d_wag

11.8M over 4 years -- 3M signing bonus his salary for '05 is 2M........to keep him would cost 2.75M on the cap and to release him would result in 2.25M in dead cap money....... i don't think taylor is going anywhere considering the loss of ken lucas and the signing of the relatively untested kelly herndon.........beyond that they don't have much depth........ i think this year, like most years, will provide few quality players available come june 1st........

bills have alot of free agents to sign after 2005? i wouldn't call it alot.......clements, teague, edwards -- those are the only starters scheduled for UFA after this season......... there isn't alot of cap space after this year? eric moulds will be cut or his cap hit will be reduced to the same level as this year.......mike williams will see his number go down by 5M, if that doesn't happen this year anyway.......drew bledsoe's +4M in dead cap space will come off the books........and teague (or his replacement) will not be taking up 3.6M in cap space.........the cap looks better for next year (although it wasn't that bad for this year and wasn't the reason the team wasn't active in free agency)........ if clements is too expensive to keep, what does that mean for willis when he becomes a free agent? what about evans? what about losman? is there anyone worth keeping? is this how the bills should treat any player who becomes one of the best at his position -- just get rid of them? fact remains that clements is one of the best young players on the team.......good teams find ways to keep their best young players around beyond their rookie deals......why people want to see the bills become a farm team for the rest of the NFL is beyond me.......other teams pay their best young players to stick around -- why can't the bills? what makes them so different? are the other teams stupid for rewarding their best young players with extensions?

as ron wolf demonstrated in the 90's, you can never have enough good QB's........they can always be used for trade bait down the road, and provide insurance in the meantime.......competition is good and i would not be shocked to see the bills take a QB at any point in the draft.......failing that, i expect they'll sign a UDFA at the position........you can always keep 3 QB's on the active roster and one on the practice squad.........

i was just refutting the topic of the post, which was obviously an exaggeration........

those are the actual salaries taken directly from the nflpa database........

sheppard first 3 years -- 6M in salary........9M in signing bonus brown first 3 years -- 6.25M in salary..........7.5M in signing bonus you think clements will command a contract containing 12.25M in salary for the first 3 years and a bonus of at least 16.5M? just to give you an idea how dumb this sounds, champ is scheduled to earn 7.5M in salary the first 3 years of his deal......

so i guess the jags are dumb for locking up a good young player in marcus stroud...... the lions are dumb for locking up a good young player in shaun rogers....... the eagles are dumb for locking up their good young corners in sheppard and brown........ i could go on, and on, and on.......but why bother? all those teams are obviously dumb because they are paying to keep their good young talent........what a bunch of suckers......

you certainly have proven you have no clue how much it would take to sign him, so i'm glad i could help -- you are the one who was stupid enough to state clements will command a contract more then lito sheppard and sheldon brown COMBINED.........which, by the way, would be more then champ's contract..........

nate clements will not require a contract of 9M/year with a 18M signing bonus.....

or they could just sign him long-term and keep one of the best young players on the team around.........what a novel concept!

yet another good young player that makes the choice to forgo free agency and get paid in advance of that date....... i certainly hope we hear news similar to this regarding nate in the next 8 days.......

i'm condemning people for condemning them because it's based on a lack of information, which does not necessarly entail a lack of offers.......for all we know, they are employing the same strategy as the bills with their asset, holding out for their best deal......if that is the case, it seems incrediably hypocritical to blast them and praise the bills for employing the same methods in disposing of a potential problem........ no need to applaud them yet, but no reason to trash them either.......

there are rumours they are talking to the saints about a deal involving darren howard..... i understand you don't think they have any significant offers on the table........i agree that they shouldn't be applauded as of yet (that's why i stated "shouldn't they be applauded for that as well, if that is the case?").......... but i also don't feel they should be ridiculed either with zero information that backs up the claim they have no offers on the table.......for all we know, they might have 10 offers.......and for all we know, they are playing this the exact same way TD is playing the travis situation......and if that it the case, it makes little sense to praise TD for playing that style but trash them for doing the exact same thing......

i was referencing the henry situation.......TD can certainly let him come back for another year, but that is far from the ideal situation.........much like the raiders keeping woodson around for another year at his current price tag is far from the ideal situation.......but both can be accomplished........the bills can put up with henry's ball aching if they have to, and the raiders have the cap room to absorb the woodson cap number if they have to........ TD is staring down the cards (and potentially other teams) and is appluaded on this board daily.......how do we not know that the raiders are also staring down other teams? should they not be applauded for that as well, if that is the case?

except for the fact that even if a player is cut by the owner, the player still keeps every dime of the signing bonus.......the owner takes a risk by paying out a signing bonus and they should get a return on that risk (i.e. locking the player in for a specified time)......just like the player takes a risk by signing a long-term deal......... funny how you never seem to see players offering back signing bonus dollars despite bad play.......but they don't have a problem asking for more money when they exceed expectations.......

how about champ bailey? and how do you know the raiders don't have offers? maybe they're just waiting the league out looking to get the most value for woodson? it's funny how TD is appluaded for that approach, but the raiders are ridiculed for it.......

which is why i expect willis to be given the stonewall next year and traded in the '06 off-season......which isn't such a bad thing really.......

has anyone ever seen the link between clement's pay increase and his pro-bowl appearance documented? could it not have been a straight playing time escalator, ala mike williams? he has started from virtually day one and hasn't missed a game in his career.......

he received an extension and has since re-structured that deal twice........he has a lot of leverage this year, and a lot more next year (i believe his cap charge is 14M in '06)........i love the fact he is taking a hard stance against the pats regarding the timing of payments, especially considering he is willing to accept 10M less in bonus money then peyton got.......

i don't think he will.......i expect the bills will be choosing another position in 2nd round....... but i do think it is a possiblity if he deems a QB the "best player available" at that spot.....

you really believed TD would draft a RB in the 1st round during the '03 draft?

i am not expecting much flash from the bills on draft day, at least in comparison to prior years.......a henry trade will or won't go down (i put it at 50/50 at this point) and TD will draft the best player available in his mind in the 2nd round regardless of where we are picking.......OL, DL, DB, WR, RB, QB, TE, LB, K -- doesn't matter, best player available....same for the 3rd, and the 4th - you get the idea........

i stand corrected.........i've always seen it stated as "an average of the top 5 salaries", but that obviously isn't the case after looking at the link you just posted (which ironically even states "The franchise number is the average of the top-five salaries" before listing salary + roster bonuses + prorated signing bonuses)...... given this info, it does appear the f-tag value for CB's will decrease in '06 because law, winfield, rolle, and likely surtain will drop off the list.........woodson's current value would put a bump in it, but that is only if he doesn't get traded over the next few weeks to a team that will work out a long-term contract with him........

TO's comments in The Philadelphia Inquirer today: "This is not about me being greedy or selfish. People should know. I was called selfish for trying to come back and play in the Super Bowl. I just want people to think about what they're hearing from all these reports about me being greedy. Just take a moment and look at my stature in the game." "I know I'm a top player in the game, and my current contract doesn't justify that. The fact that I signed this contract, that I'm under contract, doesn't factor into anything when it comes to the National Football League. [The Eagles] can cut me anytime they want to -- even if I'm performing well, I'm healthy and I'm putting up numbers, just because they don't want to pay a player that money." "If they can do what's best for their financial future, then why can't I? "Everyone knows my former agent [David Joseph] settled for a low-ball number because of my situation last season when Baltimore traded for me. He told me he couldn't get a cent more, knowing I deserved more than they gave me. They used their leverage to strong-arm us because they knew I wanted to leave Baltimore for Philadelphia, and they capitalized on it. I can't go for that now. It's not in me to do that." "Coach Reid -- who I greatly respect, regardless of what people may think -- even tried to come at me, saying, 'Terrell, you signed a contract . . . promising us you wouldn't cause problems.' I had to let him know that this isn't a problem. That's a misunderstanding, because this is all about business." and my fav, in reference to his comments about mcnabb earlier this week -- "I said what I said because, obviously, somebody in the organization is leaking stuff to make me look bad, to turn the city against me. Now, why do that now? Think about that. Think about where it's coming from." --------------------------- my take -- i agree with reid.......he signed the contract, he plays out the contract.......no one put a gun to his head and made him ink that deal......if he feels the need to holdout, fair enough, but i wouldn't cave to him because it will set a precedent in philly........they need to grab a WR or two early in the draft, call his bluff, and be prepared for a holdout.......frankly, i can't see him sitting out an entire year........training camp, pre-season, few games into the year perhaps, and then he's back.......which, in the grand scheme of things, isn't going to effect philly's season all that much, seeing in the weak NFC they've already practically clinched a playoff spot before setting foot on the field........

if i'm the eagles i forget about alexander and re-up westbrook.......he's a better fit for that offense with the way he catches the ball, he's younger, and he'll come cheaper........add a huge bruiser like eric shelton in the draft and you have your short-yardage specialist, to go along with an excellent depth back in buckhalter......no need for alexander....... besides, the least of philly's worries is RB -- it's getting the TO situation taken care of.........his interview in the inquirer today really added some more fuel to the fire.........