QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss

[Shaw66]

This is interesting and actually does lend some credence to Shaw's argument that Taylor is "betting on himself."

 

But man, look at that list of QBs who are in the top 8...

 

Whoof...

I don't think either of those is the right list to look at. The right list (I don't know how to generate it by QB alone) is here: https://overthecap.com/contracts

 

Sort that list by average amount guaranteed per year. That's what really matters - if it isn't guaranteed, it's funny money. If you go down that list you'll see that Tyrod is in fact about the lowest average guaranteed money per year of any QB not on his rookie contract.

 

However, he is in the same ballpark with Wilson, Newton, Ryan, Roethlisberger and Manning. So although he's at the low end, he's in pretty good company.

 

 

 

Shaw, you're wrong about the effect that money will have on the likelihood of him getting cut.

 

The way it's structured will make it extremely easy to cut him. Very very easy.

 

Here are the two choices:

 

1) Cut him before March of 2018: He'll cost the team $8.6 mill in dead money against the cap

 

2) Keep him for 2018: He'll cost the team $18 mill against the cap, in salary, a major March roster bonus and the prorated portion of his signing bonus.

 

Cutting him would save them almost $10 mill on the cap. That's not a penalty for cutting him, it's a windfall.

 

And let's not pretend guys don't get cut for money-related reasons even when they beat out (or would beat out) the other QBs on the rosters in the NFL. It happens a lot. Not to the franchise guys, but to the guys farther down, who the team thinks won't allow them to be competitive for a title. And that's Tyrod. Osweiler's a good example, the best QB on that roster but not good enough to make that team competitive, so he's gone before they have any idea what they might get in the draft.

 

We don't know whether or not it's likely. Too much is up in the air in terms of what QBs will be available in the draft when we pick, how much Peterman and Cardale will develop and whether or not Tyrod does as well as they hope in the new system, as well as whether the team and the offense are competitive next year with Tyrod.

 

Unless things fall well for him, it could easily make great sense to cut him. The money is a reason to cut him, not to keep him. They could easily keep him for two but it would be just as easy to cut him.

Thanks. You're right about the numbers.

 

That DOES make it a little more likely that he'll be cut. I still think it's quite likely they keep him, for the reason I gave. If they cut him, it's because they have someone who looks like a top notch starter ahead of him. There are only two real candidates for that job: Peterman and a 2018 first round rookie. If you're going to start you 2018 first round rookie, you're almost certainly going to want a veteran backup, which means you're writing a $5 million check to get him. You're not going to go with the rookie and Peterman as a backup. I mean, it's certainly possible, but not likely.

 

If you're going with Peterman as the starter, unless he started for most of 2017, you don't know what you have with him, either, so again you'll want a veteran backup.

 

Still, you're right. It's more likely that the Bills will cut him than I said.

[Shaw66]

 

 

 

Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year.

 

With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact).

 

If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less.

 

In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.

I agree with all of that. But if Taylor has a good year in 2017, they're going to be writing Taylor a big check in 2018 to keep him from becoming a free agent.

 

I find the whole thing really interesting, because you can see the Bills changing the deal from year to year as they continually reevaluate their cap situation, their view of Taylor, and their need for flexibility. In the case of Watkins, as I said, I think they made a choice of what year they wanted to franchise him if that becomes necessary. In Taylor's case, because they weren't sure about him, they gave up a very favorable long-term deal to get some short-term cap relief and to get the opportunity to cut him at lower cost.

 

Taylor, on the other hand, gave up his future by signing a long-term deal, but captured guaranteed money. Then he agreed to reduce his guarantee to get back his freedom to negotiate for a better deal.

 

If Taylor plays well in 2017, it will cost the Bills $20-$30 million more over the next four seasons than if they'd just exercised the option under the old deal. If he plays poorly and the Bills cut him, the Bills will save $10-$20 million of cash and $10 million of cap space. Taylor, of course, isn't concerned about cap space; if he has a lousy 2017 and gets cut, all he'll think about is the $10-$20 million in cash he gave up. But as I've always said, he has a 5-7 year future in the league almost regardless of what happens in 2017, and he'll make $20 million or more over that period.

 

So I continue to think that the upside of the new deal was more valuable to Taylor than the downside, in terms of cash. As people have said, Taylor is willing to bet on himself. For the Bills, they're willing to live with the possibility that they might have to write a big check to keep Taylor; you deal with those kinds of problems as they come along. The Bills wanted the option to keep him for 2017 and reconsider him in a year. They got what they wanted, and Taylor got what he wanted.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I agree with all of that. But if Taylor has a good year in 2017, they're going to be writing Taylor a big check in 2018 to keep him from becoming a free agent.

 

I find the whole thing really interesting, because you can see the Bills changing the deal from year to year as they continually reevaluate their cap situation, their view of Taylor, and their need for flexibility. In the case of Watkins, as I said, I think they made a choice of what year they wanted to franchise him if that becomes necessary. In Taylor's case, because they weren't sure about him, they gave up a very favorable long-term deal to get some short-term cap relief and to get the opportunity to cut him at lower cost.

 

Taylor, on the other hand, gave up his future by signing a long-term deal, but captured guaranteed money. Then he agreed to reduce his guarantee to get back his freedom to negotiate for a better deal.

 

If Taylor plays well in 2017, it will cost the Bills $20-$30 million more over the next four seasons than if they'd just exercised the option under the old deal. If he plays poorly and the Bills cut him, the Bills will save $10-$20 million of cash and $10 million of cap space. Taylor, of course, isn't concerned about cap space; if he has a lousy 2017 and gets cut, all he'll think about is the $10-$20 million in cash he gave up. But as I've always said, he has a 5-7 year future in the league almost regardless of what happens in 2017, and he'll make $20 million or more over that period.

 

So I continue to think that the upside of the new deal was more valuable to Taylor than the downside, in terms of cash. As people have said, Taylor is willing to bet on himself. For the Bills, they're willing to live with the possibility that they might have to write a big check to keep Taylor; you deal with those kinds of problems as they come along. The Bills wanted the option to keep him for 2017 and reconsider him in a year. They got what they wanted, and Taylor got what he wanted.

I'd bet McCoach already has plans to move away from TT. Just an opinion. We'll agree to disagree.

[Shaw66]

I'd bet McCoach already has plans to move away from TT. Just an opinion. We'll agree to disagree.

I wouldn't take that bet.

 

My sense is that McD is a pretty strong minded guy, and I think either you're right or he thinks he can make something of Taylor. I have no idea at all which it might be. Certainly the trade out of #10 to get another first next year is consistent with the idea that he wants to get his own QB. Also Taylor's new contract is consistent with that idea. His view might have been "give me Taylor for 2017; he's better than anyone else I'll have, and that will give me a year to get settled into the job, get my bearings and get ready to make the team the way I really want it. If Taylor has a big year, I'll deal with it. If he doesn't, I'm getting the QB I want in 2018."

 

On the other hand, his view might be what I've been saying - he's not sure about Taylor and he wants flexibility. That is, he may be perfectly happy to have Taylor as his QB if Taylor produces the way McD wants.

 

We'll see.

 

In any case, I'm reasonably happy about where the Bills are right now.

[BillsFan17]

Listen, I understand everyone had a friend in X field that knows more than the average joe. Not trying to be a jerk, and I'm not saying you don't know someone. But from the draft, to FA, to hirings and firings, everyone on these boards seem to know someone, thus making the point so much more valid.

 

Just because you friend is so admit that Taylor got the better end of the deal, doesnt mean I change my stance that.

- Players in this league prefer security. Rookies typically play for their next contract. Very rare case the 28 year old marginal starter is setting him self up for that big pay day at 30. Franchise QBs are locked up for term, very rarely are they not. For every one QB betting on themselves there are 10 others taking the longevity.

 

-Especially coming off of a recent surgery. Also his style lends it self to injury, freak injury or not, the horse collar ended up sidelining him for two weeks two year ago, for example. Among other nagging injuries a running QB like him self will endure, and again not overly marketable when you are 30 and your best attitude is you legs.

 

-Also can't ignore the fact, Tyrod him self said his agent had informal meetings at combine. They clearly didn't like what they heard, seeing as how the restructure was done, with both sides admitting it was pretty rapid. Wasn't like both sides were working so hard towards making this work. Buffalo was not going to pick up his option at that price. Mock all you want, but they were kicking tires on othe QBs as contingency plans. Hence, the interest in Hoyer. Not to say Hoyer was the better option, but Buffalo was lining up a plan B if Tyrod didn't restructure.

[section122]

So this guy you know knows Taylor got what he wanted? Does he speak with Taylor?

 

If not...you're guy is merely speculating.

 

Players of Tyrods caliber and playing style don't gamble on one year deals...they get a good offer with alot of guaranteed money and smile all the way to the bank. Injuries are far too common for guys to play on a year by year basis. It's quite foolish for a player or an agent to do such a thing.

 

If you're guy was adamant that he unequivocally got what he wanted, then I have to question how he reached that conclusion. I don't think you can make that kind of statement without knowing the played personally.

 

Aren't we all? The people who think he took a team friendly deal, the people who believe Shaw's version, and the people who think he sucks and got what he could. It is all speculation. Hell you speculated in the very next sentence what happened!

 

"Shaw's guy" speculated too based on years of experience working on contracts. He could be wrong but it is no less likely than any other version of events. Everyone is just going to settle on the one they believed anyway since we will never know what the conversations at the combine were, what the conversations between the Bills and Tyrod were, what Tyrod's feelings about staying in Buffalo were, etc... Even what was printed is hard to trust since comments could have been simply posturing.

[Shaw66]

Listen, I understand everyone had a friend in X field that knows more than the average joe. Not trying to be a jerk, and I'm not saying you don't know someone. But from the draft, to FA, to hirings and firings, everyone on these boards seem to know someone, thus making the point so much more valid.

 

Just because you friend is so admit that Taylor got the better end of the deal, doesnt mean I change my stance that.

- Players in this league prefer security. Rookies typically play for their next contract. Very rare case the 28 year old marginal starter is setting him self up for that big pay day at 30. Franchise QBs are locked up for term, very rarely are they not. For every one QB betting on themselves there are 10 others taking the longevity.

 

-Especially coming off of a recent surgery. Also his style lends it self to injury, freak injury or not, the horse collar ended up sidelining him for two weeks two year ago, for example. Among other nagging injuries a running QB like him self will endure, and again not overly marketable when you are 30 and your best attitude is you legs.

 

-Also can't ignore the fact, Tyrod him self said his agent had informal meetings at combine. They clearly didn't like what they heard, seeing as how the restructure was done, with both sides admitting it was pretty rapid. Wasn't like both sides were working so hard towards making this work. Buffalo was not going to pick up his option at that price. Mock all you want, but they were kicking tires on othe QBs as contingency plans. Hence, the interest in Hoyer. Not to say Hoyer was the better option, but Buffalo was lining up a plan B if Tyrod didn't restructure.

I didn't say Tyrod got the better end of the deal. As my last post says, both sides got what they wanted.

 

What I'm saying is that he was forced to take a pay cut. He wasn't. He took the new deal because he liked it better than the old deal. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken it.

 

One thing I think about Tyrod is that he has a chip on his shoulder. He has a lot of confidence in himself and he isn't going to tolerate people who don't have confidence in him. I think he was not afraid, at all, of being cut. He knew he'd get a job someplace else, a job starting, and he knew he'd make good money - $10 million a year or more. Teams would have been bidding for him.

 

So when the Bills came to him and said they wanted to renegotiate, he was perfectly happy to talk. But he wasn't going to leave the room with a deal that he liked less than the deal he already had. He likes his current deal more. And the reason is that he can become a free agent in two years. He isn't afraid of being unemployed.

 

Aren't we all? The people who think he took a team friendly deal, the people who believe Shaw's version, and the people who think he sucks and got what he could. It is all speculation. Hell you speculated in the very next sentence what happened!

 

"Shaw's guy" speculated too based on years of experience working on contracts. He could be wrong but it is no less likely than any other version of events. Everyone is just going to settle on the one they believed anyway since we will never know what the conversations at the combine were, what the conversations between the Bills and Tyrod were, what Tyrod's feelings about staying in Buffalo were, etc... Even what was printed is hard to trust since comments could have been simply posturing.

All true.

 

I will say that I trust my guy. I trust him because I've known him a very long time, and because he operated for a long time at the highest levels of the sports agent world. He represented some of the very biggest names in the sports world. He negotiated as many big-money deals as almost any agent you can name.

 

So when he tells me what he'd tell his client in situations like this, I listen. No one else has to listen, but I do.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

What he said was that he would consider restructuring but was not willing to do so if he had to give up any money.

 

Whoops.

Link?

 

I'm talking about his interview on clean out day. I'm not talking about something we heard through his agent.

 

Do you have a link to where Taylor ever directly said he wouldn't take less money?

[BillsFan17]

I didn't say Tyrod got the better end of the deal. As my last post says, both sides got what they wanted.

 

What I'm saying is that he was forced to take a pay cut. He wasn't. He took the new deal because he liked it better than the old deal. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken it.

 

One thing I think about Tyrod is that he has a chip on his shoulder. He has a lot of confidence in himself and he isn't going to tolerate people who don't have confidence in him. I think he was not afraid, at all, of being cut. He knew he'd get a job someplace else, a job starting, and he knew he'd make good money - $10 million a year or more. Teams would have been bidding for him.

 

So when the Bills came to him and said they wanted to renegotiate, he was perfectly happy to talk. But he wasn't going to leave the room with a deal that he liked less than the deal he already had. He likes his current deal more. And the reason is that he can become a free agent in two years. He isn't afraid of being unemployed.

 

All true.

 

I will say that I trust my guy. I trust him because I've known him a very long time, and because he operated for a long time at the highest levels of the sports agent world. He represented some of the very biggest names in the sports world. He negotiated as many big-money deals as almost any agent you can name.

 

So when he tells me what he'd tell his client in situations like this, I listen. No one else has to listen, but I do.

I'm sorry, but I can't get behind an ounce of what you are saying. It's pure speculation, the same way what I'm saying about players wanting longevity and security, is speculation. I'm basing mine off of recent patterns and trends of franchise players signing big term years.

 

Tyrod either took a new deal with Buffalo or they were going to let him go. That a forgone conclusion. They didn't want that hit on the books. His agent talks to other teams to gage the market, then Taylor renegotiated.

 

No one is saying Tyrod was bent over a barrell, but if he really wasn't afraid of being unemployed like you said, why not stand firm with that chip and let buffalo cut ties?

 

You as a person value your self to your employeer in a fashion to obtain the most for your services.

 

You don walk in, let them strip security of five years of career stability, for two because you are such a believer in you self. Any restructuring by a QB I can think of to date, involved the fiscal side not the years side. They have reworked their figures in order help the cap situation, not remove years.

 

Why did he take that deal he took with the years in the first place?

Edited May 9, 2017 by BillsFan17

[BringBackOrton]

Link?

 

I'm talking about his interview on clean out day. I'm not talking about something we heard through his agent.

 

Do you have a link to where Taylor ever directly said he wouldn't take less money?

Why would his agent say something that completely contradicts the "no brainer" shorter deal?

 

Aren't we all? The people who think he took a team friendly deal, the people who believe Shaw's version, and the people who think he sucks and got what he could. It is all speculation. Hell you speculated in the very next sentence what happened!

 

"Shaw's guy" speculated too based on years of experience working on contracts. He could be wrong but it is no less likely than any other version of events. Everyone is just going to settle on the one they believed anyway since we will never know what the conversations at the combine were, what the conversations between the Bills and Tyrod were, what Tyrod's feelings about staying in Buffalo were, etc... Even what was printed is hard to trust since comments could have been simply posturing.

He's more likely to be wrong because his only evidence of this "practice" is TT. Meanwhile, virtually every other super star in the NFL in their prime has taken 6-7 year deals worth hundreds of millions.

 

I guess it's possible that TT has the best, most cutting edge agent on the planet. I remain skeptical of that version of events.

Edited May 9, 2017 by jmc12290

[transplantbillsfan]

Here's the interview I referred to.

 

http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/bills-qb-tyrod-taylor-on-starting-job-it-was-taken-from-me

If the Bills declined the option to bring him back for the 2017 season, would Taylor be open to the idea of restructuring his contract?

 

"It's too early to tell right now. Maybe that's a possibility down the line, but we'll visit when and if that happens."

 

Not saying anything about being unwilling to take less money.

 

 

Whoops

[Shaw66]

You guys miss the point of how these deals are negotiated.

 

The thing of most importance to the players is guaranteed money. If you don't have guaranteed money, nothing else matters much.

 

Job security is important to schleps like us. If you have guaranteed money, you don't care about job security. If you lose your job, you still have the money.

 

In 2016 Tyrod wasn't looking for a long-term contract. Players don't want long-term contracts. They want guaranteed money, and that's what Tyrod was looking for in 2016. He got it, but to get the guarantee he had to give the Bills a long-term deal.

 

Yes guys sign long-term deals, but they sign them for the money, not the long terms. All of the reported negotiations in sports always go the same way - the player wants a lot of money, guaranteed, and he wants it now. The team wants the long term. The negotiation is over how much money for how long. From the player's point of view, he wants the shortest deal possible with the most guaranteed money. If he has guaranteed money and short deal, he has the opportunity to negotiate another deal.

 

Once Taylor got guaranteed money in 2016, he was set for life. It wasn't a ton of money, but enough be set for life. The problem was, it was a long-term deal. He didn't have any way to make any more money in his prime. When the Bills came to him this year, he had his opportunity. He had one good payday in 2016, and Bills were offering him another nice payday for 2017 AND the possibility of negotiating a new deal in a year or two. Yes, he took less money than his old contract gave him, but he still had a lot of guaranteed money.

 

Job security means absolutely nothing to the players. Money is what matters. Taylor gave up some guaranteed money for the opportunity to make a lot more.

Meanwhile, virtually every other super star in the NFL in their prime has taken 6-7 year deals worth hundreds of millions.

The Bills weren't offering hundreds of millions. Yes, you sign long term deals when you're getting franchise player money. That's the only to get BIG guaranteed money.

 

Taylor wants BIG guaranteed money. The only way to get is to negotiate it for it when you're in your prime. The opportunity to do that is why he gave up small guaranteed money.

[Bangarang]

You guys miss the point of how these deals are negotiated.

 

The thing of most importance to the players is guaranteed money. If you don't have guaranteed money, nothing else matters much.

 

Job security is important to schleps like us. If you have guaranteed money, you don't care about job security. If you lose your job, you still have the money.

 

In 2016 Tyrod wasn't looking for a long-term contract. Players don't want long-term contracts. They want guaranteed money, and that's what Tyrod was looking for in 2016. He got it, but to get the guarantee he had to give the Bills a long-term deal.

 

Yes guys sign long-term deals, but they sign them for the money, not the long terms. All of the reported negotiations in sports always go the same way - the player wants a lot of money, guaranteed, and he wants it now. The team wants the long term. The negotiation is over how much money for how long. From the player's point of view, he wants the shortest deal possible with the most guaranteed money. If he has guaranteed money and short deal, he has the opportunity to negotiate another deal.

 

Once Taylor got guaranteed money in 2016, he was set for life. It wasn't a ton of money, but enough be set for life. The problem was, it was a long-term deal. He didn't have any way to make any more money in his prime. When the Bills came to him this year, he had his opportunity. He had one good payday in 2016, and Bills were offering him another nice payday for 2017 AND the possibility of negotiating a new deal in a year or two. Yes, he took less money than his old contract gave him, but he still had a lot of guaranteed money.

 

Job security means absolutely nothing to the players. Money is what matters. Taylor gave up some guaranteed money for the opportunity to make a lot more.

 

The Bills weren't offering hundreds of millions. Yes, you sign long term deals when you're getting franchise player money. That's the only to get BIG guaranteed money.

 

Taylor wants BIG guaranteed money. The only way to get is to negotiate it for it when you're in your prime. The opportunity to do that is why he gave up small guaranteed money.

This is really just speculation more than anything.

[John from Riverside]

I'm sorry, but I can't get behind an ounce of what you are saying. It's pure speculation, the same way what I'm saying about players wanting longevity and security, is speculation. I'm basing mine off of recent patterns and trends of franchise players signing big term years.

 

Tyrod either took a new deal with Buffalo or they were going to let him go. That a forgone conclusion. They didn't want that hit on the books. His agent talks to other teams to gage the market, then Taylor renegotiated.

 

No one is saying Tyrod was bent over a barrell, but if he really wasn't afraid of being unemployed like you said, why not stand firm with that chip and let buffalo cut ties?

 

You as a person value your self to your employeer in a fashion to obtain the most for your services.

 

You don walk in, let them strip security of five years of career stability, for two because you are such a believer in you self. Any restructuring by a QB I can think of to date, involved the fiscal side not the years side. They have reworked their figures in order help the cap situation, not remove years.

 

Why did he take that deal he took with the years in the first place?

Why are you saying things as fact when they themselves are speculation then telling others their ideas are speculation?

[Crusher]

 

Aren't we all? The people who think he took a team friendly deal, the people who believe Shaw's version, and the people who think he sucks and got what he could. It is all speculation. Hell you speculated in the very next sentence what happened!

 

"Shaw's guy" speculated too based on years of experience working on contracts. He could be wrong but it is no less likely than any other version of events. Everyone is just going to settle on the one they believed anyway since we will never know what the conversations at the combine were, what the conversations between the Bills and Tyrod were, what Tyrod's feelings about staying in Buffalo were, etc... Even what was printed is hard to trust since comments could have been simply posturing.

The difference is that Shaw's guy was apparently absolutely certain that this was the deal he wanted. The word another poster used comes to mind here...ludicrous.

 

None of us here have stated that things as matter of factly. Some, including myself have simply noted how players normally look to get multi year deals with as much guaranteed money as possible...especially ones that are merely average. Also, with how common injury is in the league...players tend to not gamble against something not happening to them. The way Shaw worded it almost makes it sound like he leveraged a better deal for himself, and that is something else I simply can't buy into.

 

I contend his scenario is less likely from everything I've seen and heard about contracts and with the uncertainty of injuries and the very real possibility of team's not taking care of players beyond what they can get guaranteed. The numbers bare it out, as well. Most guys want multi year deals with guaranteed money. Big names will occasionally let a season or two play out in order to really cash in, but lesser players rarely take such risk.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Crusher

[John from Riverside]

The difference is that Shaw's guy was apparently absolutely certain that this was the deal he wanted. The word another poster used comes to mind here...ludicrous.

 

None of us here have stated that things as matter of factly. Some, including myself have simply noted how players normally look to get multi year deals with as much guaranteed money as possible...especially ones that are merely average. Also, with how common injury is in the league...players tend to not gamble against something not happening to them. The way Shaw worded it almost makes it sound like he leveraged a better deal for himself, and that is something else I simply can't buy into.

 

I contend his scenario is less likely from everything I've seen and heard about contracts and with the uncertainty of injuries and the very real possibility of team's not taking care of players beyond what they can get guaranteed. The numbers bare it out, as well. Most guys want multi year deals with guaranteed money. Big names will occasionally let a season or two play out in order to really cash in, but lesser players rarely take such risk.

It is interesting the way you put that.....Shaw's guy happens to be a Buffalo Bills player.....there fore he should be a guy for ALL OF US....you know because he is a member of our team?

Edited May 9, 2017 by John from Hemet

[Shaw66]

It is interesting the way you put that.....Shaw's guy happens to be a Buffalo Bills player.....there fore he should be a guy for ALL OF US....you know because he is a member of our team?

No. He's talking about my friend the agent when he says Shaw's guy.

 

But Crusher, you seriously misquote. I didn't say Tyrod got the deal he wanted. He wants $75 million guaranteed. What I said is that he liked the deal he got better than the deal he gave up. His new deal is better than the old deal because his upside is much better and isn't downside is relatively not so bad.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Shaw66

[Crusher]

It is interesting the way you put that.....Shaw's guy happens to be a Buffalo Bills player.....there fore he should be a guy for ALL OF US....you know because he is a member of our team?

I was referring to his friend who was an agent, chief.

 

A little too trigger happy, aren't we?

[John from Riverside]

I was referring to his friend who was an agent, chief.

 

A little too trigger happy, aren't we?

My bad.....I do admit when im wrong

[Crusher]

No. He's talking about my friend the agent when he says Shaw's guy.

 

But Crusher, you seriously misquote. I didn't say Tyrod got the deal he wanted. He wants $75 million guaranteed. What I said is that he liked the deal he got better than the deal he gave up. His new deal is better than the old deal because his upside is much better and isn't downside is relatively not so bad.

I said you almost make it seem as if he got the deal he wanted. No misquoting here.

 

You can claim this deal is better than the old one...it possibly can be. It could also be a disaster if he suffers a major injury. And if he doesn't improve this season, he is likely relegated to being a backup and not seeing a whole lot of guaranteed money. This is why logic dictates you take the multi year deal with a good deal of guarantees over risking injury or short term deals with little guarantees if your play deteriorates.

 

I think we have reached agree to disagree status here, but I still appreciate your side of things.