Peter Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Sign him to a long term deal (as long as it does not destroy the salary cap structure).
Pete Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Franchise him, then lock him up long term. If he sits out franchise him again next year.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted May 3, 2006 Author Posted May 3, 2006 Cutting him won't get you a draft will it. i think not. If we hold on to him somebody is going to way over pay for him. Maybe giving us a OL linemen, draft picks, whatever. I say hold on to him and get paid. 681847[/snapback] Clements is saying that if the Bills don't sign him to a long term contract he will be a holdout. I say get rid of him before he becomes a problem.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Clements is saying that if the Bills don't sign him to a long term contract he will be a holdout. I say get rid of him before he becomes a problem. 682050[/snapback] Okay, seriously. Just think about it. LSI Cadets is Nate Clements. You think you're one of if not the best CB in the game. You're trying to be paid that way but the Bills, your team, are not offering as much as you think you deserve, so you have turned down their long term offer. You now have a grand total of two choices. Sit out the year and get zero, and still have the Bills hold your rights next year, which would make two down years in a row. Or play for 7.2 million this season, which is twice as much as you have ever made, and about what you would get if you signed the huge contract, and prove you are the greatest in the league no matter what anyone says. There is zero chance of Nate sitting out the year. There is very very little chance of Nate making any threat and having the Bills cave in thinking Nate is going to sit out the year. There is only a handful of players who have ever sat out the year and I don't recall any of them being a good idea or advantageous in retrospect.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted May 3, 2006 Author Posted May 3, 2006 Okay, seriously. Just think about it. LSI Cadets is Nate Clements. You think you're one of if not the best CB in the game. You're trying to be paid that way but the Bills, your team, is not offering as much as you think you deserve, so you have turned down their long term offer. You now have a grand total of two choices. Sit out the year and get zero, and still have the Bills hold your rights next year, which would make two down years in a row. Or play for 7.2 million this season, which is twice as much as you have ever made, and about what you would get if you signed the huge contract, and prove you are the greatest in the league no matter what anyone says. There is zero chance of Nate sitting out the year. There is very very little chance of Nate making any threat and having the Bills cave in thinking Nate is going to sit out the year. There is only a handful of players who have ever sat out the year and I don't recall any of them being a good idea or advantageous in retrospect. 682066[/snapback] I guess.......I see where your going with this.
Tortured Soul Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 I think part of the new CBA is that you can't use the tag two years in a row on the same player. Can anyone confirm this?
Kelly the Dog Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 I think part of the new CBA is that you can't use the tag two years in a row on the same player. Can anyone confirm this? 682090[/snapback] I don't think that is true. Have never seen it. I think there is a new rule about the franchise player and his second year but that isn't it.
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 You can never have too many corners. Or buttons. Or whistles.
ax4782 Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 After last years frankly mediocre performance, I don't think he's worth the 7.2 mil they're offering him this next season, and there is NO WAY he is worth some six year fifty some odd million dollar contract ala Champ Bailey. Not right now, IMO. If he plays well, and shows the organization over the course of the season that he is worth expending this unbelievably large sum of money for, then they will sign him. Until then, the team has other needs that they could use that money to address rather than tying up huge surpluses of money in a player who last year was frankly just par. IMO. Go Sabres!!!!
colin Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 i'd like us to keep him, but a franchise and trade for a pick (asuming youtoby can play at that level) would be good too. if we keep him we have clements mcgee whitmore vincent youtoby simpson who at that point will be the best dime package in the NFL and a lot of depth at nickle. along with a 3/4 man line and 2 LBs that would REALLY help us on 3rd and long (particularly with gerry joker not running madden Ds all the time with sellout blitzes at outside gaps)
Ranger Ranchod Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Sign him long-term. Love the potential secondary we'll have with him, McGee and our picks from this year. Dy-no-mite!
BuckeyeBill Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Nobody looked good in our defense last year. 681898[/snapback] Fletcher looked pretty good last year. Schobel had a pretty good year too. So did Crowell.
Ramius Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 I don't think that is true. Have never seen it. I think there is a new rule about the franchise player and his second year but that isn't it. 682094[/snapback] You can tag the same players 2 years in a row with the same rules as used to be (120% of previous salary, or top 5 avg, what is higher) If you tag the player for a 3rd year in a row, he gets the QB franchise tender.
stuckincincy Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Trade NC to Minnesota in exchange for A. Winfield. 682265[/snapback] Good thinkin'!!!
2003Contenders Posted May 3, 2006 Posted May 3, 2006 Nate has very little leverage here. After a Pro Bowl 2004 campaign, he is coming off a mediocre 2005 season. Thus, he knows that his stock is especially low right now. That's why he really does NOT want to go out on the free market. He knows that he is more valuable to the Bills than anyone else, which is why he is demanding the big contract with the large signing bonus. If the parameters were reasonable, I'd hope that Marv would come to terms with him, as we could be buying low -- and fortifying our secondary for years to come. However, something tells me that Nate's demands are NOT reasonable, which is why the stalemate continues. When it come down to the final hour, when the deadline for signing the tag hits, Nate will be smart enough to realize that it is in his best interest to sign the tag and play for free agency in 2007. Considering the draft that the Bills just had, I doubt that they'd re-tag him then, considering the $9 M price tag.
Recommended Posts