Tortured Soul Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Clayton just said on Sports Center that the cap number for franchising corners will drop to $5.7 million next season from 8.8 this year. I supported keeping Clements before. I definitely do now, or at the very least franchise him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Clayton just said on Sports Center that the cap number for franchising corners will drop to $5.7 million next season from 8.8 this year. I supported keeping Clements before. I definitely do now, or at the very least franchise him. 531498[/snapback] I'm for franchising him, and getting picks in the next 2 drafts. We arent going to get good by attempting a 1 year rebuild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 If that's the case, I say tag him for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 If that's the case, I say tag him for sure. 531508[/snapback] .....and gut him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Clayton also said that we will most likely part ways with Sam Adams, Moulds, and Mike Williams. Might as well lock him up long term with all the added cap room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I think we will def tag him..... Then we either get a 1st rounder or sign him long term...one or the other...no exceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Clayton just said on Sports Center that the cap number for franchising corners will drop to $5.7 million next season from 8.8 this year. I supported keeping Clements before. I definitely do now, or at the very least franchise him. Wow, that's a HUGE drop in price and makes franchising him (and possibly trading him for a 1st rounder) almost guaranteed and much lower-risk. Cool. Any reason given why the amount dropped? Is it something to do with the (currently) uncapped 2007 year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 i still suspect taht we will keep williams next year. i dunno, but a new GM coming in will want fast success and a big running game is the closest thing we can obtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 There will be no need to franchise him. He's not worth that kind of money. Even the lowered amount. Nate will not be getting Winfield money, so it will be an interesting process to watch unfold but remember there is a disadvantage to franchi sing someone, we cant do it again for 5 years I think, not sure though. So we need to save tag for Willis in two years and then trade his sorry ass for who knows what Wow think of all the ways TD could screw this up if given the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 You have got to be kidding me..... Mark my words....teams are going to be lined up at the door for Clements. A 6' something 200 poundish corner who can tackle with speed..... Nope...nobody will want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 There will be no need to franchise him. He's not worth that kind of money. Even the lowered amount.Nate will not be getting Winfield money, so it will be an interesting process to watch unfold but remember there is a disadvantage to franchi sing someone, we cant do it again for 5 years I think, not sure though. You're on drugs if you think that a) Clements is not worth Winfield money (if not more) and/or b) teams wouldn't love to have him for just $5.7M a year. So we need to save tag for Willis in two years and then trade his sorry ass for who knows what Willis might not prove to be worth franchising if the O-line isn't fixed/he doesn't start playing better. Wow think of all the ways TD could screw this up if given the opportunity. Somehow I think he won't get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 No I don't think I am kidding you. If these cap numbers are correct, do you think someone is still lining up to pay him Winfield type money? Especially after the year he has put forth? If you are a GM and doing your homework there are some things that would scare you or an owner away from lining up to dump that kind of money on him. Jacksonville game last year is one, and then when most guys stand tall knowing it's a contract year, he dies on the vine and gets To.rched, Lit Up repeatedly. Maybe a TD type is lining up for him but imo, his stock has dropped dramatically. A 6' something 200 poundish corner who can tackle with speed? Well ya, sometimes and then others he just gets Torched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 No I don't think I am kidding you. If these cap numbers are correct, do you think someone is still lining up to pay him Winfield type money?Especially after the year he has put forth? If you are a GM and doing your homework there are some things that would scare you or an owner away from lining up to dump that kind of money on him. Jacksonville game last year is one, and then when most guys stand tall knowing it's a contract year, he dies on the vine and gets To.rched, Lit Up repeatedly. Maybe a TD type is lining up for him but imo, his stock has dropped dramatically. A 6' something 200 poundish corner who can tackle with speed? Well ya, sometimes and then others he just gets Torched. So the best you have is the Jax game last year, and this year when the Bills have no defense at all? And Winfield is a better CB? Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 If that's the case, they'll almost certainly use the franchise tag on him. Clements has not had his best year, but there's little reason to believe he won't bounce back. He's still young and has no injury history. In a weak year for CBs both in FA and the draft, I don't think it'll be a tough sell if the Bills try to trade him. He's still the best CB available this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 So the best you have is the Jax game last year, and this year when the Bills have no defense at all? And Winfield is a better CB? Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree. 531606[/snapback] That's cool But I am willing to say Winfield is a better tackler. Who was our last franchised player? I think it was Fina. It is big thing to do. I . But I am not saying that if that lower cap number is reality, that it wont happen. I am saying if the higher cap number is reality, it wont happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 That's cool But I am willing to say Winfield is a better tackler. A better tackler, but not a better CB. Who was our last franchised player? I think it was Fina. It is big thing to do. I . But I am not saying that if that lower cap number is reality, that it wont happen. I am saying if the higher cap number is reality, it wont happen. The last franchised player was Peerless Price. If you remember, the Bills traded him for a 1st and retained the use of their franchise tag. With the lower cap number, the chance of him being franchised just went to 100%, and the chance of him being traded for a 1st also rose significantly. At least in our eyes since we didn't know about it, but I'm sure other teams (and TD) did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I plead ignorance and drunkeness having forgotten about PP. But Clayton is the one saying the cap number is going down, doesn't that in turn mean that the cap number will be going up? I ask forgiveness in forgetting about Peeerless though. (thinking to myself, idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I plead ignorance and drunkeness having forgotten about PP. Well, with a name like "beerme1...." But Clayton is the one saying the cap number is going down, doesn't that in turn mean that the cap number will be going up? I ask forgiveness in forgetting about Peeerless though.(thinking to myself, idiot Yes, this was based on what happened with Peerless to a large extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 but remember there is a disadvantage to franchi sing someone, we cant do it again for 5 years I think, not sure though. 531559[/snapback] We can tag Clements year after year after year if we want to (see Donovan Darius). It's good for the club if they determine it's worth the cap space, and bad for Nate cuz he never gets to see that huge signing bonus in his bank account and lives year to year. They can also tag him, trade him, and get the tag and cap space back. The only caveat is that there is a period from somewhere around April to August where tagged guys never get signed to long term extensions, because that is where you lose the franchise marker for the duration of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Why is the Fina tag sticking in my head so much? Did they change the rule somewher along the way after we tagged him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Why is the Fina tag sticking in my head so much? Did they change the rule somewher along the way after we tagged him? If you tag a player and then sign him to a long-term deal before August I believe, then the franchise tag is lost for the life of the contract. If a player is tagged and traded, the team gets the tag back when he's traded. I don't know why the Bills signed Fina to a long-term deal and lost the tag, when they could have waited and saved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Tag him and trade him. We could easily get a first round pick for Nate. We can't afford him when we have more pressing needs long both our offensive and defensive lines. Plus we just shelled out a bunch of money to McGee. 531660[/snapback] Quick question, if we get a 1st for Nate, how do we replace him? Granted he has not been stellar this year, but he is still a top 10 CB. They do not grow on trees. If he only costs 5.7 to tag and he's not willing to sign a realistic long term deal, tag him for the next few years until we can find a substitute. Think this through people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Quick question, if we get a 1st for Nate, how do we replace him? Granted he has not been stellar this year, but he is still a top 10 CB. They do not grow on trees. If he only costs 5.7 to tag and he's not willing to sign a realistic long term deal, tag him for the next few years until we can find a substitute. Think this through people! Draft one using the extra 1st rounder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Draft one using the extra 1st rounder? 531694[/snapback] Go with McGee and King, and play more zone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I think he gets either tagged or new contract. We cannot assume to replace a good CB when we will already be in need of lineman on both sides of the ball along with a wr and a safety. I imagine he would have better numbers if we had a pass rush and an offense that could convert a third down to keep the D fresh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 Draft one using the extra 1st rounder? 531694[/snapback] We have much bigger needs than drafting a CB, especially when you consider that tagging NC will only cost us 5.7M. Use the 1st round for a DT or an OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted December 14, 2005 Author Share Posted December 14, 2005 Wow, that's a HUGE drop in price and makes franchising him (and possibly trading him for a 1st rounder) almost guaranteed and much lower-risk. Cool. Any reason given why the amount dropped? Is it something to do with the (currently) uncapped 2007 year? 531541[/snapback] The only reason I can think of is some collective drop in the contracts of CB's, such as last year, a bunch of CB's were in the last year of their contracts and were due a lot of money. I don't know for sure, but that's all I can think of. If you tag a player and then sign him to a long-term deal before August I believe, then the franchise tag is lost for the life of the contract. If a player is tagged and traded, the team gets the tag back when he's traded. I don't know why the Bills signed Fina to a long-term deal and lost the tag, when they could have waited and saved it. 531662[/snapback] I think that they have to sign him long-term at some early point in the offseason, probably around April 1st. If they don't sign him before then, they have to wait to another date, I think July 15th, because if they sign him in between those dates, they lose the tag for the length of the contract. Not sure what the exact dates are, though. He's not that expensive. Say his cap number is 5.7. We save 5 from moulds alone, and a cople more from Big Mike and Sam each. And we're already 8 mil under. So after Clements, that still puts us about 10-12 mil under. And remember, it's not like free agents are going to be beating down the door to come to Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I think everyone's ignoring the most important point... When did we start listening to Clayton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 14, 2005 Share Posted December 14, 2005 I think a lot of the speculation on the drop in franchise number has to do with Charles Woodson's 10+ mil cap figure being off the books. He was franchised last year, and Oak wouldnt frnachise him again, as that would cost them 12+ million. So 10 mil is no longer the top CB number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts