Ozymandius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 You know what? Screw the verbal agreement! This is business and Nate got paid well for this year. Franchise him and let him shop himself to the highest bidder, get said bidder to cough up a 1st rounder, and everyone gets what they want. 872880[/snapback] Wel-run and respectable businesses honor agreements (but they usually put it in writing). There is just no way I can see Ralph, Marv, or Dick reneging. Too old school. Too old.
RunTheBall Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 There is no doubt in my mind that Nate will go to whoever pays him the most. Period. All this talk about him wanting to play in Buffalo for a hopefully up and coming team is pure smoke. The Playmaker gots to get paid! RTB
Fan in Chicago Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 There is no doubt in my mind that Nate will go to whoever pays him the most. Period. All this talk about him wanting to play in Buffalo for a hopefully up and coming team is pure smoke. The Playmaker gots to get paid! RTB 873005[/snapback] Do you have any reason to believe he will go to the highest bidder ? Yes, he has stated he wants to be richly compensated. But that may be posturing on his part also. After some early-season struggles, he has come on strongly in the second half of the season. Perhaps he is playing for the contract but it also might be that he now 'gets' the Fewell system. He may realize that going to a different team may reduce his national exposure. Secondly, the Bills are going to go deep in the playoffs next year (yeah, I got proof )., so he would want to be part of a successful run here. Finally, Jauron is a very player-friendly coach and Marv is a (great grand) fatherly figure. I bet if the Bills and he are just a few million dollars apart, he will stay.
The Senator Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Wel-run and respectable businesses honor agreements (but they usually put it in writing). There is just no way I can see Ralph, Marv, or Dick reneging. Too old school. Too old. 872993[/snapback] Yes, but "reneging" on what??? No one - again - no one knows what agreements were made except the Bills, Clements, and his agent.
Ramius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Oakland sort of did this for 2 or 3 years with Woodson before cutting him this off season. Sometimes you got to do that to keep a premier player when you cannot come to a contract. 872964[/snapback] The new CBA put a stop to this. You cna onyl franchise tag the same player for 2 consecutive years at the 120% salary increase. The 3rd straight year, the player gets the a salary equivalent to the highest tag possible, which is the QB tag.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Wel-run and respectable businesses honor agreements (but they usually put it in writing). There is just no way I can see Ralph, Marv, or Dick reneging. Too old school. Too old. Well if it's Ralph's call, remember what he did with Wade. Again this is business and Clements has been well-compensated for his time in Buffalo, especially this year getting $7M guaranteed, which is a little less than half of what he's looking for in a signing bonus. And if they franchise him and allow him to seek trades, what's the harm?
Ozymandius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Yes, but "reneging" on what??? No one - again - no one knows what agreements were made except the Bills, Clements, and his agent. 873033[/snapback] I'll grant you that we don't know for sure based on the links that have been provided and the unreliability of ESPN/Pasquarelli. But it'd take one heck of a media screw up for this agreement to NOT have included the non-exclusive tag. I mean, we didn't even use the exclusive tag on him this past offseason; we used the non-excl tag and other teams just didn't want to give up two first rounders to sign him. So Nate gained nothing if the agreement was only for the exclusive tag.
Ozymandius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Well if it's Ralph's call, remember what he did with Wade. Again this is business and Clements has been well-compensated for his time in Buffalo, especially this year getting $7M guaranteed, which is a little less than half of what he's looking for in a signing bonus. And if they franchise him and allow him to seek trades, what's the harm? 873047[/snapback] What did Ralph do to Wade that was the equivalent of lying or breaking a promise?
Ozymandius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Another article from the D&C from May: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/p...RTS03/605060345 "It's believed what enticed Clements into signing at this time was a verbal promise that the Bills won't place the franchise tag on him again next year. A player can be tagged twice under the new labor deal. There used to be no limit. When asked whether he has that promise, a grinning Clements said: "Well, we'll see. We'll see what's happening." Doesn't really clear things up but Nate sounds happy.
Orton's Arm Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Wel-run and respectable businesses honor agreements (but they usually put it in writing). There is just no way I can see Ralph, Marv, or Dick reneging. Too old school. Too old. 872993[/snapback] Agreed. Marv's talked so much about character players. If he ignores a verbal promise to Nate, he destroys the spirit of the organization he's worked so hard to build. Think about the effect this would have on signing other free agents. If you're a highly sought-after free agent with attractive offers from multiple teams, your decision may come down to which organization you like and trust the most. If Marv becomes known as someone who's been dishonest in his dealings with players, that will only make free agents less likely to sign here.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Well I just re-read things and PFW (not PFT) is saying that Clements has it IN WRITING that he can't be franchised. If that's true, game over.
Ray Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Will the Bills pay him a 20M signing bonus? That'll be the going rate for a CB. That is a lot of money but I guess amortized over 5-6 yrs it is not so bad. They may not be able to pay that kind of money but may be able to pay him guaranteed money in that range.
Bill from NYC Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Well I just re-read things and PFW (not PFT) is saying that Clements has it IN WRITING that he can't be franchised. If that's true, game over. 873540[/snapback] MBD, when a player is tagged as such, IS his team allowed to negotiate with him during the season?
Ozymandius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 MBD, when a player is tagged as such, IS his team allowed to negotiate with him during the season? 873614[/snapback] The Bills can renegotiate with any of the players on their roster at any time during the season. But in the midst of a playoff hunt, they're not going to cause destraction by negotiating with Nate now. Plus, I continue to believe his price tag is outside their budget requirements. Get ready for it, Bill. I'm not even needling you right now. There's some good FA guards that will be available. There will be some good 2nd-round DTs. But you already know what the 1st-rounder will be. 2007 o-line should be: Peters-Gandy-Fowler-FA-Pennington 2007 DT rotation should be: undertackle = Tripplett/McCargo, nose tackle = 2nd-rounder/KyleWilliams 2007 secondary should be: 1st-rounder-Simpson-Whitner-Mcgee, nickel=Youboty
Dibs Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Oakland sort of did this for 2 or 3 years with Woodson before cutting him this off season. Sometimes you got to do that to keep a premier player when you cannot come to a contract. 872964[/snapback] Actually Woodson screwed Oakland when he did that. They offered him the deal which they fully expected him to not sign & work out a long term contract....or find a trading partner. Woodson signed the deal, which at the time was about $2-3mil higher than any multi-year(ave) he would have gotten....apparently to get the extra money....but....more so to screw with the Raiders. As someone pointed out though, the new CBA states a player cannot be tagged twice in a row now anyway. I wonder if that applies to all caps or just the same one two years in a row.
Bill from NYC Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Get ready for it, Bill. I'm not even needling you right now. There's some good FA guards that will be available. There will be some good 2nd-round DTs. But you already know what the 1st-rounder will be. 2007 o-line should be: Peters-Gandy-Fowler-FA-Pennington 2007 DT rotation should be: undertackle = Tripplett/McCargo, nose tackle = 2nd-rounder/KyleWilliams 2007 secondary should be: 1st-rounder-Simpson-Whitner-Mcgee, nickel=Youboty 873623[/snapback] I know you are not "needling" me. You were there on draft day and saw the mistakes. Isn't it interesting how the later round picks seemed to save the day? Guys like Ellison, Williams and Pennington were the ones (imo) who made this unorthodox draft a good one, or so it seems. Look at the production from the first day, compare it to the second, and you tell me. Imagine that draft with 2 more second round picks and another 3rd! I know deep down that Levy will not be able to resist another 1st round defensive back. I also know that the free agent market is slim. There are probably 2 good OGs out there (unless the re-sign, leaving none) and perhaps no OTs at all. This football team needs OGs and LBs. The draft might very well be the only way to get them. We shall see.
Ozymandius Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 To be honest, there are ways for the Bills to justifiably draft a corner high this year, but they all involve being very active in free agency. I think paying Nate a $20 million signing bonus would probably strangle their budget and cause them to be inactive in free agency, so I believe they'll choose to let him go and upgrade elsewhere. The holes they probably can't patch in free agency are DT and CB, imo. (I'm beginning to agree that Asante Samuel will be expensive). They can re-sign Fletch and Kelsay and get a new right guard and possibly a new TE, for example.
bills4bowl21 Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 There is always a place for a good CB. But not at break-the-bank pricing. Spending that $ for a better-performing DL and LB corps often makes an average CB look like an All-Pro, plus pays dividends in the run and short pass defense. 872224[/snapback] exactly
Starkiller Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Oakland sort of did this for 2 or 3 years with Woodson before cutting him this off season. Sometimes you got to do that to keep a premier player when you cannot come to a contract. 872964[/snapback] The new league CBA makes it prohibitively expensive to re-franchise a player. And maybe I'm wrong (I don't follow the Bills that closely), but didn't the Bills agree not to use the franchise tag on Clements next year when they franchised him last offseason?
Dawgg Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 I really don't think drafting a CB high is such a bad thing, especially considering the marketplace for them these days. The bottom line is that top corners are very expensive in today's market. Winfield's contract was borderline insanity. The Skins are paying through the roof for Springs and the Vikes doled out an equally insane contract for Fred Smoot -- all solid cover corners, but nowhere near the "great" category. With that being said, it might make sense to draft a corner with a high pick if he is deemed a worthy pick. The free agent market has been very good to teams willing to spend on defensive linemen and linebackers and they come at much more reasonable prices. For example, the Bills were able to retool their entire linebacking corps via free agency witih Fletch, Posey and Spikes and went from having one of the worst LB corps to one of the best. Fletch and Spikes both probably got a combined $15-18M in signing bonuses and we're talking about guys who are in the PRIME of their career. Nate Clements will command close to $20M by himself! I know deep down that Levy will not be able to resist another 1st round defensive back. I also know that the free agent market is slim. There are probably 2 good OGs out there (unless the re-sign, leaving none) and perhaps no OTs at all. This football team needs OGs and LBs. The draft might very well be the only way to get them. We shall see. 873634[/snapback]
Recommended Posts