Coach Tuesday Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Cutting Mike Williams (chest) doesn't surprise me, but the TIMING of it is somewhat odd - why now? To me, it's obvious: immediate cap room is needed in order to lock up Nate long-term. Seems to me like a solid tradeoff, provided they don't overpay for Nate. I would expect an announcement within 7-10 days that Nate will be a Bill for the next 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 It could be an effort to be fair to Mike, letting him loose at the start of Free Agency, especially if the Bills had no intention of keeping him. Marv has always been a class act and this just seems like something thathe would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Cutting Mike Williams (chest) doesn't surprise me, but the TIMING of it is somewhat odd - why now? To me, it's obvious: immediate cap room is needed in order to lock up Nate long-term. Seems to me like a solid tradeoff, provided they don't overpay for Nate. I would expect an announcement within 7-10 days that Nate will be a Bill for the next 6 years. 610293[/snapback] there is no connection......... any long-term contract that nate signs would have a first year cap number SMALLER then the current 5.9M he is on the books for in '06.......thus the bills don't need to create room to sign him long-term -- signing him long-term would create room! why the timing of the move? free agency is here in a week and we might just need some dollars considering how many improvements are needed........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Cutting Mike Williams (chest) doesn't surprise me, but the TIMING of it is somewhat odd - why now? To me, it's obvious: immediate cap room is needed in order to lock up Nate long-term. Seems to me like a solid tradeoff, provided they don't overpay for Nate. I would expect an announcement within 7-10 days that Nate will be a Bill for the next 6 years. 610293[/snapback] I highly doubt you see a deal for Nate if a new CBA is not signed, I think Nate would be nuts to sign under theses conditions. Take this into account. Teams can only spread bonus over 4 years now, maening lower bonus payment up front most likely. If no new CBA, 07 uncapped year, great for players.However, players will also need 6 years to become an UFA, so less compitition from other DBs. Seems to me his best option is to not sign anything until a new CBA is done. If in the summer it appears that is not going to happen, sign the tender and play under the one year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 there is no connection......... any long-term contract that nate signs would have a first year cap number SMALLER then the current 5.9M he is on the books for in '06.......thus the bills don't need to create room to sign him long-term -- signing him long-term would create room! why the timing of the move? free agency is here in a week and we might just need some dollars considering how many improvements are needed........ 610353[/snapback] There is a connection though if you needed to franchise Nate before he hit the open market, as was the case. Nate's $5.9M tag was mostly paid for by the $4.9M saved by cutting MW. Without doing that, there wouldn't have been enough cap room to both tag Nate AND be able to sign at least one impact FA.... and we still need more room, keep chopping Marv! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 It could be an effort to be fair to Mike, letting him loose at the start of Free Agency, especially if the Bills had no intention of keeping him. Marv has always been a class act and this just seems like something thathe would do. 610314[/snapback] Or it could be the roster bonus MW was due on March 3rd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Or it could be the roster bonus MW was due on March 3rd... 610904[/snapback] But I thought Donahoe liked to rework a guy's contract before cutting him. Oh, wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts