Pyrite Gal Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 to me this is an indictment of management ... you know the cap is going to jump big in a year - why not sign your top players with guaranteed contracts (most of the money deferred to this year and later) and not have to deal with paying the Langston Walkers of the world outrageous money. Wouldn't a little foresight have come in handy? And I'm not talking just about the Bills ... though we left 20 million on the table by the end of the year. Arrgggh - I'm no financial whiz but isn't this just basic money management 101? Take into account though that unless NC has half a brain he knew where the market was headed also. If I am Nate, I see the benefit of signing with the Bills as being that they would give me a bird in the hand of resigning with them last year so I can not risk injury, but my sense is that I am already sitting there with the average pf the top 5 CB salaries in my pocket for merely making the roster next year. I will refuse to sign a contract with the Bills unless they are talking about giving me a huge bonus (at least $12 million and probably $16 million) merely to get me to resign prior to last season and this is with me coming off of a horrendous year in 2005. A lot of this comes down to a personal judgment about how risk averse NC is. Quite frankly given that personal confidence is not something NC ("the playmaker") has ever seemed to lack I doubt there is any contract the Bills could reasonably offer which would have induced him to pass up a chance at the big contract he just signed. NC made it clear that he considered himself worthy of being the highest paid CB in the league and I doubt that the horrible year he had in 2005 did much to change his mind about that and the contract he just signed even playing in a Cover 2 which does not allow the CB to shine (as noted by Dre Bly's complaints about wanting out of the Detroit Cover 2 and as shown by London Fletcher beating out NC for the INT lead on the BillsI indicates to me that it is quite doubtful that the Bills could have offered NC much less than the huge contract he just signed in order to sign him last off-season. Those who argue that our management erred in not signing him last off-season simply seem to assume that NC would have agreed to a deal and the proof is in the pudding now that SF rolled the armored car up to NC's house that Clements would have been foolish to sign any deal the Bills were capable of offering under the 2006 salary cap.
ganesh Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Wouldn't a little foresight have come in handy? And I'm not talking just about the Bills ... though we left 20 million on the table by the end of the year. Arrgggh - I'm no financial whiz but isn't this just basic money management 101? The Bills had no intention to sign Clements and Fletcher to long term deals..So why should they have signed them up last year. And finally the important point is consider is how much liquid cash does the owner have to throw a contract earlier. May be Wilson couldn't give a 10M signing bonus last season.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 The Bills had no intention to sign Clements and Fletcher to long term deals..So why should they have signed them up last year. And finally the important point is consider is how much liquid cash does the owner have to throw a contract earlier. May be Wilson couldn't give a 10M signing bonus last season. This argument is made by folks who live under the illusion that if we had merely chosen to tag this player we simply could have traded this player and gotten some compensation for losing them. TD spoiled folks with the manner he utilized to tag Peerless and get a 1st rounder for him that this move is somehow the norm rather than a relative rarity which he creatively used in this case to foster a trade and it is rare that these or other factors converge in the real world to make such compensation a reality or even a possibility. In general, I think it is the case that when a team makes a judgment that there is no way they are going to pay the likely market value a player would get in a contract or that they do not believe a player is going to be worth the cost of the tag amount, the intelligent move for them is simply not to resign him and wish him well in playing the free market. While some argue that this is a business and players must accept that a team will operate in a business like manner, this is true. However, it is not operating in a business-like manner if the team merely tags a player and then rescinds the tag at the last minute and throws the player out into the free market with the market greatly constrained by teams having already filled positions or used their cap room to sign available FAs. Rather than operating like a reputable business, such a move would correctly be viewed as mercenary gamesmanship and not only would correctly get the team labled as a bad partner and hurt them with future FAs, but if they were too obvious or left too much of a paper trail would likely be subjected to NFL or possibly judicial punishment for their gamesmanship. Once the Bills made a judgment that NC would likely require anything approaching the contract he actually signed and that even a very good CB was not worth that kind of money to us running our version of the Cover 2, then the Bills gave up nothing by agreeing not franchise him this year in exchange for him not throwing a hissy fit last off-season. We actually gave up nothing in exchange for him doing what he was supposed to do (follow the CBA which gave the Bills the right to not extend him for what it would have taken to get him to agree to an extension) anyway.
mattypro89 Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 I want Lance Briggs on the Bills yesterday.. He would put my A$$ in the seats at Ralph Wilson stadium. put your ass there anyway jerk. dont be a fairweather fan! thats like almost as bad as being a Dallas fan! :rolleyes:
2003Contenders Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 This argument is made by folks who live under the illusion that if we had merely chosen to tag this player we simply could have traded this player and gotten some compensation for losing them. TD spoiled folks with the manner he utilized to tag Peerless and get a 1st rounder for him that this move is somehow the norm rather than a relative rarity which he creatively used in this case to foster a trade and it is rare that these or other factors converge in the real world to make such compensation a reality or even a possibility. In general, I think it is the case that when a team makes a judgment that there is no way they are going to pay the likely market value a player would get in a contract or that they do not believe a player is going to be worth the cost of the tag amount, the intelligent move for them is simply not to resign him and wish him well in playing the free market. While some argue that this is a business and players must accept that a team will operate in a business like manner, this is true. However, it is not operating in a business-like manner if the team merely tags a player and then rescinds the tag at the last minute and throws the player out into the free market with the market greatly constrained by teams having already filled positions or used their cap room to sign available FAs. Rather than operating like a reputable business, such a move would correctly be viewed as mercenary gamesmanship and not only would correctly get the team labled as a bad partner and hurt them with future FAs, but if they were too obvious or left too much of a paper trail would likely be subjected to NFL or possibly judicial punishment for their gamesmanship. Once the Bills made a judgment that NC would likely require anything approaching the contract he actually signed and that even a very good CB was not worth that kind of money to us running our version of the Cover 2, then the Bills gave up nothing by agreeing not franchise him this year in exchange for him not throwing a hissy fit last off-season. We actually gave up nothing in exchange for him doing what he was supposed to do (follow the CBA which gave the Bills the right to not extend him for what it would have taken to get him to agree to an extension) anyway. Recall also that Marv came in as a new GM last season -- and he had precious little time to make the decision about franchising Nate right away, as the designation was due by mid February. Also, at that time, there was serious concerns about whether or not there would be an extension to the CBA or not. As it was, 2006 looked to be the final capped season -- and there were serious restriction about how to back-load contracts and prorate signing bonuses. Under the circumstances, the Bills did exactly the right thing. The one area where they seriously err'ed was in their decision to promise NOT to retag Nate. In doing so, they gave up valuable leverage -- and prevented themselves from being able to demand some kind of compensation for him. (Did you see what the Broncos just gave up for Bly?) Truthfully, the Bills' use of the franchise tag last season was the best thing that could have happened to Nate. It gave him a mulligan for a sub-par 2005 season -- and he made good on it. Congrats to him for landing the big payday -- and congrats to the Bills for having the good sense NOT to try to overpay to the extent that the 49ers did.
Recommended Posts