I don't like the Clements signing

[Kelly the Dog]

Unless there is something going on that makes the Bills believe they will be able to sign him long term, and that could very well be the case, they gave him away with this signing. There isn't a good reason to call his bluff now and agree not to franchise him next year. He was going to sign and he was going to play. If they couldn't sign him long term, what if he plays great this year? Which is probably a 50-50 proposition. Now we have nothing to hold him. At least franchising him next year and then keeping him for 8 mil or trying to trade him for a #1 or #2 or #3 even is far, far better than agreeing now, the first week of May to give up the franchise tag.

 

Nate was going to play for us this year, and was going to play for a big payday. He wasn't sitting out. There was zero chance of that. Again, I am not criticizing this if they have a long term deal in the works they are very confident they can sign him to. But if they don't, this is a bad move.

[Rico]

Why can't they just franchise him again if necessary like Walter Jones & Orlando Pace? Change with the new agreement?

[Kelly the Dog]

Why can't they just franchise him again if necessary like Walter Jones & Orlando Pace? Change with the new agreement?

685115[/snapback]

He agreed to sign if they agreed to not franchise him next year.

 

Bills | Team agrees not to franchise Clements again

Fri, 5 May 2006 18:38:52 -0700

 

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports as part of getting CB Nate Clements to sign his one-year, $7.226 million tender offer, the Buffalo Bills waived the right to franchise or transition him next year.

[JAMIEBUF12]

i hope nate is a bill a very long time! i think when nate sees the playmakers we will have on this team this season he will wnat to be a part of it for a very long time.........3 players from ohio state all on the same secondary! go bills in"06

[Rico]

Thanks, I missed that... yeah, I wouldn't have agreed to that either if I was Marv.

[Ozymandius]

I agree. This sucks. The Bills have apparently decided that getting Nate into camp two months early for the 2006 season is more valuable than a first or second round draft pick in the 2007 draft. Once again, I have to question whether this administration understands the VALUE (there's that hated word again) of extra draft picks.

[Ozymandius]

I'm not even going to hold out hope that Clements will be signed. He has all the leverage now. Oh well.

 

Youboty-Whitner-Simpson-McGee, King (slot/nickel), 2007 draft pick (dime) is our secondary for 2007.

[Pyrite Gal]

I believe the rules are that the Bills had to offer NC the tender at the franchise tag level or not when the deadline came up prior to this years FA signing period. They did this and I do know anyone who felt that they should not have done this with the franchise tag number for FAs down and the total team cap # up.

 

The decision made today to accept the Bills tender was all NC's and not the Bills so I'm not sure what problem you have with the Bills's decision here.

 

NC's decision to sign the deal provides the advantage to the Bills that NC is definitely with the team and he came to the first day or rookie camp with TKO and other vets which is a great sign.

 

Even better, this move by NC by rule does not preclude him signing a long term deal with the Bills or from doing this and the tag becoming free for the Bills to use on whomever.

 

Even better than the technical application of the rules, both NC and the Bills spoke positively about this decision. Jauron saying he was pleased to have NC commited to the Bills for 06 and also reporting to camp at the earliest possible date to learn the new D.

 

NC also said all the right things saying he was pissed initially at getting tagged but that he now looked at it from the Bills perspective and that it was the proper move for them to manage a player of his talent level (cough cough) and actually was a compliment. He hoped that his accepting the offer and the fear the Bills would in fact lose the tag if he played under it, would ratchet up negotiations to a good long term conclusion.

 

In other words, the general expectation is that the Bills and NC should conclude a deal by July 15 (over two months from now) and certainly will have no real danger of losing the tag until then.

 

This move is a good one for Nate, a goos one for the Bills and I do not see anything in reality that one would be upset about.

[Kelly the Dog]

I believe the rules are that the Bills had to offer NC the tender at the franchise tag level or not when the deadline came up prior to this years FA signing period.  They did this and I do know anyone who felt that they should not have done this with the franchise tag number for FAs down and the total team cap # up.

 

The decision made today to accept the Bills tender was all NC's and not the Bills so I'm not sure what problem you have with the Bills's decision here.

 

NC's decision to sign the deal provides the advantage to the Bills that NC is definitely with the team and he came to the first day or rookie camp with TKO and other vets which is a great sign.

 

Even better, this move by NC by rule does not preclude him signing a long term deal with the Bills or from doing this and the tag becoming free for the Bills to use on whomever.

 

Even better than the technical application of the rules, both NC and the Bills spoke positively about this decision. Jauron saying he was pleased to have NC commited to the Bills for 06 and also reporting to camp at the earliest possible date to learn the new D.

 

NC also said all the right things saying he was pissed initially at getting tagged but that he now looked at it from the Bills perspective and that it was the proper move for them to manage a player of his talent level (cough cough) and actually was a compliment.  He hoped that his accepting the offer and the fear the Bills would in fact lose the tag if he played under it, would ratchet up negotiations to a good long term conclusion.

 

In other words, the general expectation is that the Bills and NC should conclude a deal by July 15 (over two months from now) and certainly will have no real danger of losing the tag until then.

 

This move is a good one for Nate, a goos one for the Bills and I do not see anything in reality that one would be upset about.

685130[/snapback]

Who else are they going to tag in 2007? Nate smoked them on this deal. Now he can demand to be paid the highest figure and the Bills either pay him or they get nothing. He has all the cards and the Bills have none. Before today, the Bills had most of the cards, Nate was going to sign and going to play and try hard. We lost all leverage.

[shibuya]

I agree.  This sucks.  The Bills have apparently decided that getting Nate into camp two months early for the 2006 season is more valuable than a first or second round draft pick in the 2007 draft.  Once again, I have to question whether this administration understands the VALUE (there's that hated word again) of extra draft picks.

685125[/snapback]

 

 

Maybe the orginaization is focusing on character, and sending out a signal to future FA's that they won't be trapped in Buffalo, and Buffalo is a good place to play.

 

FA's don't like to be franchised, so this kind of sends a signal to NFL that Marv is a square dealer. There might be need for damage repair after the TD years too.

 

and lets face it, with the players we drafted we already new NC wasn't staying.

[ax4782]

There is another consideration here that many have missed because it is part of the new rules. The Bills and Clements must be close to a long term deal or are not even discussing one for the following reason. If the Bills don't sign him to a long term contract until after July 15, Clements keeps the Franchise Tag until the end of his new contract: no matter the duration of that contract. That means that the Bills are not able to tag anyone else. The fact that the Bills promised not to tag him next year suggests that there is going to be a deal before the 15th of July, or there is no deal. I'm going with the idea that they are trying to work out a long term deal, but I don't think they should give him more per season than what he is getting next year. No CB is worth that, even if their name is Champ Bailey.

[Bill from NYC]

He agreed to sign if they agreed to not franchise him next year.

685117[/snapback]

 

Good point. Exactly how does this agreement help the Bills? The things is, it probably matters little.

 

It seems quite apparent that some of the reason for this idiotic draft was to avoid having to pay Clements the big bucks. Ralph is 87. What do you think that he would be more inclined to do in 07.......leave 20 million dollars to his heirs, or give it to Nate Clements (combined bonus and first year salary)?

Really.

I make the case that this draft locked the bucks into Ralph's pocket. No matter how much it will cost to sign a somewhat obscure safety chosen at the 8th slot, it won't even approach Clements money. In essence, we will lose a proven star and he will be replaced by an almost certainly inferior rookie, no matter which one is plugged into Nate's spot.

 

What I DO concede is that in all probability, Ralph will need the money to pay a top 5 pick in the 07 draft. All we can do is hope that Marv doesn't use it on another corner, but at this point no stupid moves would surprise me. None at all.

[cåblelady]

but at this point no stupid moves would surprise me. None at all.

685218[/snapback]

Mornin' Sweetie.

[BigAL]

Maybe they agreed to lift a future franchise designation on him if they can't arrange a trade ala Peerless Price.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe they agreed to lift a future franchise designation on him if they can't arrange a trade ala Peerless Price.

685222[/snapback]

There is no incentive for that now. If Clements doesn't sign a long extension, he will just be free to go anywhere, and he will likely get his outrageous contract from someone. If we didnt agree to this we could have done the Peerless scenario next year, which is what would have likely happened. But now we cannot trade him at all. Unless it's before this year and that ain't likely to happen.

[BigAL]

There is no incentive for that now. If Clements doesn't sign a long extension, he will just be free to go anywhere, and he will likely get his outrageous contract from someone. If we didnt agree to this we could have done the Peerless scenario next year, which is what would have likely happened. But now we cannot trade him at all. Unless it's before this year and that ain't likely to happen.

685270[/snapback]

That's what I'm trying to say. Maybe the agreement is to lift the franchise on him next year if we can't do a Peerless trade.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's what I'm trying to say.  Maybe the agreement is to lift the franchise on him next year if we can't do a Peerless trade.

685278[/snapback]

Oh, I see. I guess I find it difficult to believe because if that were the case, why would another team trade for him? And why would he agree to it? The reason you make him a Peerless type trade is to keep him from signing with another team, or the Bills keeping him if they can't make a good trade. But Clements is going to go to the team of his choice anyway, based on money and what team they are. So if a team can sign him to a deal of his liking, why would they also trade for him and give something up if Clements can just say no and get that same deal with them anyway?

[dave mcbride]

woah there - it's not so simple. clements will indeed consider a long term contract for one very good reason -- the very real chance (my unscientific guess is about 15%) that he'll suffer a significant injury of some sort in the upcoming year. signing a big contract now while he's healthy is a hedge against that.

[Ozymandius]

Maybe the orginaization is focusing on character, and sending out a signal to future FA's that they won't be trapped in Buffalo, and Buffalo is a good place to play.

 

FA's don't like to be franchised, so this kind of sends a signal to NFL that Marv is a square dealer. There might be need for damage repair after the TD years too.

 

and lets face it, with the players we drafted we already new NC wasn't staying.

685182[/snapback]

It's not like they didn't franchise him at all. While character is good, I don't see how that comes into play here unless you're saying that Nate is a person of low character. Bottom line is do you like first round draft picks or not? If Nate doesn't re-sign AND we don't get a high 2007 pick out of it, then this will have been a huge mistake. We're just throwing away talent at this point.

[Kelly the Dog]

woah there - it's not so simple. clements will indeed consider a long term contract for one very good reason -- the very real chance (my unscientific guess is about 15%) that he'll suffer a significant injury of some sort in the upcoming year.  signing a big contract now while he's healthy is a hedge against that.

685286[/snapback]

What does that have to do with giving him this guarantee they didnt have to? That injury concern was true last year, is true now, and remains true until he signs a long term deal with anyone.