Mile High Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Thursday, September 8, 2005 7:20 PM No progress in Bills talks to extend CB Clements' contract (Orchard Park, NY - AP) — Cornerback Nate Clements will probably have to wait until the end of the season to see how willing the Buffalo Bills are to re-sign him. In an e-mail sent to The Associated Press, Clements' agent, Todd France, wrote there has been no progress in talks with Buffalo to extend his client's contract beyond this season. France added he expects to meet with Bills president Tom Donahoe on Sunday while attending Buffalo's season-opener against Houston at Orchard Park. Clements is in the final year of his contract and eligible to become an unrestricted free agent. Buffalo's 2001 first-round draft pick, Clements is a four-year starter, who has 18 interceptions and seven forced fumbles. He's also the team's primary punt returner. Last month, Clements said he wanted to be the league's top-paid cornerback. That would put his demands in the range of the seven-year, 63 million dollar contract Champ Bailey signed with Denver last year.
1billsfan Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Thursday, September 8, 2005 7:20 PMLast month, Clements said he wanted to be the league's top-paid cornerback. That would put his demands in the range of the seven-year, 63 million dollar contract Champ Bailey signed with Denver last year. 435833[/snapback] No thanks. Those type of contracts are cap killers, If Nate wants to stay here he must lower his contract demands. I'd rather have the ability to pay McGahee, Evans and Losman in the coming years. IMO paying one player on the team 10 million per year just isn't doable. Time to look at cornerbacks in the 2006 draft.
brihs2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 No thanks. Those type of contracts are cap killers, If Nate wants to stay here he must lower his contract demands. I'd rather have the ability to pay McGahee, Evans and Losman in the coming years. IMO paying one player on the team 10 million per year just isn't doable. Time to look at cornerbacks in the 2006 draft. 435834[/snapback] I like that idea, BUT, lets just say Losman is the next manning (lets just say), what has the combination of a great wideout, a great RB, and a great QB gotten the colts... any rings on manning's fingers? We need defense as well as offense and offense will be cheaper until losman and evan's contracts are up in a few years
meazza Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 ok guys, i'm curious, i have been hearing about clements and the fact that he will be an unrestricted free agent on the market but im wondering, what will be our cap situation next year and who will be demanding new contracts... is it possible we cant find a way to keep this amazing player?
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 ok guys, i'm curious, i have been hearing about clements and the fact that he will be an unrestricted free agent on the market but im wondering, what will be our cap situation next year and who will be demanding new contracts...is it possible we cant find a way to keep this amazing player? 435845[/snapback] Next year's free agents: LS Mike Schneck QB Shane Matthews FB Joe Burns WR Josh Reed C Trey Teague G Lawrence Smith (IR list) DE Ryan Denney DT Ron Edwards DT Justin Bannan CB Nate Clements CB Terrence McGee (RFA) CB Kevin Thomas (currently on PUP list) I'm not sure about our exact salary cap standing for next year (you'll have to ask clumping platelets for the latest details), but I think it's good enough that we can sign Clements for whatever he wants. The catch, however, is that we won't have the money to do much else in free agency. So any remaining weak spots (mostly OL) on the team will have to be filled up with draft picks and veteran minimum guys.
1billsfan Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 ok guys, i'm curious, i have been hearing about clements and the fact that he will be an unrestricted free agent on the market but im wondering, what will be our cap situation next year and who will be demanding new contracts...is it possible we cant find a way to keep this amazing player? 435845[/snapback] We can always slap the tag on him. If another team takes him away then we'll get a first round pick which would be excellent. Then there's a chance we'll be able to entice a quality corner to come over to a top NFL defense. The other options are to have one of the backups step up or strike it rich in the draft. I don't want to spend that much money on Clements, as great as he is he isn't worth that much against our cap.
meazza Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 well thats what great franchises are ableto do cope with the loss of an impact player i.e. patriots losing milloy and others i think our secondary is blessed wiht outstanding players and that i think its finally time to focus on our offensive line... that or force some players to restructure
finknottle Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 No thanks. Those type of contracts are cap killers, If Nate wants to stay here he must lower his contract demands. I'd rather have the ability to pay McGahee, Evans and Losman in the coming years. IMO paying one player on the team 10 million per year just isn't doable. Time to look at cornerbacks in the 2006 draft. 435834[/snapback] Nothing like signing players at the peak of their earning power! Can you say 'Washington Redskins?'
seq004 Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Nothing like signing players at the peak of their earning power! Can you say 'Washington Redskins?' 435865[/snapback] Funny, how most NFL players reach their peak the year before they become a free agent I'm sure Nate will have his best year but to me thats just to much money to pay a corner. I would rather see that cash help us to keep Willis
d_wag Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 No thanks. Those type of contracts are cap killers, If Nate wants to stay here he must lower his contract demands. I'd rather have the ability to pay McGahee, Evans and Losman in the coming years. IMO paying one player on the team 10 million per year just isn't doable. Time to look at cornerbacks in the 2006 draft. 435834[/snapback] i love how the argument has changed from "we can't resign X player because we need the dollars for nate" or "we can't sign X player because we need the dollars for nate" to "we can't resign nate because we need the dollars for mcgahee, evans, and losman"........ i expect they're will be more excuses to not resign good, young players when mcgahee, evans, and losman see their contracts come up.......there is no reason we can't keep nate AND resign those guys if they prove themselves worthy of top dollar (as nate has).........
UConn James Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Bear in mind, tho, that the salary cap is going to be going up next year b/c that's when the new TV deals kick in (you know how NBC is going to have Sunday night games?). I've read some guys predicting it'll go up by $10M or more. That provides a lot of wiggle room. But yes, the wisest thing to do would be to lock him up now. Or, if you want to delve into TD's mind for a minute, what would be the downside to waiting until the end of the season, and getting that extra-oompf performance from someone in their contract year? If Nate wants to be the top-paid CB or else anyway, then why not just wait and put the Franchise tag on him? I'd say TD's got a plan.
Bill from NYC Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Bear in mind, tho, that the salary cap is going to be going up next year b/c that's when the new TV deals kick in (you know how NBC is going to have Sunday night games?). I've read some guys predicting it'll go up by $10M or more. That provides a lot of wiggle room. But yes, the wisest thing to do would be to lock him up now. Or, if you want to delve into TD's mind for a minute, what would be the downside to waiting until the end of the season, and getting that extra-oompf performance from someone in their contract year? If Nate wants to be the top-paid CB or else anyway, then why not just wait and put the Franchise tag on him? I'd say TD's got a plan. 435899[/snapback] Assuming of course that TD is making a reasonable bid for Nate, it is hard for me to understand why Nate doesn't simply extend. One injury could change him from a top corner to out of football and will cost him untold millions. This by the way is simply NOT a far fetched scenario. With an extension from the Bills, he could be financially set for life. Schobel took a few million less to sign before free agency, and I bet he isn't starving with his 8 million dollar bonus. Again, if TD is making a reasonable bid, a player would have to be pretty greedy and short-sighted to risk everything in this manner; but admittedly, I am inexperienced when it comes to this kind of money, and I am thinking as one who has a family to support.
UConn James Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Again, if TD is making a reasonable bid, a player would have to be pretty greedy and short-sighted to risk everything in this manner; but admittedly, I am inexperienced when it comes to this kind of money, and I am thinking as one who has a family to support. 435901[/snapback] Yup. I don't know about greedy, it's just taking a bigtime gamble and being confident about writing checks that you're sure your ass can cash. That signing bonus is the only guaranteed money a player gets. If (heaven forbid) Nate were injured ala Jeff Burris, he's never going to see another dime from the NFL. He would be wise to sign a deal when he can. You would think that shoulder injury might've made him see the light....
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 i love how the argument has changed from "we can't resign X player because we need the dollars for nate" or "we can't sign X player because we need the dollars for nate" to "we can't resign nate because we need the dollars for mcgahee, evans, and losman"........ i expect they're will be more excuses to not resign good, young players when mcgahee, evans, and losman see their contracts come up.......there is no reason we can't keep nate AND resign those guys if they prove themselves worthy of top dollar (as nate has)......... 435895[/snapback] D-Wag, you are right to point out how convoluted the conversations in TSW can become, but with your last comment are you honestly trying to imply that the Bills are avoiding resigning people just for the hell of it? Despite the suggestions from some on the board that TD has been letting people leave left and right without replacement, I am still looking for the "good, young" players that the Bills have not re-signed when they could do so. Jonas was good and young, but the niners offered crazy money. Pat was good but no longer young... Where does this pre-emptive bitterness come from? Go Bills!
1billsfan Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 i love how the argument has changed from "we can't resign X player because we need the dollars for nate" or "we can't sign X player because we need the dollars for nate" to "we can't resign nate because we need the dollars for mcgahee, evans, and losman"........ i expect they're will be more excuses to not resign good, young players when mcgahee, evans, and losman see their contracts come up.......there is no reason we can't keep nate AND resign those guys if they prove themselves worthy of top dollar (as nate has)......... 435895[/snapback] What the hell are you yappin about? Please show me where I've changed my argument on not signing Nate. Overpaying for players is never a good policy. If you think that Nate Clements is worth 10 million dollars per year then we'll both just have to disagree with each other.
UConn James Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 Overpaying for players is never a good policy. If you think that Nate Clements is worth 10 million dollars per year then we'll both just have to disagree with each other. 435986[/snapback] But Big Mike and Moulds are worth $9M a year (both likely to be restructured)? Next year, out of an $80+M cap, I don't think that's too much to pay for one of, if not the, best CBs in the league where these kinds of actual shutdown CBs are rare, to put it mildly. We don't have a QB making $15M at the moment. That money is therefore spent elsewhere. Elsewhere = Nate, probably under the franchise tag.
d_wag Posted September 10, 2005 Posted September 10, 2005 D-Wag, you are right to point out how convoluted the conversations in TSW can become, but with your last comment are you honestly trying to imply that the Bills are avoiding resigning people just for the hell of it? Despite the suggestions from some on the board that TD has been letting people leave left and right without replacement, I am still looking for the "good, young" players that the Bills have not re-signed when they could do so. Jonas was good and young, but the niners offered crazy money. Pat was good but no longer young... Where does this pre-emptive bitterness come from? Go Bills! 435910[/snapback] winfield......when he wasn't resigned many on this board offered the premise "we can't pay two CB's that kind of money and nate needs to be paid soon".........well, here we are and now people are ready to let nate walk based on the premise "we can't pay him that money because we need to sign the big 3 soon"........the stances of some have changed as nate looks less and less likely to be signed long-term.......i just want to see good young players rewarded and kept around......they are the core of the team.........
goober Posted September 11, 2005 Posted September 11, 2005 some of you guys must be killing labillz w/ all of your resign-ations
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 11, 2005 Posted September 11, 2005 winfield......when he wasn't resigned many on this board offered the premise "we can't pay two CB's that kind of money and nate needs to be paid soon".........well, here we are and now people are ready to let nate walk based on the premise "we can't pay him that money because we need to sign the big 3 soon"........the stances of some have changed as nate looks less and less likely to be signed long-term.......i just want to see good young players rewarded and kept around......they are the core of the team......... 435995[/snapback] OK... winfield... another person who signed for beaucoup bucks somewhere else... and by the way someone without whom the Bills had the #2 defense in the league last year.... I still don't see the need to claim that the Bills will let all good young players walk...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted September 11, 2005 Posted September 11, 2005 But, you don't know, maybe he took out an injury insurance policy to protect himself in case on career ending injury? Yup. I don't know about greedy, it's just taking a bigtime gamble and being confident about writing checks that you're sure your ass can cash. That signing bonus is the only guaranteed money a player gets. If (heaven forbid) Nate were injured ala Jeff Burris, he's never going to see another dime from the NFL. He would be wise to sign a deal when he can. You would think that shoulder injury might've made him see the light.... 435905[/snapback]
Recommended Posts