5 Wide Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Ok, so then if that Buffalo News Blog is correct.... why didn't the Bills start shopping Dockery sooner? I'm not saying anything would have came to fruition by it, but there was nothing even speculated with Dockery being on the trading block. They could have tried to pull that off in the days leading up to the start of FA.......
BillsVet 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. Todd France represents plenty of clients throughout the NFL and the last thing he's going to do is rake a team over the coals for failing to deliver his client in a trade. Furthermore, we all know he's seeking the most money for his player and by extension himself. Even if that's not the case, his primary concern is the player and not biting the hand that feeds him by diming out a future client in the Buffalo Bills.
TC in St. Louis Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 I don't care about this. I'm glad Dockery and his 7 million dollar salary are gone.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Todd France represents plenty of clients throughout the NFL and the last thing he's going to do is rake a team over the coals for failing to deliver his client in a trade. Furthermore, we all know he's seeking the most money for his player and by extension himself. Even if that's not the case, his primary concern is the player and not biting the hand that feeds him by diming out a future client in the Buffalo Bills. The Lions offered Dockery more money than the Redskins did, even after the trade went south and he was a free agent. And he turned it down to play for the Redskins. So that kind of shoots your theory. I do agree that he is not likely to rake a team over the coals. But it's hard to believe he would lie about how much paperwork there was to do on a trade if that was not the case. Other agents or teams could come out and say "What are you talking about? It's two minutes!" But that is not the case. They were trying to rework Dockery's deal, and that gets complicated.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 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. It says it here, in the post you were referencing. "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. And actually, I was the one that originally brought up the fact that the Lions may be Tards in Arms with the Bills and that it may not be the Bills fault.
BuffaloBob Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 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. The fact that his agent had to get a NEW contract, negotiated, drafted and signed with Detroit is not on the Bills. My point is and has always been that if a trade had indeed been consummated (which means that compensation had been agreed to, and Dockery had agreed to play for the same contract), there was no reason the Bills could be blamed for not getting the paperwork filed. And yeah, it would have been a simple filing had Dockery not insisted on altering the contract that would have otherwise just been simply assumed. The ultimate point here is that you, among all these other people instantly piled on the front office for screwing this up and simply not filing the paperwork because they are tards. Even after that, you still insisted that the Bills at least be partially blamed for this not getting done. You were obviously incorrect.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 The ultimate point here is that you, among all these other people instantly piled on the front office for screwing this up and simply not filing the paperwork because they are tards. Even after that, you still insisted that the Bills at least be partially blamed for this not getting done. You were obviously incorrect. Again, I was the one that suggested maybe it was the Lions fault as much as the Bills. And that's apparently what happened. You were just spewing about how easy it was to get a trade done not knowing or considering that there were negotiations involved. Plus, I don't even know what you're talking about half the time since your main two points are completely contradictory, that 1] It wasn't the Bills fault, and 2] It's simple to get the trade in so why didn't they?
BillsGuyInMalta Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 I can only hope that this thread dies now that we finally know what happened.
VOR Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 The pick was allegedly a 7th rounder in 2010. LOL!
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. Oh great, so you reserved the possibility that MAYBE the tards in Detroit helped the tards in our front office screw it up, even though you believed it was our front office? Oh, OK. As it turns out, you are still wrong.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Oh great, so you reserved the possibility that MAYBE the tards in Detroit helped the tards in our front office screw it up, even though you believed it was our front office? Oh, OK. As it turns out, you are still wrong. Actually, the post of mine that you just quoted which was written before we knew the real story, is exactly what happened after we found out the real story.
VOR Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Clark Judge clears-up the Bills-Lions-Redskins-Dockery situation: http://clarkjudge.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/6384866 I liked this part best: [after the "trade" fell through] Dockery went to Detroit where the Lions planned to sign him as a free agent. According to sources close to the situation the Lions felt they had a deal in place and were ready to complete the transaction when Dockey disapperared, got on a plane and flew to Washington. The feeling was that the Redskins made a last-minute offer and that he wanted to go there all along because he started his career there and was comfortable in Washington. In fact, there are those who believe he really never mentally checked out of Washington after leaving in 2007, an explanation for his poor play the two years he spent in Buffalo. Bottom line: The Lions and Bills don't deserve the heat they're getting for[[ this.
Lurker Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 I liked this part best: I'm particular to his opening line: "Nice story about the Lions missing out on Derrick Dockery because the Buffalo Bills couldn't file trade papers in time except that it's not true."
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I'm particular to his opening line: "Nice story about the Lions missing out on Derrick Dockery because the Buffalo Bills couldn't file trade papers in time except that it's not true." Yep. Clayton et al are wrong again.
2003Contenders Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Yep. Clayton et al are wrong again. The sad thing is that Clayton wasn't technically wrong. However, the way he presented it was VERY misleading and clearly made the Bills front office out to be incompetent, which clearly was NOT the case (at least in this particular situation). Fortunately, I never allowed myself to get too worked up over an allegation made by someone like Clayton. However, he deserves to get highly scrutinized for his misleading and indirectly inflammatory allegations.
Recommended Posts