JoeF Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I think the Coles deal really puts them up against it cap wise. Lawless in NY Honestly, I don't think the Bills have interest in Law either. I would redo and extend Nate right now. Something like $14 M SB and $37 Million for 6 years.... The guy is a perennial pro bowler in the making (this past year begins the streak) and this is market value--if we structure it like this...I am still pissed about the Jacksonville play--but he is a stud corner who likes Buffalo--just pay him. Cap hits in parenthesis 05 750K ($3.08M--about $1.5 M in cap savings this year) 06 $1.25 M ($3.58M) 07 $4 M ($6.33M) 08 $5 M ($7.33M) 09 $5.5 M ($7.83 M) 10 $6.5 M ($8.83M) This is $1 M More contract value and $1M in gauranteed money than Ken Lucas's contract with the Panthers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Wow that is a lot of money you're suggesting... I dunno. Too high a % of this team's cap has been used on skill-position players the last several years - and not enough on the lines. Tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Unfortunately Coach--its the market for a stud corner--and Nate is one....My cap figures were wrong--corrected ones now appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I think the Coles deal really puts them up against it cap wise. Lawless in NY Honestly, I don't think the Bills have interest in Law either. I would redo and extend Nate right now. Something like $14 M SB and $37 Million for 6 years.... The guy is a perennial pro bowler in the making (this past year begins the streak) and this is market value--if we structure it like this...I am still pissed about the Jacksonville play--but he is a stud corner who likes Buffalo--just pay him. Cap hits in parenthesis 05 750K ($2.08M--about $2.5 M in cap savings this year) 06 $1.25 M ($2.55M) 07 $4 M ($5.33M) 08 $5 M ($6.33M) 09 $5.5 M ($6.83 M) 10 $6.5 M ($7.83M) This is $1 M More contract value and $1M in gauranteed money than Ken Lucas's contract with the Panthers... 264814[/snapback] Good job on those numbers, and good post! The problem is, I doubt NC would accept it. Smoot wants much more, but hey, you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Why is this "OT"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I'll really be surprised if TD lets Nate get away........he's the PLAYMAKER, DAMMIT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Good job on those numbers, and good post! The problem is, I doubt NC would accept it. Smoot wants much more, but hey, you never know. 264820[/snapback] I doubt if Smoot gets more than Lucas, Bill..Lucas is pretty darn good in run support, Fred is a little timid...I think Smoot gets in the range of Lucas because of his a tad better coverage skills.. Gary Baxter signed with the Browns for 6 years, $30M, $10.5 M SB he was an up and comer--but still the 2nd best corner on the Ravens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Why is this "OT"?? 264821[/snapback] Cause it mentioned TY LAW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Cause it mentioned TY LAW 264827[/snapback] Mmmmmm....Ty Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Yeah I'm sure the Jets have "no interest" in Law, like they didn't with Pat Williams or Antoine Winfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Law's still having trouble getting around. He has a very serious injury and may not even play next year. A little bit of a shame - the guy has been a terrific player for stretches in his career. I doubt he's going to get any kind of big bucks this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJsackedagain Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Do you really think Nate is a stud cornerback? I don't. There's no reason to throw that much cash at one player in the NFL --- it doesn more harm than good no matter who the player is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I like Ty Law, but I would much rather see the Bills lock up Nate. I know he will be expensive, but we'll have to accept that. If things do not get done with Nate Clements this year, the Bills do have both a Franchise tag & a Transition tag available. Should the Bills use either one of them on Nate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 Do you really think Nate is a stud cornerback? I don't. There's no reason to throw that much cash at one player in the NFL --- it doesn more harm than good no matter who the player is. 265032[/snapback] RJ--I do think he is a stud cornerback and this is the market price. Nate has now made a pro bowl... Fred Smoot-no pro bowl Ken Lucas - pro bowl alternate just like Nate, 6 years, $36M, $13 M signing bonus Gary Baxter - no pro bowl 6 years, $30 M, 10.5 M signing bonus If we can get him for cheaper--we should obviously....and maybe there is a $3 or 4 million in salary over 6 years home team discount--but its not going to be significant -- this market is set..and its probably not going to decrease by the '06 offseason... Again just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I agree we should re-sign him but let's not throw the bank at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Honestly, I don't think the Bills have interest in Law either. I would redo and extend Nate right now. Something like $14 M SB and $37 Million for 6 years.... The guy is a perennial pro bowler in the making (this past year begins the streak) and this is market value--if we structure it like this...I am still pissed about the Jacksonville play--but he is a stud corner who likes Buffalo--just pay him. Cap hits in parenthesis 05 750K ($3.08M--about $1.5 M in cap savings this year) 06 $1.25 M ($3.58M) 07 $4 M ($6.33M) 08 $5 M ($7.33M) 09 $5.5 M ($7.83 M) 10 $6.5 M ($8.83M) This is $1 M More contract value and $1M in gauranteed money than Ken Lucas's contract with the Panthers... Why the high base in the last 3 years. Why not keep the total value the same, but offer 17 mil in SB, thereby lessening the numbers over the last 3 years. Spending over 7 mil on a player, even a very good one, seems like a recipe for cap hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 More habit than anything else billsfan--could do it either way....the cap increases every year too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 More habit than anything else billsfan--could do it either way....the cap increases every year too... I think with a 17 mil SB, he's more likely to bit on the deal. He's get one of the highest SB's for a CB in the last couple of years, and thats what players and agents really care about. Then the numbers would look something like this... Cap hits in parenthesis 05 750K ($3.58M--about $1.5 M in cap savings this year) 06 $1.25 M ($4.083M) 07 $4 M ($6.83M) 08 $4 M ($6.83M) 09 $4.5 M ($7.33 M) 10 $4.5 M ($7.33M) The last couple of years are a bit more workable with the higher SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I'll really be surprised if TD lets Nate get away........he's the PLAYMAKER, DAMMIT!! 264822[/snapback] I will too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 When and if we sign Nate (and I'm for signing him at $6M per year) the first thing MM should do is take him off freakin' punt return duty. That's an accident waiting to happen, and he's not worth the 5 extra yards he might get. We have other punt returners on the squad, and there are some good WR in the draft who return kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts