Anybody here think Clements is worth 8 million

[2003]

Clements will get that in his next contract and I just want to know who here is willing to pay that or have that kind of hit on the Bill's salary cap.

 

I happen to think that top CBs are way way overpayed it's not even funny. 8 million dollars a year for Nate Clements???? That one is a head scatcher. Unless the player is the next coming of Johnny Unitus, then I'm not spending 1/10th of the cap on one player. I think Nate Clements is in the mix on Saturday because he's entering the last year of his contract and in no way will be a Bill in 2006.

311661[/snapback]

 

Yeah I totally agree. I think he'll be traded before the draft or he'll be franchise tagged and traded for a #1 Next year.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yeah, I totally agree. I feel the Bills will either trade him now or franchise tag him and trade him for a #1 next year.

312017[/snapback]

Bingo. I think we can tag him next year if we really want him / want some kind of value for him.

[Rico]

MW will restructure his contract...no way will he be cut.

312009[/snapback]

I'd like to see how TD can do it without making him take a massive paycut.

MW's contract from Clumpy's cap analysis page:

2006: $4 million salary, $2.17 million bonus amortization, $3 million roster bonus for a cap hit of $9.17 million plus $1.5 million NLTBE.

2007: $5 million salary, $2.17 million bonus amortization plus $3.5 million NLTBE.

That's $10.67M in both 2006 and 2007, $21.33M total after this year.

How many years are you willing to add to his contract to get that figure down to about what he's worth ($4-5 M per, tops...IF he continues to improve). It's far easier to eat the $4.33M and sign a McDougal AND keep your all-pro CB.

[RJsackedagain]

No!!! But I find few athletes these days who can justify the salary they make. If Nate were to command 8 mill a year I'd like to see him turn in another solid season like last year's first --- of course if he does, that'd drive his price up I'm sure.

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

To keep this short.... yes he is

 

 

Nate Clements other than Chris Mcallister may be one of the best all around cb's in the entire league. It's not easy to just plug in someone and get production. What was our secondary like when coy wire and pierson prioleau were plantooning for lawyer milloy? We got killed deep. If we just get rid of nate clements, it would be more open than jasmine st claires legs. None of the guys on our roster are currently good enough to step in and perform at clements position, and given the question whether I would rather keep nate clements or terrance mcgee. Nate clements by a mile. Guys like mcgee come and go, Infact theres several terrance mcgee's in this draft. Antonio Perkins for one. Nate Clements however is a special talent, that will be one of the best in the league for at least the next 5 years. Pay the man.

[Sound_n_Fury]

I'd like to see how TD can do it without making him take a massive paycut.

MW's contract from Clumpy's cap analysis page:

That's $10.67M in both 2006 and 2007, $21.33M total after this year. 

How many years are you willing to add to his contract to get that figure down to about what he's worth ($4-5 M per, tops...IF he continues to improve). It's far easier to eat the $4.33M and sign a McDougal AND keep your all-pro CB.

312030[/snapback]

 

MW's contract call for the following over the next three years:

 

- 2005: $4M base + $3M roster bonus. $1.5M other NLTBE in 2005.

 

- 2006: $4M base + $3M roster bonus (option year). $1.5M other NLTBE in 2006.

 

- 2007: $5M base (option year). $3.5M other NLTBE in 2007.

 

Redo it to a 6-year deal at say $18 million in salary, turn the $6 million in roster bonuses into a signing bonus and scrap/redo the NLTBEs (which are just funny money, IMO). You'd get something like this:

 

Years 1-3: $2 million salary + $1.21 million pro rated SB from original contract + $1 million pro rated new SB = $4.2 million cap hit.

 

Years 4-6: cross that bridge when you get to it ($3 million remaining SB if cut)

 

I'm only taking a quick-n-dirty stab at this, but TD will find a way to whittle this down to a more manageable figure.

 

MW's original contract was on par for where he was picked. If teams had to cut all high round draft choices due to the impact of salary escalators, then no one would ever want to draft in the top 10 again.

 

Agents design these back-loaded contracts with the assumption of getting another big signing bonus when they're renegotiated. It'll happen with MW, too.

[Rico]

Maybe I'm missing something here , but..

MW's contract call for the following over the next three years:

 

- 2005:  $4M base + $3M roster bonus. $1.5M other NLTBE in 2005.

 

- 2006:  $4M base + $3M roster bonus (option year). $1.5M other NLTBE in 2006.

 

- 2007:  $5M base (option year). $3.5M other NLTBE in 2007.

So that's $25.5M he hasn't been paid yet but will make over the next 3 years,

not including the signing bonus from 2002 which he's already been paid.

 

Redo it to a 6-year deal at say $18 million in salary, turn the $6 million in roster bonuses into a signing bonus and scrap/redo the NLTBEs (which are just funny money, IMO).  You'd get something like this:

 

Years 1-3:   $2 million salary + $1.21 million pro rated SB from original contract + $1 million pro rated new SB = $4.2 million cap hit.

 

Years 4-6:   cross that bridge when you get to it ($3 million remaining SB if cut)

That's $24M over the next 6 years.

 

$25.5M in 3 years vs. $24M in 6 years

I'd laugh in TD's face.

[Sound_n_Fury]

$25.5M in 3 years vs. $24M in 6 years

I'd laugh in TD's face.

312106[/snapback]

 

Maybe. But I guess I'd say, "Mike, try getting that much somewhere else."

 

Enough already. We'll agree to disagree...but IMO, the likelihood of MW renegotiating is a hell of a lot higher than it is of him being cut.

 

Wanna put some money on the outcome?

[Hull, Kent67]

I wouldn't pay any CB that money.

First of all your secondary is only as good as your pass rush.

I don't care if your Darrel Green or Deion Sanders in your prime, if a QB has all day to throw eventually the receiver is going to get open.

Do you think really think Mark Kelso had 30 career INT because he was good. Hell no it's because of Bruce and Bennett putting pressure on the passing game.

[Rico]

Maybe.  But I guess I'd say, "Mike, try getting that much somewhere else." 

 

Enough already.   We'll agree to disagree...but IMO, the likelihood of MW renegotiating is a hell of a lot higher than it is of him being cut. 

 

Wanna put some money on the outcome?

312109[/snapback]

Not really... MW is too hard to predict.

Everything I've heard though sounds like he's not too interested in renegotiating,

and I can't say I blame him.

 

If it came down to being able to keep only one of them, who would you keep?

Would you honestly let a Nate Clements go to keep a Mike Williams???

[Sound_n_Fury]

Not really... MW is too hard to predict.

Everything I've heard though sounds like he's not too interested in renegotiating,

and I can't say I blame him.

 

If it came down to being able to keep only one of them, who would you keep?

Would you honestly let a Nate Clements go to keep a Mike Williams???

312118[/snapback]

 

I think the reason MW's agent hasn't made noise about renegotiating is because TD hasn't made it a priority yet. My guess is it will become one after the draft and June 1 FA signings are complete.

 

If it came down to keeping either MW or NC, I'd pick Nate. But at $9 million per year, my answer would be neither. The Pats have created the best working model in the salary cap era, one that budgets that kind of money only for the QB position (and only because TB is the best in the biz).

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

I wouldn't pay any CB that money.

First of all your secondary is only as good as your pass rush.

I don't care if your Darrel Green or Deion Sanders in your prime, if a QB has all day to throw eventually the receiver is going to get open.

Do you think really think Mark Kelso had 30 career INT because he was good. Hell no it's because of Bruce and Bennett putting pressure on the passing game.

312111[/snapback]

 

 

Yeah and all I remember was getting ripped apart in the passing game during the superbowls and getting bowled over in the running game.

 

If you don't have a good front 7 your defense won't be good, however you need to have a good secondary. Teams with crappy secondarys especially in todays nfl don't win superbowls. Pay Nate Clements and fill in the rest of your roster with a bunch of terrance mcgee's and kevin thomas's. If you have garbage in the secondary your pass defense becomes garbage to be exposed by the better teams in the nfl.

 

It's why the steelers got lit up by ne. It's why the chargers didn't make it past the wc round. It's why the broncos have been exposed 2 years in a row by the colts. It's why the rams/vikings/sehawks/Packers all got eliminated. And good secondaries are why The Eagles have gone to the nfc championship game 4 years in a row and why the patriots have won 3 of the last 4.

 

Yes Pass rush is important, but so is actually having some talent in the secondary.

[Sound_n_Fury]

Teams with crappy secondarys especially in todays nfl don't win superbowls.

312130[/snapback]

 

 

Er, The Pats had a rookie and a converted WR in their secondary last year and they did OK...

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

Er, The Pats had a rookie and a converted WR in their secondary last year and they did OK...

312135[/snapback]

 

They also have one of the best safety combos in the nfl in eugene wilson and rodney harrison, and asante samuel is no slouch.

[Bill from NYC]

I'm not sure but I think this has been discussed in a thread or twenty somewhere down below...

311677[/snapback]

 

Let us know when it is OK to discuss it once again.

[Stussy109]

How do you figure:  Mcgee's cap hit is $482,500 and Thomas's is just $305,000, so you're talking about less than $1.5 million under your scenario...doubtful these kind of guys will ever get the big bucks.  In contrast, NC's 2005 hit is already at $3.5 million.

311958[/snapback]

 

If we were choosing to lock up similar quality players to new deals. If Clements goes, Mcgee has to be extended, as does thomas or another free agent has to be brought in.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think the reason MW's agent hasn't made noise about renegotiating is because TD hasn't made it a priority yet.  My guess is it will become one after the draft and June 1 FA signings are complete.

 

If it came down to keeping either MW or NC, I'd pick Nate.  But at $9 million per year, my answer would be neither.  The Pats have created the best working model in the salary cap era, one that budgets that kind of money only for the QB position (and only because TB is the best in the biz).

312126[/snapback]

You mean except for the fact they just paid Ty Law 9 million a year to play CB?

[Sound_n_Fury]

You mean except for the fact they just paid Ty Law 9 million a year to play CB?

312229[/snapback]

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1999808

 

"Even before he broke his foot and missed the Patriots' last 12 games, the cap-conscious team was not expected to bring him back at his full salary; Law had said he wasn't inclined to restructure his deal.

 

To restructure his contract, Law would have had to take a significant pay cut because New England's philosophy is more geared toward players having contracts in the $2 million and $3 million range."

[Kelly the Dog]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1999808

 

"Even before he broke his foot and missed the Patriots' last 12 games, the cap-conscious team was not expected to bring him back at his full salary; Law had said he wasn't inclined to restructure his deal.

 

To restructure his contract, Law would have had to take a significant pay cut because New England's philosophy is more geared toward players having contracts in the $2 million and $3 million range."

312255[/snapback]

But they won the Super Bowl two years ago with Ty Law making a mint. They decided to keep him and pay him and the next year they paid him 9 million and they won the Super Bowl again(without him, how ironic). That implies to me they are very willing to pay a guy 9 million to play cornerback, but not willing to pay a guy that much three years in a row. What that does NOT sound like is they aren't willing to pay a guy 9 million because they just did.

[Sound_n_Fury]

But they won the Super Bowl two years ago with Ty Law making a mint. They decided to keep him and pay him and the next year they paid him 9 million and they won the Super Bowl again(without him, how ironic). That implies to me they are very willing to pay a guy 9 million to play cornerback, but not willing to pay a guy that much three years in a row. What that does NOT sound like is they aren't willing to pay a guy 9 million because they just did.

312271[/snapback]

 

Law signed a 7-year contract in 1999. Here are the cap hits, year by year. Included in each years' figure is the $2 million pro rated portion of his $14 million signing bonus.

 

1999 - $3.5 million

2000 - $4.0 million

2001 - $5.0 million

2002 - $6.7 million

2003 - $8.0 million

2004 - $8.8 million

2005 - $12 million (cut)

 

While they bit the bullet and kept Law in 2004 in hopes of making another super bowl run, there was no way they were going to pay him that kind of dough in 2005 or beyond. To me, that implys they were NOT willing to carry a contract like that for more than one year...so I agree with you on that.