ESPN: FA cornerbacks overpaid and overated

[Ozymandius]

i ignored the "3 week period" because once again your facts are wrong - a team cannot trade a player before free agency opens

 

Sigh. Stop being intentionally dense. They can agree to terms on a trade during that period and it can become official when FA starts.

[Ozymandius]

Really, it's hilarious that you continue to pursue this. Can't you just admit that you forgot some dates?

 

In your world, it's now impossible for the Bills to have pursued a trade for Clements even though other teams franchise players and pursue trades for them all the time.

[d_wag]

Sigh. Stop being intentionally dense. They can agree to terms on a trade during that period and it can become official when FA starts.

 

as mentioned, a team would have had to have been "intentionally dense" to agree to a trade when it was obvious that the bills didn't have the cash to both pay clements AND address the OL in free agency with major acquisitions like dockery and walker.........it's good to see that you've backed down from your previous incorrect stance that the bills could have afforded to both franchise clements and do all the moves they did do in free agency - appears we're making some progress!

 

now, if you'd care to answer a few of my questions you seemed to have glossed over:

but you say he would have been traded the minute the clock struck midnight for the free agency period, thus giving the bills a pick and still giving them the dollars to sign dockery and walker? what if they couldn't trade him right away? what do you do then? how long do you wait until you lift the tag? how many marquee free agents do you watch sign elsewhere?

 

but wait, what happens if clements signs the f-tag and it becomes guaranteed? oops, your now over the C2C permanently and have really screwed things up

 

does this seem like a risk that the bills should have taken just to ATTEMPT to get a draft pick?

[colin]

we agreed not to franchise clements that year as we franchised him the year before.

[Ozymandius]

as mentioned, a team would have had to have been "intentionally dense" to agree to a trade when it was obvious that the bills didn't have the cash to both pay clements AND address the OL in free agency with major acquisitions like dockery and walker.........it's good to see that you've backed down from your previous incorrect stance that the bills could have afforded to both franchise clements and do all the moves they did do in free agency - appears we're making some progress!

 

Where did I concede that? I didn't.

 

Here's a link to the Bills cap situation in 2007: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/footbal...3&year=2007 . Notice how Dockery, Walker, and Kelsay add up to only half of the $30 million in cap space from your precious link above. They would've been compliant with the salary cap. It's true that they didn't want to sign both the o-linemen and Clements, but other teams didn't know that, especially before the start of FA.

 

now, if you'd care to answer a few of my questions you seemed to have glossed over:

but you say he would have been traded the minute the clock struck midnight for the free agency period, thus giving the bills a pick and still giving them the dollars to sign dockery and walker? what if they couldn't trade him right away? what do you do then? how long do you wait until you lift the tag? how many marquee free agents do you watch sign elsewhere?

 

but wait, what happens if clements signs the f-tag and it becomes guaranteed? oops, your now over the C2C permanently and have really screwed things up

 

does this seem like a risk that the bills should have taken just to ATTEMPT to get a draft pick?

 

Asked and answered already.

 

If they couldn't agree to a trade for him by the start of free agency -- which I find hard to believe, since he was clearly in demand -- they can continue trying. My problem is that they didn't even try to get something for him (granted, a decision that was made months earlier due to the promise). I'm against letting highly-valued assets go without trying to get compensation for them first. What would Clements' motivation be for signing a one-year tender? Nobody ever signs it until they've explored trying to get a long-term contract first, so yes, it's worth the "risk" to tag him.

[Bill from NYC]

I absolutely agree that good corners are overpaid. It therefore stands to reason that they should not be drafted highly except in rare cases. The Bills don't overpay for corners, but they draft them early far too often and it clearly has had a negative impact on the franchise over the past 15 years. In part because games are won at the LOS, not at corner, but also because the Bills end up letting players who they've invested high draft picks in........the foundation of their team.......leave via free agency.

 

Nate Odomes, Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield and Nate Clements. Take a good look at that list folks. All high picks, all left via free agency.

 

How could anyone in their right mind want this organization to draft another corner in round 1?

 

If a player is worthy of using your #1 pick on........then pans out.....that player should be worth paying market value.

The Bills obviously don't value cornerbacks. They couldn't have asked a lot more from Clements. He played EVERY game, was very good in coverage and run defense and came away with pics and forced fumbles. Then he went to SF racked up 92 tackles, 4 picks and 3 forced fumbles. History just keeps repeating itself for this team.

 

 

You Go Badol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[d_wag]

Where did I concede that? I didn't.

 

Here's a link to the Bills cap situation in 2007: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/footbal...3&year=2007 . Notice how Dockery, Walker, and Kelsay add up to only half of the $30 million in cap space from your precious link above. They would've been compliant with the salary cap. It's true that they didn't want to sign both the o-linemen and Clements, but other teams didn't know that, especially before the start of FA.

 

 

 

Asked and answered already.

 

If they couldn't agree to a trade for him by the start of free agency -- which I find hard to believe, since he was clearly in demand -- they can continue trying. My problem is that they didn't even try to get something for him (granted, a decision that was made months earlier due to the promise). I'm against letting highly-valued assets go without trying to get compensation for them first. What would Clements' motivation be for signing a one-year tender? Nobody ever signs it until they've explored trying to get a long-term contract first, so yes, it's worth the "risk" to tag him.

 

you keep coming back to salary cap but it's not about that - it's about the C2C.......the bills publicly stated how much they were going to spend in 2007 free agency - approx. 30 mil...............other teams had that information prior to free agency.........they then committed the following dollars to be paid in 2007:

 

dockery - 12.5M

kelsey - 12M

walker - 7M

total - 31.5M

 

that's it - they didn't have time to wait on a clements trade because they needed those dollars to sign free agents.......if they got stuck holding the bag with clements they would have been at close to 40M, which is 10M more then their self-imposed limit.......other teams knew that and thus would have called their bluff........they couldn't have "continued trying" to find a deal while signing free agents as you claim because they wouldn't put themselves in position to be that far over their limit........it wasn't worth the risk

 

clements motivation for signing the tag could have been the trotter situation - you know, when the eagles got cute just like you suggest and put the tag on him only to take it back when they couldn't find anyone who wanted to trade for him! i know you don't believe it but not every tagged player is easily tradeable!

 

you still haven't answered how long they should have waited before lifting the tag if no trade could be found

[Ozymandius]

you keep coming back to salary cap but it's not about that - it's about the C2C.......the bills publicly stated how much they were going to spend in 2007 free agency - approx. 30 mil...............other teams had that information prior to free agency.........they then committed the following dollars to be paid in 2007:

 

dockery - 12.5M

kelsey - 12M

walker - 7M

total - 31.5M

 

that's it - they didn't have time to wait on a clements trade because they needed those dollars to sign free agents.......if they got stuck holding the bag with clements they would have been at close to 40M, which is 10M more then their self-imposed limit.......other teams knew that and thus would have called their bluff........they couldn't have "continued trying" to find a deal while signing free agents as you claim because they wouldn't put themselves in position to be that far over their limit........it wasn't worth the risk

 

Sigh. Clements wouldn't have affected "cash to cap" because he wouldn't be under contract with the Bills and the Bills would not be paying him. Cash to cap deals in real dollars, and the Bills would have spent $0 franchising him and trying to work out a trade.

 

clements motivation for signing the tag could have been the trotter situation - you know, when the eagles got cute just like you suggest and put the tag on him only to take it back when they couldn't find anyone who wanted to trade for him! i know you don't believe it but not every tagged player is easily tradeable!

 

The market for a young stud corner was much greater than the market for Trotter. Everyone knew Clements was going to make big bucks, including himself. Even in the Trotter situation, did Trotter actually sign the franchise tender, or did the Eagles release him from it? Again, why would Clements sign a one-year contract instead of exploring his options for a long-term contract first? Can you name me any player that signed his tender right away before exploring long-term options?

 

you still haven't answered how long they should have waited before lifting the tag if no trade could be found

 

They could've waited as long as they wanted to. If eventually no trade could be worked out, then fine, release him. But nothing prevented them from both signing FAs and keeping Clements on the tag while trying to work out a trade for him.

[Ozymandius]

Since you're being intentionally dense and I really gotta run, I'm going to try to wrap this up by reviewing what we talked about. Answer this question: If the Bills had not made the no-franchise promise to Clements, what would have stopped them from pursuing a trade for him?

 

-- You said "Cash to cap" but cash-to-cap is irrelevant until he's under contract with the Bills and they actually have to pay him. Why can't they try to trade him while having no intention of keeping him and therefore no effect on "cash to cap"?

 

-- You said "The risk was Clements might've signed the tender" but how many franchised FAs can you name that signed the tender in the spring instead of trying to work out a long-term contract or wait for a trade that would've landed them a long-term contract? What would Clements' motivation be to surprisingly sign the one-year contract, and wasn't it clear all along that Clements wanted a long-term contract? This is such a weak and embarrassing point by you.

 

-- You said "Other teams would've known the Bills didn't want to re-sign Clements and therefore would not have offered anything", but HOW would they know that? If the no-franchise promise had not happened, why wouldn't they believe the Bills were trying to trade him BUT if something couldn't be worked out, they would keep Clements for another year? Especially before the start of free agency and the Bills sitting there with tons of cap room. Clements was a highly valued asset that got an $80 million dollar contract. Why wouldn't a team have traded a draft pick for him? DeAngelo Hall was traded for a high 2nd and 5th round pick AND given a $70 million dollar contract.

 

-- After the start of free agency, the Bills spent a lot of money on Dockery and Walker. So yes, at that point, the Bills might've had less leverage in trade negotiations if other teams were confident they had a grasp of the Bills financial situation. But could other teams have known for sure the Bills wouldn't still keep Clements? Nope. And instead of a 1st rounder or high 2nd rounder, could the Bills at that point have still extracted a 3rd rounder or similar for a player who was valued at $80 million on the open market? What is the harm in trying to get whatever you can for Clements (likely ending up with a low first or high second, imo), if there hadn't been a no-franchise promise? In the end, if no trade could be worked out for him (they couldn't have gotten a 5th rounder for him, for example?), they could release Clements from the tag, but do you really believe no trade would've been worked out?

 

So that's a wrap. I can't continue because I'm just talking to a brick wall at this point. A stupid brick wall.

[d_wag]

Since you're being intentionally dense and I really gotta run, I'm going to try to wrap this up by reviewing what we talked about. Answer this question: If the Bills had not made the no-franchise promise to Clements, what would have stopped them from pursuing a trade for him?

 

-- You said "Cash to cap" but cash-to-cap is irrelevant until he's under contract with the Bills and they actually have to pay him. Why can't they try to trade him while having no intention of keeping him and therefore no effect on "cash to cap"?

 

-- You said "The risk was Clements might've signed the tender" but how many franchised FAs can you name that signed the tender in the spring instead of trying to work out a long-term contract or wait for a trade that would've landed them a long-term contract? What would Clements' motivation be to surprisingly sign the one-year contract, and wasn't it clear all along that Clements wanted a long-term contract? This is such a weak and embarrassing point by you.

 

-- You said "Other teams would've known the Bills didn't want to re-sign Clements and therefore would not have offered anything", but HOW would they know that? If the no-franchise promise had not happened, why wouldn't they believe the Bills were trying to trade him BUT if something couldn't be worked out, they would keep Clements for another year? Especially before the start of free agency and the Bills sitting there with tons of cap room. Clements was a highly valued asset that got an $80 million dollar contract. Why wouldn't a team have traded a draft pick for him? DeAngelo Hall was traded for a high 2nd and 5th round pick AND given a $70 million dollar contract.

 

-- After the start of free agency, the Bills spent a lot of money on Dockery and Walker. So yes, at that point, the Bills might've had less leverage in trade negotiations if other teams were confident they had a grasp of the Bills financial situation. But could other teams have known for sure the Bills wouldn't still keep Clements? Nope. And instead of a 1st rounder or high 2nd rounder, could the Bills at that point have still extracted a 3rd rounder or similar for a player who was valued at $80 million on the open market? What is the harm in trying to get whatever you can for Clements (likely ending up with a low first or high second, imo), if there hadn't been a no-franchise promise? In the end, if no trade could be worked out for him (they couldn't have gotten a 5th rounder for him, for example?), they could release Clements from the tag, but do you really believe no trade would've been worked out?

 

So that's a wrap. I can't continue because I'm just talking to a brick wall at this point. A stupid brick wall.

 

geez, you could have saved yourself a lot of time typing out all that - "in conclusion, i am smarter then the bills and would not have screwed this up like they did.......as well, the patriots are completely inept for letting samuel walk"

 

i criticize the bills aplenty around here and was certainly well ahead of the curve when it came to railing on TD........but the fact of the matter remains the bills could not tag clements and still be as active as they were in free agency because of their C2C strategy.........and the rest of the NFL knew it........you obviously have your feet firmly planted and choose to ignore the facts in your blind, misguided lashings....i'm not going to resort to immature name calling so let's just leave it at that

[BADOLBILZ]

My sense is that some folks will want/demand that the Bills take a CB in this draft because they were influenced by those who hyperventilated at our letting Clements walk.

 

It seems most people that want that corner at #1 seem to think letting Clements walk to save a couple million per season was a good idea. You argue that he wasn't a top 5 corner.....but neither was Dockery a top 5 guard. Free agency is about supply and demand, you have to overpay for top talent in FA.

 

The Bills aren't doomed, they just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. Losing 4 cornerbacks in free agency that the team had drafted in the first round.....over a 10 year period.....that's just stupid. Ruben Brown was drafted in 1995 and he's still playing. That's the kind of value you should be getting out of first rounder on a regular basis. Not 4-5 years and out.

[Dan]

You again gloss over the 3 week period between tagging a player and the start of free agency. I noticed above you ignored my question about how GMs could've known what the Bills free agency plans were during that 3 week period. I don't blame you for ignoring the question, of course, since it renders your arguments moot.

 

You also now apparently believe that due to a press release about cash to cap, that other teams had a complete grasp on the Bills financial situation and whether they would've been willing to re-sign Clements or not. Right. Uh huh. And that Clements would've signed a one year offer instead of exploring his options for a long-term contract. Right. Uh huh.

 

Can't you just say "I forgot about that 3 week period" and be done with this?

I thought that was considered tampering to talk to a player before FA starts?

[Orton's Arm]

I absolutely agree that good corners are overpaid. It therefore stands to reason that they should not be drafted highly except in rare cases. The Bills don't overpay for corners, but they draft them early far too often and it clearly has had a negative impact on the franchise over the past 15 years. In part because games are won at the LOS, not at corner, but also because the Bills end up letting players who they've invested high draft picks in........the foundation of their team.......leave via free agency.

 

Nate Odomes, Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield and Nate Clements. Take a good look at that list folks. All high picks, all left via free agency.

 

How could anyone in their right mind want this organization to draft another corner in round 1?

 

If a player is worthy of using your #1 pick on........then pans out.....that player should be worth paying market value.

The Bills obviously don't value cornerbacks. They couldn't have asked a lot more from Clements. He played EVERY game, was very good in coverage and run defense and came away with pics and forced fumbles. Then he went to SF racked up 92 tackles, 4 picks and 3 forced fumbles. History just keeps repeating itself for this team.

Thank you! First and second round picks should be used to build the core of your team--used to find players who will give you solid play for many years to come. Every high draft pick you use on a "first contract and out" type of player is one less pick that's available for building the core of your team.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

It seems most people that want that corner at #1 seem to think letting Clements walk to save a couple million per season was a good idea.

$80 million here, $80 million there, pretty soon you're talking about some real money

 

I'm totally against drafting a CB in round 1, but to refer to the kind of money we would've had to pay NC as saving a couple million per season is pretty silly. Dockery arguably wasn't a top 5 guard, and we overpaid for him, but we got a lot of starting players for your few million per year.

[Sisyphean Bills]

$80 million here, $80 million there, pretty soon you're talking about some real money

 

I'm totally against drafting a CB in round 1, but to refer to the kind of money we would've had to pay NC as saving a couple million per season is pretty silly. Dockery arguably wasn't a top 5 guard, and we overpaid for him, but we got a lot of starting players for your few million per year.

 

And, if they slapped him with the franchise tag (used their leverage), they'd not have had to pay him that $80 million.

 

A deeper problem is finding the players that actually want to play and stay in Buffalo. If most of the guys that one drafts and develops are ready to bolt as soon as their rookie contracts are up, then the franchise is little more than a farm team. And after a decade of losing and bumbling, top shelf players are either going to want exorbitant contracts to be on a loser or want to play for an organization that actually has a chance of contending.

 

Meanwhile, we got 0.189 vs. playoff teams.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

And, if they slapped him with the franchise tag (used their leverage), they'd not have had to pay him that $80 million.

 

A deeper problem is finding the players that actually want to play and stay in Buffalo. If most of the guys that one drafts and develops are ready to bolt as soon as their rookie contracts are up, then the franchise is little more than a farm team. And after a decade of losing and bumbling, top shelf players are either going to want exorbitant contracts to be on a loser or want to play for an organization that actually has a chance of contending.

 

Meanwhile, we got 0.189 vs. playoff teams.

So they break their promise, he's pissed off, the players don't trust the FO, and you put off the decision for 1 year, then what? Perhaps the problem is worse, because the trust is broken and the price likely went up from market conditions. I must be missing something here.

 

Yes, I agree that getting talent to play and stay here is a challenge, but IMO it's more about money. Most of the players that leave the Bills do so because they want the money, and they weren't offered it in Buffalo. You can fault the management and/or the reality of small market professional football. So that's an issue, but not having the deep pockets is a much bigger factor.

[Sisyphean Bills]

So they break their promise, he's pissed off, the players don't trust the FO, and you put off the decision for 1 year, then what? Perhaps the problem is worse, because the trust is broken and the price likely went up from market conditions. I must be missing something here.

 

Yes, I agree that getting talent to play and stay here is a challenge, but IMO it's more about money. Most of the players that leave the Bills do so because they want the money, and they weren't offered it in Buffalo. You can fault the management and/or the reality of small market professional football. So that's an issue, but not having the deep pockets is a much bigger factor.

 

No, you aren't missing anything. It just means we are back to the root of the problem: Marv making that promise and making it publicly was a thing of stupidity. He burned the franchise to keep his word.

 

I think the money thing is overblown. The Bills threw a truck load of dough at Dockery and the reason they are now in the cash-to-cap business is because under Butler they ran up their credit card debt like the nuts. That's not being tight; that's just bad management. On the other hand, the economics of the NFL has changed rather dramatically with the new CBA. And, it might change altogether with the talk of the NFL going uncapped. To several other owners way of thinking, Ralph is a dinosaur and he isn't doing enough to maximize his revenue stream. It's a brave new league...