BenchBledsoe Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I was skimming through here a few days ago and some posts mentioned that if Marv places some kind of transitional tag on Nate, it will net us two 1st Round draft choices when he signs with another team. Is this true? Are there any drawbacks? Would the picks be THIS year? If this really is true, to me it would be the mother of all No-Brainers. How could we not get two 1sts for a guy who's leaving anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluelight05 Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The tag would be a franchise tag and the bills would have to find a team willing to give up two first round picks. they could settle for less like 1 first round pick they got for price to atlanta. The bills could tag him with the transitional tag which means that clements gets to sign with another team and the bills can match the deal and keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBilliever Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 That would be impossible.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenchBledsoe Posted January 26, 2007 Author Share Posted January 26, 2007 If Nate does sign with another team, aren't we entitled a high compensatory pick in NEXT years draft? How high would it likely be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 If Nate does sign with another team, aren't we entitled a high compensatory pick in NEXT years draft? How high would it likely be? These are all good questions. Anyone know the answers? Really know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The highest it could possibly be is a 3rd round pick, but it goes by net free agent loss, not individual loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The highest it could possibly be is a 3rd round pick, but it goes by net free agent loss, not individual loss. Correct and also it is important that the level of compensation given to a team for their net loss is determined in some sort of black box process by the league which has led some GMs to say that they ignore the whole process until something happens they can work with as its fairly impossible to figure out (guess) what they are gonna do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 The highest it could possibly be is a 3rd round pick, but it goes by net free agent loss, not individual loss. I'd add that the comp picks come at the end of a round. CIN received the last 3rd round pick in the '04 draft as compensation for TKO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 This is pretty much what I've said previously after researching the topic a little: If Marv makes Nate an offer that is 120% of what he earned last year - OR an average of the top five salaries at his position, then de facto he's a non-exclusive Franchise Player by definition. The Bills will be entitled to 2 First Round picks if Nate THEN goes and signs with another team for more moolah. IF Marv doesn't make Nate an offer that reaches that criteria and Nate FIRST goes and signs with another team - The Bills can match that offer or not. If they don't match, they get no Nate and no 2 First Round picks. If this is true - and thus far no one has said it's a crock - then I just can't fathom that Marv would let Nate's agent go shopping BEFORE Marv gave him an offer that would make him a non-exclsive Franchise Player. Remember - Marv only said he had an agreement that he wouldn't use the "Franchise Player" tag again on Nate. That's a whole different thing - where Nate would not be allowed to shop around the League for his services. It only seems to make sense that Marv would make at least the minimum offer to trigger the League's requirement that another well-heeled hot-to-trot owner would have to pony up Nate's new salary and bonus AND a couple of picks to The Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 This is pretty much what I've said previously after researching the topic a little: If Marv makes Nate an offer that is 120% of what he earned last year - OR an average of the top five salaries at his position, then de facto he's a non-exclusive Franchise Player by definition. The Bills will be entitled to 2 First Round picks if Nate THEN goes and signs with another team for more moolah. IF Marv doesn't make Nate an offer that reaches that criteria and Nate FIRST goes and signs with another team - The Bills can match that offer or not. If they don't match, they get no Nate and no 2 First Round picks. If this is true - and thus far no one has said it's a crock - then I just can't fathom that Marv would let Nate's agent go shopping BEFORE Marv gave him an offer that would make him a non-exclsive Franchise Player. Remember - Marv only said he had an agreement that he wouldn't use the "Franchise Player" tag again on Nate. That's a whole different thing - where Nate would not be allowed to shop around the League for his services. It only seems to make sense that Marv would make at least the minimum offer to trigger the League's requirement that another well-heeled hot-to-trot owner would have to pony up Nate's new salary and bonus AND a couple of picks to The Bills. If you believe that Marv said he won't limit Nate by the franchise tag, then none of teh above applies and the only way the Bills get value for Nate is to sign him and play him. HIghly unlikely they will get a comp pick for Nate since compensation is available only if the Bills lose more free agents than they sign-even if the new FA are lesser talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 If you believe that Marv said he won't limit Nate by the franchise tag, then none of teh above applies and the only way the Bills get value for Nate is to sign him and play him. HIghly unlikely they will get a comp pick for Nate since compensation is available only if the Bills lose more free agents than they sign-even if the new FA are lesser talents. Re-read that post you're quoting. According to the author, this has nothing to do with the "tag." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 This is pretty much what I've said previously after researching the topic a little: If Marv makes Nate an offer that is 120% of what he earned last year - OR an average of the top five salaries at his position, then de facto he's a non-exclusive Franchise Player by definition. The Bills will be entitled to 2 First Round picks if Nate THEN goes and signs with another team for more moolah. IF Marv doesn't make Nate an offer that reaches that criteria and Nate FIRST goes and signs with another team - The Bills can match that offer or not. If they don't match, they get no Nate and no 2 First Round picks. If this is true - and thus far no one has said it's a crock - then I just can't fathom that Marv would let Nate's agent go shopping BEFORE Marv gave him an offer that would make him a non-exclsive Franchise Player. Remember - Marv only said he had an agreement that he wouldn't use the "Franchise Player" tag again on Nate. That's a whole different thing - where Nate would not be allowed to shop around the League for his services. It only seems to make sense that Marv would make at least the minimum offer to trigger the League's requirement that another well-heeled hot-to-trot owner would have to pony up Nate's new salary and bonus AND a couple of picks to The Bills. I'm not sure I follow. This would require us putting some sort of "tag" on him (non-exclusive franchise tag or transitional tag?) to work, no? I've never heard of a team getting the right to match another team's offer absent a tag--but I could be wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Re-read that post you're quoting. According to the author, this has nothing to do with the "tag." But what he is saying actually describes the Franchise Tag, and Marv promised not to use it on Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Re-read that post you're quoting. According to the author, this has nothing to do with the "tag." well- he's wrong. A team can not "tender" a contract to an unrestricted free agent. The only way a team can make a "tender" under the CBA to a UFA is to invoke the franchise or transitition tag provisions for that player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 ok, do any of you realize, that even if we use the tag on nate, which we said we wouldnt, there are 0 teams that are going to fork over 2 first rounders for him. we'd either trade him for something less, or he'd come back for 1 year and leave next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 ok, do any of you realize, that even if we use the tag on nate, which we said we wouldnt, there are 0 teams that are going to fork over 2 first rounders for him. we'd either trade him for something less, or he'd come back for 1 year and leave next year. I am fully aware of this, and either scenario is better than getting nothing in return for him. This "promise" by Levy was a very dumb move. What leverage did Clements have? Holding out and not getting paid more than 7 million dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 If we agreed to not use the franchise tag, we shouldn't use it regardless of what we would get for it. I think that using it would be a very dishonorable thing to do. I'm hoping we figure a way to resign him, but if not we'll have to make the best deal we can and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 You have to do whats best for your business and if tagging Nate is what needs to be done to improve your team, you do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I am fully aware of this, and either scenario is better than getting nothing in return for him. This "promise" by Levy was a very dumb move. What leverage did Clements have? Holding out and not getting paid more than 7 million dollars? I dont agree with the "promise". It took away a lot of leverage. And its not like NC was going to holdout. Only an idiot would pass up 7+ mill guaranteed, and we'd still have his rights. At the very least, we should transition tag him, giving us the chance to match whatever offer he signs. Either way, if NC leaves (which i hope he doesnt), the only thing we are going to get out the deal is a possible compensatory pick in '08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I'm hoping we figure a way to resign him, but if not we'll have to make the best deal we can and move on. If we don't tag him there is no deal TB. We simply lose him, and that's that. Btw, I am not making a case that Marv should break his word, but if the "Transition Tag" wasn't in this promise it is better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts