Jump to content

I’d like to advocate some opinions on contracts, especially in regards to Edmunds’.


Tipster19

Recommended Posts

Once again, here we have the assumption that a GM can (a) impose his will on a player, (b) make any trade happen at the drop of a hat (and always win the trade), and (c) somehow skirt the invisible hands of the open market and get the best value and outcome in every scenario. The GM simply can't control everything. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ballsiest move and the only right move based on how things played out the last two years was to trade him after year three. Let someone else have the headache. I don’t care the age, it’s football, and honestly it’s not that hard. He has the physical tools, but unless he can simplify his thoughts and NOT think, his greatest asset is taking up space and making the QB avoid throwing in his area. I don’t know.. that’s nice, but the Bills 100% whiffed here all things considered. 

Edited by Thrivefourfive
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Good ol tipster thread. 

 

Yeah...start a thread with your opinion, let others debate, and then never return to engage with those who replied.

 

If you believe something enough to start a thread then have the common decency to defend your argument.  If not, I'll assume you didn't think it through much.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The piece you’re missing here is if the player is actually good and believes in himself, he’s not going to sign a cheap long term deal when he doesn’t have to.


That plan can also backfire horrifically. What deal would you have given Edmunds 2 years ago when he had proven nothing? It’s an unnecessary risk for both the player and the GM.

 

You’re also missing some signings this year apparently as well. McGovern is very much an upside pick on a long term deal. Same with Harty. Beane is going above market in year 1 so he can potentially get a steal in the later years. That’s exactly what he did with Poyer and Hyde too.

 

I appreciate the thought you put into this, but it was a big miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

 

Agree.

 

Way too many critiques based on hindsight around here.  Trading Edmunds a year or even 2 ago while the Bills were on the threshold of

a SB run would have been irresponsible.

 

I can make an argument that the Bills D scheme was due to Edmund's traits.  I can see McDermott, who just happens to have total control now,

evolving the scheme on D to a post Edmunds team.  With Poyer back, the only big change is Edmunds.  Fans here can debate McDermott's HC

qualities but he is an extremely competent DC.  I have a lot of hope he can adapt with a new D scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmunds had two things going against him with respect to contract, irrespective of his skills on the field:

 

1.  He was drafted the same year as Allen, and when Allen showed up big and got the big contract it was going to limit what the Bills could do with a guy in the same year.  hard to give another massive contract out in th e same time period, and this was exacerbated by paying Miller.

 

2.  Milano turned out to be an All Pro, and it's hard to sink a ton of money into two players in the same position group.

 

Edited by oldmanfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.


Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

1 hour ago, BillsVet said:

 

Yeah...start a thread with your opinion, let others debate, and then never return to engage with those who replied.

 

If you believe something enough to start a thread then have the common decency to defend your argument.  If not, I'll assume you didn't think it through much.  

 

 


Argument?? That’s the problem with this place, too many people want to argue.

 

Well, here I am. What do you want to “engage” about? Read the title, I clearly asked for opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:


Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

 

Traded to who, for what? That's a nice wish, but in reality you need a team willing to make that trade, and willing to offer something worthwhile.

 

No GM is perfect 100% of the time. The best ones hit at a rate slightly above 50% (and we have one of the better ones). Life has too many variables at play from so many different angles.

 

It's easy to sit in hindsight and bag on past decisions, but at the time, letting him play out was the best choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?


Argument?? That’s the problem with this place, too many people want to argue.

 

Well, here I am. What do you want to “engage” about? Read the title, I clearly asked for opinions.

 

I have observed a trend with threads you start in that you never re-enter to discuss.  It's just throw a subject out, let others debate, and then go away.  

 

The discussion and debate around Edmunds has continued ad nauseam to the point it's asinine  The team made a business decision on a player that, yes they selected high, but who provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance.  He was a matchup disadvantage for that defense and those who used bulk stats always missed that.   He was not the player they envisioned to him to be.  

 

Edmunds the player is the first example that fans cannot have everything (player-wise) you want and that includes players drafted.  Eventually the cap must be managed and they're doing it.  Right or wrong, that's the issue.  

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Agree.

 

Way too many critiques based on hindsight around here.  Trading Edmunds a year or even 2 ago while the Bills were on the threshold of

a SB run would have been irresponsible.

 

I can make an argument that the Bills D scheme was due to Edmund's traits.  I can see McDermott, who just happens to have total control now,

evolving the scheme on D to a post Edmunds team.  With Poyer back, the only big change is Edmunds.  Fans here can debate McDermott's HC

qualities but he is an extremely competent DC.  I have a lot of hope he can adapt with a new D scheme.

Its not hindsight when SOME of us wanted an extension bigger then the 1 year rookie extension. Some of us slammed for wanting a bigger contract last year and now you call it hindsight? how very convenient 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

I have observed a trend with threads you start in that you never re-enter to discuss.  It's just throw a subject out, let others debate, and then go away.  

 

The discussion and debate around Edmunds has continued ad nauseam to the point it's asinine  The team made a business decision on a player that, yes they selected high, but who provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance.  He was a matchup disadvantage for that defense and those who used bulk stats always missed that.   He was not the player they envisioned to him to be.  

 

Edmunds the player is the first example that fans cannot have everything (player-wise) you want and that includes players drafted.  Eventually the cap must be managed and they're doing it.  Right or wrong, that's the issue.  

 


Are you a moderator?? I find your statement inaccurate. Btw, whenever I post a thread THAT is my opinion, it’s not always needed to elaborate on it.

 

The second point of your response really doesn’t make sense. The point of this thread is contracts and if they are good ones but according to you if the Bills are drafting players in the mid 1st rd that “provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance” than we got bigger issues than I have realized! Lol!

 

The 3rd point that you’re trying to make is oh well if we whiff on a 1st rd pick and do nothing to minimize that mistake then that’s ok, that’s the price you pay. Do I have that right?? 
 

Anyways how did I do?? Did I engage and argue enough for you?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Perhaps the amount of money that they were talking about at extension time wasn’t agreeable once again I don’t know I’m just spit balling here. It’s really not like Brandon to not resign his own players.

I think this is what the case was, otherwise they very likely re-sign him, which is the SOP with Beane, the extension they “may have” offered likely made it clear to Edmonds that Buffalo did not see his value where Tremaine felt it should be…, and now he is gone, its moving on time now, jmo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...