Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 We have to stop stating that Sammy didn't want to be here. In fact, we have to stop saying that about players altogether unless there's some kind of indication that that's the case. He said, quite clearly, that he wanted to be here for his entire career. I didn't mean to come off as he didn't want to be here. I just answered his question on why Sammy would want to leave. We have one indication when Beane stated "resignability". Fans can either believe it or not. Sammy might have wanted to stay here the rest of his career but if we weren't close on pay, he's not going to sing the same tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 I didn't mean to come off as he didn't want to be here. I just answered his question on why Sammy would want to leave. We have one indication when Beane stated "resignability". Fans can either believe it or not. Sammy might have wanted to stay here the rest of his career but if we weren't close on pay, he's not going to sing the same tune. Ok that makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Franchise tag. The end. The Bills had ALL the leverage. You're right....the end. Players will always agree to play under the tag. Von Miller: I won’t sign franchise tag, it’s “a league-wide problem” Broncos outside linebacker Von Miller insists that he will not play this season for the $14 million franchise tag, calling the tag itself a problem for players that he can help fix.“No, I’m not gonna play on the franchise tag. It just doesn’t make sense in any way,” Miller said on ESPN. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/11/von-miller-i-wont-sign-franchise-tag-its-a-league-wide-problem/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 I didn't mean to come off as he didn't want to be here. I just answered his question on why Sammy would want to leave. We have one indication when Beane stated "resignability". Fans can either believe it or not. Sammy might have wanted to stay here the rest of his career but if we weren't close on pay, he's not going to sing the same tune. Well according to Beane he hadn't even talked to Sammy about being here, so we will never know what could or could not have been worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 You're right....the end. Players will always agree to play under the tag. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/11/von-miller-i-wont-sign-franchise-tag-its-a-league-wide-problem/ They don't want to play on the tag because it increases their risks as their guarantees are less. So it serves as a deterrent to FA and players happily sign for big bucks as soon as they can, instead of facing the tag. Cousins is a rare bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Well according to Beane he hadn't even talked to Sammy about being here, so we will never know what could or could not have been worked out. I'm pretty sure he would have talked with his agent, especially in a year where we had his 5th year option on the table. He might not have talked to Sammy, but it would be very, very unlikely he never spoke with his agent. They don't want to play on the tag because it increases their risks as their guarantees are less. So it serves as a deterrent to FA and players happily sign for big bucks as soon as they can, instead of facing the tag. Cousins is a rare bird. Yes exactly. That's my point. ScottLaw said it was end of story with the franchise tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Yes exactly. That's my point. ScottLaw said it was end of story with the franchise tag. Scott's point was that the team gave up the position of owning Sammy's rights for 2018-2020 with the use of the 5th year option plus 2 tags. He literally could not have played anywhere else until 2021 unless the Bills allowed him to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 14, 2017 Author Share Posted August 14, 2017 (edited) I'm pretty sure he would have talked with his agent, especially in a year where we had his 5th year option on the table. He might not have talked to Sammy, but it would be very, very unlikely he never spoke with his agent. Yes exactly. That's my point. ScottLaw said it was end of story with the franchise tag. it is more often the beginning than the end. Leveon bell still hasn't signed his tag or reported to camp. Missing TC might be ok for a guy like him but it's not for a WR who likely will have a new QB next year. Miller eventually signed because he is an all-pro, premier pas rusher in the league coming off a super bowl MVP. They were going to pay him what he wanted eventually. Watkins though a talented player just not really in that category of negotiation strategy. Edited August 14, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 I'm pretty sure he would have talked with his agent, especially in a year where we had his 5th year option on the table. He might not have talked to Sammy, but it would be very, very unlikely he never spoke with his agent. Yes exactly. That's my point. ScottLaw said it was end of story with the franchise tag. The tag is the sword of Damocles, ownership/GMs wield that bad boy when they need to get a contract signed. Players don't want to play on it and the weight of it often helps broker a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Thank you. The Bills had all the leverage. The narrative that Sammy was gone after this year is laughable. They didn't like Sammy and they didn't want to pay him(despite, as BADOL said, they have loads of cap room and NOBODY ELSE necessary to resign next year). My question is why? And has me extremely skeptical of the new guys in charge. Looks like the same old, same old to me. I disagree with that last part; there's zero doubt in my mind that Whaley would've tried to get Sammy under contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 it is more often the beginning than the end. Leveon bell still hasn't signed his tag or reported to camp. Missing TC might be ok for a guy like him but it's not for a WR who likely will have a new QB next year. Miller eventually signed because he is an all-pro, premier pas rusher in the league coming off a super bowl MVP. They were going to pay him what he wanted eventually. Watkins though a talented player just not really in that category of negotiation strategy. That's the way I view it as well. If Sammy didn't have as much an injury history and put up some pretty fantastic numbers....he would have the leverage. The way I view it, the Front Office didn't think there would be much movement at all on Sammy's side. Even if Sammy had a 100 catch, 1,400 yard season with 8 TD's....Watkins would probably command top dollar in free agency. Looking at Watkins history, one year of great stats wasn't enough to give him that top dollar especially reliability on the field is a concern. Basically move on him now instead of losing him for nothing. Just a pure guess. Scott's point was that the team gave up the position of owning Sammy's rights for 2018-2020 with the use of the 5th year option plus 2 tags. He literally could not have played anywhere else until 2021 unless the Bills allowed him to do so. I did know what his point was. No one knows what the conversation that took place. I don't think they picked up the option because of his health concerns. Yes there are 2 tags but they might not have wanted to deal with the headache that the Broncos had last year with Miller and what the Steelers are going through this year with Bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 If a GM doesn't want to deal with the headaches of negotiating with his teams best player maybe he would be better off doing a different job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Thank you. The Bills had all the leverage. The narrative that Sammy was gone after this year is laughable. They didn't like Sammy and they didn't want to pay him(despite, as BADOL said, they have loads of cap room and NOBODY ELSE necessary to resign next year). My question is why? And has me extremely skeptical of the new guys in charge. Looks like the same old, same old to me. Well stop trusting what Baldo says because he's wrong a lot. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/8/3/16086768/buffalo-bills-2018-salary-cap-situation-sammy-watkins-tyrod-taylor-eric-wood-kyle-williams Looking at 2018, Spotrac puts the Bills at $25 million in available cap space based on a projected $168 million salary cap (which is probably a bit low). If the presumed $5 million roll-over is added in, that gives the Bills $30 million or so in available 2018 cap space. This may sound like a lot, but it really isn’t. Based on 2017 numbers, it would put the Bills in the lower-third of the NFL in terms of cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Well stop trusting what Baldo says because he's wrong a lot. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/8/3/16086768/buffalo-bills-2018-salary-cap-situation-sammy-watkins-tyrod-taylor-eric-wood-kyle-williams . Not all that accurate. A lot of that can and will come off the books because of roster churn and aging players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 If a GM doesn't want to deal with the headaches of negotiating with his teams best player maybe he would be better off doing a different job. Well Sammy isn't the Bills best player. He's not at the same level as Bell or Miller as far as their position. Potential? Maybe Production so far...not even close. It's not all Sammy's fault. If the front office and agent are that far apart, it's better to get something for him than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 That's the way I view it as well. If Sammy didn't have as much an injury history and put up some pretty fantastic numbers....he would have the leverage. The way I view it, the Front Office didn't think there would be much movement at all on Sammy's side. Even if Sammy had a 100 catch, 1,400 yard season with 8 TD's....Watkins would probably command top dollar in free agency. Looking at Watkins history, one year of great stats wasn't enough to give him that top dollar especially reliability on the field is a concern. Basically move on him now instead of losing him for nothing. Just a pure guess. I did know what his point was. No one knows what the conversation that took place. I don't think they picked up the option because of his health concerns. Yes there are 2 tags but they might not have wanted to deal with the headache that the Broncos had last year with Miller and what the Steelers are going through this year with Bell. Probably right, but I "love" this over-analysis with respect to talented players by these greenhorns. Julio Jones and Dez Bryant are still with their respective clubs because they see the value in premium talent and understood the nature of the injury that has a high rate of successful recovery after a 2nd corrective procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Not all that accurate. A lot of that can and will come off the books because of roster churn and aging players. Same thing with every team. We also will have some players on their last contracts too that we might be re-signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Same thing with every team. We also will have some players on their last contracts too that we might be re-signed. now people are just pushing that the bills could have signed him. sure they could have, but will he be worth the value of tagging him or is it worth throwing a ton of money his way just so he stays? the only way he would have been worth it was if he stayed healthy, and put up bigger numbers. he may have stayed healthy, but i doubt we would have seen his numbers inflate that much with this offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 Probably right, but I "love" this over-analysis with respect to talented players by these greenhorns. Julio Jones and Dez Bryant are still with their respective clubs because they see the value in premium talent and understood the nature of the injury that has a high rate of successful recovery after a 2nd corrective procedure. I agree but it's not just Sammy's foot. He's also had hip surgery, broken ribs, sprained ankle and pulled calf muscle. He didn't miss time with the hip surgery or broken ribs but if you want to sign this guy to a long term deal, like 4-5 more years...how confident are you in getting your value and that the injury pattern just stops? I would have loved to keep Watkins, have him here for years and I hate that he's gone....but I also can see the reasoning from the FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 I agree but it's not just Sammy's foot. He's also had hip surgery, broken ribs, sprained ankle and pulled calf muscle. He didn't miss time with the hip surgery or broken ribs but if you want to sign this guy to a long term deal, like 4-5 more years...how confident are you in getting your value and that the injury pattern just stops? I would have loved to keep Watkins, have him here for years and I hate that he's gone....but I also can see the reasoning from the FO. So what! He played in all but three games in the 1st two seasons with more than 2000 yards and 15 TDs. Football players sustain injuries and very often play through them just as Sammy did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts