Some thoughts on why no Henry trade

[Albany,n.y.]

Assuming that the Henry/Shelton trade is dead, here's a couple of possible reasons. The 2nd is a little wild, but here goes.

 

A) The Bills have determined that the possibilities of a 2nd rounder fitting the line are better than Shelton. They have 3 options if they stay at 55. 1) They get Adam Terry, the guy I think they want the most. If he's ready to start on opening day Teague stays at center, if he needs a year then Tucker moves to C, Teague to LT & Terry is groomed to be the starter in 2006. 2& 3) If Terry is gone, they have 2 shots at getting a C-Bass or Spencer. The pick battles Tucker while Teague goes outside. I think if Terry & Bass or Spencer goes too early, TD pulls out the Henry card & trades him for a move up in round 2 & a conditional 2006 pick & takes the remaining player.

 

B) He doesn't want to trade Henry to Arizona because the Clements to Washington trade is happening & he wants Ariz to pick a RB instead of a corner. He then replaces Clements at pick 9 & scenario A still takes place in round 2.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I bet a Henry trade gets done on draft day. If not with AZ, then with some other team.

[djfarr00]

I bet a Henry trade gets done on draft day.  If not with AZ, then with some other team.

303166[/snapback]

don't be surprised if they hold henry. they could trade hime during the preseason when another teams starter gets hurt.

 

if they knew how good WM would be, they could have traded TH to the dolphins after RW retired. there will lots of chances to dump him

[Bob in SC]

Pretty simple, really. Travis is worth more than Shelton in the market. Travis is a starter (somewhere); Shelton might be. Hold out, get an extra pick or pick up Shelton in a pretty much disinterested free market.

[JAMIEBUF12]

at 1.25 mil dosnt travis make a nice backup to willis or insurance if willis gets hurt.

[GG]

Pretty simple, really. Travis is worth more than Shelton in the market. Travis is a starter (somewhere); Shelton might be. Hold out, get an extra pick or pick up Shelton in a pretty much disinterested free market.

303183[/snapback]

 

The market has already spoken. Neither player is worth more than what teams are willing to gamble in the draft (meaning = squat).

[Bob in SC]

at 1.25 mil dosnt travis make a nice backup to willis or insurance if willis gets hurt.

303188[/snapback]

 

If we are not looking beyond 2005, yes.

[Dennis in NC]

at 1.25 mil dosnt travis make a nice backup to willis or insurance if willis gets hurt.

303188[/snapback]

I don't think so, but some folks do.

The holes in Travis' game make him like half a player to me.

 

His lackluster blitz pickups make him a poor option to stay as WM's backup, IMO.

[Bill from NYC]

Good post Harvey. I do not think either scenario is far-fetched.

[Mark VI]

Assuming the Shelton Trade is dead and the Clements rumor has some merit, I'll take a stab for fun.

 

The Skins have a brief " win now " window, much like the Cowboys, due to their HOF Coach only wanting to coach 1 or 2 more years. The Skins would prefer Vets/Free Agents over rookies.

 

Clements saw A. Winfield get a 10 Mil bonus and a sick contract from the Vikings. He's believes he's a better player and wants his payday. Conclusion - He'll never get that here. The top 10 CB pay scale is bloated, IMO. So we keep him for a year and then he walks. The Franchise and trade idea isn't practical,unless you have a known trading partner, like the Bills did with Peerless. Otherwise, you're stuck paying Clements 10 Mil. That's poor cap management. So he walks and in 2007, we get some compensation pick for him ( Yawn ).

 

Or we trade him to the Skins for picks this year and a day 1 pick next year. The #9 pick in Round 1 this year will be vastly overpaid in a draft lacking Blue chip prospects. Hard to seperate pick #3 from pick #30, according to most scouts. Skins don't have a 2nd Rounder. So...

Trade Clements for a 3rd and 4th this year, plus a day 1 pick next year. ( the 2006 Draft is far stronger and has depth at LT ). This Draft IS deep at one position... CB. I believe the Bills are going to take one in Round 2, regardless of the Clements situation. Target the right guy to replace Clements this year, then grab some needed depth with multiple picks in round 3 and 4 at DT,OL,RB etc.

 

Teague may be gone after 2005, so bounce him outside to LT for now. April 2006 will give us a better pool of quality LT's to chose from, according to Ourlads and Draft Insider. Tucker played well at Center, for an injured Teague, in case some didn't notice. Losman has a tendency to roll to his right, so the LT blindside worry is decreased. Plus I see the Bills running a lot of sweeps to the right this year,with a first year QB.

 

As far as Henry is concerned, hold onto him and see what pops up on Draft day. If someone offers a 3rd, take it. If it's a conditional pick next year, so be it. If he's still here during the summer, someone will probably offer something, due to an injury and concerns about being shorthanded for opening day. We have little choice but to be patient with that situation.

[Bill from NYC]

Assuming the Shelton Trade is dead and the Clements rumor has some merit, I'll take a stab for fun.

 

  The Skins have a brief " win now " window, much like the Cowboys, due to their HOF Coach only wanting to coach 1 or 2  more years. The Skins would prefer Vets/Free Agents over rookies.

 

Clements saw A. Winfield get a 10 Mil bonus and a sick contract from the Vikings. He's believes he's a better player and wants his payday. Conclusion - He'll never get that here. The top 10 CB pay scale is bloated, IMO. So we keep him for a year and then he walks. The Franchise and trade idea isn't practical,unless you have a known tarding partner, like the Bills did with Peerless. Otherwise, you're stuck paying Clements 10 Mil. That's poor cap management. So he walks and in 2007, we get some compensation pick for him ( Yawn ).

 

   Or we trade him to the Skins for picks this year and a day 1 pick next year. The #9 pick in Round 1 this year will be vastly overpaid in a draft lacking Blue chip prospects. Hard to seperate pick #3 from pick #30, according to most scouts. Skins don't have a 2nd Rounder. So...

  Trade Clements for a 3rd and 4th this year, plus a day 1 pick next year. ( the 2006 Draft is far stronger and has depth at LT ). This Draft IS deep at one position... CB. I believe the Bills are going to take one in Round 2, regardless of the Clements situation. Target the right guy to replace Clements this year, then grab some needed depth with multiple picks in round 3 and 4 at DT,OL,RB etc.

 

Teague may be gone after 2005, so bounce him outside to LT, for now. April 2006 will give us a better pool of quality LT's to chose from, according to Ourlads and Draft Insider. Tucker played well at Center, for an injured Teague, in case some didn't notice. Losman has a tendency to roll to his right, so the LT blindside worry is decreased. Plus I see the Bills running a lot of sweeps to the right this year,with a first year QB.

 

As far as Henry is concerned, hold onto him and see what pops up on Draft day. If someone offers a 3rd, take it. If it's a conditional pick next year, so be it. If he's still here during the summer, someone will probably offer something, due to an injury and concerns about being shorthanded for opening day. We have little choice but to be patient with that situation.

303335[/snapback]

 

Mark, I think that your scenario is likely. The thing is, I am not even attempting to argue that NC is/isn't a very good player. Of course he is a top corner!

Historically, our corners (Smith, Winfield, Burress) tend to be drafted early and then walk, bringing no compensation for the team. Ralph is NOT Paul Allen (nor Snyder) and I cant see him handing a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a corner.

If it is a given that Nate will walk after the 05 season, a trade would be in order. Would it hurt the Bills this season? Yes. Nate is one of our best players. Will it mean the difference of winning or not winning the superbowl this year? I dont think so.

I WOULD however want a #1 in 06 as part of the deal.

[Mark VI]

Mark, I think that your scenario is likely. The thing is, I am not even attempting to argue that NC is/isn't a very good player. Of course he is a top corner!

Historically, our corners (Smith, Winfield, Burress) tend to be drafted early and then walk, bringing no compensation for the team. Ralph is NOT Paul Allen (nor Snyder) and I cant see him handing a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a corner.

If it is a given that Nate will walk after the 05 season, a trade would be in order. Would it hurt the Bills this season? Yes. Nate is one of our best players. Will it mean the difference of winning or not winning the superbowl this year? I dont think so.

I WOULD however want a #1 in 06 as part of the deal.

303354[/snapback]

 

That's my idea. The 2006 Draft is far stronger and Dan Snyders long term vision doesn't extend beyond the end of the week... No denying Nates' talent but the contract he will seek won't be cap friendly at all. Snyder would like it, because he would get Clements and keep his #1 pick for 2005. He's more worried how the press perceives him.

 

The Bills in turn, could plug many depth issues immediately with extra 3rd,4th round picks. Plus have an additional high pick in a far stronger draft next year.

 

There will be several very talented CB's available to us at #55 this year. That's what makes this proposed trade workable.

[plenzmd1]

That's my idea. The 2006 Draft is far stronger and Dan Snyders long term vision doesn't extend beyond the end of the week... No denying Nates' talent but the contract he will seek won't be cap friendly at all.  Snyder would like it, because he would get Clements and keep his #1 pick for 2005. He's more worried how the press perceives him.

 

The Bills in turn, could plug many depth issues immediately with extra 3rd,4th round picks. Plus have an additional high pick in a far stronger draft next year.

 

There will be several very talented CB's available to us at #55 this year. That's what makes this proposed trade workable.

303365[/snapback]

 

I think the problem with a trade to Wasington is their cap situation. If Nate does get traded, a new deal would have to be in place before the deal is consumated.Nate would want at least $10M up front, and I believe you can only prorate to five years now. They only have around $1m right now, and two of their stud players are not reporting for OTAs, Moss and Sean Taylor. They both want new deals. Snyders gonna have to cave on Moss, really has no option. Can you imagine trading Coles, taking a $9M cap hit, and then the player for whom you traded sits?

[Mark VI]

I think the problem with a trade to Wasington is their cap situation. If Nate does get traded, a new deal would have to be in place before the deal is consumated.Nate would want at least $10M up front, and I believe you can only prorate to five years now. They only have around $1m right now, and two of their stud players are not reporting for OTAs, Moss and Sean Taylor. They both want new deals. Snyders gonna have to cave on Moss, really has no option. Can you imagine trading Coles, taking a $9M cap hit, and then the player for whom you traded sits?

303371[/snapback]

 

You are correct in your thinking but this is Dan Snyder we are talking about.

[obie_wan]

I think the problem with a trade to Wasington is their cap situation. If Nate does get traded, a new deal would have to be in place before the deal is consumated.Nate would want at least $10M up front, and I believe you can only prorate to five years now. They only have around $1m right now, and two of their stud players are not reporting for OTAs, Moss and Sean Taylor. They both want new deals. Snyders gonna have to cave on Moss, really has no option. Can you imagine trading Coles, taking a $9M cap hit, and then the player for whom you traded sits?

303371[/snapback]

 

maybe the Skins will deal Chris Samuels since he wants a new contract as well and they could probably offset the cap hit of Nate's new contract.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The whole Clements what do we do for the seasln after next seems like such a pipe dream that it defines unbased off-season consideration in my view.

 

Certainly TD is thinking about the long-term and scenarios to deal with thin inform most of the scenarios, but TD is MOSTLY (not all, but mostly) thinking about the short-term and that is what is going to drive judgments about him.

 

TDs MO (if any) for the Bills has been one of getting immediate benefit up front in exchange for giving away future considerations (Bledsoe trade, Losman trade) and even when he gets a player who will sit for a while (WM, Losman) he gets them and has his braintrust put them to work.

 

Any Clements theorizing needs to be driven by a couple of factors:

 

1. What does it give us in 2005 which improves the team for performance this year.

2. What will the team give up in terms of usable resources in 2005 in a deal and how will they be compensated for this year.

 

It seems pretty doubtful to me that TD is going to go into this season with McGee and Vincent as his starting CBs. It seems pretty doubtful that TD will see much value in getting a player in the 2005 draft who will have to sit, learn and not contribute this year without having a Travis Henry like player to fill the gap while this player sits as he did for WM.

[ganesh]

maybe the Skins will deal Chris Samuels since he wants a new contract as well and they could probably offset the cap hit of Nate's new contract.

303393[/snapback]

Samuels has already signed a long term contract with them this off season. Trading him will not be an option. However trading LaVar Arrington might.

[plenzmd1]

Samuels has already signed a long term contract with them this off season. Trading him will not be an option. However trading LaVar Arrington might.

303440[/snapback]

LaVars cap hit if traded a WHOPPING $14M

[plenzmd1]

The whole Clements what do we do for the seasln after next seems like such a pipe dream that it defines unbased off-season consideration in my view.

 

Certainly TD is thinking about the long-term and scenarios to deal with thin inform most of the scenarios, but TD is MOSTLY (not all, but mostly) thinking about the short-term and that is what is going to drive judgments about him.

 

TDs MO (if any) for the Bills has been one of getting immediate benefit up front in exchange for giving away future considerations (Bledsoe trade, Losman trade) and even when he gets a player who will sit for a while (WM, Losman) he gets them and has his braintrust put them to work.

 

Any Clements theorizing needs to be driven by a couple of factors:

 

1. What does it give us in 2005 which improves the team for performance this year.

2. What will the team give up in terms of usable resources in 2005 in a deal and how will they be compensated for this year.

 

It seems pretty doubtful to me that TD is going to go into this season with McGee and Vincent as his starting CBs. It seems pretty doubtful that TD will see much value in getting a player in the 2005 draft who will have to sit, learn and not contribute this year without having a Travis Henry like player to fill the gap while this player sits as he did for WM.

303402[/snapback]

 

 

But fake, the Pats start undrafted DBs for gosh sake and still win the SB

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

But fake, the Pats start undrafted DBs for gosh sake and still win the SB 

303451[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but do you think that is the TD plan?

 

I simply do not see him going into the season saying, OK at CB we are going to depend on our Pro Bowl KR who was burned several times last year focusing on not getting burned as much and still being a KO threat. Further, we are going to take the player who got hurt last year and who clearly we and he visualized as a safety with his contract and squeeze another year or two out of him at CB. Further, our 7th rounder Smith looked good on PR so we are going to invest totally in him eliminating his mecuric rookie ways.

 

I will do this because it avoids me and the Bills dealing with a potential future problem even though that same problem can be avoided if Clements were to take a cheaper long-term deal which gurantees him for life now without having to risk injury or perform again at a Pro Bowl level in order to get a big FA deal next year.

 

The risks of moving him now seem far too high and their are simpler methods for getting to a good outcome for the future with Clements which allow the Bills to enjoy his skills this year.

 

Why give him up at a guranteed immediate cost now when there is the potential to have our cake and eat it too.