Dawgg Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. Mark this as THE stupidest move by Marv and Co... the franchise tag was specifically designed for situations like these so that teams can have a certain degree of leverage in retaining their own players. To agree to forgo all options for leverage was flat out dumb, no matter how you try and spin it. Watch the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel this offseason. It's a microcosm of where Bills' management is compared to organizations like the Pats. http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1
Ramius Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. Mark this as THE stupidest move by Marv and Co... the franchise tag was specifically designed for situations like these so that teams can have a certain degree of leverage in retaining their own players. To agree to forgo all options for leverage was flat out dumb, no matter how you try and spin it. Watch the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel this offseason. It's a microcosm of where Bills' management is compared to organizations like the Pats. http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1 And when the pats keep samuel for 1 year and then he bolts, how is that different than the Bills? We franchised nate and got 1 more year out of him.
Captain Hindsight Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I bet we resign him.... Just a dream i had
JimBob2232 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 If I recall correctly, a franchise tag gives either the average salary of the top 5 CBs, OR a 20% increase over the previous years franchise number, whichever is higher. Not sure how that would affect this situation, but NC would be guarenteed a 20% salary increase if re-tagged...might be a big part of the reason for agreeing to not tag him again. (Though a long term contract would bring him considerably more up front money)
DrDawkinstein Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 And when the pats keep samuel for 1 year and then he bolts, how is that different than the Bills? We franchised nate and got 1 more year out of him. i think theyll sign him for more than one year, and even if they DO only ink him to 1 year, theyll still have the tag for leverage next year. imo, nate is going to command major money either way so we didnt lose that much leverage really, just the ability to say "OH YEAH?!?" and MAKE him stay.
HurlyBurly51 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. Mark this as THE stupidest move by Marv and Co... the franchise tag was specifically designed for situations like these so that teams can have a certain degree of leverage in retaining their own players. To agree to forgo all options for leverage was flat out dumb, no matter how you try and spin it. Watch the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel this offseason. It's a microcosm of where Bills' management is compared to organizations like the Pats. http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1 Exactly. Marv needs to be called out on this stupid mistake and raked over the coals for it. Guys usually get fired for mistakes of this magnitude, but I'm sure this will be glossed over because it's Marv and he's old.
HurlyBurly51 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 And when the pats keep samuel for 1 year and then he bolts, how is that different than the Bills? We franchised nate and got 1 more year out of him. It's different because you can bet they are competent and shrewd enough to not give away the only leverage a club has under the CBA, so next year they wouldn't just let him bolt for nothing in return.
Mikie2times Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Exactly. Marv needs to be called out on this stupid mistake and raked over the coals for it. Guys usually get fired for mistakes of this magnitude, but I'm sure this will be glossed over because it's Marv and he's old. I love Marv, Jauron, and the direction this team is going. But I agree that Marv seems pretty infallible around here. This was no doubt a horribly weak cop out to get Nate in on time last year. I just really wish Marv would have understood that in a contract year no F'n way Nate would not show up, or do his very best.
dogbyte Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 It is over folks, Nate will be a FA and can sign anywhere. He is not going to sign for 1 year. It will be a multi-year contract with a large signing bonus. If the Bills have the best offer, he will stay, if not he is gone with no compension. he and his agent would be crazy to sign a 1 year deal. If he got hurt he would be out millions. It is not going to happen.
keepthefaith Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. Mark this as THE stupidest move by Marv and Co... the franchise tag was specifically designed for situations like these so that teams can have a certain degree of leverage in retaining their own players. To agree to forgo all options for leverage was flat out dumb, no matter how you try and spin it. Watch the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel this offseason. It's a microcosm of where Bills' management is compared to organizations like the Pats. http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1 Gotta wait to see how this all plays out with Nate.
TDRupp Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 It is over folks, Nate will be a FA and can sign anywhere. He is not going to sign for 1 year. It will be a multi-year contract with a large signing bonus. If the Bills have the best offer, he will stay, if not he is gone with no compension. he and his agent would be crazy to sign a 1 year deal. If he got hurt he would be out millions. It is not going to happen. We COULD get compensation depending on the Net loses in Free agency. Could get a 3rd rounder but likely a lot less or zero b/c I bet we sign enough mid-levels to make the net 0. Also, you have got to admit that No ONE here will be surprised if after he jumps to another team for HUGE $, that he will not live up to expectations to be a Top 2 or for that matter Top 5 CB. I am not saying he won't b/c he has the talent but he has made MENTAL blunders that have played out to cost us games. I know I won't be surprised if he is a disappointment!
tombstone56 Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 We COULD get compensation depending on the Net loses in Free agency. Could get a 3rd rounder but likely a lot less or zero b/c I bet we sign enough mid-levels to make the net 0. Also, you have got to admit that No ONE here will be surprised if after he jumps to another team for HUGE $, that he will not live up to expectations to be a Top 2 or for that matter Top 5 CB. I am not saying he won't b/c he has the talent but he has made MENTAL blunders that have played out to cost us games. I know I won't be surprised if he is a disappointment! nate's franchise tag this yr would be between 7.9 and 8.1 million..... ..not bad but the issue for most players is the cash up front from the signing bonus ....that being said ,,, business is business ,, tag him tell him to find a deal.. or trade his rights to someone like say denver for their 1st and 2nd... i m tired about players talking about loyalty,,,,,,, ,,that is until the cash is on the line ....... i hate the PATS but billy belichik .. got a first for a washed up bledsoe ..the milloy then branch among others .. ......... tag him and get something in return.. time to remember something....." nice guys finish last"!!!
Dawgg Posted February 1, 2007 Author Posted February 1, 2007 A lot can happen in a year. For example: right now, Samuel and Clements' value couldn't be any higher. Suppose the Pats exercise the franchise tag on Samuel next year and he has an "off year" or maybe misses a few weeks on injury. Or, perhaps the following year has an over supply of capable corners on the market. Those types of things can alter the value. Bottom line is that delaying the decision is ALWAYS in the team's favor. Seattle once upon a time appeared to have absolutely zero hope of signing Walter Jones... they bought some time by using the tag 2 years in a row and then finally agreed on a long-term deal. Coming into a new situation, to take the team's best player on defense and just let him walk for free was just not smart for a team already struggling to afford top-notch talent. And when the pats keep samuel for 1 year and then he bolts, how is that different than the Bills? We franchised nate and got 1 more year out of him.
John from Riverside Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Hey....I love all you Clements lovers....and I am one as well.... But you need to wrap your mind around this....Nate Clements is GONE.... He will never put on a bills uni again...and I hope he proves me wrong....but he wont.... We will sign some veteran guy....and Yabooty will take over as soon as he is ready.
obie_wan Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. Mark this as THE stupidest move by Marv and Co... the franchise tag was specifically designed for situations like these so that teams can have a certain degree of leverage in retaining their own players. To agree to forgo all options for leverage was flat out dumb, no matter how you try and spin it. Watch the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel this offseason. It's a microcosm of where Bills' management is compared to organizations like the Pats. http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1 you are correct- just like they did with Lawyer Milloy.
clumping platelets Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 If the Bills could franchise Nate, it's 120% of his cap number from 2006 or the franchise tag amount whichever is greater 2006 cap number was $7.226 million 2007 Franchise tag is $7.79 million 120% of $7.79 million is $9.348 million That's the amt the Bills would have to tender Nate
Coach Tuesday Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Hey....I love all you Clements lovers....and I am one as well.... But you need to wrap your mind around this....Nate Clements is GONE.... He will never put on a bills uni again...and I hope he proves me wrong....but he wont.... We will sign some veteran guy....and Yabooty will take over as soon as he is ready. Agreed, let it go. And Marv isn't gonna be fired, so let that go too.
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Agreed, let it go. And Marv isn't gonna be fired, so let that go too. Right on both counts Coach. Marv fired? Not possible. It is hard enough to even question any of his moves, including this "promise" to Nate which was flat out stupid imo.
Nanker Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 If the Bills could franchise Nate, it's 120% of his cap number from 2006 or the franchise tag amount whichever is greater 2006 cap number was $7.226 million 2007 Franchise tag is $7.79 million 120% of $7.79 million is $9.348 million That's the amt the Bills would have to tender Nate Right. So Marv can only offer Nate $9,347,999.99 in order to not trigger the Exclusive Franchise tag, because one penny more and he'll become tagged. So, effectively, Nate knows The Bills will not offer him more than that, and anybody that wants him can offer him the extra penny and he's theirs, free and clear. Brilliant! Even if Marv "wanted" to give him $50 million, he's honor-bound not to. Brilliant! All signs now point to The Bills now picking Darrelle Revis 5'11 3/4" 190lb CB leaving Pittsburgh as a Jr. And if he's not available at #12 we're looking at Daymeion Hughes or Leon Hall. Brilliant! (Bill in NYC is a Prophet.)
Bill from NYC Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 Right. So Marv can only offer Nate $9,347,999.99 in order to not trigger the Exclusive Franchise tag, because one penny more and he'll become tagged. So, effectively, Nate knows The Bills will not offer him more than that, and anybody that wants him can offer him the extra penny and he's theirs, free and clear. Brilliant! Even if Marv "wanted" to give him $50 million, he's honor-bound not to. Brilliant! All signs now point to The Bills now picking Darrelle Revis 5'11 3/4" 190lb CB leaving Pittsburgh as a Jr. And if he's not available at #12 we're looking at Daymeion Hughes or Leon Hall. Brilliant! (Bill in NYC is a Prophet.) Thanks for the compliment, but you might be a little off here. Marv is able to offer Nate a long term deal without the tag kicking in. The Franchise Tag only applies to a one year deal, and it can force the players to sign the contract, or hold out. Orland Pace and Walter Jones were each tagged more than once as I recall, and eventually signed long term contracts with their respective teams. What Marv did was voluntarily, and for reasons that are beyond me, take this useful tool to hold onto a player out of his kit. Also, he deprived the Bills the "tag and trade" option which did net us a 1st round pick for Peerless Price. As for drafting a 1st round corner, bet on it, perhaps even if Nate does stay in Buffalo (which I give about a 5% chance, and I am being kind). I would like to be wrong about this as much as I hope anything for the Bills because if we do so, we are officially reduced to being a defensive back farm team of sorts, or damn close to it.
Recommended Posts