Trading Nate a Good Idea?

[Kelly the Dog]

Sorry, but this post is confusing.

Do you put it forth as evidence that TD does or does not re-sign star players?

Also, when speaking of TD, do you count his record of re-signing top players at Pittsburgh?

304418[/snapback]

My stance (which you know full well because you responded to a post before about the same topic) is that since TD came to Buffalo the only true star player that he had to resign was Moulds and he resigned him to a rather large contract. None of the players he let go were true stars, or Top 5/Top 10. I think Antoine was probably right around top 10, and even though he was my favorite player I thought his asking price was too high. In other words, I didn't think TD's cheapness was the reason for not re-signing AW. Nor do I think TD will just let Nate go, if he has another good year.

 

I do, however, much to d wagthedog's dismay, think there is an almost zero chance to resign Nate now, or early, before he hits free agency. Because the Playmaker has an extremely high regard for himself and for money and for pub.

 

And no, I don't think that TD in Pitt should be considered at all because the ownership there was well known for not wanting to spend money and TD didn't have the leeway or authority that he has here, not to mention that a lot has changed in the NFL and Free Agency since TD started at Pitt.

[Pac_Man]

I agree with the main point of the original post. If we could trade Clements and Henry to a team like Tennessee in exchange for its first round pick, we should do it. The offense could use another Mike Williams. Your points about Moulds are well taken.

 

I'm not very interested in acquiring Shelton, because he's got a lot of limitations, and he'd eat up $3 million a year in cap room. Our offensive line needs improvement; especially at center. The anchor of the No Huddle offense was Kent Hull. Teague isn't a bad center, but he needs help dealing with big, strong DTs. If we didn't have to double team DTs any more, it'd be like having one extra lineman on the field. Drafting a player like Baas in round 2 would significantly strengthen the interior of our line; and therefore our running game.

 

Even if we traded Clements we wouldn't need immediate help at CB. We could just move Vincent back to corner, and start Rashaad Baker at FS. Not a perfect solution, but we could do a lot worse. Our 3rd and 4th round picks should be used on a LT and a CB under this scenario.

[Alaska Darin]

Eric Moulds is the only major re-sign of TD's regime.

304363[/snapback]

Yeah, Aaron Schobel doesn't count.

[bills_fan]

NC will be the one true superstar that TD drafted and will now have a decision on. Its his first real star call and could set the tone for the likes of McGahee, JP, Evans, and the re-signing of some of our defensive players.

 

Don't do it because a top ten pick will want huge money to sign. Why not give the huge money to the known superstar?

[Chilly]

Eric Moulds is the only major re-sign of TD's regime. I feel the only reason he did do that was because if he didn't, there would be a lynch mob after him.

 

At that point in time, Moulds was one of the top 5 WR's in the league. Everyone knew who Eric Moulds was in the Buffalo area, even if you weren't a football fan. He was (and still is) a Bill the likes of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, and Andre Reed.

 

Yes, TD spends big money and the post you replied to commented on that. But for one reason or another, he doesn't like to re-sign people. He would rather replace them with substitutes, especially if money is an issue.

304363[/snapback]

 

He spends big money on people he feels deserve big money. While I might think differently, look at the person he's resigned:

 

Eric Moulds - No replacement at the time. 28 years old, still relatively young and a star in the league. Needed badly by the football team.

 

Aaron Shoebel - No replacement at the time. Young, an up and coming player, worth the money he got.

 

Lets look at the people that he didn't resign:

 

Pat Williams - We had a replacement in the #1 spot with Sam Adams. 33 years old.

 

Antoine Winfield - We had a replacement for the #1 spot with Nate Clements. 27 years old however, not the top guy at the time.

 

Jonas Jennings - We didn't really have a replacement at the #1 spot for him. Is still relatively young. However, commanded way more then he is worth due to a short market at LT.

 

Sam Cowart - Let go due to injury, the potential to clear up more cap space, and sign eventually LB London Fletcher, who was the better pick.

 

Those are the only 4 I can even think of during their time in Buffalo that would have gotten big money that he didn't resign. In order for TD to resign a player to big money a couple things have to happen:

 

1. We do not have a capable replacement who can step in for less money.

2. The player needs to get what is considered a fair price for a team, NOT what is considered a fair price determined by a watered down free agent market.

 

In all of those cases, this was true. Moulds was a top receiver everyone knew about and there was no replacement - he got his money. Winfield had someone that replaced him. Cowart and Jennings both got more money then Donahoe considered fair in each situation and let them go.

 

If Nate Clements has a year this year in which he is a top 10 CB, then TD will pay him as a top 10 CB as long as the salary cap situation doesn't influence this. We don't have a replacement for him ready yet or even close (McGee is good, yes, but not THAT good).

 

If anyone could provide some Buffalo Bills counter examples to the ones I posted I'd be interested in seeing, but this is the pattern I've watched TD use his time here.

[brihs2005]

Just a thought -- If we do franchise Nate at the end of the year? what makes people think we can't afford around a $10 salary for only one year. I know it sounds like a lot, but with a MW restructuring, DB hit gone, and really solid use of the cap, we could be able to afford him for a season making a trade not neccesary, once again giving TD the upperhand in negotiations. Clump may be better to tell us all if it is possible to clear out that much cap room for next year or not.

[Ray]

Just a thought -- If we do franchise Nate at the end of the year? what makes people think we can't afford around a $10 salary for only one year.  I know it sounds like a lot, but with a MW restructuring, DB hit gone, and really solid use of the cap, we could be able to afford him for a season making a trade not neccesary, once again giving TD the upperhand in negotiations.  Clump may be better to tell us all if it is possible to clear out that much cap room for next year or not.

304515[/snapback]

 

You are exactly right! Why trade a known commodity who is one of your best players for a rookie and complete crapshoot! We can afford Clements--just pay him!

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Just a thought -- If we do franchise Nate at the end of the year? what makes people think we can't afford around a $10 salary for only one year.  I know it sounds like a lot, but with a MW restructuring, DB hit gone, and really solid use of the cap, we could be able to afford him for a season making a trade not neccesary, once again giving TD the upperhand in negotiations.  Clump may be better to tell us all if it is possible to clear out that much cap room for next year or not.

I am pretty sure the Bills can franchise Nate and still have money left over next off-season. If not and Nate ties-up all the cap room, making a deal becomes harder because teams will realize the Bills NEED to move him.

[BillsFanForever19]

I am pretty sure the Bills can franchise Nate and still have money left over next off-season.  If not and Nate ties-up all the cap room, making a deal becomes harder because teams will realize the Bills NEED to move him.

304560[/snapback]

 

Exactly what i'm trying to say. If we're going to deal him, we'd have to do it now. Charles Woodson nipped the "Peerless Situation" in the bud when he signed the franchise sheet. Once teams realize we have to move a player, their value goes down.

 

While everyone here is saying that TD will pay for what he's worth, everyone is failing to recognize that there will be a LOT of teams who will pay millions MORE than what he's worth.

 

Everyone admits that what Minnesota paid AW and what San Fran paid for JJ was too much. Someone is going to be more than willing to do the same with Nate.

 

If I were TD, i'd be talking to Nate about resigning. If he said he wants to test the market or is asking for unfair amounts, i'd move him while I could.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Exactly what i'm trying to say. If we're going to deal him, we'd have to do it now. Charles Woodson nipped the "Peerless Situation" in the bud when he signed the franchise sheet. Once teams realize we have to move a player, their value goes down.

As I mentioned, there are numerous factors as to why the Raiders are having trouble moving Woodson, which likely wouldn't affect the Bills, namely history of injuries, off-field problems, and having the Postons as his agents. If I am TD and have any idea about which teams might be interested in Nate in 2006 and would be willing to acquire him as an FP, I'd hold onto him and FP next year. That way you get a Pro Bowl caliber CB for another year for a reasonable price, and then trade him for a 1st rounder in a stronger draft. The gamble is trying to trade him once he's franchised, but the Skins were able to do it with Bailey (for Portis, considered worth a 1st round pick) ,whose situation would mirror Nate's will be and NOT Woodson's.

If I were TD, i'd be talking to Nate about resigning. If he said he wants to test the market or is asking for unfair amounts, i'd move him while I could.

I'm sure TD already knows what Nate's future holds as far as resigning with the team for the less-than-market value contract I'm sure he's already offered him.

[34-78-83]

Again, I disagree.

 

Losing Nate Clements is painful to our team. But not if you replace him with a veteran like Ty Law or Andre Dyson. You combine that with a draft pick in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th and a healthy Troy Vincent at FS and I think we're in the same situation we were last year; if not better.

 

Our offense needs help. I feel that if we need to sacrifice a little defense to get it, then that's what needs to be done. J.P. is playing offense and he'll need offense to succeed.

 

Mike Williams will NOT need 2-3 years to make significant contributions. That I can guarantee!

304385[/snapback]

 

Ok, well most of that makes sense to me as a fair opinion, although I would not see choosing WR Mike Williams in the draft as the likely move the Bills would make with the Skins 1st. Why do you see us putting ourselves again into a situation where we have multiple "number 1 type" Wr's? That is not a situation that I see this organization putting themselves into again.

[Pac_Man]

In the book Patriot Reign Belichick described Clements as a guy who thought he was a better player than he was. As BillsFanForever pointed out, there will be someone out there who will overpay him. Look at Antoine Winfield's contract.

 

"In 2004, the top two players in the NFL (salary cap numbers) were cornerbacks -- Antoine Winfield ($12,400,000) and Ty Law ($9,601,333). These cap numbers are higher than Brett Favre ($9,533,333) and Peyton Manning ($8,301,666)." -

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/expert/brandt/cb

 

That's just ridiculous. Before some team elevates Clements to that salary cap neighborhood, TD should trade him. If we use the resulting pick to take Mike Williams, we could get younger, better, and cheaper at possession WR by replacing Eric Moulds. We wouldn't get rid of Eric Moulds this year, because rookie WRs usually don't contribute much. But next year, we could take the aging Moulds off our books.

[McGill Bill]

Well, you know, I would support trading half the team for the #6 pick to take Mike Williams if it weren't for one seriously MAJOR snag in that plan: We'd have two Mike Williamses. What would we do for jerseys? Print their middle initials? It would be insanity! Don't do it Donahoe! Don't!

[Pac_Man]

Well, you know, I would support trading half the team for the #6 pick to take Mike Williams if it weren't for one seriously MAJOR snag in that plan: We'd have two Mike Williamses. What would we do for jerseys? Print their middle initials? It would be insanity! Don't do it Donahoe! Don't!

304717[/snapback]

lol. But keep in mind that TD has been successful thus far when drafting players by that name.

[Kelly the Dog]

In the book Patriot Reign Belichick described Clements as a guy who thought he was a better player than he was. As BillsFanForever pointed out, there will be someone out there who will overpay him. Look at Antoine Winfield's contract.

 

"In 2004, the top two players in the NFL (salary cap numbers) were cornerbacks -- Antoine Winfield ($12,400,000) and Ty Law ($9,601,333). These cap numbers are higher than Brett Favre ($9,533,333) and Peyton Manning ($8,301,666)." -

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/expert/brandt/cb

 

That's just ridiculous. Before some team elevates Clements to that salary cap neighborhood, TD should trade him. If we use the resulting pick to take Mike Williams, we could get younger, better, and cheaper at possession WR by replacing Eric Moulds. We wouldn't get rid of Eric Moulds this year, because rookie WRs usually don't contribute much. But next year, we could take the aging Moulds off our books.

304708[/snapback]

That's a ridiculous comment. The Antoine contract and cap number was to take advantage of the Vikings cap situation, meaning they could pay him a lot early because they had room, and they would not suffer down the line. Teams would love to do this if they had the room, and his cap number had ZERO to do with his worth as player.

[Bill from NYC]

That's a ridiculous comment. The Antoine contract and cap number was to take advantage of the Vikings cap situation, meaning they could pay him a lot early because they had room, and they would not suffer down the line. Teams would love to do this if they had the room, and his cap number had ZERO to do with his worth as player.

304737[/snapback]

 

But these salaries do as you know effect the cost of the "Franchise" Tag.

I am saying that there is a very substantial risk of losing NC after this season, and this adds to it.

[Bill from NYC]

Just a thought -- If we do franchise Nate at the end of the year? what makes people think we can't afford around a $10 salary for only one year.  I know it sounds like a lot, but with a MW restructuring, DB hit gone, and really solid use of the cap, we could be able to afford him for a season making a trade not neccesary, once again giving TD the upperhand in negotiations.  Clump may be better to tell us all if it is possible to clear out that much cap room for next year or not.

304515[/snapback]

 

There is not a cornerback who ever played the game that deserves 1/8 of the salary cap of an NFL Football Team.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

That's a ridiculous comment. The Antoine contract and cap number was to take advantage of the Vikings cap situation, meaning they could pay him a lot early because they had room, and they would not suffer down the line. Teams would love to do this if they had the room, and his cap number had ZERO to do with his worth as player.

Exactly. Whoever wrote that blurb should see what Antoine's cap number is THIS year. Ty Law OTOH...

[d_wag]

But these salaries do as you know effect the cost of the "Franchise" Tag.

I am saying that there is a very substantial risk of losing NC after this season, and this adds to it.

304778[/snapback]

 

i believe salaries effect the f-tag value, not the salary cap charge.......

 

for instance, winfield woudn't even qualify as top 5 because he only made 600K in salary last year........his high cap charge is due to a roster bonus.........

[Kelly the Dog]

But these salaries do as you know effect the cost of the "Franchise" Tag.

I am saying that there is a very substantial risk of losing NC after this season, and this adds to it.

304778[/snapback]

Well, yes and no. I believe you're right that this would affect the Franchise number (and affect it greatly because AW's number for this (last) year was 12,000,000. Which made the top five cornerbacks number huge. But it doesn't affect us and Nate because if we franchise Nate it would be next year and AW's contract would not be part of the top five. AW's contract for next year probably won't be more than 1 or 2 million.

 

Here were the CB's for THIS year's tag number, which won't be next years:

 

NFL's best-paid players

 

The NFL's best-paid players at each position in 2004, for purposes of calculating franchise and transition designation contract offers. Figures include prorated signing bonus, other bonuses and base salary. The franchise number is the average of the top-five salaries; transition number is the average of the top-10.

 

Cornerback

Antoine Winfield, Minn. $12,400,000

Ty Law, N.E. $9,601,365

Samari Rolle, Tenn. $8,313,335

Patrick Surtain, Mia. $7,884,371

Daylon McCutcheon, Cle. $5,883,333

Aaron Glenn, Hou. $5,416,666

Dre' Bly, Det. $5,300,000

Sam Madison, Mia. $5,180,931

Chad Scott, Pitt. $4,785,000

Ronde Barber, T.B. $4,614,000

Franchise $8,816,000

Trans ition $6,938,000

 

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/archive...hp/t-10817.html