Mark VI Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I'm hoping the Bills are trying to get a contract worked out although nothing has been said. If Nate still wants the 60 Mil contract he dreams about, you know he'll never get it here with our current financial state of affairs ( think huge signing bonus ). If so, do we deal him on Draft day for a 1st or 2nd round pick ? Then one high pick would be a CB. Huff can play both or Ty Hill of Clemson may be another option. It may be a non-issue but Clements wants his outrageous payday, like it or not. He really doesn't care who gives it to him. I know we could let him rot but if we don't intend on giving him a long term deal, what's the point ? This is a deep draft at DB and the time to get his replacement is now. Hmmm...This off-season sure isn't short on drama... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I'm hoping the Bills are trying to get a contract worked out although nothing has been said. If Nate still wants the 60 Mil contract he dreams about, you know he'll never get it here with our current financial state of affairs ( think huge signing bonus ). If so, do we deal him on Draft day for a 1st or 2nd round pick ? Then one high pick would be a CB. Huff can play both or Ty Hill of Clemson may be another option. It may be a non-issue but Clements wants his outrageous payday, like it or not. He really doesn't care who gives it to him. I know we could let him rot but if we don't intend on giving him a long term deal, what's the point ? This is a deep draft at DB and the time to get his replacement is now. Hmmm...This off-season sure isn't short on drama... 657451[/snapback] I was thinking about that as well, but I would never deal him for a 2nd. Sadly, Clements is one of, if not the best players on the Bills. One problem that I have with him is that the new CBA has a rule that I still don't understand about tagging a player more than once. If it costs 10 million to keep Nate in 07 (just to name a figure), do we want to spend this kind of money on a corner? Considering the strong possibility that Nate in fact wants out, yes, this is indeed another drama in the making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Another malcontent? Get rid of him. Trade him to Minnesota for their first rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 What team need a CB the most? Whatever that team is, we should offer a trade to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 If we cannot afford the large signing bonus needed to re-sign our one big name player, that is truly worrying. That would mean we will never be able to re-sign any top pro bowl player again. I personally don't think this is the case. How can it be? Isn't the bottom line that the Bills still make mega millions, just not the same percentage as the big franchises? Assuming we are not going to be getting any more free agents, it would make perfect sense to sign up Clements to a long term deal paying him most of what we have left under the cap(which should be a fair bit now Moulds is gone) as this years salary & give a smaller signing bonus. This would enable his later years payments to be lower thus enabling us to afford better players(when we hopefully are becoming competitive). It would also mean that if something went wrong down the track(i.e. injury etc) we could cut him & not take a big cap hit. Am I missing something with this or is this a reasonable way to work a contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 If someone would give a top 10 pick for him I think it would be in the Bills best interest to go ahead and take the deal. Face it the Bills aren't winning next year or the year after. By the time the Bills have a legit chance Clements will proably have shipped out due to free agency anyway. To ME he's starting to send the signals that he doesn't want to be in Buffalo, but I'm not in the middle of the negotiations so I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Mark - I think you have been around long enough to remember when Ralph came off as a cheap, stingy bastard in WNY. Recent history has proven this wrong to some extent but my point is that he is quite capable of squeezing his players, the city and the state for $$. The fact that he has not done this recently has made some of us forgetful. My OPINION on the state of affairs is that Ralph has struck preemptively to sway public opinion and establish the not-yet-fixed details of the new CBA in his favor. While he is at it, he is also pressuring local and not-so-local politicians to get involved with the NFL CBA to some extent. I do believe he wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo but he also wants them to stay here competitively AND profitably. (The latter is a big reason for his maneuvers I grant ya! - but that is not a sin but shrewd business practice on his part). As to Nate, the Bills have gobs of room under the cap and have never been way under before for long. If they go into the season way under...it will be the first time in their history they have done so. Interestingly, a number of teams are under the cap this year. Nate is "cheap" right now (cost for his salary is not too bad for a player of his caliber). Holding out is his only option if he is unhappy but does this FORCE the Bills to trade him? I'd say no. Nate has to play to get paid and if he holds out , he not only loses a VERY lucrative year in his career, he also loses the "can't franchise more than twice in a row" rule (new). On the other hand, the Bills do have lots of room in the cap to pay him with. I see no reason to assume there is a significant problem yet. In a world where "rumors" are king, there have been none. Thus, neither side is even posturing yet. I think this means negotiations are ongoing. Nate not signing his contract is just part of the dance. I am not too worried yet and I do not expect them to trade him my 2 cents..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clumping platelets Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 It would be 120% of his $7.226 million franchise tender to tag him again in 2007....$8,671,200 There's no rush to get him re-signed......his cap number is $7.226 million and the Bills still have approx. $9 millon in cap space....Bills could easily re0-sign him to a long -term deal and leave his 2006 cap number at the $7 million level.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Given recent negotiations, the Bills would be lucky to pick up an UDFA for Clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 If someone would give a top 10 pick for him I think it would be in the Bills best interest to go ahead and take the deal. Face it the Bills aren't winning next year or the year after. By the time the Bills have a legit chance Clements will proably have shipped out due to free agency anyway. To ME he's starting to send the signals that he doesn't want to be in Buffalo, but I'm not in the middle of the negotiations so I really don't know. 657530[/snapback] Not to mention the shelf-life of a great/very good corner is limited. For every Darrell Green there are 20 pro-bowl corners who only have about a 5-year window of justifying a huge contract and Nate very well could be in year 3 or 4 of that window. Teams usually waaay overspend on a corners 2nd big contract, IMO. Someone wants to give us a top 10 pick for Clements? Take it quick before they change their minds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Not to mention the shelf-life of a great/very good corner is limited. For every Darrell Green there are 20 pro-bowl corners who only have about a 5-year window of justifying a huge contract and Nate very well could be in year 3 or 4 of that window. Teams usually waaay overspend on a corners 2nd big contract, IMO. Someone wants to give us a top 10 pick for Clements? Take it quick before they change their minds... 657544[/snapback] Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Lots of money left over... we have to sign this Buckeye Corner for several years. He's our playmaker on defense (especially when Takeo is out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I have a feeling they have been trying to work something out and the reason Nate hasn't signed is because he wants the long term contract rather then the franchsie tag and then work a new contract out. He has not shown up to camp cause until he signs it, he is technically not under contract to play for the Bills so he can't show up. He is probably thinking ahead and deciding not to play for the franchise contract cause if he does, and he has another mediocre/bad year, or gets injured, he will not get a big contract like he can get now. I don't see any indications he is unhappy in Buffalo, It just looks like he is wanting the contract situation resolved first. Also it is more of an advantage for the bills to sign him long term (would free up some salary cap money if he did since they could spread the bonus over a couple years). Does Buffalo have more the 9mil left under the cap??? I thought they had that much before the Moulds deal, I figured it was closer to the 13-15mil range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHOUTBOX MONSTER! Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 What team need a CB the most? Whatever that team is, we should offer a trade to. 657460[/snapback] San Diego. They're probably targeting a CB with their first pick anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I'm hoping the Bills are trying to get a contract worked out although nothing has been said. I've read that it is currently being worked on, but no details. This is a deep draft at DB and the time to get his replacement is now. But don't we already need to draft replacements for about 6 other positions? Why add to the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I'm hoping the Bills are trying to get a contract worked out although nothing has been said. If Nate still wants the 60 Mil contract he dreams about, you know he'll never get it here with our current financial state of affairs ( think huge signing bonus ). If so, do we deal him on Draft day for a 1st or 2nd round pick ? Then one high pick would be a CB. Huff can play both or Ty Hill of Clemson may be another option. It may be a non-issue but Clements wants his outrageous payday, like it or not. He really doesn't care who gives it to him. I know we could let him rot but if we don't intend on giving him a long term deal, what's the point ? This is a deep draft at DB and the time to get his replacement is now. Hmmm...This off-season sure isn't short on drama... 657451[/snapback] No Franchise players signs the tender sheet until he absolutely has to, regardless of the team he plays for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Lots of money left over... we have to sign this Buckeye Corner for several years. He's our playmaker on defense (especially when Takeo is out). 657549[/snapback] He sure wasn't a playmaker last year. In fact, he was a game-killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Someone would really have to blow my socks off for a trade of Clements.... I dont want to lose him at this point..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 A top-10 pick in this month's draft straight up for Nate or keep him. I'd rather just keep him. He is perfect for the Cover-2, and should have a monster season, so it is important to get him locked up longterm before the season starts. He obviously know this, so I wouldn't be surprised if he just plays out the year under the tag. He gets to take training camp off, and he makes a bundle next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 The Bills didnt know how much money they were going to spend or not spend in free agency. They didnt know exactly how the Moulds situation was going to turn out financially. They didn't know who was still going to be available late in free agency, and if any of those players were worth looking at or spending money on. So Nate waited, and the Bills waited. It was the smart thing to do for both sides. What they know now is they didnt spend a lot of money in FA. They didn't sign a CB in FA. They didnt fill a lot of holes in FA which would allow them to draft a CB high. They saved a bunch of money by not paying Moulds. There isn't a lot of good talent still left to spend on this season. So Nate is sitting sweet. His price probably just went up a touch. But the good news for the Bills is they can sign him now for a good contract but not get killed on the cap in later years. So if they planned on getting Nate signed to a long term deal, now is probably the time to start to seriously negotiate it. They could, of course, just wait and see how he plays in this new defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts