after trading for him, so you never know. Edited August 3, 2016 by BarleyNY
Luxy312 Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Doing math and saying $X > $Y is nice, but doesn't address the practical reality of contracts in the NFL. Saying we can just tag Taylor for two years straight is nice, but then what you're saying is that we're letting Gilmore go to the highest bidder next year and Watkins go to the highest bidder the year after? That would be completely idiotic, and Taylor's agent is going to know this going into any negotiation. So it comes down to a question of how the Bills can do this, such that they are not committing to the long-term with the assumption that Taylor will significantly improve this year, but maybe have the option if in fact he does. At the same time, they can give him more money this year (still fitting under the cap though), and plan for that possible future. The contract that I look back on is the creative one they did with Percy Harvin. I don't remember all the specifics, but they didn't pay him a lot in year one, maybe $3 million if I remember right. At least two years after that were both option years for the Bills at $8 million per year or something like that. They could structure a bridge for Taylor that does exactly the same thing. Something like this: 2016 - $12 million 2017 - $18 million 2018 - $20 million 2019 - $22 million After this year, the last 3 years are voidable. Basically, the $12 million is a good faith "show me" contract for the Bills. If he takes all the steps that we hope he will take, 2017 and 2018 become fully guaranteed. 4 Years $72 million with $38 million guaranteed sound familiar? Very similar to what Osweiler got, but obviously not with the ability to void. This kind of deal doesn't hold either side at a ransom nor impede the Bills from tagging Gilmore next year if they have to. By the way, for frame of reference, that average $18m/year deal would put him squarely at 16th in the NFL for his position. Not a discount, but also not giving Aaron Rodgers type of money to a yet unproven commodity if he earns it.
YoloinOhio Posted August 3, 2016 Author Posted August 3, 2016 Tyrod Taylor and Tom Brady have the same birthday (today) They were both drafted in the sixth round I don't know what this means, but F freaking 5
Virgil Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Tyrod Taylor and Tom Brady have the same birthday (today) They were both drafted in the sixth round I don't know what this means, but F freaking 5 It's science. He's gonna be a star!!!
ndirish1978 Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Wow. What a dense post. And you're being condescending on top of that. In your opinion, if Tyrod plays well enough this season to elicit a big contract from someone, the Bills will still decide to tag Gilmore and let Taylor walk? Instead of the other way around? That would be a fireable offense by Whaley but I'm sure you and your pom-pom waving chums would still justify it somehow. The only way Tyrod is not on this team in 2017 is because of injury or if the Bills think they have a better option at QB. Which they won't. I disagree, what if he has a season that is about equal with last year but doesn't show dramatic signs of improvement? I wouldn't franchise the QB we had last year, so he COULD walk and we could have a Denver situation.
John from Riverside Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) Wow. What a dense post. And you're being condescending on top of that. In your opinion, if Tyrod plays well enough this season to elicit a big contract from someone, the Bills will still decide to tag Gilmore and let Taylor walk? Instead of the other way around? That would be a fireable offense by Whaley but I'm sure you and your pom-pom waving chums would still justify it somehow. The only way Tyrod is not on this team in 2017 is because of injury or if the Bills think they have a better option at QB. Which they won't. Your just not living in reality that is the problem and why you cant understand what I wrote. Can you not see that the bills have already tried to reach an agreement with Gilmore......they apparently were not close on dollars....so they shifted their focus to Tyrod? That tag is now going to have to be saved to keep Gilmore on the team....so they are gonna have to get the extension worked out with Tyrod. And....as you are already a dense individual and apparently cant be bothered to read the WHOLE thread....I am not in favor of giving Tyrod a extension yet.....just making the point that the end result cannot be that he somehow gets away from us. Now....by all means go back to your pom pom waiving fantasy Edited August 3, 2016 by John from Hemet
BarleyNY Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Doing math and saying $X > $Y is nice, but doesn't address the practical reality of contracts in the NFL. Saying we can just tag Taylor for two years straight is nice, but then what you're saying is that we're letting Gilmore go to the highest bidder next year and Watkins go to the highest bidder the year after? That would be completely idiotic, and Taylor's agent is going to know this going into any negotiation. So it comes down to a question of how the Bills can do this, such that they are not committing to the long-term with the assumption that Taylor will significantly improve this year, but maybe have the option if in fact he does. At the same time, they can give him more money this year (still fitting under the cap though), and plan for that possible future. The contract that I look back on is the creative one they did with Percy Harvin. I don't remember all the specifics, but they didn't pay him a lot in year one, maybe $3 million if I remember right. At least two years after that were both option years for the Bills at $8 million per year or something like that. They could structure a bridge for Taylor that does exactly the same thing. Something like this: 2016 - $12 million 2017 - $18 million 2018 - $20 million 2019 - $22 million After this year, the last 3 years are voidable. Basically, the $12 million is a good faith "show me" contract for the Bills. If he takes all the steps that we hope he will take, 2017 and 2018 become fully guaranteed. 4 Years $72 million with $38 million guaranteed sound familiar? Very similar to what Osweiler got, but obviously not with the ability to void. This kind of deal doesn't hold either side at a ransom nor impede the Bills from tagging Gilmore next year if they have to. By the way, for frame of reference, that average $18m/year deal would put him squarely at 16th in the NFL for his position. Not a discount, but also not giving Aaron Rodgers type of money to a yet unproven commodity if he earns it. I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think that contract or structure would work for Taylor's camp. I'd be great for the Bills though. It is essentially a 1 year deal plus a two year deal option plus another one year team option. Taylor would get an extra $9M this season, but lose his ability to get a huge deal next offseason. The Bills would be paying that extra $9M to have an option for two more years at $18M & $20M and then another season at $22M. That's a pretty good deal for the Bills, but even if the $12M in 2016 was guaranteed then that's still less than 1/3 of what Osweiler got in initial guarantees. My example might need some numbers tweaked, but it also allows for the tag to be available for Gilmore next season and Watkins the following season. It also keeps Taylor here for two seasons. I like that much more than having just 2016 to evaluate him before deciding how big of a deal to offer him.
John from Riverside Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think that contract or structure would work for Taylor's camp. I'd be great for the Bills though. It is essentially a 1 year deal plus a two year deal option plus another one year team option. Taylor would get an extra $9M this season, but lose his ability to get a huge deal next offseason. The Bills would be paying that extra $9M to have an option for two more years at $18M & $20M and then another season at $22M. That's a pretty good deal for the Bills, but even if the $12M in 2016 was guaranteed then that's still less than 1/3 of what Osweiler got in initial guarantees. My example might need some numbers tweaked, but it also allows for the tag to be available for Gilmore next season and Watkins the following season. It also keeps Taylor here for two seasons. I like that much more than having just 2016 to evaluate him before deciding how big of a deal to offer him. I do wonder if the first scenario you mention here is what the bills are actually trying to do and that is why it has not been consumated yet.
BarleyNY Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 I do wonder if the first scenario you mention here is what the bills are actually trying to do and that is why it has not been consumated yet. I hope so. The more I think about it, the more I think TT has earned a bridge deal and the more I'd like to have a chance to see more of him than in just 2016.
John from Riverside Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 I hope so. The more I think about it, the more I think TT has earned a bridge deal and the more I'd like to have a chance to see more of him than in just 2016. I agree...I think that is the way to go
Maury Ballstein Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 He's under contract. Let's play some football. If he doesn't stink. Pay him.
QB Bills Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 According to lacanfora, it's likely to be a bridge deal of 2 years at 30m
John from Riverside Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 According to lacanfora, it's likely to be a bridge deal of 2 years at 30m Sounds like the way to go to me....its less then the franchise tag
YoloinOhio Posted August 4, 2016 Author Posted August 4, 2016 According to lacanfora, it's likely to be a bridge deal of 2 years at 30mniceeeee@jasonlacanfora If the Bills are able to come to terms with QB Tyrod Taylor, the template they are discussing is a bridge deal in the range of 2yrs, $30M
NoSaint Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 (edited) Sounds like the way to go to me....its less then the franchise tagthe 2 year total on this would be more than the current year plus a tag... no? ie we would be giving him both a raise and likely some guarantees to free up the tag and possibly avoid holdout next year (at least kick those 2 cans down another year). Edited August 4, 2016 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts