Pyrite Gal Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Can we use the Transitional tag? I think we tag him and get a 1st for him from someone.... 845294[/snapback] My sense is that if the Bills tag him in anyway, iy goes against the agreement reported in the media (certainly not a dead lock certainty of accuracy regarding contract terms and certainly language). It may well be that there is no language to support the concept that the Bills agreed not to tag him, but it is probably more important what the perception of the deal is than the reality as if the perception becomes widespread among other players that Marv and/or Ralph cannot be trusted to keep their word then many players will simply chose not to believe or even negotiate with the Bills. It actually makes little difference whether the Bills can win a battle in court that allows them to tag Nate, if the cost is that they lose the war in peveption among possible FAs. The legally focused out there may want to argue over what "is" means, but in the end the rep of the Bills is probably big part of why we have been quite competive in getting the FAs we have gone after with the Bills having a history off signing FAs early in the signing period or have them not do other visits they have announced they would do, . If there is a Bills problem it has been their unwillingness to even go after the highest profile FAs (though sometimes this has been forced by cap limitations), but this team under Marv, TD and even Butller has shown a history of going after second tier guys (sometimes with great results and sometimes with so-so results). However, the perception whether all the legal "t"s are crossed and :i"s dotted is that this team will not tag NC after this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDRupp Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 Are you sure about that? Usually nowadays they have it written into the 1 year franchise contract that they cannot be tagged again next season. I was under the impression that this was the case with NC. 845232[/snapback] I think you are corect, Dibs. There is no way the agent would agree to a verbal, non-binding agreement. That said, I would have let him hold out or sign the tender and not have offered the promose not to tag. I think we are bound to not tag him in any way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think you are corect, Dibs. There is no way the agent would agree to a verbal, non-binding agreement. That said, I would have let him hold out or sign the tender and not have offered the promose not to tag. I think we are bound to not tag him in any way.... 845417[/snapback] Conversely, I would hope that there's no way Marv & Co. would not have protected their interests and options w/Clements, should they want to keep him. Can't find any details of what the actual arrangement is between Bills & Nate, so I guess right now we just don't know. Hopefully, any agreement is only limited to tagging him an "exclusive franchise player" - and we still have the "non-exclusive" or "transition" options so we can rmatch any offer or at least be compensated... 'Franchise' players: To tag or not to tag Anyway, with 6 games left and a shot at the playoffs, I'm more concerned about 2006 than '07 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDRupp Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 Conversely, I would hope that there's no way Marv & Co. would not have protected their interests and options w/Clements, should they want to keep him. Can't find any details of what the actual arrangement is between Bills & Nate, so I guess right now we just don't know. Hopefully, any agreement is only limited to tagging him an "exclusive franchise player" - and we still have the "non-exclusive" or "transition" options so we can rmatch any offer or at least be compensated... 'Franchise' players: To tag or not to tag Anyway, with 6 games left and a shot at the playoffs, I'm more concerned about 2006 than '07 right now. 845493[/snapback] Senator, Sure I am hopeful for a miracle but it would be a miracle to have this team win 6 games to make the playoffs. That might not even do it. I would say a very very good end to the season would be 4-2. Playoffs are not very realistic and I doubt you are right about Marv protecting and all... although maybe with the transition tag. by the way, if we transition and don't match, we get nothing. I think Marv's thought was get the guy in so he is not a distraction. Focus on 06 and then try to resign him in Feb otherwise go to plan b at CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 If spikes doesnt get it together we'll have even more cap space and more of a need to retain quality veterans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Senator,Sure I am hopeful for a miracle but it would be a miracle to have this team win 6 games to make the playoffs. That might not even do it. I would say a very very good end to the season would be 4-2. Playoffs are not very realistic and I doubt you are right about Marv protecting and all... although maybe with the transition tag. by the way, if we transition and don't match, we get nothing. I think Marv's thought was get the guy in so he is not a distraction. Focus on 06 and then try to resign him in Feb otherwise go to plan b at CB. 846165[/snapback] We shall see, my good friend, we shall see. We almost beat both Indy and NE - on the road - and I don't see any teams better than them, or even as good (other than the Chargers), on our remaining schedule. We catch a break w/San Diego, playing them at home, in December, hopefully snowing - hopefully hard. Personally, I think the playoffs are realistic - very realistic. But that's just me, and that's why they play the games. And yeah - on Clements, we can use the 'transition' tag but get nothing if we don't match. If, OTOH, we use the 'non-exclusive' franchise tag, we have the option to match or receive two 1st round picks. I hope Marv didin't forgo that option - we'll have to wait and see. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Of course he is going to be beat once in a while. Heck, I can show you two times in the past 2 games that Champ Bailey was beat. Have you been to any games this year? If you do go, please just pay attention to Clements all game. You will see him in a different light then when you watch him on TV. The broadcasters dont give him credit when he just blankets receivers all day long. They just pay attention to the 1 or 2 times he gets beat for a 10 yard gain or something. As I said, I cant remember a time all season he has been beat for a TD. Can you? 845190[/snapback] OK, Whatever break the bank to sign him and watch him become mediocre again right after he gets the money expert We drafted 3 DB's. Yeah, sure he's playing great now. He knows it's contract time. We don't need to over pay for a corner. A tackle yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I think Marv is honor bound and will not franchise Nate. Whether Nate is interested in a fair deal and wants toshow some loyalty to the team that drafted him and now looks like they may finally be on track toward real improvement, or simply wants to go to the highest bidder is up to him. Buffalo is in good cap shape and should be able to make a very nice offer, but some team out there will be stupid enough to break the bank (like San Francisco and Jonas Jennings) and will offer more than what Buffalo is willing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I'm hoping that was a two-way promise by Marv & Nate... Marv: I promise you won't be tagged if you sign a fair LT deal. Nate: I'll sign the LT deal if its fair & the team is headed in the right direction. 845008[/snapback] I would hope in that conversation that Nate would understand that when Marv says "LT deal", he means "Long Term Deal" and not "Ladainian Tomlinson Deal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 If we are going to make the playoffs, this week is a MUST WIN. We can only afford one more loss and still have a chance, and i think our best bet is to reserve that loss for the San Diego game. The rest of the games are winnable. Tough but winable. The San Diego game is the one I just cant see us winning. But hey, who knows. But we HAVE TO BEAT JACKSONVILLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 We're not gonna tag him. We made a promise, we'll keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts