The Senator Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 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 871088[/snapback] You two are doing this just to piss me off, right? OK - I'll try one more time We don't get any compensation via the 'transition' tag - Franchise and Transition Tags Free Agency 101 Again - we have to use the 'non-exclusive' franchise player tag, which gives us the right to match any offer sheet or receive two first-round draft picks as compensation. You're on the right track, 'ski - Marv needs to think about using that non-exclusive' franchise tag, and hopefully he didn't promise Clements we wouldn't use that tool, but only that we wouldn't use the 'exclusive' tag - which would prevent Nate from any negotiations with other teams. That way, teams better be serious when they start offering the sun and the moon, 'cause they'll be coughing up 2 first-rounders if we let Nate go!
apuszczalowski Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 You two are doing this just to piss me off, right? OK - I'll try one more time We don't get any compensation via the 'transition' tag - Franchise and Transition Tags Free Agency 101 Again - we have to use the 'non-exclusive' franchise player tag, which gives us the right to match any offer sheet or receive two first-round draft picks as compensation. You're on the right track, 'ski - Marv needs to think about using that non-exclusive' franchise tag, and hopefully he didn't promise Clements we wouldn't use that tool, but only that we wouldn't use the 'exclusive' tag - which would prevent Nate from any negotiations with other teams. That way, teams better be serious when they start offering the sun and the moon, 'cause they'll be coughing up 2 first-rounders if we let Nate go! 871115[/snapback] Sorry, I wasn't refering to the transition tag, I know they get no compensation, I'm talking about the other, where the bills could get picks if someone signs him for more then we are willing to. Basically you do whatever you can toget something out of him if he does want to leave for the money
Ozymandius Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Great point about the non-exclusive franchise tag, Senator.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract. Nice thought, but not plausible..
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract. Nice thought, but not plausible.. 871136[/snapback] And you know that HOW?
daquixers_is_back Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Im going to be buying my Clements (Bills) jersey while he is still on the team.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 And you know that HOW? 871138[/snapback] On the face of it, it is a ridiculous proposition. More to the point, any agent/attorney would be guilty of malpractice/violation of NFLPA policies for not putting that into the contract. Look at the Poston situation with Arrington as an example of what happens when advisors don't adequately represent their clients--they get suspended for prolonged lengths.
Dawgg Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Because Todd France isn't a MORON. He's a good agent. And you know that HOW? 871138[/snapback]
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On the face of it, it is a ridiculous proposition. More to the point, any agent/attorney would be guilty of malpractice/violation of NFLPA policies for not putting that into the contract. Look at the Poston situation with Arrington as an example of what happens when advisors don't adequately represent their clients--they get suspended for prolonged lengths. 871156[/snapback] So, Walter Jones' agent must be in agent hell, then?
Bill from NYC Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 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 870977[/snapback] I hope you are wrong. There would be nothing "ideal" about wasting yet another 1st round pick on another defensive back.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 So, Walter Jones' agent must be in agent hell, then? 871162[/snapback] I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones. If you want to keep believing that, go ahead. It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones. If you want to keep believing that, go ahead. It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars. 871167[/snapback] The point is, you said France would be guilty of malpractice if he allowed the Bills to do that to his client. Walter Jones was franchised, what, 10 years in a row?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones. If you want to keep believing that, go ahead. It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars. 871167[/snapback] My point is, the player has little to no recourse when it comes to the franchise tag.
HurlyBurly51 Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract. Nice thought, but not plausible.. 871136[/snapback] Well, if it is in the contract for any kind of tag, then the Bills are the dumb ones. Sorry, but you just don't give away the best tool in your arsenal for no reason.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Well, if it is in the contract for any kind of tag, then the Bills are the dumb ones. Sorry, but you just don't give away the best tool in your arsenal for no reason. 871186[/snapback] It wasn't no reason, they got him to sign and come into camp. I personally think they didn't have to do it, and he would have had to come into camp, but they did it anyway. As kind of a goodwill gesture. And I believe that it was indeed written into his contract. And that Marv and Jauron have built up a lot of goodwill over the years for being straight shooters so there is no way in hell either of them are going to say, "Aha, Gotcha! We were only kidding!" Clements will surely hit the FA market unless we give him an outrageous offer, and Ralph simply cannot do that WHILE he is crying poor.
bills_fan Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Or we simply use some of the 40+mil in cap space we have, and make Nate the highest paid CB in football. Then he doesn't even have to test the open market, we just made him the most expensive CB in football. Done. Here's why that is a very good strategy...Nate is top 3 in the NFL this year. He's 26 years old. A 20 mil signing bonus (50 mil total contract) over 5 years + base salaries approximates to 10 mil per year (This can be adjusted with roster bonuses etc.). Given the expected rise in the salary cap over the next 5 years, and Nate's pure talent, I can live with that deal. Nate is a star, and the reason we have won a few games this year. He ought to be rewarded with the richest contract for a CB in the NFL. It sends a great message to the team.
HurlyBurly51 Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 It wasn't no reason, they got him to sign and come into camp. I personally think they didn't have to do it, and he would have had to come into camp, but they did it anyway. As kind of a goodwill gesture. And I believe that it was indeed written into his contract. And that Marv and Jauron have built up a lot of goodwill over the years for being straight shooters so there is no way in hell either of them are going to say, "Aha, Gotcha! We were only kidding!" Clements will surely hit the FA market unless we give him an outrageous offer, and Ralph simply cannot do that WHILE he is crying poor. 871195[/snapback] You say yourself they didn't have to do it, and I agree. He would've had to come in eventually. I wonder what kind of goodwill Nate will show in return as he's walking out the door? Sorry, but giving up your right to use a tool that is rightfully yours per the CBA is just plain dumb. Marv has a fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and Nate has a lot of value on the open market, so essentially letting him walk for nothing in return is negligent. Unless, of course, this is what he and Ralph wanted all along, then they could say we tried, Nate just wanted the highest bidder.
plenzmd1 Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 The point is, you said France would be guilty of malpractice if he allowed the Bills to do that to his client. Walter Jones was franchised, what, 10 years in a row? 871171[/snapback] But the rules have changed since Jones was being franchised. Now, if I am correct, one can only be tagged two years in a row, and then if tagged a third time must be paid the average of the top 5 PLAYERs, not just at his position. May not be exact, but something like that. And this clause was absolutely put in writing, as was Alexanders last year.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 The point is, you said France would be guilty of malpractice if he allowed the Bills to do that to his client. Walter Jones was franchised, what, 10 years in a row? 871171[/snapback] Actually, the difference is that Seattle never made that promise to Jones or Jones agreed to waive the clause.
HurlyBurly51 Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Or we simply use some of the 40+mil in cap space we have, and make Nate the highest paid CB in football. Then he doesn't even have to test the open market, we just made him the most expensive CB in football. Done. 871202[/snapback] I still don't believe that will get it done. In order for that to work, he has to want to come back. He doesn't have to sign anything, and there's apparently nothing preventing him from walking out the door and finding his true value first. Nate wants to test the open market and find out his true worth. Simply being the highest paid CB might turn out to be settling once he finds out what teams might really be willing to spend on him. This is a business, and I think it's all about the benjamins with Nate.
Recommended Posts