Ozymandius

The Bills DID spend a little... on Mitchell, Johnson, Stroud... and last season on Dockery and Walker. They're just not going to spend as much as the big market teams. I don't think it's realistic for the Bills to trade for either Sheppard or Boldin unless those players all of a sudden change their tune about big contract renegotiations.

Taking a linebacker at 11 would be stupid. It's a position that's not that hard to fill and the Bills already have 3 pretty good LBs starting already. If you want additional LB depth, use later round picks. The Bills have a second year QB they need to develop and they still don't have a dominating o-line or d-line. This means the draft should be used for receiving targets and line help. Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Sheppard probably won't ask for $10 mill/yr like Samuel or Clements but what about $8 mill/yr? I don't think the Bills want any part of having to pay Sheppard. This rumor is very unlikely to be true.

YES THEY WILL. now get over it and move on.

Everyone read this. There is no cab driver.

I agree. The schedule sets up really nicely for the Bills. It helps that the AFC West and NFC West are so weak. They were probably the two weakest divisions we could possibly have been slotted against.

Allen's a much better player. And younger. Silly post.

Your avatar... is it (a) some girl licking the Stanley Cup or (b) some girl giving a BJ to a guy shielded by the Stanley Cup. I think I dig the picture but I can't make out what's happening. Either way, it's pretty cool.

Nobody will ever win this contest. But who cares? It's kinda fun, anyway. Thanks. 10-6 Sept. 7 Seattle Seahawks 1 p.m............................W Sept. 14 at Jacksonville Jaguars 1 p.m...................L Sept. 21 Oakland Raiders 1 p.m............................W Sept. 28 at St. Louis Rams 4:05 p.m......................W Oct. 5 at Arizona Cardinals 4:15 p.m......................W Oct. 12 Bye Oct. 19 San Diego Chargers 1 p.m........................W Oct. 26 at Miami Dolphins 1 p.m.............................W Nov. 2 New York Jets 1 p.m...................................L Nov. 9 at New England Patriots* 1 p.m....................L Nov. 17 (Mon.) Cleveland Browns 8:30 p.m.............L Nov. 23 at Kansas City Chiefs 1 p.m.......................W Nov. 30 San Francisco 49ers 1 p.m.........................W Dec. 7 Miami Dolphins (at Toronto) 4:05 p.m............W Dec. 14 at New York Jets 1 p.m...............................W Dec. 21 at Denver Broncos 4:05 p.m.......................L Dec. 28 New England Patriots* 1 p.m.......................L

That's a perfect fit. The Vikings defense should be nasty. They could always stop the run and now...

Since you're being intentionally dense and I really gotta run, I'm going to try to wrap this up by reviewing what we talked about. Answer this question: If the Bills had not made the no-franchise promise to Clements, what would have stopped them from pursuing a trade for him? -- You said "Cash to cap" but cash-to-cap is irrelevant until he's under contract with the Bills and they actually have to pay him. Why can't they try to trade him while having no intention of keeping him and therefore no effect on "cash to cap"? -- You said "The risk was Clements might've signed the tender" but how many franchised FAs can you name that signed the tender in the spring instead of trying to work out a long-term contract or wait for a trade that would've landed them a long-term contract? What would Clements' motivation be to surprisingly sign the one-year contract, and wasn't it clear all along that Clements wanted a long-term contract? This is such a weak and embarrassing point by you. -- You said "Other teams would've known the Bills didn't want to re-sign Clements and therefore would not have offered anything", but HOW would they know that? If the no-franchise promise had not happened, why wouldn't they believe the Bills were trying to trade him BUT if something couldn't be worked out, they would keep Clements for another year? Especially before the start of free agency and the Bills sitting there with tons of cap room. Clements was a highly valued asset that got an $80 million dollar contract. Why wouldn't a team have traded a draft pick for him? DeAngelo Hall was traded for a high 2nd and 5th round pick AND given a $70 million dollar contract. -- After the start of free agency, the Bills spent a lot of money on Dockery and Walker. So yes, at that point, the Bills might've had less leverage in trade negotiations if other teams were confident they had a grasp of the Bills financial situation. But could other teams have known for sure the Bills wouldn't still keep Clements? Nope. And instead of a 1st rounder or high 2nd rounder, could the Bills at that point have still extracted a 3rd rounder or similar for a player who was valued at $80 million on the open market? What is the harm in trying to get whatever you can for Clements (likely ending up with a low first or high second, imo), if there hadn't been a no-franchise promise? In the end, if no trade could be worked out for him (they couldn't have gotten a 5th rounder for him, for example?), they could release Clements from the tag, but do you really believe no trade would've been worked out? So that's a wrap. I can't continue because I'm just talking to a brick wall at this point. A stupid brick wall.

Sigh. Clements wouldn't have affected "cash to cap" because he wouldn't be under contract with the Bills and the Bills would not be paying him. Cash to cap deals in real dollars, and the Bills would have spent $0 franchising him and trying to work out a trade. The market for a young stud corner was much greater than the market for Trotter. Everyone knew Clements was going to make big bucks, including himself. Even in the Trotter situation, did Trotter actually sign the franchise tender, or did the Eagles release him from it? Again, why would Clements sign a one-year contract instead of exploring his options for a long-term contract first? Can you name me any player that signed his tender right away before exploring long-term options? They could've waited as long as they wanted to. If eventually no trade could be worked out, then fine, release him. But nothing prevented them from both signing FAs and keeping Clements on the tag while trying to work out a trade for him.

Where did I concede that? I didn't. Here's a link to the Bills cap situation in 2007: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/footbal...3&year=2007 . Notice how Dockery, Walker, and Kelsay add up to only half of the $30 million in cap space from your precious link above. They would've been compliant with the salary cap. It's true that they didn't want to sign both the o-linemen and Clements, but other teams didn't know that, especially before the start of FA. Asked and answered already. If they couldn't agree to a trade for him by the start of free agency -- which I find hard to believe, since he was clearly in demand -- they can continue trying. My problem is that they didn't even try to get something for him (granted, a decision that was made months earlier due to the promise). I'm against letting highly-valued assets go without trying to get compensation for them first. What would Clements' motivation be for signing a one-year tender? Nobody ever signs it until they've explored trying to get a long-term contract first, so yes, it's worth the "risk" to tag him.

Really, it's hilarious that you continue to pursue this. Can't you just admit that you forgot some dates? In your world, it's now impossible for the Bills to have pursued a trade for Clements even though other teams franchise players and pursue trades for them all the time.

Sigh. Stop being intentionally dense. They can agree to terms on a trade during that period and it can become official when FA starts.

You again gloss over the 3 week period between tagging a player and the start of free agency. I noticed above you ignored my question about how GMs could've known what the Bills free agency plans were during that 3 week period. I don't blame you for ignoring the question, of course, since it renders your arguments moot. You also now apparently believe that due to a press release about cash to cap, that other teams had a complete grasp on the Bills financial situation and whether they would've been willing to re-sign Clements or not. Right. Uh huh. And that Clements would've signed a one year offer instead of exploring his options for a long-term contract. Right. Uh huh. Can't you just say "I forgot about that 3 week period" and be done with this?

No, you haven't. You're also not understanding that the Bills can both use a "cash to cap" philosophy (dealing with real dollars) and also be aware of how they are complying with the salary cap (dealing with salary cap dollars).

How would the GM know that the Bills intended to sign Dockery / Walker, and at the figures they were signed at? I understand it just fine. The only thing that's happening here is you desperately trying to save face. It's pathetic. Instead of just saying, "Oh, my bad. I forgot about the three weeks between the franchise date and the start of free agency," which would have been perfectly understandable, you're being intentionally dense to prolong a losing argument that nobody even cares about.

I agree. The Bengals should've jumped all over that.

And how would any team know that the Bills wouldn't decide to keep Clements if they couldn't get what they wanted in a trade? Where in your link does it say it they could not have tagged Clements and also signed Dockery / Walker / Kelsay? Remember, bonuses are prorated and contracts are backloaded.

I agree. I'm definitely not faulting them for sticking by their promise. In fact, when others wanted the Bills to go back on their word to Clements a year ago, I argued against it.

Low first-rounder, high second-rounder, whatever -- I'm sure you wouldn't scoff at adding such an asset to the team? Why didn't the Bills TRY to get something for Clements? I mean, I know why -- they made that silly promise not to franchise him.

Umm, you work out the trade BEFORE the start of free agency. Why do I have to explain this stuff? There's always about a 3 week period between when you can first designate a franchise player and the start of free agency. In actuality, the not exactly free spending Bills probably had a much longer timeframe than 3 weeks because they probably had plenty of cap room. Your entire point rests on an assumption that the Bills were up against the salary cap and could not have fit both Clements and Dockery under the cap, despite the ability to prorate bonuses and backload contracts of newly signed free agents. I doubt that is true unless you can provide a link, and even if it were true, they still had 3 weeks. Why do you think teams franchise players all the time, even if they end up trading them?

No, they wouldn't have had to pay Clements. The idea is to franchise him to retain his rights until a trade could be worked out with another team. The Raiders gave up a high second-rounder and a fifth-rounder for DeAngelo Hall. I'm betting Clements would've netted a low first-rounder.

Even if all that were true, the Bills should've franchised him to get a first-rounder in a trade. By not franchising him and letting him leave without compensation, the Bills cost themselves the addition of a talented player to the team.