If You Ran the Buffalo Bills' Front Office...
by Brian Galliford on Jul 9, 2008 8:08 PM EDT
in Opinion
23 comments
It's something that nearly every Buffalo Bills fan out there has fantasized about at least once (or, as in my case, multiple times daily): having a say in personnel decisions for our favorite team. I can't begin to list here every little thing I'd have done differently than Buffalo's various front office personnel over the years; it'd take months to get everything out on that front.
This evening (and we'll discuss it through lunch-ish tomorrow), however, our greatest dreams are being realized - in some twisted, hardly-based-in-reality way. Our task as Buffalo's fantasy front office is simple: prioritize the five big-name players seeking new (or inaugural) deals from the team.
Sure, it's all good that the team has signed half of its ten draft picks (CB Reggie Corner, TE Derek Fine, OT Demetrius Bell, WR Steve Johnson, CB Kennard Cox); it's also great that the team has taken measures to lock up young talent such as RG Brad Butler and DT Kyle Williams. But let's face it - there are five players that, as of fifteen days prior to the start of training camp, remain unsigned, are looking for long term deals, and/or are threatening to hold out. Which player is the highest priority? Hey, you're the boss - you tell me.
WR Lee Evans: Evans has been the biggest name on this list for quite some time; entering his fifth season in the league, Evans is set to opt out of his rookie contract at the close of the 2008 season. Rumors have circulated throughout the off-season that the Bills and Evans have been working on an extension; in all likelihood, if a deal is not consummated prior to the start of the regular season, Evans is as good as gone. If the Bills are serious about re-signing their top wideout, they'll need to do it relatively soon.
OT Jason Peters: With three years left on his current deal, Peters held out of off-season mini-camps in a clear message to the front office that he's seeking a new deal. Peters is currently ranks third in OL pay among Bills players (OG Derrick Dockery and OT Langston Walker), and the Bills have set a precedent of giving players new deals with three years left on their currents (see: Schobel, Aaron, circa August 2007). All indications, however, have pointed to the Bills avoiding negotiations with Peters; the Bills went out on a limb and signed Peters to a five-year extension before he developed into a Pro Bowl left tackle, and they're likely expecting Peters to honor that risk. If Peters stands pat, however, we could be staring an ugly holdout right in the face.
LB Angelo Crowell: The other pending 2009 free agent, Crowell is the most tenured Bills linebacker and has been a consistent - if relatively unspectacular - playmaker for the last three-plus seasons. He plays a position that is relatively replaceable - and the Bills actually have a potential strong-side replacement in Kawika Mitchell, who has played the position before - but at the same time, he may not command a huge contract should he hit the open market. It's certainly worth the Bills exploring a negotiation with Crowell, who will turn just 27 during the upcoming pre-season. He's got a lot of good football left in the tank.
CB Leodis McKelvin: As is always an issue at this time of the off-season, the Bills face the possibility of entering training camp without their top draft picks signed. Donte Whitner missed the first few practices of 2006 training camp in a contract holdout; the Bills were very fortunate in that both Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny were in camp very early last season. McKelvin, who is expected to compete for serious playing time in Buffalo's deep defensive backfield, needs to be in camp as early as possible, but there's been very little movement in terms of fellow first-round draft picks signing rookie deals.
WR James Hardy: Just like McKelvin, Hardy is another young contract-less player expected to have a big impact in his rookie season. It's certainly feasible to argue that because he's a certain lock to be an offensive starter, his signing may actually be more important than McKelvin's to get done prior to training camp - he needs all the practice time with Trent Edwards as he can get. Clearly, signing a second-round pick is theoretically easier than signing a first-rounder, but one fact remains: the Bills need Hardy to be in camp as early as possible.
Vote, discuss and debate, GMs.
0 recs |
23 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I voted Peters but...
I don’t think they need to give him a new contract per say. How about saying, “Jason just hang tight and we’ll take care of you before the season ends, but we’ve got a lot on our plate right now.”
Sign him at some point towards the end of the season, and that should keep everyone happy.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Jul 9, 2008 8:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
McKelvin/Hardy
Its hard to vote, but the rookies have to get the nod, because I think no matter what, the other players will start opening day. I guess I’ll go vote Hardy, because He will definitely start opposite Evans, while McKelvin may have to work harder, but may still start
This town needs an enema!
by killascript on Jul 9, 2008 8:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm with you
The rookies can’t afford to miss any training camp reps. Peters can. The Bills have Evans essentially locked up for two years because they can just franchise him. Angelo Crowell is a linebacker who the Bills don’t really have to worry about until next offseason.
by kaisertown on Jul 9, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evans
Can’t Evans void the final year of his contract? Doesn’t that make re-signing him an immediate need? If he’s looking at free agency towards the end of the season there’s little chance he stays in Buffalo…
by Ron From NM on Jul 9, 2008 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Little chance?
What if we break the bank on him half way through the season if he’s at somewhere between 4-50 catches? I think it IS possible, and I do believe if the Bills will pay a GUard 7mil per year we wil certainly pay a possibly top flight wr 8-9
This town needs an enema!
by killascript on Jul 10, 2008 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes and no
He will void the last year of his contract and should be considered an FA after this season, but he is the exact reason the franchise tag exists. If he has a decent, but not great year and the Bills are still trying to determine what to do with him long-term, we just franchise him and suddenly he is here through the 2009 season. So I don’t think we are at risk of losing him anytime soon.
I wouldn’t sign him right now if I’m buffalo, there is too much risk there.
by kaisertown on Jul 10, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BUt
If he lights it up, i want him here to stay. We’ll have Hardy for at least the next three years of his his rookie deal until some bastard of an agent decides he needs to hold out for more money, so until then, I’d say, lock up Lee half way through the year…but only if he is hitting his potential, which I believe he can and will
This town needs an enema!
by killascript on Jul 10, 2008 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other FAs
I guess I would have to consider the possibility of other top FAs at WR when I consider what to pay Evans. I agree that he is someone we should try hard to keep, but if he wants Fitzgerald money, shouldn’t we think about Roy Williams and Anqon Boldin as possibilities? If they will cost the same, I would be more inclined to go with Williams or Boldin than Evans (who I like, but don’t think he breaks the top 5 young talent pool)—the risk always is not getting anybody, of course.
by labill on Jul 10, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peters - hands down.
Show the rest of your team how you take care of one of your own when they develop into one of the best players in the league at their position. Or at least show you are willing to renegotiate a contract when a player has outplayed it. [Side note – no arguments on a player "honoring" his contract – that’s not the way the world works today]
Try talking to Crowell. I like him, and I’d like him to stay. I wouldn’t give him much more than Mitchell got. He’s above that, but quite a few slots below the Suggs mark. I know, Suggs got hybrid DE money; I’m just saying. If he wants to test the market, let him. He’s not irreplaceable…
If the rooks don’t get in camp on time, they and their agents are flat out dumb. Their contracts are for the most part, slotted already. Ask Brady Quinn if holding out for chump change (it actually cost him bank down the road) was worth losing every chance to be the starter. The sooner these guys sign, the sooner they can start to work on getting the next contract.
As far as Evans goes, the more I think about it, the more I say we let him go. I don’t think a WR of his caliber (I do think he is good – just not great) should command such a high percentage of a teams’ salary cap. He needs to become more of a complete WR to command that sort of loot. The number two WR in the old Intellivision games ran more diverse routes than Evans did last year.
by krytime on Jul 9, 2008 9:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's a different game after this year.
The cap is going to get lifted next year. The Bills are going to play games in Toronto after this season. With those two considerations it would be wise to plan our team 3 to 4 years down the road. Considering all the players in this discussion are reaching their prime or rookies, it would be wise/plausible to imagine that the Bills may consider resigning/signing all of them.
McKelvin and Hardy are rookies, but expecting them to produce by next season is not out of the question. Unless they have freakishly productive rookie seasons, and decide to hold out for top 10 salaries after this season, we’ll have them locked up for a while.
The resignings of Butler and Williams shows how we’re already committing to our lunch-pail players and trying to structure our salary cap for this last capped season. Maybe we will hold off on signing Peters, Evans, or Crowell until the season is over, in expectation of the capless future. If the Bills have a productive season than you can safely assume that we’ll throw money at those guys to keep that productivity and chemisty together. As long as the revenue for Toronto games can make a difference, we should be able to keep everyone happy.
The major concern with salary space by the NFL going into the future was made evident by Roger Goodell’s public statement about rookie salaries. Going into the capless future there is concern that veterans will become offended by the new contracts for rookies, and the NFLPA, or players themselves will protest. If too many players expect the the top tier salaries, then only the the most profitable teams will be able to afford the salaries, creating a monopoly on talent and too much discrepancy in team quality. Thus, making the league boring. Then teams will be forced to change ownership or even cities often, creating too much turmoil in the league.
The free agents of this season shouldn’t be too much of a problem. With a little a creativity the Bills could secure all the players on this list. It’s the free agents of the future NFL that may leave a bitter taste in the fans’ mouths. Who will be the first Barry Zito of the new NFL?
by jj24 on Jul 9, 2008 9:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don’t assume that next year being uncapped is a guarantee; that was a poison pill built into the current (voided) CBA to serve as motivation to get a new one in place. I still think it seems likely that a new CBA is in place by next March… in which case it would actually be UNwise to sign all of these guys soon.
by Brian Galliford on Jul 9, 2008 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian - you beat me to this.
It’s actually worse to be a FA in that supposed uncapped year. There are so many restrictions (like you said – poison pills). I know PFT listed them. I’m too lazy too look them up right now. When you hear “uncapped year,” you automatically think bigger markets who will turn the NFL into MLB. But I don’t believe that’s the case here…
by krytime on Jul 9, 2008 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2010
Isn’t the theoretical uncapped year 2010 and not 2009?
by Ron From NM on Jul 9, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m a bit surprised at the support of Peters here. I agree whole-heartedly that he’s the most important and valuable player on this list, but at the same time, can’t he be kept happy in the short-term with a modest roster bonus of some sort and a promise to re-negotiate next off-season? It seems like he’s not the most important guy to sign LONG-TERM at this point, but yes, he’s the most valuable.
by Brian Galliford on Jul 10, 2008 7:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Have to agree with you here, Brian
There has to be some middle road that will keep all parties involved happy for at least this season. I understand Peters’ wish to be paid more than he is (who wouldn’t want that?), but at the same time, the Bills have to keep some semblance of order in their salary structure. A roster bonus might not be a bad idea. Is there anything that says Ralph can’t throw some “Free Parking” money at Peters this season? I realize it would count against the salary cap for this year, but I think the Bills have enough room to deal with it for now…
Get the Bills back to the big game!
by Blitz on Jul 10, 2008 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
I think the Bills have to lock up Peters before the season starts. I don’t think a roster bonus is good enough, but the Bills are and should be playing hardball right now. They should give him a contract that takse into consideration the fact that he still has 3 years left on a different deal. Give him a Jake Long 4 year 11 mil per extension, which factors in the 3 years at 4 mil per that he has right now. Basically force him to accept a 6 or 7 contract of around 48-55 mil
I don’t get how the rookies aren’t getting more votes. If the Bills are going to be a playoff calibur team this year we need them to take every snap in camp that they can get. They need to be playing and productive starting week 1 of the season. Reed and Greer aren’t NFL starters. Peters can holdout until the preseason games get going and I don’t think it will hurt the team as much as McKelvin or Hardy holding out for 1 week of camp.
by kaisertown on Jul 10, 2008 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peters
I don’t like how he’s going about angling for a new deal, but you have to get him signed long term. On a side note, the Bills have to be wondering how he has recovered from his surgery. I would want to see his progress before I’m giving him elite left tackle money.
Players want the big signing bonus because that’s the only guarantee they receive. the “i’ll pay you tuesday for a hamburger today” line doesn’t work in today’s sports world.
by gatornation on Jul 10, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
great point about the recovery from surgery
McKelvin and Hardy - rookies of the year
by poz on Jul 10, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I don’t like how he’s going about angling for a new deal
I don’t get this comment – he or his agent, to my knowledge, haven’t said a word why he was “holding out.” Granted, we all assume it’s over a contract – if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then…
I actually don’t mind the silence. To me it implies things are getting done behind closed doors, which is how I’d want it to happen. If there were/are problems with these negotiations, I’m sure we’d have seen the smoke by now…
by krytime on Jul 10, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rookies
I voted Hardy. I dont care (too much) if Peters doesn’t come to camp until 1-2 weeks b/f the regular season starts. Walter Jones/Pace all missed camp and had great seasons. Bruce did it back in the day. I think w. Peters it is a more of a get my point across that I am serious about renegotiating next year and not deal with the BS of camp. Vets hate camp especially O-line and D-line. I think Hardy is the most important to get a deal done b/c he needs to work on the timing w. Edwards as much as possible.
I also agree that the Bills will not sign evans until they see how he performs as Evans does fit the mold of player who a frachise tag may be appropriate for. I’d like to see Crowell signed but my personal opinion is we will see him go. Mitchell and Poz will be here for a while, dont be surprised if next years #1 is a LB to replace Crowell. However, that depends on what Crowell’s value is in the market.
by Berg79 on Jul 10, 2008 11:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One other point
I sort of want Peters to hold out until late August for 2 reasons. #1 It will let us know what we have as a backup in case of a Peters injury; #2. Prevents Peters from getting injured in training camp or the 1st or 2nd preseason game. Let Peters come in right b/f Preaseason game 3 and play 2 or 3 series, same with game 4. He should be ready to go on 3 weeks of pre bf game 1.
by Berg79 on Jul 10, 2008 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Giants game
I voted Peters because, in my opinion, he is the most important player on the offensive side of the ball. Look at the drop in production when Chambers came in to replace him when he got injured in the Giants game through the rest of the season. While I am not positive about the stats, the offense stalled. Just watch the games at the end of the season. Also, while his ability is not in question and he will be fine if he shows up to training camp a few weeks late, what does absence do to the continuity along the offensive line?
McKelvin and Hardy are important, but I have relatively modest expectations for them coming into the year (not because of their ability, but because of the talent jump from the college game to the pros. Hardy will be facing much higher caliber CBs, and vice versa for McKelvin.) Crowell will stay here; he has yet to make any noise about his contract situation and I don’t think he will. I think he looks at the Butler and Williams deals and realizes his day will come. Evans, for the reasons listed above, I think will be fine. And unless he proves he can handle the #1 wideout position, I wouldn’t even consider giving him Fitzgerald money. In fact (and I might be making a slightly controversial comment here), if Evans performs like he did last year I would be hard pressed to even franchise him and give him that 8-9 mil.
by pozzed51 on Jul 10, 2008 6:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Make a statement, Russ. Ante up and sign all five before the season begins.
All five of these players are good, or in the case of the rookies, we have every reason to expect that they will be good at the NFL level. So maybe Evans isn’t All-Pro, and McKelvin may not work himself into the lineup for a few weeks. I disagree with several bloggers about Cowell; I think he is the real deal. But all that aside…
It’s been 8 years since this team has competed at the highest level. You look at this roster as it stands today and there is a realistic chance this team has vastly improved. Isn’t it about time the front office give the fans something significant to hang our hats on, to indicate that things have changed, that the Bills are finally serious about competing with the best teams in the league?
The money being asked is outrageous, especially Evans and Peters contracts. But no more outrageous than the demands of the stars on other teams. And Ralph can afford it.
Make a statement, Russ. Ante up and put a team on the field that fans really want to see play, and win. Sign all five before the season begins, the rooks before training camp opens.
by Defensewinsgames on Jul 10, 2008 6:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
SB Nation's home for daily Buffalo Bills coverage.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
