sarmanuscg07 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 But they didn't make a serious attempt to get him for no compensation so why would they make the move if they had to give up something? Sorry, but your logic doesn't make much sense. Your trying to say they would have given up something to get Clements, but for free, they pass? its not that they passed its that they dont have the cap room to paywhat san fran paid.. he made good sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 its not that they passed its that they dont have the cap room to paywhat san fran paid.. he made good sense to me. That's right. Before the free agency period began, it was reported that Clements was Washington's #1 FA target. Obviously, they could not match SF's offer, however under the franchise tag scenario, Buffalo would have been able to limit NC's options to teams who could work out a trade with the Bills. Given the Redskins apparent interest in trading the #6 pick for other team's franchise players, why wouldn't they be interested in trading with Buffalo too. My main point was that the trade rumors involving Washington just makes it hurt worse that the Bills made a deal with Clements not to francise him this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 That's right. Before the free agency period began, it was reported that Clements was Washington's #1 FA target. Obviously, they could not match SF's offer, however under the franchise tag scenario, Buffalo would have been able to limit NC's options to teams who could work out a trade with the Bills. Given the Redskins apparent interest in trading the #6 pick for other team's franchise players, why wouldn't they be interested in trading with Buffalo too. My main point was that the trade rumors involving Washington just makes it hurt worse that the Bills made a deal with Clements not to francise him this year. If they couldn't sign him as a FA, they would have been able to sign him if he was under the franchise tag? If Washington seriously wanted him (and not from some media rumors) they would have signed him. Basically what you are saying is that Nate would not have been happy playing under the franchise tag here in buffalo, but if Washington traded for him he woulld have played under it or signed a contract for less then what San Fran paid that fits under Washingtons cap? Theres no way they would have traded for him without some type of deal already in place You can sleep easier and live better if you just let go the fact that the Bills could have gotten something for Clements, or that if they didn't make the deal not to tag him again he would still be here. He's gone, the Bills got nothing for him except some cap space that was used to build up the o-line. Their best chance to get anything for him would have been dealing him before the deadline last season (especially if the rumor was true of a Clements/Macfarland deal with Tampa) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 That's right. Before the free agency period began, it was reported that Clements was Washington's #1 FA target. Obviously, they could not match SF's offer, however under the franchise tag scenario, Buffalo would have been able to limit NC's options to teams who could work out a trade with the Bills. Given the Redskins apparent interest in trading the #6 pick for other team's franchise players, why wouldn't they be interested in trading with Buffalo too. My main point was that the trade rumors involving Washington just makes it hurt worse that the Bills made a deal with Clements not to francise him this year. Yep...had they franchised him this year, they would have at the very least been handed somebody's #3 and some future consideration. Most players and their agents are on the lookout for the $$$. I reject these thoughts that imply it would show badly on the Bill's "word", and affect future dealings. Players, their agents, know how things work. Players don't live in a vaccuum. Winning is a big thing to all of them. And the vets know that the money is better for them when they are on a winning club...a better cut of the cap, game incentives, etc. Were I a Bills player, I would wonder why my management turned their back on franchising Clements and getting a free, higher pick that potentially helps out in winning more games . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts