Bills match Bears Offer Sheet for Ryan Bates, 4 yr deal

[Hapless Bills Fan]

43 minutes ago, buffblue said:

I don't think it is as bad as you are stating. Boettger, Ford, and Mancz all have starting experience, and Doyle has significant athletic upside.

 

That said, the Bills roster is in good enough shape as a whole where they can afford to use a meaningful draft pick on depth. I just don't see it as anywhere near the need as WR or CB.

 

Again - OLmen sometimes take a year or more to develop, top guard contracts have become huuuuuuge, and Saffold at age 34 on a 1 year deal is NOT a long-term plan at G

 

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

Nope.

 

If you're not contending that Bates is a star, or that the behavior of teams with major stars is relevant to discussing his contract, then why are you bringing it up?

[Malazan]

8 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Let me know when you run out of ad hominems and decide to try to justify your weak arguments. People tend to rally to dumb ideas because they're easy to wrap your head around and write slogans for. It doesn't make them good ideas.

If you think it takes a "secret genius" to posit an off the wall position that it's sub-optimal to allow as many suitors as possible to outbid you before closing, then I would be happy to be your realtor or middle man in any financial transaction where I get a cut of the total cost you pay.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Malazan

[JGMcD2]

9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

If what you claim is true, why is it so rare for major stars (the ones who would gain the most from free agency) to hit the open market?

Let me tell you a story for example… tell me if this makes you think players value long-term security over getting paid.

 

Baseball player for the Atlanta Braves at 22 years old signed a 7 year/$35M extension. Buying out all of his arbitration seasons and couple free agent years at a fixed price. Obviously valuing short term security over long term payout. He’s one of the few young players in baseball to take a deal like this… 
 

That agent who represented the player, lost several big time clients after the fact because they felt like he ruined other players chances in the future for a big pay day. He ended up having to beg some of his other clients who were debating leaving to stay. Plenty of players felt like he was negligent in allowing his client to accept a deal like that. 
 

The MLPA, NFLPA, NBAPA… they all HATE ***** like this. Agents would find themselves out of business if they started allowing players to forgo any opportunity to test the open market… and most players would be dumb not to.
 

Unless you’re a Josh Allen who is getting a record setting contract… the medium and low tier guys need other teams to drive up their prices. 

 

TLDR: Top end guys end up resetting the market or slotting in around a handful of guys making the most money at their position. These guys reset the market… everyone is happy. Agents, players and teams. 
 

Medium to low tier guys are all bunched together… it’s harder for players/agents/teams to determine their true value without the market. Those players don’t want to go without the presence of other parties bidding on their services. If these guys forgo free agency, they run the risk of contributing to deflating prices for themselves and future players. 

[2003Contenders]

4 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Do you know that Beane did not offer a similar contract?      No you do not.

What incentive would Bates and his agent have to sign a long term deal as an RFA - especially with the little tape on him?  Almost all RFA’s end up signing their qualifying offer for 1 year and hit the market the next - just like Wallace did for the Bills this year.

 

His agent would of been asinine to sign a long term deal this year - 1 year away from unrestricted free agency when next year the salary cap is beginning its huge jump - without testing the market.

The problem is no one knows what discussions Beane, Bates, the coaching staff, and the agent have had - so you have to go based on previous discussions and things Beane has said.  He has repeatedly stated he doesn’t mind letting guys test the market to find their worth if he thinks they are looking for more than he thinks is fair.  He has done it with several players.

 

My take from all this is the Bills had an AAV in mind and wanted a longer term deal.  The agent and maybe the player wanted to hit FA next year.  Using the tag allowed the agent to go find his worth around the league and still allowed the Bills a chance to resign.

 

My guess is if Chicago decided he was worth an AAV of 5-6 million or more - Beane walks away and uses that money to sign another Veteran guard.  If it was around 4 AAV - he obviously matches and gets a deal done.  It makes the agent and player happy as they essentially tested the market and gave Beane control over the situation.

 

The problem I have with your logic is twofold - you make a primary assumption that Beane and the agent did not have discussions on a long term deal or what the parameters around that might be.  We do not know that either way, but based on other RFAs across the league - it is common that these guys end up signing a tender and hitting FA the next year.

 

The second issue is that you say he literally couldn’t have paid more and that will not be answered until next year.  If he had signed the tender - plays most of the games and the Bills as expected win and go deep into the playoffs or even win it all - how much is he worth on the open market next year when the CAP goes up by 10-15 million.  
 

Beane is not perfect, but he used the tools he had to get a guy signed long term that the team obviously likes (they traded for him to start with) and got him locked up long term to an AAV they seem comfortable with.  My gut tells me Beane would of preferred an AAV of 3.5 rather than 4, but I believe long term 4 was acceptable.

 

The final thing is we do not know if this was the biggest offer - that was the offer he signed.  There is always a chance a team like NE offered him more on a 1 year deal and he was uncomfortable with the situation.  There is also the chance that Chicago wanted to structure the deal differently ( @GunnerBill heard up to 8 million for 1 year), but Bates and his agent made the structure they would sign something the Bears were fine with and if they wanted the Bills could match.  Whatever deal came out had to be something agreeable to Bates and his agent and they did not have to sign the biggest offer nor did they have to sign the offer that was hardest for the Bills to match.

 

We will never know, but we can now see that the Bills valued him and wanted a long term deal and around 4AAV was acceptable.

 

 

 

Very well laid out.

 

I can't understand why any Bills fan would have an issue with the way that Beane handled the Bates situation. The bottom line is: do you like the 4 year $17 M contract? If not, then the Bills were not in a situation where they HAD to match it. So the argument that the team overpaid for him is ridiculous. If they felt that the contact that the Bears presented was more than the value they had placed on Bates, then the absolutely could (and should) have allowed him to walk. Actually, given that the Bills did choose to match the offer, tells us how highly they do think of Bates -- and given that they had the right of first refusal, never seriously placed them in jeopardy of being unable to match a fair offer.

 

Also, we have not seen the year-by-year breakdown of the contract. We just know that it is $17 M over 4 years with $8.8 in the first two years guaranteed. That could mean a $8.8 M signing bonus in 2022, which for cap purposes can be spread out over 4 years -- or $2.2 M per year. If year one base salary is the vet minimum, the cap hit for 2022 would be less than $3M. I think we are assuming that the Bears probably front loaded the base salaries a bit more than that hoping the Bills would not be in the position to match, but we will have to see.

 

In addition to the excellent points you made about the risks of applying the 2nd round tender, we also have to remember that, since the tender immediately hits the cap, the difference in the 2nd round tender and Right of First Refusal tender was north of $1M. As we saw with the activity in free agency and all of the additional moves to clear up space to sign Williams and others, every $ counts. Beane's approach served as a stalling tactic while they addressed other needs, cleared up cap space and effectively allowed the Bears to do their work for them.

 

I am not saying that Beane is batting 1000 with his various moves as GM. I just fail to see why anyone has a beef with his handling here -- unless you don't like Bates and do not believe he was worth the contract. But that would be another issue entirely.

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, dneveu said:

 

 

The depth right now of Boettger, Ford, Doyle, and Mancz is pretty freakin weak.  We have 1 starter on a rookie deal, 2 backups - one whos barely played and one who is terrible.  Not to mention our starting RT is nowhere near a finished product.  I'd say starting RG is probably a need, and a swing tackle to at least compete is another.  

💯  except us needing a RG.  Bates is that.  We have no depth. Maybe the worst OL depth in the league right now….but it’s not even April yet.  

[Niagara Bill]

20 hours ago, njbuff said:

Great.

 

The Bills only need a starting CB out of this draft.

 

Well, starters anyways. 😁

Maybe 2. We do not know about Tre yet. 

[BullBuchanan]

28 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Let me tell you a story for example… tell me if this makes you think players value long-term security over getting paid.

 

Baseball player for the Atlanta Braves at 22 years old signed a 7 year/$35M extension. Buying out all of his arbitration seasons and couple free agent years at a fixed price. Obviously valuing short term security over long term payout. He’s one of the few young players in baseball to take a deal like this… 
 

That agent who represented the player, lost several big time clients after the fact because they felt like he ruined other players chances in the future for a big pay day. He ended up having to beg some of his other clients who were debating leaving to stay. Plenty of players felt like he was negligent in allowing his client to accept a deal like that. 

 

I really don't know the first thing about MLB or NBA contracts, but I know they're much different than the NFL, especially being that they're fully guaranteed.
 

28 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

The MLPA, NFLPA, NBAPA… they all HATE ***** like this. Agents would find themselves out of business if they started allowing players to forgo any opportunity to test the open market… and most players would be dumb not to.

If you're speaking about NFL players, I don't see evidence to suggest this is true. How many marquee players hit FA on their first shot at it? Did Mahomes? Allen? How about any very good QB over the last 10 years? Maybe there's one or two int here, but usually it's the over 30 guys. Elite pass rushers, WRs, or even RBs?

We let Gilmore walk, but that was widely seen as a wasted opportunity, even by people like me that couldn't stand him. It rarely happens that a guy who can benefit the most from FA actually gets there in his prime, yet you're suggesting this is what they want the most. Why don't more players do it then when their value is at their highest?

Edited March 29, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[JGMcD2]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I really don't know the first thing about MLB or NBA contracts, but I know they're much different than the NFL, especially being that they're fully guaranteed.
 

If you're speaking about NFL players, I don't see evidence to suggest this is true. How many marquee players hit FA on their first shot at it? Did Mahomes? Allen? How about any very good QB over the last 10 years? Maybe there's one or two int here, but usually it's the over 30 guys. Elite pass rushers, WRs, or even RBs?

We let Gilmore walk, but that was widely seen as a wasted opportunity, even by people like me that couldn't stand him. It rarely happens that a guy who can benefit the most from FA actually gets there in his prime, yet you're suggesting this is what they want the most. Why don't more players do it then when their value is at their highest?

I’m not talking about the process and how players view reaching free agency. Man… you’re tough. You don’t need to know a thing about NBA or MLB… it’s an anecdote. 
 

Really convenient you just ignored the part of my post that went into that.

 

Good thing I can just copy and paste…

 

Unless you’re a Josh Allen who is getting a record setting contract… the medium and low tier guys need other teams to drive up their prices. 

TLDR: Top end guys end up resetting the market or slotting in around a handful of guys making the most money at their position. These guys reset the market… everyone is happy. Agents, players and teams. 
 

Medium to low tier guys are all bunched together… it’s harder for players/agents/teams to determine their true value without the market. Those players don’t want to go without the presence of other parties bidding on their services. If these guys forgo free agency, they run the risk of contributing to deflating prices for themselves and future players. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by JGMcD2

[MrEpsYtown]

45 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Oh, I'm curious here. Can you tell me which season/games you're talking about and what you saw?

 

Small sample, but it was a 4-5 game stretch in 2020. Ford started the year at RG and when they go rid of Spain they added Winters. Winters became the starting RG and Ford went to left guard. I believe he got hurt in the Chiefs' game and replaced by Ike Boettger. I want to say his first start at LG was vs the Rams in week 3. Obviously he did not look great vs Aaron Donald, but over the next few games, it was where he looked most comfortable and effective in my opinion. 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

I agree that Beane has a philosophy of using draft trades to align BPA or at least BPA tier with need. That said, from the sounds of the scouting class it seems like the sweet spot of the draft will not be at the top end or late round depth, but rounds 2-4. These are players in a range where absolutely they will challenge hard for the 53. I would hope Beane will try to maximize value here, and not try to move up for fewer players or down for PS guys who would be poached.

 

The low round draft capital doesn’t move the needle on day 1 or day 2. Also there’s always a few unexpected picks and reaches at the top, at least, as long as the Raiders are still in the league. It could go a couple ways:

 

1) Nobody they love at 25 and trade down for day 2 capital.

2) Someone they love at 25 and draft him.

3) A few guys they love at 25 and trade down.

 

I don’t see the Bills using day 2 capital to move up on day 1. They ought to be looking to add younger (cheaper) contracts at any/all of CB, IOL, WR, LB, RB, S.

 

One scenario I actually wouldn’t hate is if there’s a position slide (QB?) and a team wants to jump from the top end of the 2nd up to 25, offering next years 1. Basically giving the 5th year option in exchange for draft value. All of that Allen draft maneuvering would not have been necessary if they had traded with Houston instead of KC - the future 1 (+#25o) that the Texans gave to move to 12 for Watson ended up being #4 overall the next year, as opposed to the future 1 from KC (+#27o). If a team that projects to be craptastic next year makes an offer of a future 1, that plays into building for continued success which Beane is always speaking to.
 

The Bills are finally in a position with a fairly loaded roster to maximize assets and let value come to them rather than reaching and chasing (Travares Tillman, Cyrus Kouandijo, John McCargo, Aaron Maybin, etc etc) as the traditionally competitive teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh have done. More or less, the Polian way.

Thanks.  That's excellent analysis.   Still, I'd say the trade up is still a possibility, and that's driven by the desire to get quality over quantity.  Reducing the number of guys who might earn spots on the 53 helps the cap, and increasing the quality helps the team.   Particularly because there are two positions of serious need, I think Beane will look for ways to move up for a stud at one of those positions.  However, I also see your point.  Trading out of the first round to get two guys in the second and third round also has appeal. 

[BullBuchanan]

10 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

I’m not talking about the process and how players view reaching free agency. Man… you’re tough. You don’t need to know a thing about NBA or MLB… it’s an anecdote. 
 

Really convenient you just ignored the part of my post that went into that.

 

Good thing I can just copy and paste…

 

Unless you’re a Josh Allen who is getting a record setting contract… the medium and low tier guys need other teams to drive up their prices. 

TLDR: Top end guys end up resetting the market or slotting in around a handful of guys making the most money at their position. These guys reset the market… everyone is happy. Agents, players and teams. 
 

Medium to low tier guys are all bunched together… it’s harder for players/agents/teams to determine their true value without the market. Those players don’t want to go without the presence of other parties bidding on their services. If these guys forgo free agency, they run the risk of contributing to deflating prices for themselves and future players. 

 

That sort of outlier you referenced in MLB is routine in the NFL though - happens every single season. That's why i don't think it's relevant.

Sorry, i didn't include that part because I didn't find that it made that much of a difference to the overall point. I'm wasn't trying to avoid it.

Are you saying that your previous statement of players "strive to get the opportunity to reach the open market" does not apply to elite talent and is more reserved for medium to low-tier players like Bates because they aren't setting record contracts and thus the deals are more nuanced?

Edited March 29, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[JGMcD2]

27 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That sort of outlier you referenced in MLB is routine in the NFL though - happens every single season. That's why i don't think it's relevant.

Sorry, i didn't include that part because I didn't find that it made that much of a difference to the overall point. I'm wasn't trying to avoid it.

Are you saying that your previous statement of players "strive to get the opportunity to reach the open market" does not apply to elite talent and is more reserved for medium to low-tier players like Bates because they aren't setting record contracts and thus the deals are more nuanced?

That wasn’t the overall point, he was a young player on a “rookie deal” that decided to sign an extension FAR BELOW market value for the sake of long term security because the team that had him under control for 2-3 more years offered it to him and he wanted security. Players started leaving the agent… he allowed a player to value long term security and take a team friendly deal. The MLBPA hated that… players hated it… it’s the same across sports. 
 

Your interpretation of the point is somewhat correct. 
 

 

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

I know as much about what Beane did as the folks who claim that "Beane played it perfectly". Most of my statements are in response to that.

If Beane offered a similar contract, but Bates still decided to sign with Chicago - a team in rebuild mode, what does that say about the nature of the relationship between Bates and the Bills? If the money was the same, why would Bates want to play for Chicago over Buffalo?

When I say "he literally could not have paid more" - of course I mean this year. every year you wait on a young player, the price goes up. This statement has nothing to do with Bates. It has everything to do with countering the argument of others that "Beane let the other teams do his negotiating for them" by pointing out that he let Bates get the highest possible offer from every suitor in the league, and then he just matched it. There was no opportunity by Beane to get a less than top market deal under this approach.
 

 

It means next to nothing.

 

Beane has been very clear when he talks about negotiations.  He works very closely with players and agents and he has a contract and level in his mind.  
 

We have no idea what the Bills may have offered or the terms of the contract - even if it was nearly identical to the Bears - his agent would be incompetent not to do everything to see what he is worth on the open market.

 

The 2 sides may have had preliminary talks and the agent felt he could get a bigger deal and Beane said go right ahead.  What we have for facts at the moment are the Bills liked Bates enough to tender him at a rate where they could match, but did not feel the level with a 2nd round tender afforded them much more.

 

We also now know for a fact that they were willing to pay 4 years 17 million with 8.8 million coming in guaranteed money in the first 2 years.

 

From the Bates side we do not know if NE or Minnesota made any offers that the agent declined - we do know that Chicago with Cunningham as an assistant GM (from Philadelphia) and Getsy as OC (his mentor was Moorhead who coached Bates at PS) provided Bates with some familiarity and a safe place to land.  
 

I think what the process says is that Bates wanted something familiar - be that a return to Buffalo or Chicago with some familiar faces and Beane had an AAV in mind that was within matching range of the offer.

 

Why I think Beane played this perfectly is simply because there was very little options that give you the player back at an affordable deal long term.  The player got to explore the market and set a deal at what he was worth and the Bills get him for longer term.  RFAs rarely get offered sheeted - the last 3 include Chris Hogan going to NE and CJ Anderson with the Broncos going back to 2016 and 2015 respectively.

 

I think in an ideal world Beane and the agent agree on a longer term contract without the RFA tag, but the agent owes it to the players to see what is out there - all it takes is one team to overpay by a ton - see Hill in Miami.

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, JGMcD2 said:

That wasn’t the overall point, he was a young player on a “rookie deal” that decided to sign an extension FAR BELOW market value for the sake of long term security because the team that had him under control for 2-3 more years offered it to him and he wanted security. Players started leaving the agent… he allowed a player to value long term security and take a team friendly deal. The MLBPA hated that… players hated it… it’s the same across sports. 
 

Your interpretation of the point is somewhat correct. 
 

 

That specific example seems like an extreme, but in the NFL it's extremely common for a starting player to re-sign with their existing team before hitting FA. Without having the numbers in front of me, I'd say it's more rare for them not to. FA's usually seem to be guys on their 3rd+ contract or guys who underachieved their rookie deal.

If you had made that point about lower tier players earlier, we could have saved a lot of frustration here. I still have some issues with that, but it's a much more reasonable argument than anything anyone else said, and I can move past it.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Oh, it was "explained", but not in any way that is actually rational. People are deriving the process that best suits their agenda based on the result that already occurred. The problem is that the core principle of the argument doesn't hold up under even mild scrutiny. Just because a bunch of folks like the way it sounds to them doesn't make it logical.

 

I would say that you're not grasping the core principle of the argument and that's why it doesn't appear logical or rational to you, but it's possible that you do grasp it and are arguing for the sake of it. 

 

You have a bunch of people who are normally pretty logical and rational (and who are not claiming that Beane is perfect or played this perfectly, though I have seen that stated once or twice here) trying to explain to you, so you might want to drop the fixation on whether or not it's "perfect" and look at the actual arguments.

 

9 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Everyone's trying so hard to prove how right they are and how wrong I am, that you don't even see it anymore. Beane could have just as easily offered Bates the same deal at any point prior to today while preventing other teams from being able to offer him a contract without compensation. Why didn't he?

 

The point that you don't seem to acknowledge is: *if Beane offered Bates the same deal prior to FA, nothing requires Bates to take it*.  Bates can say "I go see what my value is to other teams before I sign".  Full stop.

We don't know whether or not Beane offered Bates a long term deal prior to FA or at least had a "bounce numbers around" discussion with his agent where he realized they were too far apart.

 

9 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Did he think his value was less? Does Bates want out and this was the only way we could trap him into a long term contract?

 

This is where I, and I believe others, are just rolling our eyes at your posts.  OF COURSE the GM is going to try to sign his players to lower contracts.  OF COURSE the player is going to try to negotiate a higher contract.  How do you do that?  You have other suitors for your services, either in FA or prior to FA (during unacknowledged or legal tampering period).  Being an RFA is just a special case where a player who has been cut during his rookie deal, or was originally an UFA, can be allowed to "explore the market".

 

It has nothing to do with "wanting out" or not, and as for being "trapped", that's the whole point of the NFL system - to give teams a certain amount of "dibs" on a player in exchange for acquiring and developing them when they enter the league.

 

 

9 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

He literally could not have paid more for Bates than he did and yet somehow he played it "perfectly" according to you guys.

 

This statement makes no sense to me "he literally could not have paid more for Bates than he did".  Of course he could have paid more for Bates.  He could have offered Bates such a good multi-year deal that Bates and his agent would have said "***** FA we sign this now!".   The Bears could also have offered Bates such a good deal that Beane would have said "yeah....No."

 

8 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

If you think it takes a "secret genius" to posit an off the wall position that it's sub-optimal to allow as many suitors as possible to outbid you before closing, then I would be happy to be your realtor or middle man in any financial transaction where I get a cut of the total cost you pay.

 

Let's use your realtor/home buyer analogy, because it's a good one that may help you understand the point that people are trying to make.

 

Let's say you are selling your family home, which you just inherited (you're Bates).  Your brother (the Bills) wants to buy it, but the price he offers is, in your opinion, low.   No way you are going to sign that deal!  You counter offer, but your brother says "well, that's really higher than we have in mind to pay".  Your brother can not force you to sell him the house at the price he is offering you.  You will just say "nope!"  But neither can you force your brother to pay what you are asking!!

 

So you put the house on the market, and get offers in writing.  You take the highest  legitimate offer during the period allowed to you for consideration, and you show it to your brother (the Bills).  It's rather less than you thought you could get for the house, but it's more than your brother was offering initially.  The market has spoken and established a value for the house.  So you and your brother agree on the deal and the house is sold.

 

Now.  Your brother could also have offered to rent your house for a year, at the same monthly payment as the mortgage.  At the end of the year, maybe that would be a great deal for you and a bad deal for your brother - if the housing market shoots up, and the house is now worth much more.    Or it could save your brother some money and be a bad deal for you, if it turns out your house has unknown flaws that will lower its market value next year.  Either thing can happen, and both you and your brother have tools to assess how likely you think those outcomes are.

 

You seem to think that before the market has spoken, Beane should somehow have gotten Bates to sign the same contract, or maybe a lower contract.  But it doesn't work that way.  If Bates is willing to shop himself around and the rules allow him to do that, why should he sign a contract that is less than he thinks he could get, until he establishes whether or not he can actually get that?  And why should Beane make a lower-tier lineman "an offer he won't refuse" until he knows that it's a fair value on the market?

 

 

 

[WotAGuy]

Bates has a 43-page thread prior to signing and a 20-page thread after signing. Rick Bates is clearly the most thread-worthy player ever on the Bills, on a per game started (4) basis.

Great job Rick!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

44 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Are you saying that your previous statement of players "strive to get the opportunity to reach the open market" does not apply to elite talent and is more reserved for medium to low-tier players like Bates because they aren't setting record contracts and thus the deals are more nuanced?

 

I think the above is pretty well correct to my understanding.

 

When you have a franchise-changing talent - a young QB or pass rusher, where values seem to accelerate every year - the team has more motivation to negotiate higher in order to keep the player, and to structure the contract to keep the player happy.  There are also tools the team can use such as franchise or transition tags, which the players then hate because it doesn't give them long term value protection (particularly against injury), and tools the player can use (such as behind-the-scenes negotiation before FA). 

 

So these players are less likely to reach FA.

 

 

[Saxum]

3 hours ago, buffblue said:

If they're comfortable with Doyle as swing, then so am I. But on paper it is the only remaining Oline question mark

 

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I expect they will pick someone up after the draft if they don't draft someone.  I agree that in theory, Bates says he can play across the OL but in practice, I don't want to see him at LT

 

Backup guard is also very important for if our center gets dinged or even worse a concussion Bates will likely need to slide over to center and someone will need to replace him.  I am guessing it will be Mancz but he has been PS depth last few years due to new rules.  Depth was very important on OL last year not due to injuries but some players being afraid of needles.  I am more comfortable with Doyle as extra OL than as swing tackle. Yes Mancz has more experience as center in NFL but it is not just the play but understanding the scheme and call and Bates illustrated that he understands how OL is supposed to work knowing all positions.

[Rockinon]

I'm just glad to have him back in the fold. As for the money side of it, I think both Bates and the Bills are happy. All the other stuff doesn't really matter. You can argue that the Bills paid too much or that Bates overvalued his worth or whatever, but if both parties are happy, there really is no need to over think it. Every contract has it's risks. Both sides try to get the best they can in order to secure the future. Trying to break down all of the nuances of contract negotiations with limited information just seems like a headache to me.

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I would say that you're not grasping the core principle of the argument and that's why it doesn't appear logical or rational to you, but it's possible that you do grasp it and are arguing for the sake of it. 

 

You have a bunch of people who are normally pretty logical and rational (and who are not claiming that Beane is perfect or played this perfectly, though I have seen that stated once or twice here) trying to explain to you, so you might want to drop the fixation on whether or not it's "perfect" and look at the actual arguments.

 

 

The point that you don't seem to acknowledge is: *if Beane offered Bates the same deal prior to FA, nothing requires Bates to take it*.  Bates can say "I go see what my value is to other teams before I sign".  Full stop.

We don't know whether or not Beane offered Bates a long term deal prior to FA or at least had a "bounce numbers around" discussion with his agent where he realized they were too far apart.

 

 

This is where I, and I believe others, are just rolling our eyes at your posts.  OF COURSE the GM is going to try to sign his players to lower contracts.  OF COURSE the player is going to try to negotiate a higher contract.  How do you do that?  You have other suitors for your services, either in FA or prior to FA (during unacknowledged or legal tampering period).  Being an RFA is just a special case where a player who has been cut during his rookie deal, or was originally an UFA, can be allowed to "explore the market".

 

It has nothing to do with "wanting out" or not, and as for being "trapped", that's the whole point of the NFL system - to give teams a certain amount of "dibs" on a player in exchange for acquiring and developing them when they enter the league.

 

 

 

This statement makes no sense to me "he literally could not have paid more for Bates than he did".  Of course he could have paid more for Bates.  He could have offered Bates such a good multi-year deal that Bates and his agent would have said "***** FA we sign this now!".   The Bears could also have offered Bates such a good deal that Beane would have said "yeah....No."

 

 

Let's use your realtor/home buyer analogy, because it's a good one that may help you understand the point that people are trying to make.

 

Let's say you are selling your family home, which you just inherited (you're Bates).  Your brother (the Bills) wants to buy it, but the price he offers is, in your opinion, low.   No way you are going to sign that deal!  You counter offer, but your brother says "well, that's really higher than we have in mind to pay".  Your brother can not force you to sell him the house at the price he is offering you.  You will just say "nope!"  But neither can you force your brother to pay what you are asking!!

 

So you put the house on the market, and get offers in writing.  You take the highest  legitimate offer during the period allowed to you for consideration, and you show it to your brother (the Bills).  It's rather less than you thought you could get for the house, but it's more than your brother was offering initially.  The market has spoken and established a value for the house.  So you and your brother agree on the deal and the house is sold.

 

Now.  Your brother could also have offered to rent your house for a year, at the same monthly payment as the mortgage.  At the end of the year, maybe that would be a great deal for you and a bad deal for your brother - if the housing market shoots up, and the house is now worth much more.    Or it could save your brother some money and be a bad deal for you, if it turns out your house has unknown flaws that will lower its market value next year.  Either thing can happen, and both you and your brother have tools to assess how likely you think those outcomes are.

 

You seem to think that before the market has spoken, Beane should somehow have gotten Bates to sign the same contract, or maybe a lower contract.  But it doesn't work that way.  If Bates is willing to shop himself around and the rules allow him to do that, why should he sign a contract that is less than he thinks he could get, until he establishes whether or not he can actually get that?  And why should Beane make a lower-tier lineman "an offer he won't refuse" until he knows that it's a fair value on the market?

 

 

 

I already answered all of this. You seem more interested in trying to prove me wrong than actually determining whether or not the move made sense.

Bates didn't go see what his market was before agreeing to sign an offer that was only as good as what Beane offered - he actually signed an offer with another team that we were able to match and retain him because of league rules. He apparently was more than willing to play for the Chicago Bears. Some posters have suggested that it's possible we offered him just as good of a deal, but he signed there anyway. Why would he do that if he wanted to be here? Why not just take our deal that was just as good?

My statement that "he could not have paid more for Bates", has been defended numerous times already. By allowing all 31 teams to have the opportunity to bid on his services, he paid the top of market. Sure, he could have offered Bates JA's contract for no reason, but let's keep this steeped in some sort of reality.

You're correct, I do think that Beane should have got to Bates before the market spoke. It's what good salespeople/negotiators do. It's usually a privilege of the rich, but off market homes, art, cars, collectables, etc are bought all the time before the public can drive up the price. That's the part of the job that actually takes skill. Any jabroni can walk into an open house, ask what the top bid is and beat it. That makes you the opposite of good. Of course this isn't as simple as offering less than market and getting someone to sign because you're a slick talker. You need other skills too - like being able to predict when players are going to break out before they do, what their motivations are, and how far you can push the negotiation before you break the deal.