A final shot on Byrd

[IlluminatusUIUC]

This horse has been beaten to death on this board, but I have to take one more swing at its carcass. It's a character flaw, I admit.

Jairus Byrd's contract details: (http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-orleans-saints/jairus-byrd/)
<tbody>
Year
Base
S. Bonus
Misc.
Cap Hit
Dead


2014
1,300,000
2,200,000
-
3,500,000
18,300,000


2015
2,000,000
2,200,000
6,100,000
10,300,000
14,800,000


2016
7,400,000
2,200,000
100,000
9,700,000
6,600,000


2017
7,900,000
2,200,000
400,000
10,500,000
4,400,000


2018
8,400,000
2,200,000
400,000
11,000,000
2,200,000


2019
8,600,000
-
400,000
9,000,000
-

</tbody>


So what we've got is a contract which has backloaded some very high salaries into 2018 and 2019 to inflate the value of the deal. Byrd will be 32-33 in those seasons, out of his physical prime and likely on the decline of his career. If his play really fell off, they could get out of it in 2017 and save 6.1 million, at a cost of 3/27.9 million. That's the worst case scenario. Considering he will be 32 in 2018 with potential 8.8 million in cap savings, he becomes a prime candidate for a restructure or a cut then, meaning this is really a 4 year/36.2 million deal in all likelihood. Big numbers, but not the 56 million that everyone was flipping over.

But look at that first year cap hit. $3.5 million.

Some Bills 2014 cap hits:
Aaron Williams 4.29 million
Erik Pears: 3.4 million
Brandon Spikes is rumored a 3.5 million.

So Byrd’s first year cap hit, the one that would supposedly cripple us and keep us out of the FA market, was actually less than we paid Williams and the same we paid Spikes. Now sure, the cap hit goes up in subsequent seasons, but so does the salary cap itself. And this is before Earl Thomas gets a new deal to reset the market next offseason.

[YardRat]

I was expecting it to be a little bit more back-loaded than that, in all honesty.

[Meathead]

wasnt it 28 mil guaranteed. thats still ten mil a season if you terminate after four. id rather have the four starters

[Bill Cody]

It's a character flaw, I admit

put away the Byrd blow up doll it's OVA

[mayotm]

I'm sure it won't be the "final shot".

[swiper]

A couple of things. The o.p. I think we all understood that's what he would get. Firstly, if Buffalo would have offered the exact same deal, he would have likely walked. He, like Jason Peters, wanted out of town. That became clear.

Secondly, you have to hedge your bets somewhat in making these scaled, back-loaded contracts. Do the Saints believe he really has bad issues with his feet or did he make it clear that that was all BS? He, IMO, may have 2 or 3 decent seasons left in him.

So this issue still boils down to 1) he wanted out of Buffalo, 2) he's not all that he claims to be, and, perhaps, 3) Eugene Parker was involved.

[YardRat]

Add in Levitre's cap hit for this year while you're at it, then look at 2015.

I don't want to continue the Donahoe/Levy/Brandon as GM years, but I don't want to be in the mess Butler put us in again either.

[Jry44]

All of these contracts are heavily back loaded now, which is the reason as to why these guys are usually let go 3 or so years into the deal. They basically sign on for the guaranteed money up front. This is why you have such a revolving door of big name players now that you didn't have ten years ago.

[Jry44]

Add in Levitre's cap hit for this year while you're at it, then look at 2015.

I don't want to continue the Donahoe/Levy/Brandon as GM years, but I don't want to be in the mess Butler put us in again either.

I know a few Titans fans, and the consensus is that Levitre was a huge disappointment for them last season. He definitely wasn't worth $8 million a year, and I honestly don't feel like paying him that would have helped this team win 2-3 more games last season either.

[better days]

The Bills offered Byrd $10 Mill in the first 3 years.

That is more than he will get in the first 3 years from the Saints.

If they cut him in year 4 he will not get as much as the Bills would have paid him.

[Jry44]

The Bills offered Byrd $10 Mill in the first 3 years.

That is more than he will get in the first 3 years from the Saints.

If they cut him in year 4 he will not get as much as the Bills would have paid him.


Wasn't this more rumor than fact?

[better days]

Wasn't this more rumor than fact?

It is a rumor, but a number of people reported that the Bills did make that offer.

And the money over the entire contract could still be less than the Saints contract, but if Byrd is cut by the Saints before the end of the contract, he will lose a lot of money because so much is to be paid out at the end.

I said before & I think now more than ever, Byrd will not play for the length of that contract with the Saints.

They will want to restructure it or cut him by year 5.

[DynaPaul]

I said before & I think now more than ever, Byrd will not play for the length of that contract with the Saints.

They will want to restructure it or cut him by year 5.

Absolutely, this contract is more about ego than anything else. He won't see the full amount.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

Guess what, he may get into a Revis situation next year. He got 11 mil signing bonus plus 1.3 mil salary this year. Don't be surprised if the day before he's due that 6.1 mil bonus, Saints and hugging over decisions, like, pay Graham or not ... especially if Byrd suffers an injury during the season and the Saints still not superbowl champion (49ers and Seahawks, even Panthers may have a lot to say for that).

[SpikedLemonade]

Wasn't this more rumor than fact?

Yup. The same people believe this is true that also believed we offered a head coach candidate $10M a year a few years ago but were turned down.

Those people enjoy being lied to.

[better days]

Yup. The same people believe this is true that also believed we offered a head coach candidate $10M a year a few years ago but were turned down.

Those people enjoy being lied to.

Who is doing the lying? The media?

I see no reason they would have to lie about anything.

And when one guy like Pat Moran reports on something, you can take it with a grain of salt.

But when a number of people report the same thing, it is most likely true.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

A couple of things. The o.p. I think we all understood that's what he would get. Firstly, if Buffalo would have offered the exact same deal, he would have likely walked. He, like Jason Peters, wanted out of town. That became clear.

That was the fans' justification for letting him walk, I haven't heard him say anything to that effect. Byrd is mercenary, if the money was right I think he'd have signed.

Brandon Spikes is our prized free agent this year, and the guy once called Buffalo "the plumber's butt of America." So times can change.


Secondly, you have to hedge your bets somewhat in making these scaled, back-loaded contracts. Do the Saints believe he really has bad issues with his feet or did he make it clear that that was all BS? He, IMO, may have 2 or 3 decent seasons left in him.

I'd say he likely has 3-4 good seasons left. Which is fine, I wasn't interested in signing him until he was 35 or anything. I just wanted to lock up his prime.


Add in Levitre's cap hit for this year while you're at it, then look at 2015.

I don't want to continue the Donahoe/Levy/Brandon as GM years, but I don't want to be in the mess Butler put us in again either.

If Levitre and Byrd had both signed here, I wouldn't have structured their contracts the same way, nor would I have signed Chris Williams for 3 million + or given Aaron Williams a deal with large guaranteed $ after 14 games of quality play.

It was mentioned that teams need to hedge their bets. That's true, all contracts are gambles to some degree. I think that Byrd has shown that he's a good gamble to take, having been successful for multiple seasons under multiple DCs.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Guess what, he may get into a Revis situation next year. He got 11 mil signing bonus plus 1.3 mil salary this year. Don't be surprised if the day before he's due that 6.1 mil bonus, Saints and hugging over decisions, like, pay Graham or not ... especially if Byrd suffers an injury during the season and the Saints still not superbowl champion (49ers and Seahawks, even Panthers may have a lot to say for that).

They gain nothing by cutting him next year. He's a Saint for at least two years unless he starts killing hookers.

[better days]

They gain nothing by cutting him next year. He's a Saint for at least two years unless he starts killing hookers.

Yeah, I think Byrd plays 3 or 4 years with the Saints unless he does miss a number of games because of injury.

But a lot of the money in that contract is for years 5 & 6 which I doubt Byrd ever sees.

[YardRat]

That was the fans' justification for letting him walk, I haven't heard him say anything to that effect. Byrd is mercenary, if the money was right I think he'd have signed.

Brandon Spikes is our prized free agent this year, and the guy once called Buffalo "the plumber's butt of America." So times can change.



I'd say he likely has 3-4 good seasons left. Which is fine, I wasn't interested in signing him until he was 35 or anything. I just wanted to lock up his prime.



If Levitre and Byrd had both signed here, I wouldn't have structured their contracts the same way, nor would I have signed Chris Williams for 3 million + or given Aaron Williams a deal with large guaranteed $ after 14 games of quality play.

It was mentioned that teams need to hedge their bets. That's true, all contracts are gambles to some degree. I think that Byrd has shown that he's a good gamble to take, having been successful for multiple seasons under multiple DCs.

I would say it's highly unlikely either one would have signed a contract structured in a manner that you have suggested (with Levitre, anyway). It takes two sides, loomy...just because the numbers can be manipulated to prove a point, that doesn't mean an agreement could be reached with the player.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I would say it's highly unlikely either one would have signed a contract structured in a manner that you have suggested (with Levitre, anyway). It takes two sides, loomy...just because the numbers can be manipulated to prove a point, that doesn't mean an agreement could be reached with the player.

Why do you assume that they wouldn't? Especially considering that they both did, in fact, sign contracts with one year of a minimal cap hit. Players do this all the time.

Joe Flacco - first year cap hit 6.8 million.
Jay Cutler - first year is expensive at 22 million, second year drops to 15 million
Mario Williams - first year cap hit 9.8 million - waits three seasons to get a 10 million roster bonus (this year)
Vincent Jackson - first year 15 million cap hit, second year 3.2 million
etc.

GMs play this game every year.


Yeah, I think Byrd plays 3 or 4 years with the Saints unless he does miss a number of games because of injury.

But a lot of the money in that contract is for years 5 & 6 which I doubt Byrd ever sees.

I agree. I said as much. Unless he's still playing like a top safety in his 30s, he's likely out or restructured substantially in 2017 or 2018.

[Turf]

I don't see any signing bonus in that breakdown. I'm sure he's pulling in more than 3.5 up front.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I don't see any signing bonus in that breakdown. I'm sure he's pulling in more than 3.5 up front.

For Byrd? It's the third column. He's getting 11 million up front but the cap hit is amortized over 5 seasons. So he's pulling in $12million + this year but only counting for 3.5 against the cap.

That distinction is what seems to confuse people so much. People hear a deal that pays "10 million per" and just assume the player is getting a check for exactly $10 million every season and counts for that much against the cap every season. That's not how it works and never has been. What a player is actually making in cash in a season can be millions higher or lower than their cap hit. I mean, this year Mario Williams is getting paid $15 million in actual currency but counts for $18.8 against the cap because of the signing bonus.

[YardRat]

Why do you assume that they wouldn't? Especially considering that they both did, in fact, sign contracts with one year of a minimal cap hit. Players do this all the time.


Because they didn't. The example you previously cited, last year when Levitre left, had a base of the vet minimum in the first year, and he didn't sign for that. Neither did Byrd.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Because they didn't. The example you previously cited, last year when Levitre left, had a base of the vet minimum in the first year, and he didn't sign for that. Neither did Byrd.

The contract I modeled it on was Carl Nicks', and it included a signing bonus of $11.7 million, first year salary of 735K and $25 million in guaranteed money total. The contract Levitre actually signed had a $10.5 million signing bonus, first year salary of $2.5 million, and $13 million guaranteed.

In year one, Hypothetical Levitre earns $12.4 million, actual Levitre earned $13mil. However, Hypothetical Levitre also has nearly twice the guaranteed cash. So you really think he'd turn down a deal that guaranteed him an extra $12 million over $600k in year one? Really?

Besides, I wasn't even saying we should pay him Nicks' money, I thought I was shooting high. I was using his contract to show that we could afford it and keep Byrd. Admittedly, I did underestimate Byrd's contract but that was before he had another Pro Bowl under his belt. Remember your response? That cutting Lindell, Kelsay, Fitzpatrick, and Smith was "gutting the roster"? All four of those guys left anyway and I don't hear you lamenting them.

I made that thread because I thought (and still do) think we could have and should have kept them both. If we lost one, we would have more than enough to sign the other. The fact that we lost BOTH for zero compensation is an inexcusable failure.

[stuckincincy]

The contract I modeled it on was Carl Nicks', and it included a signing bonus of $11.7 million, first year salary of 735K and $25 million in guaranteed money total. The contract Levitre actually signed had a $10.5 million signing bonus, first year salary of $2.5 million, and $13 million guaranteed.

In year one, Hypothetical Levitre earns $12.4 million, actual Levitre earned $13mil. However, Hypothetical Levitre also has nearly twice the guaranteed cash. So you really think he'd turn down a deal that guaranteed him an extra $12 million over $600k in year one? Really?

Besides, I wasn't even saying we should pay him Nicks' money, I thought I was shooting high. I was using his contract to show that we could afford it and keep Byrd. Admittedly, I did underestimate Byrd's contract but that was before he had another Pro Bowl under his belt. Remember your response? That cutting Lindell, Kelsay, Fitzpatrick, and Smith was "gutting the roster"? All four of those guys left anyway and I don't hear you lamenting them.

I made that thread because I thought (and still do) think we could have and should have kept them both. If we lost one, we would have more than enough to sign the other. The fact that we lost BOTH for zero compensation is an inexcusable failure.


Were I a player, the magic words are "guaranteed cash." These contracts are so complicated - you could do something as simple as tripping off a curb, ending your career, then sit and watch those Byzantine contract rules play out and some sort of Dickensian Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce inches along.

I personally think that Revis is right to to get his buckets of gold up front.

[Meathead]

A final shot on Byrd

wouldnt that be a byrdshot?

[YardRat]

The contract I modeled it on was Carl Nicks', and it included a signing bonus of $11.7 million, first year salary of 735K and $25 million in guaranteed money total. The contract Levitre actually signed had a $10.5 million signing bonus, first year salary of $2.5 million, and $13 million guaranteed.

In year one, Hypothetical Levitre earns $12.4 million, actual Levitre earned $13mil. However, Hypothetical Levitre also has nearly twice the guaranteed cash. So you really think he'd turn down a deal that guaranteed him an extra $12 million over $600k in year one? Really?

Besides, I wasn't even saying we should pay him Nicks' money, I thought I was shooting high. I was using his contract to show that we could afford it and keep Byrd. Admittedly, I did underestimate Byrd's contract but that was before he had another Pro Bowl under his belt. Remember your response? That cutting Lindell, Kelsay, Fitzpatrick, and Smith was "gutting the roster"? All four of those guys left anyway and I don't hear you lamenting them.

I made that thread because I thought (and still do) think we could have and should have kept them both. If we lost one, we would have more than enough to sign the other. The fact that we lost BOTH for zero compensation is an inexcusable failure.

I can't argue the zero compensation, I agree it would have been nice to get something, but expecting to be able to cap Levitre and Byrd at vet minimum is unrealistic, and capping three guys (Byrd, Levitre, and Mario) at 40mil is just insane, especially when one is a guard, and one a free safety. Granted, Mario will probably re-do his deal next season (hopefully), but if that got it down to 30mil we'd be lucky, and it would still be too much.

[YardRat]

Also, my main reasons for not keeping either one of them had very little to do with fitting them into the cap anyway.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I can't argue the zero compensation, I agree it would have been nice to get something, but expecting to be able to cap Levitre and Byrd at vet minimum is unrealistic,

We're not capping them at vet minimum, we are providing one year out of 4-5 of cap relief to slot in another player's payday. Again, this happens all the time. And players agree to it, so I'm not sure why you think it's such a hard sell. Separate the cap hit from take home pay.


and capping three guys (Byrd, Levitre, and Mario) at 40mil is just insane, especially when one is a guard, and one a free safety. Granted, Mario will probably re-do his deal next season (hopefully), but if that got it down to 30mil we'd be lucky, and it would still be too much.

Mario Williams is accounting for ~19, 19, and 20 million over the next three seasons. If you stack up any two other veteran players with him then it sounds like a lot. "In 2015, we have $30 million in cap locked up in Williams, Wood and Graham, and one of those is a center who gets injured frequently and the other is our slot cornerback!" And so on.

I think you need to pay to keep the talent you find, regardless of the position where you find it, and build around it. And to that I would add an addendum, if you cannot justify paying a player top dollar because he plays what you think is a low-value position, then you absolutely should not be drafting them on the first two days of the draft. We cannot afford to piss away second round and third round draft picks for four years of a guy's services.

[YardRat]

We're not capping them at vet minimum, we are providing one year out of 4-5 of cap relief to slot in another player's payday. Again, this happens all the time. And players agree to it, so I'm not sure why you think it's such a hard sell. Separate the cap hit from take home pay.

Your Nick's example for Levitre included a first-year base salary of vet minimum if I remember correctly, and neither Levitre or Byrd agreed to anything remotely close to that, so, yeah, for that one year you would be capping them there.




Mario Williams is accounting for ~19, 19, and 20 million over the next three seasons. If you stack up any two other veteran players with him then it sounds like a lot. "In 2015, we have $30 million in cap locked up in Williams, Wood and Graham, and one of those is a center who gets injured frequently and the other is our slot cornerback!" And so on.

30mil is a full 10mil less than 40mil, plus other players acquired...that's significant.


I think you need to pay to keep the talent you find, regardless of the position where you find it, and build around it. And to that I would add an addendum, if you cannot justify paying a player top dollar because he plays what you think is a low-value position, then you absolutely should not be drafting them on the first two days of the draft. We cannot afford to piss away second round and third round draft picks for four years of a guy's services.

I'm all for paying them and keeping them, but not if they over-value their services. Levitre is average. Byrd is average to above average, depending on the scheme. Neither deserves, or earned, top dollar. I'm OK with not drafting FS's and G's in the first two rounds, but that point is kind of moot.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Your Nick's example for Levitre included a first-year base salary of vet minimum if I remember correctly, and neither Levitre or Byrd agreed to anything remotely close to that, so, yeah, for that one year you would be capping them there.

Because there was a higher signing bonus. You are seriously being obtuse.


30mil is a full 10mil less than 40mil, plus other players acquired...that's significant.


Granted, Mario will probably re-do his deal next season (hopefully), but if that got it down to 30mil we'd be lucky, and it would still be too much.




I'm all for paying them and keeping them, but not if they over-value their services. Levitre is average. Byrd is average to above average, depending on the scheme. Neither deserves, or earned, top dollar.

You keep coming back to the fact that one's a guard and one's a safety, as if your concern was the position they play rather than their skill in playing it. Lets say you took the best guard and the best FS and football by whatever metric you choose to measure that. Are you comfortable giving those contracts to them?


I'm OK with not drafting FS's and G's in the first two rounds, but that point is kind of moot.

It's not moot whatsoever. We are going into a draft in two months with a very real shot at taking a tackle at #9. This will either move a top 10 pick to RT or move Glenn out of the LT spot. Right tackle is often cited, on this very board, as one of those low value positions where you shouldn't invest big money.

So, if we draft a guy at #9 and he turns into a stud right tackle (or Glenn does) are you prepared to give them big money later?

[stuckincincy]

A reliable RT, be it pass protection or run, is a worthwhile thing. There is no end of OL ploys, offensive play calling, qb rolling, that can be accomplished to help any LT. Add in defensive players that hop all over immediately before the snap...the threat to your LT becomes the threat to your RT.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

A reliable RT, be it pass protection or run, is a worthwhile thing. There is no end of OL ploys, offensive play calling, qb rolling, that can be accomplished to help any LT. Add in defensive players that hop all over immediately before the snap...the threat to your LT becomes the threat to your RT.

I agree with all of this and fwiw, I am perfectly comfortable taking a guy at 9 for RT if he's the guy they like.

[Turf]

For Byrd? It's the third column. He's getting 11 million up front but the cap hit is amortized over 5 seasons. So he's pulling in $12million + this year but only counting for 3.5 against the cap.

That distinction is what seems to confuse people so much. People hear a deal that pays "10 million per" and just assume the player is getting a check for exactly $10 million every season and counts for that much against the cap every season. That's not how it works and never has been. What a player is actually making in cash in a season can be millions higher or lower than their cap hit. I mean, this year Mario Williams is getting paid $15 million in actual currency but counts for $18.8 against the cap because of the signing bonus.

Yeah OK thanks I see how the bonus was broken into 5 years.

[Raptor]

The Bills offered him 7.5 a year which is only .5 more than Whitner got, that is a flat insult of an offer to Byrd

E.Parker absolutely and utterly owned the Bills on this and it will lead to him getting many more clients. He got Byrd the Bills not to tag, the contract he deserves, and on a playoff contender. Parker and Byrd won this hands down

[stuckincincy]

The Bills offered him 7.5 a year which is only .5 more than Whitner got, that is a flat insult of an offer to Byrd

E.Parker absolutely and utterly owned the Bills on this and it will lead to him getting many more clients. He got Byrd the Bills not to tag, the contract he deserves, and on a playoff contender. Parker and Byrd won this hands down


I think BUF told Parker and his pull-toy Byrd to go get bent.

[YardRat]

Because there was a higher signing bonus. You are seriously being obtuse.

And we are dealing with an internal cash to cap philosophy, which a higher bonus takes more money off the big table. Disregarding that factor just because you might not agree with it doesn't make it go away.


You keep coming back to the fact that one's a guard and one's a safety, as if your concern was the position they play rather than their skill in playing it. Lets say you took the best guard and the best FS and football by whatever metric you choose to measure that. Are you comfortable giving those contracts to them?

What is the status of the rest of the roster, talent-wise and cap-wise?


It's not moot whatsoever. We are going into a draft in two months with a very real shot at taking a tackle at #9. This will either move a top 10 pick to RT or move Glenn out of the LT spot. Right tackle is often cited, on this very board, as one of those low value positions where you shouldn't invest big money.

So, if we draft a guy at #9 and he turns into a stud right tackle (or Glenn does) are you prepared to give them big money later?

Guard and free safety are not tackles. Why change the subject?

[Raptor]

I think BUF told Parker and his pull-toy Byrd to go get bent.

Then they are more stupid than I ever imagined

[IlluminatusUIUC]

And we are dealing with an internal cash to cap philosophy, which a higher bonus takes more money off the big table. Disregarding that factor just because you might not agree with it doesn't make it go away.

Who's disregarding it? That's exactly what I've been saying: the Bills have the money and refuse to pay it. Asking whether the Bills will offer a deal is different from asking if the player will accept it.



What is the status of the rest of the roster, talent-wise and cap-wise?

Assume it's exactly the same as we were in 2013 when they became fas.


Guard and free safety are not tackles. Why change the subject?

It's the same subject. What positions are worth investing big money in? Some people on this board don't think right tackle is one of them. We shouldn't take one at 9 if we're not willing to pay him, just as we weren't willing to pay Levitre or Byrd.

[YardRat]

Who's disregarding it? That's exactly what I've been saying: the Bills have the money and refuse to pay it. Asking whether the Bills will offer a deal is different from asking if the player will accept it.

You don't really know that. You increase signing bounuses in your fantasy cap model, but that increase cash up front, and cash to cap also. The bigger sb's, the less cash and cap available, and where is the extra actual cash coming from.


Assume it's exactly the same as we were in 2013 when they became fas.


Then no. There were too many holes on the roster to invest #1 money in a guard and a FS, and the cap hits for both starting in this league year (what would theoretically be year 2 of both contracts, if both were done last year) are too large.



It's the same subject. What positions are worth investing big money in? Some people on this board don't think right tackle is one of them. We shouldn't take one at 9 if we're not willing to pay him, just as we weren't willing to pay Levitre or Byrd.

Draft position doesn't affect willingness to pay. Why should you 'waste' any draft pick in any round for fear of them performing and looking for huge dollars when their contract comes up? Not every player looks for #1 money when it's time to re-up. Value vs cost, and both Levitre and Byrd's perception of what they should cost was too high for their value.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You don't really know that. You increase signing bounuses in your fantasy cap model, but that increase cash up front, and cash to cap also. The bigger sb's, the less cash and cap available, and where is the extra actual cash coming from.

If Ralph doesn't have the financial resources to hand out a 10 digit signing bonus, then he's holding back the team and needs to sell.


Draft position doesn't affect willingness to pay. Why should you 'waste' any draft pick in any round for fear of them performing and looking for huge dollars when their contract comes up?

I agree. I think you should be prepared to pay your talent no matter where you drafted it. Now, if you are lucky enough to be in a situation like Seattle or San Francisco, who have drafted so well lately that they might lose talent because of a surplus of it, then so be it. But perennial 6 win teams who draft poorly can not be losing high end starters while sitting on huge amounts of cap space. It's insane.


Not every player looks for #1 money when it's time to re-up.

No, just the ones who are near the top at their position.


Value vs cost, and both Levitre and Byrd's perception of what they should cost was too high for their value.

But you just said, in this exact same post, that you wouldn't have paid any guard or any safety those contracts in our situation. This is what you said:


Then no. There were too many holes on the roster to invest #1 money in a guard and a FS, and the cap hits for both starting in this league year (what would theoretically be year 2 of both contracts, if both were done last year) are too large.

So it is about their position.

That's why I'm bringing it back to the draft. High picks are extremely valuable, especially with the cap on their salaries. You cannot waste them on supposed 'low value' positions. If you don't think a position is worth a big contract, its not worth a high pick either.

[better days]

The Bills offered him 7.5 a year which is only .5 more than Whitner got, that is a flat insult of an offer to Byrd

E.Parker absolutely and utterly owned the Bills on this and it will lead to him getting many more clients. He got Byrd the Bills not to tag, the contract he deserves, and on a playoff contender. Parker and Byrd won this hands down

As Illuminatus said, the signing bonus pays a role.

It was reported that the Bills would pay Byrd $30 Million over the first three years of the contract.

It remains to be seen how much money Byrd sees from the contract he signed with the Saints.

But it is possible, he may make less than he would have with the Bills.

[Oaf]

Guy never won more than 6 games a season for 5 years. Why wouldn't you want to take more, the same, or less and go to a perennially-winning program like the Saints?

[better days]

Guy never won more than 6 games a season for 5 years. Why wouldn't you want to take more, the same, or less and go to a perennially-winning program like the Saints?

And on the flip side, Byrd never helped the Bills win more than 6 games a season for 5 years.

How much will he really be missed?

[YardRat]

If Ralph doesn't have the financial resources to hand out a 10 digit signing bonus, then he's holding back the team and needs to sell.

That's pretty unrealistic expectations. There aren't too many owners that have the personal bankroll to annually dump tens of millions of dollars of their own money back into the franchise. I would bet very few run their football operation in that manner.


I agree. I think you should be prepared to pay your talent no matter where you drafted it. Now, if you are lucky enough to be in a situation like Seattle or San Francisco, who have drafted so well lately that they might lose talent because of a surplus of it, then so be it. But perennial 6 win teams who draft poorly can not be losing high end starters while sitting on huge amounts of cap space. It's insane.


First, when you know the actual details of the financial condition of the franchise, it would be nice if you shared them with all of us. For all we know, the cash-to-cap philosophy was instituted to help cover the other increasing expenses for the rest of the operation so the owner wasn't put in a position to have to consistently dump in more of his own money on an annual basis. Also, it doesn't matter if you are 16-0 or 0-16, spending money stupidly is never a good idea.



No, just the ones who are near the top at their position.

'Near' is not 'at'. Top 5 'ranking' at Top 5 money is appropriate compensation.


But you just said, in this exact same post, that you wouldn't have paid any guard or any safety those contracts in our situation. This is what you said:

Both are true...Levitre and Byrd over-estimated their value, and if a roster is mostly devoid of talent with middling cap room it would be poor business to pay out top dollar to those two positions.




So it is about their position.

That's why I'm bringing it back to the draft. High picks are extremely valuable, especially with the cap on their salaries. You cannot waste them on supposed 'low value' positions. If you don't think a position is worth a big contract, its not worth a high pick either.

Depends on whether or not the team is in a position to take advantage of that luxury or not.

[Raptor]

As Illuminatus said, the signing bonus pays a role.

It was reported that the Bills would pay Byrd $30 Million over the first three years of the contract.

It remains to be seen how much money Byrd sees from the contract he signed with the Saints.

But it is possible, he may make less than he would have with the Bills.

That report was false

[better days]

That report was false

You don't know that to be a FACT.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

That's pretty unrealistic expectations. There aren't too many owners that have the personal bankroll to annually dump tens of millions of dollars of their own money back into the franchise. I would bet very few run their football operation in that manner.

Why? Other teams accomplish this. This is starting to feel like a running gag with you. Every time I suggest the Bills try and do business like other successful franchises, you try to tell me it's unrealistic. As if those same successful franchises aren't doing it right now.

Is the Bills model of shooting for enough lucky bounces to steal at 6 seed at 9-7 the only way to do it?


First, when you know the actual details of the financial condition of the franchise, it would be nice if you shared them with all of us.

You asked this before in another topic and I told you: The Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned franchise and as such have to legally disclose their financial statements. You can extrapolate the financial health of the league from this. Because of that, we know what it costs on an annual basis to run a successful franchise, and if Wilson is substantially higher or lower than that figure - the fault lies with him.


For all we know, the cash-to-cap philosophy was instituted to help cover the other increasing expenses for the rest of the operation so the owner wasn't put in a position to have to consistently dump in more of his own money on an annual basis.

What increasing expenses? The largest expense on a football team are the salaries of the players, and that is covered by (and tied directly to) the shared revenue that each franchise receives.


Also, it doesn't matter if you are 16-0 or 0-16, spending money stupidly is never a good idea.

Signing talented players in their physical prime is not stupid - they are the core of your team.


'Near' is not 'at'. Top 5 'ranking' at Top 5 money is appropriate compensation.

The difference between a top 5 and top 1 contract can be a few million dollars over the life of the deal. The difference between a top 5 player and the average warm body we roll out to play his position can be dramatic on the field.


Both are true...Levitre and Byrd over-estimated their value, and if a roster is mostly devoid of talent with middling cap room it would be poor business to pay out top dollar to those two positions.

You're conflating two separate concepts of "value" here. Players aren't looking to sign contracts of appropriate positional value to their current team - that's the team's job to judge. They are looking to sign contracts at their market value. And in that case, both players correctly estimated their value, because they declined the Bills' lowball offers and went out and got better offers elsewhere.


Depends on whether or not the team is in a position to take advantage of that luxury or not.

So, in what situation would you have paid out either contract? Which team should have?

[Mike]

It is a rumor, but a number of people reported that the Bills did make that offer.

And the money over the entire contract could still be less than the Saints contract, but if Byrd is cut by the Saints before the end of the contract, he will lose a lot of money because so much is to be paid out at the end.

I said before & I think now more than ever, Byrd will not play for the length of that contract with the Saints.

They will want to restructure it or cut him by year 5.

Its funny how arguments change so quickly.
Rumors are rumors and the only group that can benefit from the rumor above -at this point- is the Bills.

However, in a contest between two evils, after years of debauchery and ineptitude, I would have to -unfortunately- side with he who faked an injure over an organization that has failed more than any other on this side of 2000. Clearly, Byrd was mostly about the money, so it stands to reason he would have signed a bigger deal here in Buffalo. He even said as much himself.

Lastly, this cap to cash crap artificially prevents any real roster retainment or improvement. Its a philosophy whose main goal is financial. And these are the results of such policies. We can not resign our own to contracts that are back loaded, or have money pushed out in years. As a result, teams that will do this will always have better talent than us. Simply they will get guys like Byrd, upfront for a few a million and stack their rosters while we can not even fathom the idea of singing a big free agent because we dont have the money. As one poster said before me, with the roster, the Bills should be $50,000,000 under the cap, not $20M so thank Cash to Cap.

[Raptor]

You don't know that to be a FACT.

Yes I do, been reported and Byrd said he never was offered or turned down a deal structure as such. Its fact

[YardRat]

Why? Other teams accomplish this. This is starting to feel like a running gag with you. Every time I suggest the Bills try and do business like other successful franchises, you try to tell me it's unrealistic. As if those same successful franchises aren't doing it right now.

Is the Bills model of shooting for enough lucky bounces to steal at 6 seed at 9-7 the only way to do it?

Other successful franchise loses good players also...not just because they can't afford to pay them, but they choose not to. I'm sure any fan with a rudimentary understanding of the cap and contracts can always rig up some numbers and say 'See...we could have kept So-and-So if they would just do business my way.




You asked this before in another topic and I told you: The Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned franchise and as such have to legally disclose their financial statements. You can extrapolate the financial health of the league from this. Because of that, we know what it costs on an annual basis to run a successful franchise, and if Wilson is substantially higher or lower than that figure - the fault lies with him.

Fine. Without guessing, why don't you tell me exactly the following, for both Green Bay and Buffalo...Expenses not related to player compensation, amount of revenue from merchandising, amount of money from any PSL's and luxury suites. We'll start with those three. Attempting to imply that Green Bay's financial sheets look exactly like, or close enough, to Buffalo's just because they are both NFL franchises is ludicrous.


What increasing expenses? The largest expense on a football team are the salaries of the players, and that is covered by (and tied directly to) the shared revenue that each franchise receives.

Yes, and everybody else in the organization works for free, with no pay increases.


Signing talented players in their physical prime is not stupid - they are the core of your team.

Over-paying is stupid, period. Over-paying simply because you are on a bad run is desperation.


The difference between a top 5 and top 1 contract can be a few million dollars over the life of the deal. The difference between a top 5 player and the average warm body we roll out to play his position can be dramatic on the field.

You're assuming that the replacement players are all going to be just an average warm body. Even if it is, your position of a 'dramatic' difference on the field sure didn't prove to be the case when Levitre left, for either Buffalo or Tennessee.



You're conflating two separate concepts of "value" here. Players aren't looking to sign contracts of appropriate positional value to their current team - that's the team's job to judge. They are looking to sign contracts at their market value. And in that case, both players correctly estimated their value, because they declined the Bills' lowball offers and went out and got better offers elsewhere.

Just because a player signs a huge contract, that doesn't necessarily set the market value for the position. I believe San Fran made Nate Clements the highest paid defensive player in the league when they signed him, did that set the market value for the rest of the positions, that cornerback would become the most well-compensated?


So, in what situation would you have paid out either contract? Which team should have?

My comment regarding 'luxury' was relative to drafting a FS or G with a high pick. If a team is loaded everywhere else, and has a weakness at only those positions, why wouldn't they take one with a first or second? They should, because theoretically it will make the team better.

[better days]

Yes I do, been reported and Byrd said he never was offered or turned down a deal structure as such. Its fact

Byrd said he let his agent Parker handle the negotiations.

I doubt he even saw the contract the Bills offered.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Other successful franchise loses good players also...not just because they can't afford to pay them, but they choose not to.

Multiple all pros in their prime rarely hit the FA market at all. The only one that comes to mind this year was Revis, and that was after a complete top to bottom overhaul in Tampa (it was still a mistake IMO)


Fine. Without guessing, why don't you tell me exactly the following, for both Green Bay and Buffalo...Expenses not related to player compensation, amount of revenue from merchandising, amount of money from any PSL's and luxury suites. We'll start with those three.

Is this the part where you play the Spartacus game of demanding that someone else do research and then just hand waving away whatever they find?

This is what I found for the previous topic:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/30/nfl-valuations-11_Green-Bay-Packers_302814.html
http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Wins-fans-and-timing-help-Packers-set-profit-record/ef66b606-8b22-4cd4-af80-67a4fa684395
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/Green%20Bay%20Packers.pdf


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/30/nfl-valuations-11_Buffalo-Bills_301765.html


Attempting to imply that Green Bay's financial sheets look exactly like, or close enough, to Buffalo's just because they are both NFL franchises is ludicrous.

I know, right? Comparing Buffalo to a legitimate NFL franchise is ludicrous. To make the comparison equal, I should be comparing the Bills to a chain of Hardee's spread around Council Bluffs, Iowa.


Yes, and everybody else in the organization works for free, with no pay increases.

A team's player payroll is far and away the largest expense of running a franchise and the majority of their total expenses. If Ralph is handing out massive pay raises behind the scenes to his FO, or spending huge amounts on the back end to improve our facilities, I haven't heard about it.


Over-paying is stupid, period. Over-paying simply because you are on a bad run is desperation.

You and I define "over-paying" in a very different way. Paying one large contract to a proven performer is "over paying" but handing out a series of bad contracts to bums like Kelsay, Smith, Fitz, Anderson is ok? The problem has always been the middle tier detritus that doesn't perform.


You're assuming that the replacement players are all going to be just an average warm body. Even if it is, your position of a 'dramatic' difference on the field sure didn't prove to be the case when Levitre left, for either Buffalo or Tennessee.


We're already on our third attempt to replace Levitre in less than 18 months. This particular guy has already busted out on two teams, so surely this guy is the one!

Aaron Williams might succeed in his role, but he only played FS less than half a season, hasn't finished a single one yet without being injured, and has played most of his career underneath Byrd. How is he a safer gamble?


Just because a player signs a huge contract, that doesn't necessarily set the market value for the position. I believe San Fran made Nate Clements the highest paid defensive player in the league when they signed him, did that set the market value for the rest of the positions, that cornerback would become the most well-compensated?


What? I never said it set the value for all positions, just the one they signed for. And Clements' $96 deal was an optical illusion, just as Vick's $100 million deal was, he got $22 million guaranteed which is still within the market rate for a top cornerback (Talib got 26, Johnathan Joseph got 22, Brandon Flowers got 23.5 etc).


My comment regarding 'luxury' was relative to drafting a FS or G with a high pick. If a team is loaded everywhere else, and has a weakness at only those positions, why wouldn't they take one with a first or second? They should, because theoretically it will make the team better.

Because a team that's loaded with talent will eventually lose talent to the cap. I've never denied that.

[Meathead]

Is this the part where you play the Spartacus game of demanding that someone else do research and then just hand waving away whatever they find?


baa-zzzing!