CodeMonkey Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 more than likely, he is going to have to wait TWO more seasons to find out if another team will pay him $9-10 mil. if I was the bills I would would franchise tag him again next year. make him play for the Bills only or sit home. meanwhile, Byrd makes less money and exposes himself to long term injury and or poor play before he gets his long term deal. he passed on $20 mil GUARANTEED money. Byrd's next step will be to insist the Bills NOT franchise tag him again next year as a condition of him signing this years franchise tag. WHICH THE BILLS SHOULD DECLINE. call his bluff and let him sit to week 10. You can take the grade school "what if's" out even further. Byrd signs the tag, shows up for everything but has a mysterious illness game days that keeps him off the field. But neither side wants to play pointless kid games like that. The big problem is the concept of a franchise tag is flawed. He lived up to his end of the commitment he made to the Bills. He should be free to negotiate with whomever he likes for his next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 You can take the grade school "what if's" out even further. Byrd signs the tag, shows up for everything but has a mysterious illness game days that keeps him off the field. But neither side wants to play pointless kid games like that. The big problem is the concept of a franchise tag is flawed. He lived up to his end of the commitment he made to the Bills. He should be free to negotiate with whomever he likes for his next one. There's this little thing called the CBA that just happens to get in the way of this. My heart bleeds for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) You can take the grade school "what if's" out even further. Byrd signs the tag, shows up for everything but has a mysterious illness game days that keeps him off the field. But neither side wants to play pointless kid games like that. The big problem is the concept of a franchise tag is flawed. He lived up to his end of the commitment he made to the Bills. He should be free to negotiate with whomever he likes for his next one. As flawed as it is the franchise tag was a negotiated point of the CBA. I understand the owners may have insisted on it but the players may have been able to offer something to get rid of it but the fact is it is in their contract and like it or not it is part of the league. Edited July 16, 2013 by nucci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Anyone else concerned that he skips TC, then pulls a hammy or tweaks an ankle... and misses 4-8 games rehabbing. its a concern, but im not sure its really all that different in odds than showing up to camp, banging up a wrist and needing midseason surgery. injuries happen during camp and preseason too. I would be curious to see the injury rate on holdouts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Anyone else concerned that he skips TC, then pulls a hammy or tweaks an ankle... and misses 4-8 games rehabbing. Wouldn't be surprised. Since Byrd is not under contract, he can't be fined for missing training camp and preseason games. I expect Byrd to show up and sign his franchise tender the day before the season starts, similar to how Jason Peters held out until the day before the season opener years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Wouldn't be surprised. Since Byrd is not under contract, he can't be fined for missing training camp and preseason games. I expect Byrd to show up and sign his franchise tender the day before the season starts, similar to how Jason Peters held out until the day before the season opener years ago. as he was still negotiating an extension, and byrd no longer can sign a long term deal... i am not sure he has as much motivation as peters to push the envelope like peters did. i think he will also feel like his pay is closer to being in line with his play than peters did. just a few pros for him coming in early still. i dont think itll be an issue still on saturday september 7th, unless there is something really dark still being kept quiet. theres been no public push for a trade, the two sides arent off by an insulting amount, etc.... all good signs still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 You can take the grade school "what if's" out even further. Byrd signs the tag, shows up for everything but has a mysterious illness game days that keeps him off the field. But neither side wants to play pointless kid games like that. The big problem is the concept of a franchise tag is flawed. He lived up to his end of the commitment he made to the Bills. He should be free to negotiate with whomever he likes for his next one. He was...he could've signed with any team he wanted to...provided that team was willing to give up multiple draft picks to sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Wouldn't be surprised. Since Byrd is not under contract, he can't be fined for missing training camp and preseason games. I expect Byrd to show up and sign his franchise tender the day before the season starts, similar to how Jason Peters held out until the day before the season opener years ago. And he will ride the pine. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 About twenty pages ago or so I predicted Byrd will eventually sign his tender in return for an agreement by the Bills they won't franchise him again. I now hope the Bills do not make such a concession. It's my understanding the two sides may still negotiate a "different" one-year deal, they just can't negotiate a multi-year extension -- correct? If so, I'd like to see the Bills sweeten the deal for the coming season as a show of good faith (bump Byrd from the 6.9M tag figure to 7.5 or 8) but keep the franchise tag in play for next season. Perhaps that would constitute a win-win for each party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Eugene Parker needs to tweak his theory on leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 About twenty pages ago or so I predicted Byrd will eventually sign his tender in return for an agreement by the Bills they won't franchise him again. I now hope the Bills do not make such a concession. It's my understanding the two sides may still negotiate a "different" one-year deal, they just can't negotiate a multi-year extension -- correct? If so, I'd like to see the Bills sweeten the deal for the coming season as a show of good faith (bump Byrd from the 6.9M tag figure to 7.5 or 8) but keep the franchise tag in play for next season. Perhaps that would constitute a win-win for each party. They can discuss anything they want, but he can only sign a 1-year deal now. In theory, they could even agree to the terms of a long-term extension, but it couldn't be signed until the off-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 About twenty pages ago or so I predicted Byrd will eventually sign his tender in return for an agreement by the Bills they won't franchise him again. I now hope the Bills do not make such a concession. It's my understanding the two sides may still negotiate a "different" one-year deal, they just can't negotiate a multi-year extension -- correct? If so, I'd like to see the Bills sweeten the deal for the coming season as a show of good faith (bump Byrd from the 6.9M tag figure to 7.5 or 8) but keep the franchise tag in play for next season. Perhaps that would constitute a win-win for each party. If it's true that Byrd rejected 5/40m/20m then he's playing hardball. Rewarding that tactic by throwing "good faith" money at him when you're his only option is a horrible tactic. What's the message? If you hold out we'll throw money at you to make you like us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) They can discuss anything they want, but he can only sign a 1-year deal now. In theory, they could even agree to the terms of a long-term extension, but it couldn't be signed until the off-season. I get the feeling you didn't read my paragraph carefully. If it's true that Byrd rejected 5/40m/20m then he's playing hardball. Rewarding that tactic by throwing "good faith" money at him when you're his only option is a horrible tactic. What's the message? If you hold out we'll throw money at you to make you like us? No, the message is "we want you here, and while we can't negotiate an extension we can pay you this season what we were offering long term, as a show of good faith." If this is done quickly then you get a motivated Byrd in camp on time and with an opportunity to show the Bills (and rest of the league) he deserves the money he seeks. Edited July 16, 2013 by eball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I get the feeling you didn't read my paragraph carefully. No, I read it and understood. You asked if they could negotiate a "different" 1-year deal. My answer was intended to be read as: "yes, that's correct...in fact, they could even agree to terms on a long-term contract, but it couldn't be signed right away" Sorry for the confusion, I realize it may have appeared nebulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 No, I read it and understood. You asked if they could negotiate a "different" 1-year deal. My answer was intended to be read as: "yes, that's correct...in fact, they could even agree to terms on a long-term contract, but it couldn't be signed right away" Sorry for the confusion, I realize it may have appeared nebulous. but for clarity, to answer the question a little more directly, yes they can negotiate and sign a one year deal with any terms they want. the long term deal can be discussed but not signed until after the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 but for clarity, to answer the question a little more directly, yes they can negotiate and sign a one year deal with any terms they want. the long term deal can be discussed but not signed until after the season. I wonder what the point is then in preventing execution of a long-term deal after a certain date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 He was...he could've signed with any team he wanted to...provided that team was willing to give up multiple draft picks to sign him. His contract was up. Why should he have any restrictions placed on him? I know that's the way it's currently done. I'm just questioning the sanity of it. If I enter into a contract with you to paint my house and you complete the job. Should I have the right to force you to accept another contract with me? Or if you accept a contract from another person the other person has to compensate me? In any other business but the NFL, that would be grounds for a restraint of trade lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I wonder what the point is then in preventing execution of a long-term deal after a certain date. it gets discussed every few pages. the guess ive taken is it helps accelerate negotiations to prevent distractions into camp, and diminishes incentive to sit out once games start. thats not to say it eliminates either issue, but generally it should atleast help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 His contract was up. Why should he have any restrictions placed on him? I know that's the way it's currently done. I'm just questioning the sanity of it. If I enter into a contract with you to paint my house and you complete the job. Should I have the right to force you to accept another contract with me? Or if you accept a contract from another person the other person has to compensate me? In any other business but the NFL, that would be grounds for a restraint of trade lawsuit. Those restrictions were bargained for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 His contract was up. Why should he have any restrictions placed on him? I know that's the way it's currently done. I'm just questioning the sanity of it. If I enter into a contract with you to paint my house and you complete the job. Should I have the right to force you to accept another contract with me? Or if you accept a contract from another person the other person has to compensate me? In any other business but the NFL, that would be grounds for a restraint of trade lawsuit. because the nfl isnt any other business. he also was drafted and had his ability to choose a team and negotiate freely restricted from day 1... it shouldnt be surprising, its a collectively bargained agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts