Two 1st-Rounders for Clements?

[RuntheDamnBall]

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?

Guys have done it before. You have to remember it's not just leverage with the one player but leverage with the team as whole, which was in a fractured state after Mularkey and Donahoe left them last year. Marv had to build confidence in the direction of the team and the direction of the front office. That was not going to happen with one of the team's best and most talented players holding out. If it was the only way Nate would agree to play for us last year, it was the only way and I would rather Marv did that than played hardball. It could have been the difference in 2-3 wins, which is huge for a young and rebuilding team with a new staff. I don't want to lose him this year but that's a risk worth taking, I think.

[johnnychemo]

Guys have done it before. You have to remember it's not just leverage with the one player but leverage with the team as whole, which was in a fractured state after Mularkey and Donahoe left them last year. Marv had to build confidence in the direction of the team and the direction of the front office. That was not going to happen with one of the team's best and most talented players holding out. If it was the only way Nate would agree to play for us last year, it was the only way and I would rather Marv did that than played hardball. It could have been the difference in 2-3 wins, which is huge for a young and rebuilding team with a new staff. I don't want to lose him this year but that's a risk worth taking, I think.

 

And with the idea of the team as a whole in mind it is imperative that Marv keep his word and not use the tag as some have suggested. He will lose tons of credibility with his players (and potential free agents) if he reneges.

[apuszczalowski]

Well, I would think since Marv did made a deal with Clements, there would be some sort of agreement in place that would not just let Nate walk this year without either giving the Bills the right to match an offer, accepting a "Home team" Discount, or getting something back for the Bills.

 

Otherwise it doesn't make sense on Marvs side, and looks bad on Nate because Buffalo was nice enough to do him a favour, and he does nothing in return for them

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

i'm asking for some assistance here. i've done a bit of research and can't find an article where clements says, or levy is quoted, as saying that there was an agreement not touse the franchise tag again. i have read alot of speculation that a likely reason nate came back to camp when he did was perhaps because there was a verbal assurance re: it, but virtually every article i can find suggests marv's response was "no comment". i can only find quotes of nc saying something alon ght lines of "we;ll see what happens...".

 

has anyone seen anything different? from what i gather, it appears that the Bills have positioned themselves to do what they want to do when this issue comes to a head, regardless of what nate wants. perhaps that involves moving on without him, but maybe not.

 

he had a good year, it'd be good to see the defense step up a couple notches this year, and he'd certainly help.

[Saint Doug]

And with the idea of the team as a whole in mind it is imperative that Marv keep his word and not use the tag as some have suggested. He will lose tons of credibility with his players (and potential free agents) if he reneges.

 

If NC comes out to the media and public and rescinds this clause, there will no harm done to anyone now or in the future. There may be a scenario where NC waives this clause (and lets everyone know this), we tag him, and then trade him to Team X for a draft pick. Team X then signs him for a trillion dollars. In this case, NC leaves on great terms, he hits the jackpot (he's gotta think about his family), we get a draft pick, fan are happy, and current and potential players for this team still have respect for the current management. This is entirely realistic.

[ganesh]

I have one question that always bothered me regarding the tagging of Nate Clements last year:

 

When Nate was tagged last year, why didn't any team jump up to make him an offer and negotiate with the Bills about a compensation. I agree that the basic tag was a 1st and 3rd or 2 1st rounders....But if there was a team that was desperate for CB help would have approached the Bills about getting him via a sign and trade (like Peerless Price). After all, a team like Seattle gave up a 1st rounder to a above average WR (as Hollywood Donahoe put it) in Deion Branch and gave him a 40M contract, why didn't any team step up to the plate at least to even look at that option....

 

I am sure the Bills would have gladly uploaded Clements if they were going to get a 1st or 2nd round pick back rather than carry a 7.5M CB on the team.

[daquixers_is_back]

If we take our chances with franchising him yet again, and NOT getting a team to give up a couple first rounders, and were stuck with ANOTHER 1 year contract, we are going to be in even worse shape than now. Clements will be furious. We will be paying higher than we would have if we just signed him, and at the end of next season, he leaves anyway. Just straight up, SIGN him.

[Orton's Arm]

The highest it could possibly be is a 3rd round pick, but it goes by net free agent loss, not individual loss.

That's true, at least for unrestricted free agents who aren't tagged. The compensation for having a restricted free agent, or a designated franchise player, signed away by another team is calculated differently.

[Ozymandius]

If NC comes out to the media and public and rescinds this clause, there will no harm done to anyone now or in the future. There may be a scenario where NC waives this clause (and lets everyone know this), we tag him, and then trade him to Team X for a draft pick. Team X then signs him for a trillion dollars. In this case, NC leaves on great terms, he hits the jackpot (he's gotta think about his family), we get a draft pick, fan are happy, and current and potential players for this team still have respect for the current management. This is entirely realistic.

 

LOL. Not it's not.

[Ozymandius]

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.

 

Dude, we're not going to become promise breakers. It's not enough to be a playoff team... you want to not lose your soul in the process.

 

Marv made a dumb promise. Now we will live with it and move on.

[JuanGuzman]

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.

 

The irony is that tagging Nate might in fact be worse for business. NFL players sympathize with each others opportunity to set themselves and their families for generations. If the Bills re-neg on a negotiation that appeared to be in good faith; Nate Clements would hold out and moreover current players on the Bills roster and around the league would lose respect for the Bills organization. The patriots have gotten away with stuff like this in recent years but its easier to re-build your reputation when your winning Superbowls.

 

 

As for the tagging Nate with the Transitional Player Tag it simply gives us seven days to match the Best offer Nate Clements recieves. If we choose not to match the offer we recieve no compensation whatsoever. While at first glance the Transitional Player Tag might may appear to be an effective way to retain a free agent as long as we are sufficiently under the cap (which we are). However, last years Steve Hutchinson/Poison Pill/Seahawks-Vikings has set a precedent the renders the original intentions of the Transitional Tag useless. If you remembr Vikings in the language of contract stated that if Steve Hutchinson was not the highest paid lineman on his team the entire 49M contract was guaranteed. Since the Seahawks were already paying Walter Jones more they couldn't match the contract unless they wanted to gaurantee the entirety of the salary. IMO since there was arbitration hearing on the legality of the vikings poison pills and the judge sided with the Vikings - - the Transitional Player Tag is effectively DOA.

[YOOOOOO]

Transition Tag is were there going with this....NATE has said he would be happy to return to Buffalo aslong as the money is right....thats exactly what the T-tag gives us ...the right to match.....

[KOKBILLS]

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 totally agree...That promise was REAL stupid...I'm a big Marv Fan, but I still don't understand why they would let Nate walk for nothing when it should have been obvious they could get something for him...And the way it's looking now IF the Bills Tagged Nate and allowed His Agent to seek out the best Deal they would likely get no worse that a Mid-Late 1st round Pick in 07...How in the world do you let that opportunity pass?

 

I still don't get it...

[syhuang]

Transition Tag is were there going with this....NATE has said he would be happy to return to Buffalo aslong as the money is right....thats exactly what the T-tag gives us ...the right to match.....

However, Transition Tag is basically non-existed in current NFL era. After Hutchinson's and Burleson's mess last year, teams can create "poison pill" in the contracts to make the original team impossible to match the offer.

[JuanGuzman]

Transition Tag is were there going with this....NATE has said he would be happy to return to Buffalo aslong as the money is right....thats exactly what the T-tag gives us ...the right to match.....

 

For arguments sake: Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskins offer Nate a contract of 6 yrs 50 Million which he accepts, the Bills have the right to match it because we tagged Nate with the Transitonal Player Tag and have the cap space. However, the language of the contract cointains a poison pill similar to the Steve Hutchinson/Nate Burleson arrangement. eg. Poison Pill stipulates Nate Clements contract becomes fully gauranteed for all 50 million if he plays more than 3 games at orchard park stadium or something like that. Thus making it impossible for the Bills to re-sign him unless the Bills want to gaurantee the contract (which no team in their rigth mind would do). These poison pills have already stood up under arbitration challenges and set a precedent that makes the original objective of the Transitional Player Tag obsolete. In fact a team attempting to sign another teams Transitional Player would be idiots if they didn't include such a poison pill.

[Ozymandius]

Yep, transition tag is meaningless. And franchise tag is unavailable due to promise. Nate = gone.

[The Jokeman]

I have one question that always bothered me regarding the tagging of Nate Clements last year:

 

When Nate was tagged last year, why didn't any team jump up to make him an offer and negotiate with the Bills about a compensation. I agree that the basic tag was a 1st and 3rd or 2 1st rounders....But if there was a team that was desperate for CB help would have approached the Bills about getting him via a sign and trade (like Peerless Price). After all, a team like Seattle gave up a 1st rounder to a above average WR (as Hollywood Donahoe put it) in Deion Branch and gave him a 40M contract, why didn't any team step up to the plate at least to even look at that option....

 

I am sure the Bills would have gladly uploaded Clements if they were going to get a 1st or 2nd round pick back rather than carry a 7.5M CB on the team.

You're confusing a RFA with a franchised UFA. RFAs are players that have less then 4 seasons in the NFL and are tendered qualifying contracts and those tenders determine their compensation if lost. Ie the higher the tender the more another team most give up if a restricted free agent is signed and contract is not matched by his original team. The highest tender a team can place on a restricted free agent would provide them would be 1st and 3rd Rounder as compensation for losing him, the middle would be a 1st Rounder as compensation and the lowest would provide a pick equal to the draft in which the player originally entered the league. If no tender is given then the player becomes a free agent and free to sign with anyteam without compensation owed. Also players who get the lowest tender but were never drafted would not provide their original teams compensation (see how we got Rian Lindell).

 

In comparison a franchised player would be an UFA or a player that has played at least 4 NFL seasons. Also as Nanker pointed out in another thread their are two types of franchise tags theres: 1)An exclusive franchise means that the player has a salary of the avg of the top 5 players for this season or a raise of 120% from his prior years salary (whichever is higher). This is the franchise tag most commonly used and players hate because the player cannot negotite with any other teams. Interested teams have to reach trade compensation talks with the original clubs, before they can talk to the player about salary. 2) Then there's the unexclusive franchise tag which means that the player has a salary of the avg of the top 5 players at their position from last season or 120% raise again whichever is higher. The player can negotiate with any team, and if they sign an offer sheet that is not matched the new team owes 2 #1 picks. The teams usually negotiate a lesser compensation instead of using an offer sheet. I'm hoping Marv only promised Nate that he would not receive the exclusive franchise tag.

[Nanker]

Nanker re-enters the room and blows a loud whistle...

 

tweeeeeeettt!!!!

 

Here's the linky-poo thingy that I was baseing my previous posts on:

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS

For those of you (and I know you're out there) who are too friggin' lazy/stoopid/incompetent/doan-giv-a-fug-enuff/ to click a simple Internut linky, here's the context of the original article - with full attribution to James (frog-man-look-alike) Alder [apologies to Mr. Adler]

"Understanding the Difference"

 

"• A club can designate one franchise player or one transition player in any given year.

• The salary level offer by a player's old club determines what type of franchise player he is.

 

• An "exclusive" franchise player -- not free to sign with another club -- is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of April 16, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

 

• If the player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries of last season at his position, or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, he becomes a “non-exclusive” franchise player and can negotiate with other clubs. His old club can match a new club's offer, or receive two first-round draft choices if it decides not to match.

The signing period for non-exclusive franchise players to sign with new clubs is March 3 through November 9 (10th week of the season).

• A transition player has received a minimum offer of the average of the top 10 salaries of last season at the player's position or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

 

• A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation. Transition players can be signed from March 3 through July 22."

Now, I have consistently said that Marv would be an idjiot to not make Nate an OFFER at least equal to 120% of his last year's salary or an an average of the top 5 CBs salaries in the league last year. The disctinction appears to be on the label, i.e., the tag that the club designates when they make the offer. Marv doesn't have to claim he's an "exclusive" franchise player. By making the offer to Nate, Nate becomes at a minimum a "non-exclusive" franchise player. THAT DOESN'T MEAN MARV HAS GONE BACK ON HIS WORD TO NATE. Nate can still do the Hokey-Pokey with Dan Sneeder and Jerry Jones, but if either of them wants to swallow his load, they'll have to pony up a couple of top picks to Marv & Co.

 

Hoo'd a thunk it that there are two levels of Franchise Players. I may play one on the Internet for my own amusement, but Marv's no fool. So what, Nate's going to get lawyered-up. Good. The Bills have counsel too.

 

Now, maybe this article is out to lunch. I've consistently asked for counter-points or substantiated reasons why this would not be the case. So far no one has come forth with a counter.

 

Frankly, I think Nate's a gonner. But then again I think Daniel Snyder is the grandson of Satan and Jerry Jones is the personification of just what went wrong in Deliverance.

[Bills Fan888]

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency/franchise

 

Per this link - he was a non-exclusive franchise player last year - not an exclusive franchise player. The implication is that he was promised that this would not happen again - and no one tried to sign him last year.

[d_wag]

The irony is that tagging Nate might in fact be worse for business. NFL players sympathize with each others opportunity to set themselves and their families for generations. If the Bills re-neg on a negotiation that appeared to be in good faith; Nate Clements would hold out and moreover current players on the Bills roster and around the league would lose respect for the Bills organization. The patriots have gotten away with stuff like this in recent years but its easier to re-build your reputation when your winning Superbowls.

As for the tagging Nate with the Transitional Player Tag it simply gives us seven days to match the Best offer Nate Clements recieves. If we choose not to match the offer we recieve no compensation whatsoever. While at first glance the Transitional Player Tag might may appear to be an effective way to retain a free agent as long as we are sufficiently under the cap (which we are). However, last years Steve Hutchinson/Poison Pill/Seahawks-Vikings has set a precedent the renders the original intentions of the Transitional Tag useless. If you remembr Vikings in the language of contract stated that if Steve Hutchinson was not the highest paid lineman on his team the entire 49M contract was guaranteed. Since the Seahawks were already paying Walter Jones more they couldn't match the contract unless they wanted to gaurantee the entirety of the salary. IMO since there was arbitration hearing on the legality of the vikings poison pills and the judge sided with the Vikings - - the Transitional Player Tag is effectively DOA.

 

the league was not happy and frankly embarrassed with what happened in the hutch/burleson deals last year, and the vikes and hawks were called out for it behind closed doors in front of other organizations.......these types of clauses will NOT happen in contracts again and the spirit of the rule will be honored going forward, you can count on it.......retaining nate with the T-tag is very possible, if ralph is willing to shell out the cash