thebandit27 Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 That teams are not even allowed to talk to Byrd and his agent about a new contract from July 15 until the end of the season. They definitely can't sign him to one. There is a difference of opinion as to whether they can talk and negotiate. From what I imagine, and have heard, they cannot even discuss it. But as No Saint says, they probably do anyway and it's pretty unenforceable. Still, it's hard, if not impossible, to imagine that a team would give up a decent draft pick without knowing they could sign him long term. So I'm sure they would bend the league rules and nudge, nudge, wink, wink it. They are free to discuss anything that they want to with his agent, they just can't sign a contract. The CBA states that they cannot "negotiate a new contract", which doesn't mean they can't talk terms, just that they can't come to an official agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 They are free to discuss anything that they want to with his agent, they just can't sign a contract. The CBA states that they cannot "negotiate a new contract", which doesn't mean they can't talk terms, just that they can't come to an official agreement. The report was, that that is not true. According to Ian Rapaport, who is pretty good about stuff like this. He said that The Bills asked the league about that very issue and were told no, you cannot discuss contract at all. Where are you getting that information from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The report was, that that is not true. According to Ian Rapaport, who is pretty good about stuff like this. He said that The Bills asked the league about that very issue and were told no, you cannot discuss contract at all. Where are you getting that information from? I hadn't seen that, I was going based on the CBA language as interpreted by the Bengals' beat reporter in a radio interview a few months back...I'll see if I can find the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I hadn't seen that, I was going based on the CBA language as interpreted by the Bengals' beat reporter in a radio interview a few months back...I'll see if I can find the link. Cool. I don't know the definitive answer but would like to. Howard Simon was talking about it on the pregame show yesterday and referenced what Rapaport said. I'm not sure which Bengals beat reporter it was but the guy who is the Chris Brown equivalent, who runs their website, Geoff Hobson, is usually pretty informed and intelligent. He's not really a beat reporter per se but if it came from him it would hold some weight with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 That teams are not even allowed to talk to Byrd and his agent about a new contract from July 15 until the end of the season. They definitely can't sign him to one. There is a difference of opinion as to whether they can talk and negotiate. From what I imagine, and have heard, they cannot even discuss it. But as No Saint says, they probably do anyway and it's pretty unenforceable. Still, it's hard, if not impossible, to imagine that a team would give up a decent draft pick without knowing they could sign him long term. So I'm sure they would bend the league rules and nudge, nudge, wink, wink it. Thanks for the info! I didn't even think about a rule like that, and I had thought a trade was next to impossible because say they do agree to terms - what if Byrd gets hurt bad this season. Do they really live up to - signing a player they know is not going to the same for a megacontract?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Cool. I don't know the definitive answer but would like to. Howard Simon was talking about it on the pregame show yesterday and referenced what Rapaport said. I'm not sure which Bengals beat reporter it was but the guy who is the Chris Brown equivalent, who runs their website, Geoff Hobson, is usually pretty informed and intelligent. He's not really a beat reporter per se but if it came from him it would hold some weight with me. I found what I was looking for...it was Hobson discussing in a radio interview the relevant language of the CBA, which he was reading off of SB Nation's Bengals webiste (Cincy Jungle): http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/2/15/2800567/rules-regarding-the-franchise-tag-per-the-collective-bargaining Here's the quote on which he elaborated: (k) Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year. What he said was that he believed that it meant exactly what it said: the player contract cannot be extended, but the two sides can talk. He may indeed be incorrect; especially if Brown reported that the Bills asked this question and were told that negotiations cannot take place. I'd certainly like to know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I found what I was looking for...it was Hobson discussing in a radio interview the relevant language of the CBA, which he was reading off of SB Nation's Bengals webiste (Cincy Jungle): http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/2/15/2800567/rules-regarding-the-franchise-tag-per-the-collective-bargaining Here's the quote on which he elaborated: (k) Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year. What he said was that he believed that it meant exactly what it said: the player contract cannot be extended, but the two sides can talk. He may indeed be incorrect; especially if Brown reported that the Bills asked this question and were told that negotiations cannot take place. I'd certainly like to know the truth. Cool. Thx. If he was just interpreting rather than having some specific knowledge of it I just don't know. Personally, I don't get the same read. I don't think it infers they can discuss contract at all. It doesn't even make much sense to me why they could discuss contract but not sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I found what I was looking for...it was Hobson discussing in a radio interview the relevant language of the CBA, which he was reading off of SB Nation's Bengals webiste (Cincy Jungle): http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/2/15/2800567/rules-regarding-the-franchise-tag-per-the-collective-bargaining Here's the quote on which he elaborated: (k) Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year. What he said was that he believed that it meant exactly what it said: the player contract cannot be extended, but the two sides can talk. He may indeed be incorrect; especially if Brown reported that the Bills asked this question and were told that negotiations cannot take place. I'd certainly like to know the truth. The fact that the bills and the agent can sit in a private room and negotiate a one year deal makes it 100% unenforceable for having side talks of "we'd really like to keep you around." Thing is, by September they should have a pretty good idea of the others terms and negotiating a handshake deal has huge backfire potentially that could permanently ruin future negotiations if it doesn't work out. I don't think it's a huge issue either way the rule falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The report was, that that is not true. According to Ian Rapaport, who is pretty good about stuff like this. He said that The Bills asked the league about that very issue and were told no, you cannot discuss contract at all. Where are you getting that information from? that's not what the bills inquired about....they asked if his contract could be ALTERED. Sources said the Bills sought further clarity from the NFL about his status, inquiring as to whether, if he were traded, if a new team could possibly alter his contract. The word back from the NFL Management Council was as expected. As a franchise player, no changes to Byrd's contract could be made by any team after the July 15 deadline to extend the contract of a franchise player. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/23540901/bills-disgruntled-safety-jarius-byrd-would-welcome-trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 that's not what the bills inquired about....they asked if his contract could be ALTERED. Sources said the Bills sought further clarity from the NFL about his status, inquiring as to whether, if he were traded, if a new team could possibly alter his contract. The word back from the NFL Management Council was as expected. As a franchise player, no changes to Byrd's contract could be made by any team after the July 15 deadline to extend the contract of a franchise player. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/23540901/bills-disgruntled-safety-jarius-byrd-would-welcome-trade I could be wrong, but I believe that Simon was saying that Rapaport was saying that they couldn't even discuss contracts with him. I would assume that would be in the same inquiry with the league about altering the contract. It could easily be that the league said not only can you not alter it you cannot even discuss it. But again, it is possible that it was only the altering issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Just saw on the ESPN crawl that Byrd says he played through the PF last year, but this year he needs to be 100%. If that proves to be an accurate quote, then I would say there is little lingering doubt that Byrd is simply dogging it to make a point and I hope it backfires on him big time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I could be wrong, but I believe that Simon was saying that Rapaport was saying that they couldn't even discuss contracts with him. I would assume that would be in the same inquiry with the league about altering the contract. It could easily be that the league said not only can you not alter it you cannot even discuss it. But again, it is possible that it was only the altering issue. the CBA is mute on "talking". everybody can talk all they want. what is clear is that there are zero changes allowed to his current one year deal. no extension, no words altered, no changes until the season is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 the CBA is mute on "talking". everybody can talk all they want. what is clear is that there are zero changes allowed to his current one year deal. no extension, no words altered, no changes until the season is over. The Bills wanted to know if they, or another team, could, say, up his 6.9m franchise number this season, to pay him more and make him happier. They were told no. Whether or not teams can negotiate long term deals without signing it is a second issue in the same kind of discussion. I believe I heard that the NFL told the Bills they couldn't even talk about an extension until the season was over. It doesn't make sense to me that they would be able to talk all they want. If they could agree on an extension why wouldn't they be able to sign it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I'm so sick of this chess game between Bryd and the BIlls FO CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The Bills wanted to know if they, or another team, could, say, up his 6.9m franchise number this season, to pay him more and make him happier. They were told no. Whether or not teams can negotiate long term deals without signing it is a second issue in the same kind of discussion. I believe I heard that the NFL told the Bills they couldn't even talk about an extension until the season was over. It doesn't make sense to me that they would be able to talk all they want. If they could agree on an extension why wouldn't they be able to sign it? it is not known what they wanted to alter. who knows, maybe they were willing to put in the no franchise tag next year clause just to get him on the field. they were simply told NO ALTERATIONS to his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 it is not known what they wanted to alter. who knows, maybe they were willing to put in the no franchise tag next year clause just to get him on the field. they were simply told NO ALTERATIONS to his contract. That was part of the conversation with Rapaport IIFC. That was the gist of the inquiry, could they give him more money this year than the franchise tag number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Sources said the Bills sought further clarity from the NFL about his status, inquiring as to whether, if he were traded, if a new team could possibly alter his contract. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/23540901/bills-disgruntled-safety-jarius-byrd-would-welcome-trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 it is not known what they wanted to alter. who knows, maybe they were willing to put in the no franchise tag next year clause just to get him on the field. they were simply told NO ALTERATIONS to his contract. right, you cant renegotiate any contract the same year you sign it i believe... no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) right, you cant renegotiate any contract the same year you sign it i believe... no? i'm only speaking about the one year franchise tag contract. I don't want to get off in another area, but i'm assuming the contracts just signed by veteran players like hughes, Lawson and even Eric Wood could be re-negotiated at any time. rookie contracts can't be re negotiated until they are in the last year. so players like russell wilson have to wait. Edited September 9, 2013 by papazoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 "Im just waiting on my feet honestly, Byrd said Monday. Whenever they get ready or get right thats when Ill be out there. I've got to be 100 percent to go out there and get ready to go. Once it's ready to go I'll be the first one to say I'm ready to go and get back in there." http://blogs.buffalo...g-waiting-game/ now he needs to be 100% healthy.....that should happen around the BYE week in november. As far as I'm concerned, Byrd is on IR until further notice. I am not counting on him to contribute at all this season. If he wants to quit on his teammates, that's on him, because NONE of his teammates are "100% healthy" during the season. Extremely selfish sounding quote from him. The first time my antennae have been raised in this regard. I may be coming around to your line of thinking on this. Stay tuned. GO BILLS!!! Contrast that with the post-game comments from our young QB, which were something to the effect of "you're never going to be 100% in this league, and my opinion is that if you can run, you can play. So I just go out there and ignore the pain and play because that's the only way to do it" I'm paraphrasing from memory of course, but the difference in attitude is palpable. I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I just came across Byrd's quote. Night and day. I hope Manuel gets in his grill about it, too. I know, I know, it's too early. But Kelly would have and I'm impatient. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts