scribo Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 The Bills no longer hold the "Transition" tag. If I am not mistaken, they lost it with Wright many years ago. 686510[/snapback] I'm not saying you're wrong, Bill, but that doesn't make sense to me. A team can only use the Transition tag once in its history? Or did Wright take it with him? In that case, call his ass up and get him to return it. He probably lost it eating burgers at McDonalds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 I'm not saying you're wrong, Bill, but that doesn't make sense to me. A team can only use the Transition tag once in its history? Or did Wright take it with him? In that case, call his ass up and get him to return it. He probably lost it eating burgers at McDonalds. 686528[/snapback] They have a transition tag to use. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/teams/report/BUF/9421770 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 They have a transition tag to use. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/teams/report/BUF/9421770 686536[/snapback] That link in no way indicates that they still have the transition tag. KTD, I am all but sure that this tag is taken away once used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booya2 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 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] I agree. It seems to me that we are all bashing the draft day performance and the handling of this situation by the Levy led administration, but the way they're moving seems to be more in line with how this team operated Pre Donahoe. Sure, Donahoe was the "shrude dude" and pulled value out of his @$$ on more than one occassion (ie the Peerless Price tag and trade), but on the field it produced no results. He was great at getting the bottom line and keeping the cap in great shape, etc. but again... that "value" didn't add up to wins. We go back to, even, the late 90's and how overpaid we felt some of these so called mid level talents were on our team, but those teams were going 10-6, 11-5 without batting an eye. We come to expect it. Suddenly in this Donahoe era of getting great value and pinching every penny out of these veteran contracts and so on, we couldn't get a sniff of the playoffs. These moves, on the face, may seem like we're getting screwed, but... I have a strong feeling we're going to start seeing winning football on the field again, and that's the only "value" that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Your post makes the assumption that this 3rd round pick will be as good as Nate Clements. Granted, Ralph will save a ton of cash, but Clements is a very good player and the chance of this kid being an upgrade appear slim. If we keep Clements in 07, a disproportionate chunk of the salary cap will be allocated toward the secondary, but this is unlikely to occur imo. What I see happening is for Clements to leave Buffalo in 07. Ralph will save money and Levy will grab another early cornerback in the 07 draft. Is there any reason to believe otherwise? 686518[/snapback] I think that the bills were pleasantly suprised when Yobooty fell in their laps in the 3rd round with him carrying a 1st round talent flag and my feeling is (I have no proof of course but none of us do) that the bills were probably going to take a OL at this pick....but couldn't pass up a cornerback from the Ohio State corner factory who compares in style favoribly to Chris Gamble. It also would not surpise me to still allow Nate to leave and still take a early corner even with the emergence of Yobooty simply because the bills tend to do that historically. My feeling is that they go offense big time in next years draft to balance the D draft they went with this year...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 That link in no way indicates that they still have the transition tag. KTD, I am all but sure that this tag is taken away once used. 686538[/snapback] Yes, it does. Look above where the franchise player is. It lists Nate Clements. It does this for all the teams and lists their transition player and their franchise player, if they have one, otherwise it lists "none", which it does for the Bills. The tag is taken once it's used for a certain amount of time, usually the length of the contract. There is no way the NFL would make a rule and say you have once in a lifetime to use this, and in the year 2063 we wouldn't have used the transition tag in 67 years. Think about it. The rule is set up not to keep jumping back and forth with these things and use them sparingly. But there are surely not a one time only proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 That link in no way indicates that they still have the transition tag. KTD, I am all but sure that this tag is taken away once used. 686538[/snapback] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Tag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 There is no way the NFL would make a rule and say you have once in a lifetime to use this 686554[/snapback] Yeah, there is. From wikipedia: >>>>>History The transition tag was born in 1993, following the advent of free agency in the NFL. The NFL granted each team two transition tags, each of which they could only use once and never again. The system has been since changed to allow each team to use a transition tag each year it is available to them.<<<<< If it has been changed, I wasn't aware. Also, wasn't Nate franchised before the new CBA? I don't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 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. 685218[/snapback] Hey Bill...how about you and JSP go down to the gym and pump each other? Seriously, man...you're bringing me down. Holy crap. Lighten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 If it has been changed, I wasn't aware. Also, wasn't Nate franchised before the new CBA? I don't remember. 686586[/snapback] It doesn't matter at this point, since the terms of the new CBA govern.... JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 A quick question here:This "agreeement" is that the Bills won't hit Nate with the franchise tag next year. But, and here is the questiion, is it possible to slap the transition player tag on him still? I believe so, and that would force a teamt give the Bills a 1st-rounder for him. Correct? 686416[/snapback] That would be such a dirty and underhanded maneuver that it would poison the contract negotioations the Bills had with almost every player for years thereafter. The truth of the matter is that Marv made the deal because: 1) The franchise CB tag is going up a prohibitive amount in 2007 anyways 2) Nate Clements was not only not the best CB in the League last year, he wasn't even the best CB on the team 3) Yobouty is a potential CB starter in the future, and 4) The Bills will probably plan to sign a CB after the 2006 season - that may be Clements, or it may not - but Marv is willing to take our CB needs to the open market. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M&M Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I can't believe it took about 20 posts until John (hemet) and Dawg spoke the truth, the Bills drafted his replacement this year...Clements is not worth the big pay day he proved that last year! The Pats have proved it year after year by signing lesser known "team" players. The Bills did the best thing possible, they have him for 1 more year the new guys can learn a few things and they don't have to break the bank. You break the bank for guys like SPIKES,...Nate is no way in that class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 i thought i read on pro football talk that what the bills id was illegal??????????????they wrote that you are not alowed to have deals that are not signed deals......meaning the deal the bills made with nate isnt a written deal and therfore dosnt really exist.........its not a written contract if nate isnt a team player this season ..what would stop the bills from franchising him anyway??????nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 BTW, the history is that the Bills did in fact use the transition tag on Peerless which allowed them to retain rights to this FA and thne trade him to AT. I believe they also used a transition tag on Wright and this constitutes the two uses of the transition tag we had under the old CBA. Thus those who pointed out the language that we had the transition tag to use twice appear to be correct to me and those who claimed we used it up on Jeff Wright were wrong because we also used it on Peerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 i thought i read on pro football talk that what the bills id was illegal??????????????they wrote that you are not alowed to have deals that are not signed deals......meaning the deal the bills made with nate isnt a written deal and therfore dosnt really exist.........its not a written contract if nate isnt a team player this season ..what would stop the bills from franchising him anyway??????nothing. 687788[/snapback] Nate would not have any legal ground to stand on if he tried to fight Buffalo next year if Buffalo franchised him again. He just made a gentlemens agreement with Marv that if he signed it, they would not franchise him next year. This is a gesture of good faith to Nate and keeps the lines of negotiation free and clear between the 2 and makes Nate a Happy player, possibly willing to work out a long term deal and help Marv and the Bills during negotiations. It also shows potetial FA's thinking about signing an offer with Buffalo, that the Bills are willing to work with players and cater to them. If Buffalo were to franchise Nate next year, they would break this gentlemens agreement and be looked down upon by others and it would make them look shrewd and untrustworthy, and FA's would think twice before making any deals (It sounds like something TD would have done, being a guy all about the buisness and financial end of things, were Marv is more about the players and treating them a people and equals) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts