Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Personally, I believe that because The Bills are tards, run by tards, managed by tards, owned by tard, and followed, religiously, by tards, that we screwed up the Lions deal. But... it's also quite possible, because the Lions are Tards-in-Arms with the Bills, that they didn't agree to the deal until it was a few minutes before the deadline, making it almost impossible to get it through to the league. Both Team of Tards could be at fault.
cåblelady Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Personally, I believe that because The Bills are tards, run by tards, managed by tards, owned by tard, and followed, religiously, by tards, that we screwed up the Lions deal. But... it's also quite possible, because the Lions are Tards-in-Arms with the Bills, that they didn't agree to the deal until it was a few minutes before the deadline, making it almost impossible to get it through to the league. Both Team of Tards could be at fault.
BuffaloBob Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Personally, I believe that because The Bills are tards, run by tards, managed by tards, owned by tard, and followed, religiously, by tards, that we screwed up the Lions deal. But... it's also quite possible, because the Lions are Tards-in-Arms with the Bills, that they didn't agree to the deal until it was a few minutes before the deadline, making it almost impossible to get it through to the league. Both Team of Tards could be at fault. If there was enough time to fax in his release paperwork, there was enough time to fax in a trade as well.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 If there was enough time to fax in his release paperwork, there was enough time to fax in a trade as well. Do you know the extent of the paperwork on a trade that has to be turned into the league? I didn't think so.
H2o Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 If this is true, I'm done. I cannot believe how STUPID they are. This is BY FAR the absolute WORST managed situation I've ever heard of. We could've traded Dockery, getting something in return, but our FO didn't turn in the necessary paper work to get it done? W.............T...............F? Pack this effin team up and move them to LA so I can stop giving a turd about the NFL altogether. If monkeys can trained and sent into outer space, I'm sure they can be trained to run our team more adequately than the bumbling idiots that are doing the job right now.
RJsackedagain Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Wait, when did Matt Millen become the GM in Buffalo? ... Bonehead moves like this are why the Bills are becoming the Lions of the AFC. UGH
VOR Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 This is Jason LaCanfora's response: joe [not my real first name], there is a 4 pm waiver/paparerwork [sic] deadline with the management council before the start of the league yearBills missed the deadline, and you [sic] statement about him being released thursday is untrue - he actually was not cut until friday, and became a ufa at that point. The paperwork on his release did not go through until friday, when he took visits. He had prior permission to speak to the lions because of the trade talks Thanks for the email Cheers Now first of all, the Bills officially cut Dockery on Thursday, as per NFL.com (Click Here), so right off the bat, he's wrong. But assuming NFL.com doesn't know what its own teams are doing, the Bills were talking about releasing Dockery on Thursday morning, a full day before the alleged Friday 4 PM deadline. If there were a trade in the works involving the Lions, why talk about releasing him a full day before?
Wiz Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Another possibility is that the Lions front office sent out this story to explain away how they allowed such an (sarcasm on) outstanding interior lineman that would certainly shore up their o-line get away. "We did our best, but the Bills front office dropped the ball!!"
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 This is Jason LaCanfora's response: Now first of all, the Bills officially cut Dockery on Thursday, as per NFL.com (Click Here), so right off the bat, he's wrong. But assuming NFL.com doesn't know what its own teams are doing, the Bills were talking about releasing Dockery Thursday morning, a full day before the alleged Friday 4 PM deadline. If there were a trade in the works involving the Lions, why talk about releasing him a full day before? Because the Lions might not pull the trigger on the trade.
TheLynchTrain Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 This is Jason LaCanfora's response: Now first of all, the Bills officially cut Dockery on Thursday, as per NFL.com (Click Here), so right off the bat, he's wrong. But assuming NFL.com doesn't know what its own teams are doing, the Bills were talking about releasing Dockery on Thursday morning, a full day before the alleged Friday 4 PM deadline. If there were a trade in the works involving the Lions, why talk about releasing him a full day before? Like I said, this is pure BS. Notice LaCanfora says his side of a story is from a "league source." It does sound like the Bills !@#$ed this one up, but this could also be another one of Mort's glory hole stories. EDIT: I read this idiot in the post all the time, and he is an idiot. I just saw that he clearly thinks the contract is 3 years 27 million. All other sources say 5 year 27....what is wrong with him>?
VOR Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Because the Lions might not pull the trigger on the trade. True. So claiming that the Bills and Lions had a trade for a high-round pick all worked-out, and the Lions clearing the Bills of all financial responsibility WRT Dockery, is pure BS.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 True. So claiming that the Bills and Lions had a trade for a high-round pick all worked-out, and the Lions clearing the Bills of all financial responsibility WRT Dockery, is pure BS. Seems like both teams were a little at fault and it was just one of those things. Mark Gaughn clears the Bills of responsibility but I'm not so sure. Again, I think it's part Bills and part Lions being the Bills and Lions. http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/200...ls-on-dock.html No fault by Bills on Dock Here's a clarification on the Bills release of Derrick Dockery, based on conversations with a league sources and a source close to Dockery. The Bills planned to release Dockery Thursday, the day before the start of the new league year. They were contacted by the Detroit Lions Thursday afternoon about working out a trade. However, the trade market did not open until 12:01 a.m. Friday. Dockery was due a roster bonus of $1.75 million at 12:01 a.m. Friday. So the Bills had to file paperwork to push back the paying of that roster bonus by two days, all the while working on the terms of a trade. Meanwhile, Dockery and his agent were talking with the Lions about what kind of contract he might get and what kind of fit he would be with the Lions. It all came together - getting Dockery to agree to go to Detroit, getting a good idea that the Lions could strike a deal with Dockery, and getting the Bills to work out trade parameters with the Lions - right about the 4 p.m. deadline. The paperwork for pushing back the bonus was filed. Dockery was released. But on Friday the Bills and Lions found out that the league office deemed that the paperwork either never got approved in time by the league office or never made it in on time by the deadline. It was a race to the finish. "There is a lot of paperwork involved, and there were a lot of moving parts to get done by 4 p.m.," said Dockery's agent, Todd France. Was it the Bills' fault that it all didn't come together by the deadline. "By all means, no," France said.
dfluker Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Seems like both teams were a little at fault and it was just one of those things. Mark Gaughn clears the Bills of responsibility but I'm not so sure. Again, I think it's part Bills and part Lions being the Bills and Lions. http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/200...ls-on-dock.html You left out the last sentence of the article, which is important in context. Was it the Bills' fault that it all didn't come together by the deadline. "By all means, no," France said.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 You left out the last sentence of the article, which is important in context. Was it the Bills' fault that it all didn't come together by the deadline. "By all means, no," France said. Thanks, I thought I put it all in there and will go back and edit it.
BuffaloBob Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Do you know the extent of the paperwork on a trade that has to be turned into the league? I didn't think so. Umm, Yeah I do actually. It is a simple memo that outlines the terms of the trade. But you keep right on blaming the Bills because that is what you want to do, even though you and everyone else here bashing the front office have no facts to support that position. The FACT is, if the Bills had time to file release paperwork, they had time to file for a trade, unless the Lions protratced to the talks to the point that it was not possible to produce the document first. Nothing complicated about it. As for what led to a deal not being consummated before the deadline, if there in fact was one in the works, is pure speculation. OK, was pure speculation until the blog just posted. If what he writes is true, this was a simple matter of Detroit not offering anything the Bills wanted until there were minutes left. Even the best typist can't get a memo typed printed and faxed in two minutes.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Umm, Yeah I do actually. It is a simple memo that outlines the terms of the trade. But you keep right on blaming the Bills because that is what you want to do, even though you and everyone else here bashing the front office have no facts to support that position. The FACT is, if the Bills had time to file release paperwork, they had time to file for a trade. Nothing complicated about it. As for what led to a deal not being consummated before the deadline, if there in fact was one in the works, is pure speculation. Read above, smart guy. The agent himself who was working on the deal said there was a ton of paperwork. Not to mention that it was the Lions, not the Bills who came late to the party. Not to mention that your post makes no sense.
VOR Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Read above, smart guy. The agent himself who was working on the deal said there was a ton of paperwork. Not to mention that it was the Lions, not the Bills who came late to the party. This will probably turn out to be a serendipitous screw-up for the Lions. Trading-away a pick and paying Dockery all that money to suck would have been bad for them.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Umm, Yeah I do actually. It is a simple memo that outlines the terms of the trade. But you keep right on blaming the Bills because that is what you want to do, even though you and everyone else here bashing the front office have no facts to support that position. The FACT is, if the Bills had time to file release paperwork, they had time to file for a trade, unless the Lions protratced to the talks to the point that it was not possible to produce the document first. Nothing complicated about it. As for what led to a deal not being consummated before the deadline, if there in fact was one in the works, is pure speculation. OK, was pure speculation until the blog just posted. If what he writes is true, this was a simple matter of Detroit not offering anything the Bills wanted until there were minutes left. Even the best typist can't get a memo typed printed and faxed in two minutes. The entire contract has to be included in a trade because the league has to agree to the details of the trade and the contract. That's what happened. It's not just a simple memo like "We agree to trade Derrick Dockery for a 5th round draft choice in 2009". The Bills and the Lions probably both thought the deal was good and consummated. The league later informed them that it wasn't okayed in time.
BuffaloBob Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Read above, smart guy. The agent himself who was working on the deal said there was a ton of paperwork. Not to mention that it was the Lions, not the Bills who came late to the party. Not to mention that your post makes no sense. Where does it say there was a TON of paperwork to do? It simply says that with an agreement not reached until literally within minutes of the deadline, the paperwork could not be completed and filed. Even a one page memo can't be typed, proofed, printed and faxed in a couple of minutes smart guy. You were the one calling the Bills tards for this, when you were completely wrong, but go ahead and cover yourself by arguing irrelevancies.
Recommended Posts