BADOLBILZ Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'm predicting right now that he lands a HUGE contract. He's an elite player at an increasingly important position, and there are apparently a ton of teams that covet him. If he is available at the start of free agency he will cash in. There are a lot of teams out there who care A LOT more about winning than remaining well below the salary cap. If the Bills don't tag Byrd.......Aaron Williams needs to get Eugene Parker hired as his new agent ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 If he is available at the start of free agency he will cash in. There are a lot of teams out there who care A LOT more about winning than remaining well below the salary cap. If the Bills don't tag Byrd.......Aaron Williams needs to get Eugene Parker hired as his new agent ASAP. The last comment is one of the many reasons why the Bills must franchise Byrd. They're gonna look like punk bitches and any player that wants out just needs to hire Eugene "Bills Basher" Parker and Overdork will get his ass handed to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I don't get it. Why did nfl.com say we aren't going to franchise him? What do we have to lose? Best case he plays eventually and does well. Worst case he plays eventually and does well. Most likely to happen will be we get some kind of conditional pick from another team and trade him. I don't understand why we would just let him walk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 This is kind of silly. The trade market is going to only develop once they tag him. How will it develop? The rest of the league knows we want to trade him rather than pay him 8.4 million for one lousy year and enduring the same circus we went through last year. Why trade for a guy that might be released? If the Bills had a prayer of getting a decent trade for him, they would have done it. We weren't able to trade him last year and clearly, the Bills are certain that they won't be able to trade him this year. Since it appears that the Bills decided not to tag him, it seems reasonable to me that they made a considered determination that doing so is not in their best interests. And since Byrd decided to risk getting tagged rather than signing the contract that was offered, it seems equally reasonable to me that he and his agent made a considered determination that getting tagged wasn't as bad as signing a long term deal with the Bills. The opinions to the contrary around here are built on assumptions such as there being a good trade available or that tagging Byrd would really stick it to 'em, send him a message, play hardball, etc. The facts are that the Bills clearly don't think that they can trade him and Byrd clearly has no great fear of getting tagged despite how sure-fire devastating folks around here think the franchise tag is. A good question is how many players have we successfully pushed into signing a long term deal by use of the franchise tag? It clearly isn't quite the knock 'em dead negotiating tool many seem to think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 How will it develop? The rest of the league knows we want to trade him rather than pay him 8.4 million for one lousy year and enduring the same circus we went through last year. Why trade for a guy that might be released? If the Bills had a prayer of getting a decent trade for him, they would have done it. We weren't able to trade him last year and clearly, the Bills are certain that they won't be able to trade him this year. Since it appears that the Bills decided not to tag him, it seems reasonable to me that they made a considered determination that doing so is not in their best interests. And since Byrd decided to risk getting tagged rather than signing the contract that was offered, it seems equally reasonable to me that he and his agent made a considered determination that getting tagged wasn't as bad as signing a long term deal with the Bills. The opinions to the contrary around here are built on assumptions such as there being a good trade available or that tagging Byrd would really stick it to 'em, send him a message, play hardball, etc. The facts are that the Bills clearly don't think that they can trade him and Byrd clearly has no great fear of getting tagged despite how sure-fire devastating folks around here think the franchise tag is. A good question is how many players have we successfully pushed into signing a long term deal by use of the franchise tag? It clearly isn't quite the knock 'em dead negotiating tool many seem to think it is. Your spouting nonsense. Of course they don't think it's in their best interest if they didn't tag him. But they have thought hiring GW, Mularkey, Jauron and Gailey was in their best interest. They thought JP, Trent and Fitz were QB's that were in their "best interest" to nurture. They thought trading Lynch for some magic beans was "best interest". Trading a 26 year old All Pro LT for a late first round pick was "best interest". The Bills have been wrong A LOT about what was in their "best interest" so their flawed logic wouldn't necessarily make it right. The decision should be pretty clear at this point. You have to stop the bleeding and maintain the talent. Anybody that thinks the Bills are then going to fill that talent loss with value and spend all of that money to improve the team is loopy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 If the Bills do not tag him, Byrd will sign with another team in a couple of days - just like Levitre did with the Titans. It would be idiotic not to tag him and use all the leverage we have if for no other reason to send a message to the Eugene Parkers of the world (and all of the other reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I have been pretty much in the corner of the bills organization especially of recent.....but.... straight out....not tagging Byrd would be a ludicrous move of epic proportions for a multitude of reasons.... I dont care if they tag him and trade him for a bag of footballs......do NOT let this player hold the team hostage like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Other teams must think a good safety is available in the 3rd of draft for a fraction of Byrd's salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I say tag him and try to trade him for value. However if we are not able to trade him we will still have his services for another year. He is one of the best safeties in the league and and his play may help us to reach the playoffs this year. It will also give us another year to look for his replacement. Jets did that with Revis, traded him and got the DROY in Sheldon Richardson. Why can't we get something back for our all pro guy???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Monkey Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Jets did that with Revis, traded him and got the DROY in Sheldon Richardson. Why can't we get something back for our all pro guy???? It's really quite simple. CB is one of the highest valued positions in the league..Safety is one of the lowest. Byrd is also not elite....he's very good, but not even close to elite. The Bills have been trying to trade him for a year with little interest from other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Mario left Houston without a trade. Maybe they were ok with a comp pick for him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 if tagged, what is Byrd's trade value ? the 97th pick (end of 3rd round) ?? that is what the bills would get in the form of draft compensation for losing a top free agent, if they let him walk. or could the bills do better by trading him themselves ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmur66 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 The Bills made him a great offer. Tag him out of spite and trade him to Cleveland for whatever you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Byrd is also not elite....he's very good, but not even close to elite. You will see how wrong this statement is when Byrd hits the open market and becomes the highest paid safety in the NFL. Byrd's statistics show that he is "elite" as well, as demonstrated in earlier posts in this thread. There are plenty of reasons Byrd has not been traded, but his supposed "non-elite" status is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 The last two articles posted indicates the Bills are offering $30 million over three years. I've been in Byrd's corner for awhile, but this is ridiculous to expect more which means he just wants to leave. Tag him and let him deal with it. He's worth 8 million and we have the space. We'll have another year to develop another under him such as one of the two safeties from last year's draft. If he fakes another injury he'll be forced to play by week 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I live in the Philly area, and I'll say this much: if the Bills don't tag Byrd, the local fans will be howling for him to sign with the Eagles. The Eagles made the playoffs under the efforts of Nick Foles, who took a season or two to get there (note EJ haters), but their safety Patrick Chung is reviled as much as Legursky and Pears are here. The Eagles have 26M in cap space, presumably more after dealing Vick so they could match any offer the Bills make, and are playing in a weak division so they have more than a fair shot of making the playoffs again and again. As much as we are going to scream about them poaching our players, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it...again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 if tagged, what is Byrd's trade value ? the 97th pick (end of 3rd round) ?? that is what the bills would get in the form of draft compensation for losing a top free agent, if they let him walk. or could the bills do better by trading him themselves ?? lets assume the bills tag and attempt to trade Byrd. Eugene Parker announces to the world that Byrd will NOT sign a long term contract with any team. guess what.....a weak trade market. will any team give up something better than a third rounder to rent Byrd for half a season when he pulls his 100% healthy crap ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 "Tag his ass" isn't the stick it to Byrd move you think it is. It is a bad move for Buffalo and not at all a terrible thing for Byrd which is precisely why Byrd would rather risk the tag then sign the contract being offered. The idea that "tagging his ass" is somehow making a point and really playing hardball with Byrd is a fantasy. If it was really hardball, Byrd would be signing a contract rather than risk it, wouldn't he? Byrd is betting they will let him walk. Why would he not sign for $10M if he knows the tag is only $8.6? Tagging him makes sense rather than just letting him walk. You will see how wrong this statement is when Byrd hits the open market and becomes the highest paid safety in the NFL. Byrd's statistics show that he is "elite" as well, as demonstrated in earlier posts in this thread. There are plenty of reasons Byrd has not been traded, but his supposed "non-elite" status is not one of them. Care to elaborate? What are the reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Your spouting nonsense. Of course they don't think it's in their best interest if they didn't tag him. But they have thought hiring GW, Mularkey, Jauron and Gailey was in their best interest. They thought JP, Trent and Fitz were QB's that were in their "best interest" to nurture. They thought trading Lynch for some magic beans was "best interest". Trading a 26 year old All Pro LT for a late first round pick was "best interest". The Bills have been wrong A LOT about what was in their "best interest" so their flawed logic wouldn't necessarily make it right. The decision should be pretty clear at this point. You have to stop the bleeding and maintain the talent. Anybody that thinks the Bills are then going to fill that talent loss with value and spend all of that money to improve the team is loopy. ^ This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 It's called a sign and trade, people. Yup, piece of cake. Show me the long list of teams willing to pay $11-12M a year for a free safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts