Stussy109 Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I have yet to here an official comment from the Bills Brass that within Nate Clements' contract, that it states we cant reuse the franchise tag on him. As far as I know it has all been hear say. Can anyone confirm?
5 Wide Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I thought we could. They stipulated last season that if Nate signed his franchise tender last season that they would not franchise him again this year
marauderswr80 Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 According to sources Marv "promised" Nate he wouldnt use the tag on him...... If its in writting its one thing if its not then you do whats best for your team. But we all know Marv is the type of guy that dont go back on his word!
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 But nothing was written into a contract that states this, it was just an agreement he had with Marv, basically a gentlemens agreement, they probably shook hands and made the deal, then Nate signed the Franchise deal. Its not going against any contract if Marv pretended to be senile and forget what he said last year and did it again, but Marv is a stand up guy who has values and principles and probably prides himself on being a man of his word so going back on it would make him a weasel and not trustworthy
bills_fan Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Marv said he would not use the Franchise tag on Nate again. To my knowledge, nothing was said about the Transition tag.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Marv said he would not use the Franchise tag on Nate again. To my knowledge, nothing was said about the Transition tag. i can't recall---did marv say he said it, or did nate or nates people say he said it. there's a lot of posturing in these negotiations, always. if marv said he wouldn't, he won't, but it seems like a strange thing to say to a marquis player when millions are at stake. and, assuming at the time nc had a big season, they'd have to want to pay him, or let him test the waters (or tag him and buy them some bargaining room).
5 Wide Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 The Bills agreed to not put any type of tag on Clements: Franchise Tag, Transition Tag, Clearance Tag, Name Tag, Tag you're it, Nothing. Even if it was a gentlemans agreement and the Bills tried to tag him again, Clements would never sign it. He would sit. Word would get out and the Bills would have a black eye with free agents all over the board.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I'm not sure where this "gentlemen's agreement" rumor came from. It has been reported that they agreed IN WRITING not to tag him again. He is gone.
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I'm not sure where this "gentlemen's agreement" rumor came from. It has been reported that they agreed IN WRITING not to tag him again. He is gone. And where did you find that its in wiriting? Everything I have ever heard, and the majority of everyone here has heard, was that it was a verbal agreement
Saint Doug Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 A (franchise) tag and trade is not out of the question. In this case, both parties would be happy. Nate would go to the skins (or whoever) and make huge bucks and we would get a draft pick. No one would be offended or left bitter. This would NOT leave the bills org with a black eye or turn off future free agents.
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 A (franchise) tag and trade is not out of the question. In this case, both parties would be happy. Nate would go to the skins (or whoever) and make huge bucks and we would get a draft pick. No one would be offended or left bitter. This would NOT leave the bills org with a black eye or turn off future free agents. I'm sure if they discussed that with Nate and told them the plan, he would not have a problem with it, especially if they did like Moulds and told him to go negotiate a deal with another team and then they would make the deal. This way he can see whos interested and the Bills will not be left empty handed. This works out well too since the Skins have been rumored as being VERY interested in him and they are very loose when it comes to draft picks to get what they want. This also lets the Bills keep him from going to a rival, and doesn't look bad on them because they let him go and choose who he wants to go to.
Stussy109 Posted January 18, 2007 Author Posted January 18, 2007 They stipulated last season that if Nate signed his franchise tender last season that they would not franchise him again this year WHo is 'they' ?
yall Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Regardless of the type of agreement (verbal or otherwise) it was publicly acknowledged. For Bills management to go back on their word, especially on something that is fairly high-profile, would not be a good way to attract and retain good players.
Dr. Trooth Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 The word on the street... and I believe somewhere Nate was quoted as saying that it was written into is contract when he signed the one year deal after the Bills franchised him last year. In any case... I've seen in numerous articles that the Bills agreed to not franchise him again. So, either we've got a slew of irresponsible writers or it's true (and both of those are probably true).
Pyrite Gal Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 A (franchise) tag and trade is not out of the question. In this case, both parties would be happy. Nate would go to the skins (or whoever) and make huge bucks and we would get a draft pick. No one would be offended or left bitter. This would NOT leave the bills org with a black eye or turn off future free agents. Its not that straight forward that all would be happy with this activity. If the Skins were to decide they are going to pay Redskin's level salary (though the cap hit is the same as for a contract with other teams, the Skins can use their superior cash flow to make payments to players which gives the athlete a higher level of control and they seem to be willing to even pay a lil bit more than market rates for talent)) for their next CB. If they end up having a choice between NC but because of the tag he also is going to cost them compensation or some other CB they judge to be of equal or even slightly less talent who is not tagged, they may pass on NC and go to the other CB. NC is then left with his second choice team which may pay a lower salary than what Snyder seems to regularly have the Skins pay. NC may not be happy with the franchise tag if it costs him a shot at the higher level contract.
Stevie Ray Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Seems to me the fact Bills mgmt has not denied or refuted any of these 'rumors' would lead one to believe they have that agreement in place.
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Seems to me the fact Bills mgmt has not denied or refuted any of these 'rumors' would lead one to believe they have that agreement in place. Well Marv wanted to release a press release denying it, but he decided against it because it would look like he didn't believe it and that his publicist wrote it
apuszczalowski Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Its not that straight forward that all would be happy with this activity. If the Skins were to decide they are going to pay Redskin's level salary (though the cap hit is the same as for a contract with other teams, the Skins can use their superior cash flow to make payments to players which gives the athlete a higher level of control and they seem to be willing to even pay a lil bit more than market rates for talent)) for their next CB. If they end up having a choice between NC but because of the tag he also is going to cost them compensation or some other CB they judge to be of equal or even slightly less talent who is not tagged, they may pass on NC and go to the other CB. NC is then left with his second choice team which may pay a lower salary than what Snyder seems to regularly have the Skins pay. NC may not be happy with the franchise tag if it costs him a shot at the higher level contract. Yeah, the Redskins and Snyder love stock piling their draft picks and would never part with one for a player they really want
John from Riverside Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Folks....I think it is pretty safet to say that Nate Clements is history.... I have pretty much wrapped my mind around that and am now just waiting to see what the bills are going to do to replace him.....Tory James?.....Harper from the colts?
Recommended Posts