thebandit27 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Are you familiar with the terms? I assume that they got him somewhat cheaply because Detroit is still paying him. No, no idea. I just meant that hiring him wasn't an indicator that the team was functioning on a limited budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 The Thomas case will be very interesting...he should want a big bump in pay given the year he's had. It'll be tough to give it to him with Seattle having handed Chancellor a huge deal last off-season and knowing that Sherman is up for a new deal in the next year. Seattle, like Buffalo does not have big $$$ tied up in the QB position. They have money for Sherman, the Bills have money for Byrd. Seattle is going to have a tough time keeping that team together and under the cap. They have several guys significantly outplaying their contracts. Thomas, Wilson, Sherman, to name a few. Remind me...under the current CBA rookie contracts cannot be reworked until year 3 is complete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 This is fun, you not only call out someone else's comprehension, but also your own. i am, too, please. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Seattle, like Buffalo does not have big $$$ tied up in the QB position. They have money for Sherman, the Bills have money for Byrd. Remind me...under the current CBA rookie contracts cannot be reworked until year 3 is complete? Almost positive it's year 3 because they were talking about Kaepernick getting his reworked and he just finished year 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 lots of words. lack of comprehension. he had nothing to gain by showing up early. you like to bring up these comparisons of the other 7 who got tagged. how many of them showed up before signing their deal? i'm picking nits? that's quite a nit to pick when it comes to what "the going rate is" for a free safety. if both sides were well aware of that, then why wasn't a deal done? odd. and you still conveniently overlook the fact that once Byrd's salary was locked in after July 15 passed, what incentive did he have to show up for training camp and before he risked losing a portion of that salary. he wasn't going to get one more penny from the Bills. and he risked his future earnings if he got hurt. but somehow, this was unprofessional on his part? whether or not you choose to continue this conversation is up to you and not of my concern. i simply choose to continue it because i still fail to comprehend much of the basis of your point. jw and i'm pretty sure there are a few cases here in which you've now contradicted yourself. for the purposes of not picking nits, i'll choose not to point them out. I REALLY don't want to get in the middle of this entertaining discussion --- I have one simple question to John, you state that Byrd had nothing to gain by showing up to OTA's, mini camps and training camp except to risk injury -- I get that that's probably true -- but, more than half the players on the team are in the same or similar situations --- they are either playing with one year left on their contact, playing for future salary with little or no additional guaranteed money --- why do all of them show up ? -- why did Byrd show up in 2012 when he was headed into the last year of his contract ?? -- I think what troubles fans about the Byrd situation last year, was that he chose to exercise his right under the CBA and skip OTA's, mini-camps and training camp and hurt the team -- if you don't think he hurt the team, what would happen if the other 30 or 40 players in similar situations had done the same thing ? --- if he wasn't hurting the team, why does the team find those activities necessary in the first place ? ---- let's face it, Byrd was pissed he got tagged, he wanted a long term contract with $20M+ guaranteed with the Bills or via FA -- when he didn't get it -- he exercised his right to stay away --- I get and accept all of that -- what I don't accept was that his action didn't hurt his team, it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I REALLY don't want to get in the middle of this entertaining discussion --- I have one simple question to John, you state that Byrd had nothing to gain by showing up to OTA's, mini camps and training camp except to risk injury -- I get that that's probably true -- but, more than half the players on the team are in the same or similar situations --- they are either playing with one year left on their contact, playing for future salary with little or no additional guaranteed money --- why do all of them show up ? -- why did Byrd show up in 2012 when he was headed into the last year of his contract ?? -- I think what troubles fans about the Byrd situation last year, was that he chose to exercise his right under the CBA and skip OTA's, mini-camps and training camp and hurt the team -- if you don't think he hurt the team, what would happen if the other 30 or 40 players in similar situations had done the same thing ? --- if he wasn't hurting the team, why does the team find those activities necessary in the first place ? ---- let's face it, Byrd was pissed he got tagged, he wanted a long term contract with $20M+ guaranteed with the Bills or via FA -- when he didn't get it -- he exercised his right to stay away --- I get and accept all of that -- what I don't accept was that his action didn't hurt his team, it did. Him exercising his option of not signing the tender offer and not reporting for team activities he was not required to attend was financially self-serving. It was his choice not to participate with the team until he had to do so. The Bills placing the franchise tag on him was financially self-serving. It was their choice not to compete for his services on the market. Wasn't there some assertion 3 or 4 pages back that this was the brave, new Bills and the financial people were no longer in control of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Him exercising his option of not signing the tender offer and not reporting for team activities he was not required to attend was financially self-serving. It was his choice not to participate with the team until he had to do so. The Bills placing the franchise tag on him was financially self-serving. It was their choice not to compete for his services on the market. Wasn't there some assertion 3 or 4 pages back that this was the brave, new Bills and the financial people were no longer in control of things? I'm trying not to wade too far into this fight -- my only point was that by not participating in off-season and training camp activities Byrd was hurting the team -- AND --- a decent percentage of players have similar issues / concerns and show up to those activities as did Byrd a year earlier ---- as for front office --- my opinion has been and remains that I have yet to see a change in financial philosophy since Brandon was elevated to Pres/CEO in January 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'm trying not to wade too far into this fight -- my only point was that by not participating in off-season and training camp activities Byrd was hurting the team -- AND --- a decent percentage of players have similar issues / concerns and show up to those activities as did Byrd a year earlier ---- as for front office --- my opinion has been and remains that I have yet to see a change in financial philosophy since Brandon was elevated to Pres/CEO in January 2012. Me either. There is certainly a difference between a player with a signed contract and a player who hasn't signed anything, but has been tagged under the CBA. Agreed on the last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Me either. There is certainly a difference between a player with a signed contract and a player who hasn't signed anything, but has been tagged under the CBA. True -- I guess by not signing the tag, Byrd was technically not under contract even though he had no real choice but to sign -- but it is a point of difference vs the other guys I mentioned --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 True -- I guess by not signing the tag, Byrd was technically not under contract even though he had no real choice but to sign -- but it is a point of difference vs the other guys I mentioned --- My understanding is Byrd never signed his tender at all. The CBA protects the team in this case by allowing them to hold exclusive rights to the player anyway. But, there were repercussions as well. The Bills had to guarantee him a designated salary, couldn't trade him, etc. The numbers are sort of interesting. The Bills ended up spending $6.9M in guaranteed money for a 1 year rental. The Goldson deal (which was at last year's bargain rates compared to any point in the future) guaranteed him an average of $3.6M a season. Goldson's APY is $8.25M on his 5 year contract. If Byrd is tagged again and nothing else changes in the status quo, then he'll get another 1 year 100% guaranteed CBA negotiated deal which will pay him something like $8.4M. He'll stand to make over $15M in guaranteed money in 2 years compared to $18M guaranteed to Goldson over 5 years. But, the Bills saved $1.3M this year this way, which is around 1% of their cap. That amount of money buys an Arthur Moats' contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 My understanding is Byrd never signed his tender at all. The CBA protects the team in this case by allowing them to hold exclusive rights to the player anyway. But, there were repercussions as well. The Bills had to guarantee him a designated salary, couldn't trade him, etc. The numbers are sort of interesting. The Bills ended up spending $6.9M in guaranteed money for a 1 year rental. The Goldson deal (which was at last year's bargain rates compared to any point in the future) guaranteed him an average of $3.6M a season. Goldson's APY is $8.25M on his 5 year contract. If Byrd is tagged again and nothing else changes in the status quo, then he'll get another 1 year 100% guaranteed CBA negotiated deal which will pay him something like $8.4M. He'll stand to make over $15M in guaranteed money in 2 years compared to $18M guaranteed to Goldson over 5 years. But, the Bills saved $1.3M this year this way, which is around 1% of their cap. That amount of money buys an Arthur Moats' contract. rest assured most of Goldson's guanateed money will be paid in the first two years. all of it by year 3 so that after year 3 they could cut him without any "dead money". 3/13/2013: Signed a five-year, $41.25 million contract. The deal contains $22 million guaranteed, including a first-year roster bonus of $4.5 million, Goldson's first- and second-year salaries, and a fully guaranteed 2014 roster bonus of $3 million. 2014: $6 million (+ $3 million roster bonus), 2015-2016: $7.5 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus), 2017: $6.75 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus), 2018: Free Agent http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4444/dashon-goldson http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/tampa-bay-buccaneers/dashon-goldson/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Lots of useless arguing about what Byrd and/or the Bills should've done differently in 2013. The problem should have been addressed well before 2013 - they should never have let him get to his contract year. They created the situation by sitting on their hands. Same thing with Levitre. Yes he was overpaid by the Titans. But is there any reason to think he wouldn't have agreed to a more team-friendly extension in 2012? Lock up your good players early. Don't wait until they have the leverage. Edited January 31, 2014 by Coach Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Lots of useless arguing about what Byrd and/or the Bills should've done differently in 2013. The problem should have been addressed well before 2013 - they should never have let him get to his contract year. They created the situation by sitting on their hands. Same thing with Levitre. Yes he was overpaid by the Titans. But is there any reason to think he wouldn't have agreed to a more team-friendly extension in 2012? Lock up your good players early. Don't wait until they have the leverage. Thing is Coach, the team has locked up players early. Did it with Wood, Urbik, Pears, Kyle, Freddie, etc. I know what you're getting at, and I can't say I expressly disagree. I also understand the other side of the coin, which begs the question of who's to say that guys like Byrd or Levitre would indeed be willing to sign long-term, team-friendly extensions prior to hitting free agency? When you hear Levitre talk about the open market as a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, or hear rumblings from Byrd's camp that he wants to be the highest paid FS, it's hard to envision that. Doesn't mean you aren't right that the goal is to lock up your good players as early as possible; just means that it isn't always possible. It will always take two sides to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 If any player will not extend while under contract , trade him, don't let him walk away for nothing like Levitre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Lots of useless arguing about what Byrd and/or the Bills should've done differently in 2013. The problem should have been addressed well before 2013 - they should never have let him get to his contract year. They created the situation by sitting on their hands. Same thing with Levitre. Yes he was overpaid by the Titans. But is there any reason to think he wouldn't have agreed to a more team-friendly extension in 2012? Lock up your good players early. Don't wait until they have the leverage. If I remember correctly the Bills did try to extend Levitre, he however was interested in testing free agency. What would you suggest the Bills should have done differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Thing is Coach, the team has locked up players early. Did it with Wood, Urbik, Pears, Kyle, Freddie, etc. I know what you're getting at, and I can't say I expressly disagree. I also understand the other side of the coin, which begs the question of who's to say that guys like Byrd or Levitre would indeed be willing to sign long-term, team-friendly extensions prior to hitting free agency? When you hear Levitre talk about the open market as a "once in a lifetime" opportunity, or hear rumblings from Byrd's camp that he wants to be the highest paid FS, it's hard to envision that. Doesn't mean you aren't right that the goal is to lock up your good players as early as possible; just means that it isn't always possible. It will always take two sides to do it. So why did the Bills go after Wood and K. Williams early, while not doing the same for others? After all, there was a back and forth between Byrd's people and the Bills, so clearly there was mutual interest. I'm just not clear why OBD would wait until the end before getting their best home-grown defensive player under contract. I don't think the Bills like difficult negotiations and prefer when players acquiesce to them. Chris Kelsay, Kyle Williams, and Eric Wood all came to terms fairly silently and without much issue. But the second an agent like Parker plays hardball, the Bills stiffen up and we things become tense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 So why did the Bills go after Wood and K. Williams early, while not doing the same for others? After all, there was a back and forth between Byrd's people and the Bills, so clearly there was mutual interest. I'm just not clear why OBD would wait until the end before getting their best home-grown defensive player under contract. I don't think the Bills like difficult negotiations and prefer when players acquiesce to them. Chris Kelsay, Kyle Williams, and Eric Wood all came to terms fairly silently and without much issue. But the second an agent like Parker plays hardball, the Bills stiffen up and we things become tense. Parker's players who are about to become UFA in their prime NEVER sign early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 My understanding is Byrd never signed his tender at all. The CBA protects the team in this case by allowing them to hold exclusive rights to the player anyway. But, there were repercussions as well. The Bills had to guarantee him a designated salary, couldn't trade him, etc. The numbers are sort of interesting. The Bills ended up spending $6.9M in guaranteed money for a 1 year rental. The Goldson deal (which was at last year's bargain rates compared to any point in the future) guaranteed him an average of $3.6M a season. Goldson's APY is $8.25M on his 5 year contract. If Byrd is tagged again and nothing else changes in the status quo, then he'll get another 1 year 100% guaranteed CBA negotiated deal which will pay him something like $8.4M. He'll stand to make over $15M in guaranteed money in 2 years compared to $18M guaranteed to Goldson over 5 years. But, the Bills saved $1.3M this year this way, which is around 1% of their cap. That amount of money buys an Arthur Moats' contract. Your assumption is Parker was asking for Goldson money. The fact the Bills are comfortable paying him more in guaranteed money on a per season basis as a tagged player, tells me it's FAR less than what Parker was asking for. Byrd is a bargain at $15.2m in their eyes. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced Parker thinks Byrd is the best at his position and he wants north of Berry money in guarantees because of that. So he's bargain at anything less than the $25m in guaranteed money that Berry signed for . GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 So why did the Bills go after Wood and K. Williams early, while not doing the same for others? After all, there was a back and forth between Byrd's people and the Bills, so clearly there was mutual interest. I'm just not clear why OBD would wait until the end before getting their best home-grown defensive player under contract. I don't know for certain...could be any number of reasons ranging from (a) they have a better track record negotiating with those players' agents to (b) they had a better feeling that those guys were willing to sign before testing the open market. It also might be hard to negotiate with a guy (Parker) that has a mindset of "I'll do anything necessary to make sure my guy is the highest paid". Here's a look into how Parker deals: http://www.buffalonews.com/20130602/high_stakes_hardball.html You're right, there was mutual interest. The reason no deal got done was because the two sides didn't come to terms on what the player was worth. Buffalo wanted to pay him among the top 4 or 5 at his position; Byrd wanted to be the top. I don't blame either side for their stance. I don't think the Bills like difficult negotiations and prefer when players acquiesce to them. Chris Kelsay, Kyle Williams, and Eric Wood all came to terms fairly silently and without much issue. But the second an agent like Parker plays hardball, the Bills stiffen up and we things become tense. You aren't exactly going out on a limb here--every team prefers easy negotiations. As for Parker, read the article...again, not in any way unique to the Bills. Your assumption is Parker was asking for Goldson money. The fact the Bills are comfortable paying him more in guaranteed money on a per season basis as a tagged player, tells me it's FAR less than what Parker was asking for. Byrd is a bargain at $15.2m in their eyes. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced Parker thinks Byrd is the best at his position and he wants north of Berry money in guarantees because of that. So he's bargain at anything less than the $25m in guaranteed money that Berry signed for . GO BILLS!!! From the article, it's hard to imagine that they were asking for Goldson money...the quotes make it pretty clear they came in measurably above that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) From the article, it's hard to imagine that they were asking for Goldson money...the quotes make it pretty clear they came in measurably above that. Absolutely, which is why the comparison to Goldson's guaranteed money as a way to make a point the Bills actually spent MORE vs. Goldson money, is invalid in my opinion. I don't think they'd have much of a problem giving him Goldson guaranteed money actually. Parker just isn't happy with that, I think. If they end up tagging him again this year, I will be convinced of that. GO BILLS!!! Edited January 31, 2014 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts