PFW - Clements is as good as gone

[ganesh]

Thanks for the link.  Not a surprise--he was gone the day we decided to agree not to franchise him.  It's not about cap room, it's about money.  We're talking about perhaps the premier free agent on the market with lots of rich teams around who have cap space.  $15-$20 million dollar signing bonus is a possibility.  Oakland A's fans don't worry about signing Barry Zito.  We shouldn't worry about signing Nate Clements.  Enjoy his final games as a Bill.  How much is Asante Samuel going to cost?  What college players fit the Tampa-2?

870834[/snapback]

 

It might be about the money, but that doesn't necessarily means he is gone. He is gone, only if he does not want to play here.....

 

Ralph showed the money when we signed TKO to a offer sheet.....They paid premium money for a linebacker. I am sure Ralph will pony up the money if necessary. The two things to ask is, does Jauron require Clements for this defense and does clements wants to be a Buffalo Bill. If both are an Yes, Marv will find a way to sign this guy

[ganesh]

oh if only we could have used some of that cap space this season to work a long term deal with Nate.  We could have given him some huge roster bonus this season with all the free cap space and had a reasonable deal for down the line.  coulda...shoulda....woulda.....

870879[/snapback]

 

May be Ralph was short on "real money" this off season.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Unless the "promise" was written into a contract, they should still franchise him and get something out of the Foreskins for him.

[Hardy Pyle]

Do you really think he will want to play for Williams again?

[IDBillzFan]

They sure do "hear" a lot of things. Do they ever report WHO said what???

[dave mcbride]

It might be about the money, but that doesn't necessarily means he is gone.  He is gone, only if he does not want to play here.....

 

Ralph showed the money when we signed TKO to a offer sheet.....They paid premium money for a linebacker.  I am sure Ralph will pony up the money if necessary.  The two things to ask is, does Jauron require Clements for this defense and does clements wants to be a Buffalo Bill.  If both are an Yes,  Marv will find a way to sign this guy

870939[/snapback]

Premier corners cost a lot more than premier linebackers, and besides, the money teams will be able to offer him will dwarf what we offered Spikes. I think the Bills need to do one of three things:

 

a) Draft a CB in rounds 1 or 2 (I hate saying this, of course).

 

b) Spend more money than they want on a decent replacement for Clements. I doubt Asante Samuel will be that guy given that he's almost as talented as Clements and plays like a champion when it counts. He'll make a boatload too.

 

c) Hope and pray that whatever older corner who hits the market this year (the Ty Laws of the world) is reasonably affordable and can actually play. That's a dangerous road to follow, though.

 

d) Hope and pray that Ashton Youbouty can play at a high level in the NFL.

 

My money is on option one. It's the most likely to result in the Bills getting competent CB play next year.

 

My ideal draft:

 

Rd 1 - trade down from the 17th slot to the second round and pick up an extra third.

 

2 - CB

2 - DT

3 - G

3 - RT/C

(5 is gone - Hargrove)

4 - LB

6 - TE

7 - QB

[Ramius]

Either tag would eliminate or severely limit the bidding war for him.

 

The transition tag would actually be worse for both the Bills and NC as under the rules other teams could negotiate a deal with him which would be severely limited in value for NC as teams would have to give up draft choices to get him, but it would virtually guarantee he is gone for the Bills as some team would likely be willing to make a deal for him.

 

870874[/snapback]

 

I think you're wrong here. The transition tag give the Bills the right to match any contract offer to clements. If we decline to match, we get nothing. This was how we signed TKO from cincy.

 

The seahwaks transition tagged hutch last year, and only lost him because of the poison pill in his contract.

 

Transition tagging nate seems like a viable strategy with nothing to lose.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Letting him go is a ridiculous step backwards for a team that should should compete for the division title next year, especially when you consider their current cap situation.

[marauderswr80]

A part of me feels that Perry Fewell will have an impact on this. Cause I really do think Fewell is a major reason why Nate is having success this year!

 

I read a story a few weeks back when we played Green Bay, there are rumblings that the Packers cant afford Al Harris and will most likely be cut after the season and it was mentioned he would be a great replacement if Clements were to leave Buffalo......I dont want to see it happen though!

[DrDawkinstein]

Letting him go is a ridiculous step backwards for a team that should should compete for the division title next year, especially when you consider their current cap situation.

870987[/snapback]

 

 

BINGO!

[plenzmd1]

May be Ralph was short on "real money" this off season.

870944[/snapback]

 

For some reason, I think this point is lost to the board. Forget 10 years ago when "cap" ramifications were all that Ralph had to worry about. Now, these bonuses are coming out of his pocket, and with the new CBA and expanded revunues being included in the mix, cap ramifications mean NOTHING!! But with the new CBA, Ralph could be spending 70% of his revunue on player salaries, while others like the Skins only paying 50% of the Skins revunue.

 

Thats why Ralph is so angry. Like with the new NY stadium deal, he gets screwed two ways. Not only does he have to loan them the money to build the new stadium, but the extra revenues from that stadium, of which he will see nada, now drives his price of doing business up. Talk about not even getting a reach around!!!!!!!

 

All this talk about not selling the stadium out forcing the Bills to move is just not right. What is right is that without a broader revunue sharing agreement, Ralph can't afford to keep this team competitive anymore.

[apuszczalowski]

I really don't see Clements signing before he can test the market. Unless the Bills wow him with a huge offer (Like the Toronto Blue Jays just did to re-sing their centre fielder Vernon Wells) He wants his big pay day and knows he will get it. He knows like the rest of us, Dan Snyder is salivating right now to sign him, and Dan is known for making players RICH, weither tehy are worth the money or not (although he may have to work some more of that magic to get the numbers under the cap again). If they are willing to give him a boatload of cash, let him go. Its not like the deadskins are going to do anything. They get another overpriced player to lead them to .500 at best, and the Bills defence gets an extra hole to fill. Its not like he gets adeal to go to and AFC East rival/competitor where we will see him regularly. I do think that the idea of bringing in a FA vet for a season or two for Youbouty to develop behind is a good option for this team, unless they could get an immediate replacement in the draft for Clements.

 

I just worry that after Nate gets his money, he is going to go ack to playing like he did at the start of the year and not play like he has in recent weeks

[Koufax]

Actually, this is more like a Winfield moment, isn't it? 

 

I think that to succeed as a team, you need to get good value (production for the money) from your starters and backups.

870932[/snapback]

 

EXACTLY.

 

I also don't think we are in a critical situation if he leaves and are forced into a high draft pick. I think Ashton will be ready to step in (clearly an expected loss of performance, but also an expected good player) and we can line up with McGee and Ashton. I really like Nate, and especially how well he has played in recent weeks, but he leaves an opening where we specifically have a young high talent player being groomed each week in practice. Not as good as keeping Nate of course, who is a premier player, but certainly a backup plan to keep us from paying Nate more than his value to us.

 

Since we already have Ashton on the bench now, Nate's value to us is how much better he is than Ashton (or than McGee if you think Ashton is better than McGee and we could start Ashton and Nate). I might be misevaluating, but I think that with the market Nate will have it is very likely that Nate over Ashton is worth less to us than Premier RG over Preston or Premier DT over Anderson or Fletcher over his alternative, and I would not want our contract with Nate to prevent us from addressing those other places.

 

You will also notice, that even though they often get made fun of when Troy Brown is forced to play, New England has been a team to not overpay big name corners, and it works out for them. Losing Nate would hurt, but probably not quite as much as people think, especially if those dollars are well spent.

 

Again, I really want Nate back and hope it happens, but if his price makes him overvalued compared to other players and positions, we can improve our team MORE by not breaking the bank to keep him.

[Kelly the Dog]

For some reason, I think this point is lost to the board. Forget 10 years ago when "cap" ramifications were all that Ralph had to worry about. Now, these bonuses are coming out of his pocket, and with the new CBA and expanded revunues being included in the mix, cap ramifications mean NOTHING!!  But with the new CBA, Ralph could be spending 70% of his revunue on player salaries, while others like the Skins only paying 50% of the Skins revunue.

 

Thats why Ralph is so angry. Like with the new NY stadium deal, he gets screwed two ways. Not only does he have to loan them the money to build the new stadium, but the extra revenues from that stadium, of which he will see nada, now drives his price of doing business up. Talk about not even getting a reach around!!!!!!!

 

All this talk about not selling the stadium out forcing the Bills to move is just not right. What is right is that without a broader revunue sharing agreement, Ralph can't afford to keep this team competitive anymore.

870996[/snapback]

Explain to me exactly how making only 10 or 20 or 30 million versus 80 million prevents Ralph from being competitive, and paying huge signing bonuses? He is making a lot of money, just not AS much as others. That that is net (not even gross) profit. And what you pay out in bonuses you save that same amount in salary over the next few years.

[dave mcbride]

EXACTLY.

 

I also don't think we are in a critical situation if he leaves and are forced into a high draft pick.  I think Ashton will be ready to step in (clearly an expected loss of performance, but also an expected good player) and we can line up with McGee and Ashton.  I really like Nate, and especially how well he has played in recent weeks, but he leaves an opening where we specifically have a young high talent player being groomed each week in practice.  Not as good as keeping Nate of course, who is a premier player, but certainly a backup plan to keep us from paying Nate more than his value to us.

 

Since we already have Ashton on the bench now, Nate's value to us is how much better he is than Ashton (or than McGee if you think Ashton is better than McGee and we could start Ashton and Nate).  I might be misevaluating, but I think that with the market Nate will have it is very likely that Nate over Ashton is worth less to us than Premier RG over Preston or Premier DT over Anderson or Fletcher over his alternative, and I would not want our contract with Nate to prevent us from addressing those other places.

 

You will also notice, that even though they often get made fun of when Troy Brown is forced to play, New England has been a team to not overpay big name corners, and it works out for them.  Losing Nate would hurt, but probably not quite as much as people think, especially if those dollars are well spent.

 

Again, I really want Nate back and hope it happens, but if his price makes him overvalued compared to other players and positions, we can improve our team MORE by not breaking the bank to keep him.

871001[/snapback]

NE spends premium dollars only on front 7 defensive players (just think of the windfalls they gave Colvin and Seymour) and QB. No one else gets premium money.

[The Senator]

I think you're wrong here. The transition tag give the Bills the right to match any contract offer to clements. If we decline to match, we get nothing. This was how we signed TKO from cincy.

 

The seahwaks transition tagged hutch last year, and only lost him because of the poison pill in his contract.

 

Transition tagging nate seems like a viable strategy with nothing to lose.

870979[/snapback]

You are correct, sir.

 

The 'transition tag' gives us the right to match any offer sheet w/in 7 days, or we lose the player. We get no compensation, draft picks or otherwaise, via the 'transition tag'.

 

There are 2 types of 'franchise tag' - the first is 'exclusive' franchise tag,. and that's the one we used on Clements this season, where the team retains exclusive rights by offering an average of the highest five league salaries for that position.

 

There is also a 'non-exclusive' franchise tag - where Nate could negotiate with other teams but the Bills still maintain the right to match any offer and if they choose not to match, they get 2 first round picks as compensation. That keeps teams from negotiating in 'bad faith' just to drive up the Bills' cap numbers, as they'd have to give up 2 first round picks for the folly of doing so if we choose not to match their offer sheet.

 

I'm hoping the Bills did not promise not to use that option, either verbally or contractually. I've been somewhat amused by the banter here by people talking as if they know what the exact agreement is between Clements and the Bills. They don't. I don't. PFW doesn't.

 

In fact, why would we believe anything in the national media about the Bills dealings? "Marv's too old - the game has passed him by." "Jauron is a washed-up-has-been-failure as a head coach." "The Bills '06 draft was the worst in the league." "JP Losman will never succed as a starting QB." I could go on, but why?

 

The 'experts' have been dead-wrong, at every single turn!

 

I'm betting that Nate Clements will most certainly be wearing a Buffalo Bills uniform in 2007.

[HurlyBurly51]

Unless the "promise" was written into a contract, they should still franchise him and get something out of the Foreskins for him.

870946[/snapback]

 

You got that right. If it is written into his contract, can anyone explain why the Bills would give away the only leverage they had to keep the premiere free agent from just walking out the door?

 

They did not have to do this when they tagged him last year. It makes absolutely no business sense to just let one of your best assets get away for nothing, when you had the tools to prevent that from occuring in the first place. That is just a dumb move if that ends up being the case, which no one knows for sure if it is.

 

If Nate is dead set on hitting the open market to test his true worth, we have nothing to stop him, no matter how much we offer him. He could always come back to the Bills offer if that's what he wanted, but once he hits the open market he is gone. Reading the tea leaves from some recent commments Ralph has made indicate that no matter the cap space available, there is not going to be a spending spree this offseason. He practically came out and said it yesterday with his comments about the team being one good draft away from being in the playoff mix. I think he's setting us up to lower our expectations.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You are correct, sir.

 

The 'transition tag' gives us the right to match any offer sheet w/in 7 days, or we lose the player.  We get no compensation, draft picks or otherwaise, via the 'transition tag'.

 

There are 2 types of 'franchise tag' - the first is 'exclusive' franchise tag,. and that's the one we used on Clements this season, where the team retains exclusive rights by offering an average of the highest five league salaries for that position.

 

There is also a 'non-exclusive' franchise tag - where Nate could negotiate with other teams but the Bills still maintain the right to match any offer and if they choose not to match, they get 2 first round picks as compensation.  That keeps teams from negotiating in 'bad faith' just to drive up the Bills' cap numbers, as they'd have to give up 2 first round picks for the folly of doing so if we choose not to match their offer sheet.

 

I'm hoping the Bills did not promise not to use that option, either verbally or contractually.  I've been somewhat amused by the banter here by people talking as if they know what the exact agreement is between Clements and the Bills.  They don't.  I don't.  PFW doesn't. 

 

In fact, why would we believe anything in the national media about the Bills dealings?  "Marv's too old - the game has passed him by."  "Jauron is a washed-up-has-been-failure as a head coach."  "The Bills '06 draft was the worst in the league."  "JP Losman will never succed as a starting QB."  I could go on, but why? 

 

The 'experts' have been dead-wrong, at every single turn!

 

I'm betting that Nate Clements will most certainly be wearing a Buffalo Bills uniform in 2007.

871020[/snapback]

 

Non-exclusive would be the way to go, IMO, because the Foreskins will have a VERY high 1st round pick.

[gonzo1105]

haha I was just thinking, I know we told Nate Clements that we wouldn't franchise him again but wouldn't it be funny as hell if we made him our transition player this year....that would surely piss him off but god would that be funny to keep him for another year or get a first for him

[apuszczalowski]

haha I was just thinking, I know we told Nate Clements that we wouldn't franchise him again but wouldn't it be funny as hell if we made him our transition player this year....that would surely piss him off but god would that be funny to keep him for another year or get a first for him

871070[/snapback]

It is the smartest move the Bills can do and that is what Marv needs to thin about first. They no they have a team interested in him (the Redskins) and you know they are known for spending endless amounts of cash and handing away picks (did they even have a day one pick last year) so why not. Who cares if Nate gets pissed. You do this if Nate wants to test the market for himself, cause you know there is no way you retain him if that happens. Marv has to think about the team first and not a gentlmens agreement he made with Nate last year. I'm sure the redskins would give up a first for hm (if they still have one) and probably more so why not. This way we could still draft a 1st rd CB and not have Bill pissed about us doing it since it was an extra, lol