Dawgg

I think this point bears emphasizing. When scribes like Wawrow simply accept the assertion that tagging Byrd a second time would be a poor strategy for the Bills both from a salary cap perspective and from a team distraction perspective, they essentially are providing the front office with an excuse to let him walk. If this front office is as committed to winning as it claims in rhetoric, then the Bills will do whatever it takes to retain Byrd for next season. If they can't get him signed long-term, tag him. If they can't get him to sign long-term after tagging him, trade him to the highest bidder (aim for 2nd round pick). If they can't get value for him in a trade, simply make him play at the franchise tender next season. Anything short of this strategy tells me that their promises of ("we aim to keep our best players") ring hollow. Letting an upper echelon safety walk in free agency, receiving nothing in return and saying "we tried" simply does not and should not hold water. Sometimes teams need to make tough choices. The 49ers chose to let Goldson walk because they paid big $ to Willis and Bowman and have a number of upper echelon players ready for extensions (Kap, Crabtree, Iupati, etc). The Bills have no such issue -- with a comparative dearth of upper echelon talent on the Bills' roster, the media should not be providing the front office with a blanket excuse for letting a young top-notch player walk.

This is spot on. In theory, the Bills should be willing to take any upper-echelon player on a one-year contract at market value. Would you take Aaron Rodgers for a one-year rental for his annual salary of $20M? I sure would and so too would (or should) the Bills. The operative question here is whether -- in the event a long-term deal cannot be reached -- is it better to tag him or let him walk? My contention is that tagging him would be the better outcome and doing so would be prudent both financially and in terms of the salary cap structure. Byrd will certainly not be happy with a franchise tag, but he won't be unhappy enough to forgo the salary. He was actually ready to play during Week 4 but Marrone elected to sit him out until Week 5 and he made an impact right away. Although his offseason standoff may have given scribes a lot to write about, it didn't appear to be a major team distraction, as contract issues frequently manifest themselves during training camp.

John, I hear some version of the bolded sentence in news articles written by both you and Mark and I don't find the logic persuasive. If anything, tagging Byrd for a second time WOULD be an ideal way to manage a salary cap. A few reasons in support of this assertion. It would amount to a 2-year $15 million contract for arguably the top young safety in the NFL at (or approaching) his peak. At an average of $7.5M per season, that is incredible value. Applying the tag carries with it the benefit of delaying the massive financial investment of guaranteed funds required to secure his services long-term. Delaying a massive financial investment while securing his services for the 2014 season is not a bad thing. Applying the tag effectively removes the competition for his services, preventing the team from being outbid by a free-spending desperate team (see: Titans, Levitre). Applying the tag may motivate him and Parker to sit down and talk long-term contract with the Bills, knowing full-well that a season-ending injury could alter his free agent profile for the upcoming season. Finally, with the Bills having so much space under the cap, allocating $15M over a 2-year period to the top safety in the league is hardly a cap-prohibitive strategy.

LOL if you actually think Whaley is the decision maker here, you're dreaming.

Using a top-10 draft pick on a TE would be a poor use of resources but typical for the Buffalo Bills, so I expect it to be a real possibility.

After the draft, Todd McShay took a lot of grief for saying that EJ had "slow eyes" on the football field (myself included). I'm now starting to see what he means...

If that is all you can gather from the insightful post, you are a lost cause

Yet another brilliant marketing concoction by Russell Brandon that has grown men falling for it hook, line and sinker

Agreed. This is akin to the Bills' owner whining about the need for more revenue sharing for small market teams, all the while refusing to maximize revenue by selling the naming rights to the stadium and selfishly keeping it under his own name.

Bingo. Agreed.

100% right -- you're one of the few on this board who possesses an unemotional grasp of the underlying business. Byrd signed the one-year deal because it was the best alternative available to him. The Bills didn't have to offer him a one-year deal either, they could have let him walk. There's no doubt in my mind that they knew this was coming, particularly given the team's decision to draft (not one) but two safeties in the first five rounds AFTER they made the decision to move Aaron Williams to the safety position. The team knew what it was doing then and it knows what it's doing now. Byrd is doing the right thing for himself and the Bills did the right thing for the team.

Yawn. The Jets committed to Holmes long-term and signed him to a five-year, $45.25 million contract with $24 million guaranteed. This comes after he was suspended for 4 games for violating the substance abuse policy, placing him one strike away from being suspended for an entire season. So you think Holmes has a reason to be loyal to the Jets organization and play through pain? Hell yeah he does. Let's not compare apples to oranges.

Where is your favorite team's culpability in all of this? This is a massively profitable juggernaut enjoying record revenue sharing from the NFL's TV deals and one of ThE most profitable franchises in the NFL. Despite this, the organization has shown that it is unwilling to pay fair market value for a player who they not only drafted, but has produced at an elite level.

Exactly right.

Exactly right. Why should he jeopardize his career when the Bills refused to extend him for his market value? As strange as it may seem, neither party is in the wrong here. The Bills were correct in franchising him, using the leverage granted to them per the CBA and delaying the decision to extend him by another year. Byrd is correct in protecting his own self interests and playing only when he is at 100%, nothing less.

One would think that such pedestrian treatment after decades of season ticket patronage would give an individual pause as to why he continues to support an organization more committed to the bottom line than fielding a competitive team. Instead, grown men are clamoring for an autographed CJ Spiller jersey as a consolation prize.

Amendola signed a five-year, $28.5 million contract with $10 million guaranteed. Had the Bills extended Byrd, then he'd risk his career. Why do so otherwise?

John, if that was you bravo, and well done sir. Mario Williams signed the richest contract for a defensive player in NFL history. Asking for for the status of that player is reasonable question. Posting a followup question to a BS answer is also a reasonable course of action. Please continue to do your job and stop giving this inept organization a free pass.

Of course not - there's always a risk. One way to mitigate that risk is to sit out most of the season and show up in Week 10 to get the full season credit. Byrd will get paid and he shouldn't (and won't) take a penny less from the Bills.

Exactly -- this was the premise of my original post. Byrd has no incentive to sign the franchise tender. He's a durable player and knows that he will get paid regardless, why give the Bills a hometown discount when they spent $100M on Mario Williams? 1. Byrd wanted to test the market and the Bills prevented him from doing so with the franchise tag. 2. Byrd believes he is better than Dashon Goldson who signed for 5 years ($41.25 million total) with $22 million guaranteed. 3. Assuming he has taken care of his money and isn't broke, why sign the tender when he can sit out and force a trade to someone who will pay him? The ONLY way Parker lets him sign the tender is if the Bills agree not to use the tag next year, like they did with Clements (this would be a dumb move on the Bills' part, and I wouldn't put it past this front office). Barring that measure, Jairus has little reason to sign and quite frankly, he's doing the right thing.

The truth hurts.

Very interesting. Ultimate issue will hinge on whether he broke off the engagement or if she broke off the engagement. Under majority rule, if the recipient of the ring broke off the engagement, then the donor is entitled to recover the ring. That's ultimately what this case will hinge on and that's why Williams has been explicit in his complaint that she, not he, broke off the engagement. As always, there's probably more to the story.

If the team isn't going to cave, then it should go all the way. Sit on the franchise tag, let him hold out, and franchise him again the next year if need be. Anything in-between would be suboptimal, as it's doubtful he'd fetch a first rounder in a trade.

Do you really think Peters' representation didn't demand a new contract prior to engaging in a holdout? That Peters should have said "Pay me now or later?" is baloney, as playing another season and risking injury would be an ill-advised move under the circumstances. The bottom line is that the Bills weren't going to tear apart his contract after handing Derrick Dockery the richest contract in Buffalo sports history. The mere fact that this front office did that should provide pause enough, as any front office that understands the economics of the left tackle position would have not done such a thing. Kyle Williams received 3 contracts in a 5-year span and was given a deal befitting of the top defensive linemen in the league. Unlike the case with Peters, the Bills did not pay an inferior player more than Kyle Williams - he always was paid like the best lineman on the team (until Mario arrived, that is). Agreed with this. As much as I'd love for them to keep him, it seems to me that the Bills appear to be preparing for life without him. If that is the case, I hope they hold their ground and franchise him next year too. I'm not conflating two points. I'm merely stating that I think, based on the team's actions, that it's the latter -- that Byrd wants the cash AND wants out of Buffalo. If that's the case, it is my hope that they continue to exercise their rights under the franchise tag, force him to play this year under that number and apply it again if necessary during the following year to explore trade possibilities. Just don't let him go for nothing.

Exactly, although I'm pretty sure Levitre would have been happy to stay if the Bills offered him the same money. Byrd, on the other hand, would prefer to play elsewhere. My (wild) guess: he's resigned to playing in Buffalo for one more year. He and his agent are holding out to force the Bills to promise not to franchise him the following year (Clements did this in his last year). Hopefully the Bills don't cave.