WE have plenty of money were 35 mill under the cap

[Dibs]

.....You are suggesting that the money provided each team from the television contract can't or doesn't pay for the player's salaries.....

I wasn't meaning to suggest that at all.....I was mearly refuting the generalization of (quote)"So we can summise that the television contract pays for the players. Nothing out of pocket from old Ralphy boy." I totally agree the most of the time this will be so....but should not be used as a blanket rule. As I pointed out, sometimes this certainly will not be the case.....though Kelly's points about watering the money down by 'guaranteeing' it over multiple years is a factor I didn't think of.....though the player will still prefer signing bonus up front I'm sure.

I wasn't arguing with your concepts.....just pointing out that things are more difficult for a smaller revenue franchise.

Personally I'd like to think that Ralph has to be getting to the point where winning the SB should be more important than business modelling. I know I would be if I was in my 80s.

[Dibs]

No one in their right mind thinks we are signing Clements AND Steinbach AND a top LB.......We are talking about signing Clements OR Steinbach.

Gee Kelly.....that depressess me. I believe we can.....& I hope we will sign at least 2 big name players.

As of the start of FA, we will have only 1 player on BIG money.....TKO at $4.5mil(cap)

There are only two others set to count over $2mil towards the cap.....Schobel & McGee both at $2.5mil.

We just finished paying Fletcher $4mil & Clemments $7.226mil.

 

I will be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really disapointed if we do not sign at least 2 BIG contracts(that is just staying level with what we had this season.

 

We have the second highest amount of cap money to spend.....JPL is signed till 2008.....Evens is signed till 2009 so I don't see their contracts re-worked till after 2007......Schobel is relatively cheap, as is Peters. Crowel is signed up.....the only other BIG player to consider realistically in the next two off-seasons to re-sign is WM & that's a discussion all by itself.

 

We are in prime possition to make a SB run. Our good players are all either signed long term or are young & cheap & we have oodles of money under the cap. Truth be told I'm expecting a lot of action in the FA market this offseason.

[Ozymandius]

I completely disagree.

 

First of all, the NFL is not at that point yet. It may get there, but if you want to sign one player and you are $35M under the cap, you can do it, plain and simple.

 

Second, the Bills have already been approaching their own free agents in that manner, and it's been disastrous. Donahoe actually preferred to let star players walk. He did it in Pittsburgh, and prematurely dismantled a Super Bowl contender despite pretty good drafting. When Donahoe left Pittsburgh, they actually began making large investments in their own, and that approach proved to be better. The fact is, trading Peerless Price for a first round pick(Willis) neutered a powerful offense. Peerless was not a popular player with fans, but his loss coincided with a total offensive meltdown the following year, negating gains made defensively and then some. Letting Pat Williams go turned out to be a catastrophic loss for the defense. The KEY to that defense was the TWO big DT's.

 

Both of those losses came after seasons that saw the Bills finish as an "up and coming" team, and IMO, WASTED two seasons altogether. Losing Clements threatens to do the same. Nate makes every other member of that secondary's job easier the way that Williams made every defender look like a better run defender. Prior to matching Clements against the opponents #1 receiver after the bye week, the Bills defense was just BAD against the run and pass. After that point, the defense was actually effective in the passing game and producing turnovers. Lose Clements and even if they sign a number of other players, as Donahoe did after dealing Price, they probably will be a worse team. Most cover 2 defenses need a great front 4, the Bills get by with a lot less because they can play a sort of "box and 1" with Clements and make opponents go away from their best receiver.

 

After 7 years and no playoffs, they can't afford to take another step back. I've said it before, it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to let Clements walk. At least there is hope that Marv knows this, he always believed that losing key free agents usually hurt the old team more than it helped the new team.

 

Hey, I'm with you. I would love nothing more than to see Nate in a Bills uniform next year.

I just think the odds of that happening are not much better than the odds the A's had of re-signing Zito. I think the promise the Bills made to Clements to not franchise him was a concession that they can't afford him long-term. Granted, I disagree strongly with Marv and Ralph for not getting another season out of Nate before letting him go, but I think the front office wanted to begin preparations for life without him as soon as possible, i.e. they believe the 2008 Bills will be better off by letting him go now and planning for his absence now instead of waiting until after 2007 when we would not have been able to franchise him again.

I agree that technically the Bills can re-sign Clements, but I think technically, the A's could have re-signed Zito as well. However, in both cases, signing those players would've eaten into profits unacceptably for the respective owners. Of course, this is just my speculation and opinion without knowing the exact numbers for either of these teams. But I will be shocked if the Bills end up making a competitive offer for Clements and more shocked if he is a Bill next year.