JuanGuzman Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 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 Source?????? What your saying sounds more like your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 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. Thank you. Then the non-exclusive franchise player is actually the more restrictive situation for a player to be in - not the other way round - which is what my impression was. Well then, Marv can still make a qualifying offer - what? We're not allowed to make our own players generous offers? That just does not make sense to me. Nate would then be a Restricted Free Agent, Marv would not have broken his "promise not to tag Nate" and The Bills will at least have the ROFR and possibly a draft pick or two (I think that is determined by the original draft position of the RFA player - in Nate's case it'd be a #1). Here's another linky on Restricted Free Agents for those inclined to read a little more on the topic. No doubt Nate's going to fly outta here, but it would be nice if when his new team sends him tickets for the flight they also leave a voucher for their #1 on Marv's desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 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. I don't think it was just a promise..I remember reading somewhere that the promise was placed in his 2006 contract so we couldn't go back on it if we wanted to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 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. Thank you for the quote....I was not confused by RFA etc....I think the way Clements was tagged last year, he could have negotiated with other teams and then negotiated a compensation with the Bills...It is really puzzling no one really stepped forward to do it...Green Bay signed an aging Woodson to a contract that gave him 11M bonus...Why didn't GB negotiate with Clements ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Thank you. Then the non-exclusive franchise player is actually the more restrictive situation for a player to be in - not the other way round - which is what my impression was. Well then, Marv can still make a qualifying offer - what? We're not allowed to make our own players generous offers? That just does not make sense to me. Nate would then be a Restricted Free Agent, Marv would not have broken his "promise not to tag Nate" and The Bills will at least have the ROFR and possibly a draft pick or two (I think that is determined by the original draft position of the RFA player - in Nate's case it'd be a #1). Here's another linky on Restricted Free Agents for those inclined to read a little more on the topic. No doubt Nate's going to fly outta here, but it would be nice if when his new team sends him tickets for the flight they also leave a voucher for their #1 on Marv's desk. If the Bills had retained the right to franchise tag Nate (non-exclusively), the media would've reported it by now. At the very least, Marv would've gone public and stated so by now. IMO, speculation that Nate is anything other than an unrestricted free agent is whistling past the graveyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 If the Bills had retained the right to franchise tag Nate (non-exclusively), the media would've reported it by now. At the very least, Marv would've gone public and stated so by now. IMO, speculation that Nate is anything other than an unrestricted free agent is whistling past the graveyard. Not to beat the dead horse deader, but I think no FA activity starts until after April 20th or there abouts, and all Marv would have to do to make Nate a restricted FA would be to TENDER HIM AN OFFER of $7.7 million prior to that date. That's it. Case closed. Obviously he has not done that yet - as you said, but all the grains of sand have not run through that particular hour glass yet. I'm with you thinking Nate's a gonner. I just hope we get more than an Oreck out of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts