___JT___ Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2362994 I didnt know that Nate just got an extra 1.3 million !!! So I guess we have less to spend. From ESPN : The Minnesota Vikings lifted the transition designation on cornerback Brian Williams after a recalculation of the one-year tender based on changes in the new collective bargaining agreement. The new CBA calls for the values of the previous year's franchise and transition tenders to be used in calculating this year's tenders. Because the tenders were so high last year for cornerbacks -- $8.816 million for a franchised cornerback and $6.938 for a transitioned cornerback -- the tenders for this year increased considerably from what teams expected ($5.89 million for a franchised cornerback and $4.77 million for a transitioned cornerback). It's not clear exactly what Williams' tender would have been, but Nate Clements, who was franchised by the Bills, will have his tender increased by $1.3 million, to roughly $7.22 million, by the recalculation. Williams, a nickel cornerback, would have made significantly more than the one-year tender of $4.77 million he was initially offered. After getting those new numbers, the Vikings decided he was too expensive and pulled the tender, making him a free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___JT___ Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 I thought Nate was a good value witth his previous numbers . $ 7.22 million dollars is a little high for me , especially with the cover 2 that we are going to play this year . Dont be surprised if we trade him during the draft ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 So we have gotten blindsided by the Clements clause! That is quite an increase as compared to the increase in the salary cap from $94 to $102 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___JT___ Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 I dont know why I just think we are going to trade him . He's got the most trade value right now . We would miss him but the Bills defense was next to last with him , why not get some extra draft picks , save some cap room and sign some free agents . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 His trade value was a hell of a lot higher at the end of last year then it is now, I still don't mind keeping him at that number. Your not going to get anything more than a mid second for Nate, and thats not fair value. I still hope we sign him long term; he had a terrible year last year but at least I've seen that he IS capable of playing MUCH, MUCH better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 If we were to resign him then whose to say that it wouldn't be more cap friendly? There is still plenty of time to see how this will play out. I don't think that this should be a big concern at this time. Once the draft is concluded and before the season starts I think that we will see this situation resolve itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Trade Playmaker, cut Moulds and you'd have almost $24 million in cap space to go berzerk in free agency and they'd also be able to sign two 1st round picks, one coming in the Playmaker trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Trade Playmaker, cut Moulds and you'd have almost $24 million in cap space to go berzerk in free agency and they'd also be able to sign two 1st round picks, one coming in the Playmaker trade. Yeah...good plan... Who exactly do you want us to "go bezerk" after this offseason? I see few FAs out there I even really want. I certainally dont want to go "bezerk" after the best WR out there (Randle El). Nor do I want to go "bezerk" over Tank Williams, Moe Wiliams, Chad Williams or Robin Williams. Dont get me wrong. If we can sign these guys (less Mrs Doubtfire) for a reasonable price tag, do it. But "going bezerk" hurts us in the long run. The teams that see 20, 30, 40 mil in cap space and decide they need to use it ALL this year, will be hurting when escalators kick in 2-3 years down the road. You cant expect a 10 mil cap increase every year. That is just unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 More reason to sign him long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 One more point. You are seeing alot of teams cut a guy and then resign him. This is HIGHLY unusual in the NFL. IMO they are doing this because they see alot of cap space and they wont be able to use it all properly. So they are cutting guys with bad contracts, eating all the dead cap space THIS year...and signing them back to more reasonable deals, giving them even more cap flexibility in the future. Smart play if you ask me. In the past, this would not be done, because cutting and resigning results in a larger cap hit than they had previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 His trade value was a hell of a lot higher at the end of last year then it is now, I still don't mind keeping him at that number. Your not going to get anything more than a mid second for Nate, and thats not fair value. I still hope we sign him long term; he had a terrible year last year but at least I've seen that he IS capable of playing MUCH, MUCH better. 624142[/snapback] Don't get me wrong...I WANT the Bills to keep Nate and sign him long term, but he (imo) is worth more than a mid second. Nate is young, good at all phases of CB, and is even a gifted punt returner. A mid first wouldn't surprise me, and I probably tend to guess low in terms of trade value for players. Marv loves corners, and I can't see him trading Clements, unless there are changes to the CBA about franchising a player more than once, and Nate himself wants out. I hope that Nate wants to stay here, and signs a new contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Don't get me wrong...I WANT the Bills to keep Nate and sign him long term, but he (imo) is worth more than a mid second. Nate is young, good at all phases of CB, and is even a gifted punt returner. A mid first wouldn't surprise me, and I probably tend to guess low in terms of trade value for players. Marv loves corners, and I can't see him trading Clements, unless there are changes to the CBA about franchising a player more than once, and Nate himself wants out. I hope that Nate wants to stay here, and signs a new contract. 624611[/snapback] I agree and I think people are underestimating Clements's value. He had a lousy year, but he's young, has never had a major injury, and has proven he can be a top CB. I also don't think Marv wants to trade him, but it also wouldn't suprise me if there are some excellent trade offers in the days leading up to the draft. In a weak year for CBs in the draft and with a major bump in the cap, I wouldn't even be totally shocked if a playoff caliber team with cap room tried to sign him outright, even at the steep cost of 2 1st round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I agree and I think people are underestimating Clements's value. He had a lousy year, but he's young, has never had a major injury, and has proven he can be a top CB. I also don't think Marv wants to trade him, but it also wouldn't suprise me if there are some excellent trade offers in the days leading up to the draft. In a weak year for CBs in the draft and with a major bump in the cap, I wouldn't even be totally shocked if a playoff caliber team with cap room tried to sign him outright, even at the steep cost of 2 1st round picks. 624617[/snapback] No way in hell is anyone giving up two 1sts for Nate! No way! I think he's worth a lot more than a mid second also but I just don't see anyone giving up a first in order to get him. By the way the draft is actually pretty DEEP at the CB position this year...especially if you add Huff considering he might play either corner or safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 No one would give up 2-1sts, but 1 is reasonable. And the draft is weak this year for ALL positions. Outside of the top-10 spots, there's little else outside of DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCM Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Patrick Surtain was considered one of the best corners in the league and only netted a 2nd rounder from KC...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 No one would give up 2-1sts, but 1 is reasonable. And the draft is weak this year for ALL positions. Outside of the top-10 spots, there's little else outside of DT. 624625[/snapback] I heard on Sirius that this is a big year for LBs, and that as many as 15 will be first day picks, with perhaps 5 going in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Patrick Surtain was considered one of the best corners in the league and only netted a 2nd rounder from KC...... 624630[/snapback] It's been quite a while since Surtain was considered "one of the best corners in the league". Actually, I'm not sure if that description EVER fit him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I heard on Sirius that this is a big year for LBs, and that as many as 15 will be first day picks, with perhaps 5 going in the first round. LB'er is the next deepest, but again overall this is one of the weaker drafts in recent years, especially at CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 No one would give up 2-1sts, but 1 is reasonable. And the draft is weak this year for ALL positions. Outside of the top-10 spots, there's little else outside of DT. 624625[/snapback] I disagree, I like this class a lot better than last year's group. There seem to be some quality RBs,TEs, LBs, DTs, & CBs. I think this a relatively strong class when compared to 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 No one would give up 2-1sts, but 1 is reasonable. And the draft is weak this year for ALL positions. Outside of the top-10 spots, there's little else outside of DT. 624625[/snapback] I think its unlikely, but I don't discount the possibility. As always, it depends upon how desperate a team gets for a good player at a position, particularly a playoff team from last year. But I agree, I think the odds of it are pretty low at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts