Estro Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I posed this question last spring, knowing that both of their contracts expired in the same year. Looking at the Bills cap at the time (last spring) I thought there was a good shot we'd have the money to resign both players. Even after signing both Stevie Johnson and Mario Williams to big money deals I was confident there'd be enough wiggle room to work out deals for both Byrd and LeVitre this coming offseason. But, what happened a week or so after signing Mario Williams, put a lot of doubt to whether we'd be able to retain both: signing Mark Anderson, a career journeyman, to a ludicrous big money deal. At the time Bills fans, still coming down from their high of signing Mario, were all rejoicing....Mario Williams on one side and Mark Anderson, coming off a double digit sack season with the Patriots, on the other side, what's not to love? Well now 11 months later, there is a lot not to love. I understand he was injured for most of the season, but even when he was on the field, Mark Anderson was a total liability. The Pats knew he was weak against the run, hence the reason he wasn't on the field all that much outside of pass rushing situations. For w/e reason Nix, Wannestedt and Gailey thought he could be a 3 down player and they were proved wrong. I think it's worth monitoring Mark Anderson's health this offseason because I'm not 100% sold he'll be a Buffalo Bill come September 2013. According to spotrac.com, Mark Anderson received $8 million last season ($6 million signins bonus, $1.9 million base salary and 100k workout bonus) and he's due $4 million in cash nest year in the form of a $1.5 million option bonus, a $2.4 million base salary and 100k workout bonus. So the question becomes do you think the Bills will invest an additional $4 million in Mark Anderson for the 2013 season or cut bait and try to use that money more wisely. If they truly are going to use more of an analytical, moneyball approach, my money is on him being cut. What's done is done though so there is no sense on basking the move now, but my thought is that the squandered $$$ spent on Mark will make it very difficult for us to resigning Andy Levitre. The 2 premier guards that hit FA last offseason (Nicks and Grubbs) signed deals in the $7.2 - $9.5 million range, respectively. So, given inflation and the ever increasing contracts of players, we can fully expect LeVitre to be looking for Carl Nicks money and I don't see the Bills paying a G that type of money. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
first_and_ten Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 If Levitre does indeed walk, this team takes a step backwards..again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Levitre will not make Nicks money. He has never sniffed a Pro Bowl. I know that doesn't mean anything, but I don't think the demand for him will be as great as you think. Yet... I really hope the Bills pony up whatever money he wants, because we need him more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estro Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 Levitre will not make Nicks money. He has never sniffed a Pro Bowl. I know that doesn't mean anything, but I don't think the demand for him will be as great as you think. Yet... I really hope the Bills pony up whatever money he wants, because we need him more. I agree that LeVitre won't get Nicks money, but I do think his agent is going to ask for it, and I don't think the Bills will come close to offering that much. The Bills will want to pay him $6-$7 million a year, LeVitre will be looking for $8-$9 million per, and I'm doubtful the Bills will invest that type of money at the G position. And I can't say I don't disagree if the Bills decide not to invest huge money at the G position. I really like Andy, he's a great player and I'd like to retain him but if the Bills are for real about analytics and moneyball I don't think they'll go down the road of investing primo money at a postion that, from a league perspective, isn't highly valued. But the main point of my original post was to show that the money squandered on Mark Anderson last year ($8 million), will likely be the gap between what the Bills offer LeVitre and what LeVitre is looking for. And boy do I think the Bills wish they could have a mulligan on Mark Anderson, because it was a costly, costly mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 If the difference is 1-2 million a year then why not resign him? The Bills need to stop allowing productive players to leave and then repeating the same drafts over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Last I read, the Bills were $20 million under the cap. I would not be surprised to see the Bills make some cuts to save even more money. So the signing of Mark Anderson should have absolutely no bearing on the Bills losing Levitre, which I doubt will happen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
808 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Last I read, the Bills were $20 million under the cap. I would not be surprised to see the Bills make some cuts to save even more money. So the signing of Mark Anderson should have absolutely no bearing on the Bills losing Levitre, which I doubt will happen anyway. exactly. the bills have more than enough money to resign byrd and levier. there is also some players that i could see being released that have a good amount against the cap. brad smith/kelsay/lindell. and the bills still have 20mil in cap space and cap numbers are not the same as the money spent so they should be fine to resign both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Last I read, the Bills were $20 million under the cap. I would not be surprised to see the Bills make some cuts to save even more money. So the signing of Mark Anderson should have absolutely no bearing on the Bills losing Levitre, which I doubt will happen anyway. The Bills can save an additional 20 million by cutting Kelsay, McGee, Smith, Wilson, Barnett, and Fitz before March. There is simply no excuse for losing Levitre or Byrd to free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Last I read, the Bills were $20 million under the cap. I would not be surprised to see the Bills make some cuts to save even more money. So the signing of Mark Anderson should have absolutely no bearing on the Bills losing Levitre, which I doubt will happen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Last I read, the Bills were $20 million under the cap. I would not be surprised to see the Bills make some cuts to save even more money. So the signing of Mark Anderson should have absolutely no bearing on the Bills losing Levitre, which I doubt will happen anyway. This and just cut Anderson if need be, it's not like we need him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 This and just cut Anderson if need be, it's not like we need him. i was going to add in Pigpen as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 i was going to add in Pigpen as well Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 If we cut Mark Anderson it will not save any cap dollars......it will cost us $1.5M of cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The premise is completely incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I can't believe some people are afraid of losing a LG off of a 6-10 team. There are a number of tackles in the draft that can play his position. As far as the cap goes, simple addition shows that Mark Anderson's contract has absolutely nothing to do with resigning Levitre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Last I read, the Bills were $20 million under the cap. I would not be surprised to see the Bills make some cuts to save even more money. So the signing of Mark Anderson should have absolutely no bearing on the Bills losing Levitre, which I doubt will happen anyway. Exactly!!x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Levitre's re-signing should be a priority at OBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Analytically speaking Byrd is more valuable than Levitre, as he was ranked the 2nd best safety versus Levitre being ranked the 17th best guard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The Bills can save an additional 20 million by cutting Kelsay, McGee, Smith, Wilson, Barnett, and Fitz before March. There is simply no excuse for losing Levitre or Byrd to free agency. Unless they want to play elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I can't believe some people are afraid of losing a LG off of a 6-10 team. There are a number of tackles in the draft that can play his position. As far as the cap goes, simple addition shows that Mark Anderson's contract has absolutely nothing to do with resigning Levitre. Levitre is very agile. He played LT in college, and is custom made for the game today given the rule changes. Not only that, he has a history of durability. And, how would he be replaced? Do you want to use a #8 on Warmack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts