RuntheDamnBall Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 He sure wasn't a playmaker last year. In fact, he was a game-killer. 657655[/snapback] Nor was Takeo Spikes. I expect a return to form from both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The direct answer to the question is NO. It does not appear to serve Clements interests finacially at all to even try to force a draft day trade as he has no financial leverage to do so once the Bills put the franchise tag on him. In theory he could only ATTEMPT to force a trade by throwing such a hissy-fit that the Bills decide to move him much as they moved Moulds. However, not only are the costs of keeping NC versus his production far more reasonable for keeping NC than keeping Moulds ($7 million+ for keeping our flawed but still #1 CB in the prime of his career vs. $10 million+ for a #2 WR on the backside of his career) but Clements would have to throw such a horrible fit as to bring into serious question whether he is a worthwhile teammate and get for a team. He would be doing this relatively late in the planning process for most team's 06 season and also doing this when coming off a year which easily did not meet his previous Pro Bowl season or the expectations he set for himself. The idea of NC forcing a trade would be so disastrous for him financially and so disastrous for the Bills as they would be incredibly reluctant to embrace the option to trade him when they are not forced contractually to do this, that it makes little sense on either side. 657737[/snapback] I was thinking in terms of the Moulds situation. If he doesn't want to be here and makes it known, I don't understand why a draft day trade is out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I was thinking in terms of the Moulds situation. If he doesn't want to be here and makes it known, I don't understand why a draft day trade is out of the question. 659327[/snapback] It is theoretically possible for the Bills to trade NC just as it is theoretically possible for them to trade anyone. However, to force such a trade would be of such huge economic disadvantage to NC, why do you think he would do it? 1. He would enter FA negotiations with a new team after a disappointine season when he did not repeat his Pro Bowl berth and no one thinks he lived up to his claims of being the best CB in the league. 2. He would enter the negotiating market so late in the process most teams have already locked up the major salary cap money they are going to spend at CB. 3. In order to recreate the same situation where EM publicly said he would not play for the Bills under any circumstances he got his wish as he signed with the worse than the Bills (which is saying alot) lowly Texans for likely less money than the Bills even would have paid him. Do you g=have any indications that NC is so pissed off at the Bills that he shows any indication of being willing to screw himself out of his first big FA comtract. This is the big difference between him and Moulds who already has pocketed millions from being an BFL WR. NC really would screw himself financially big time in order to force a trade. I see no real signs he would do this/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 trade em to the saints so we can draft mario williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 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] For Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 San Diego. They're probably targeting a CB with their first pick anyways. 657572[/snapback] Actually, I think Seattle would need Clements the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Actually, I think Seattle would need Clements the most. 659509[/snapback] isnt seattle close to signing ty law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I dont get it why add another need to the roster. We're well under the cap. I just hope marv looks to fill in the holes we have instead of digging a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCBongo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 The problem I have with Clements is while he has always been a hard hitting corner, he has been terrible at picking interceptions at is prone to over-committing and getting burnt; plus the untimly holding penalties. I just think if he is looking to be the highest paid in the game, he should have a few seasons where he plays like he is worth the cash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 From Allen Wilson of the Buffalo News.. It should come as no surprise franchised CB Nate Clements is skipping the Bills' off-season conditioning program and was a no-show at the recent voluntary minicamp. Clements is not under contract because he has yet to sign the one-year franchise tender of $7.2 million. The team had hoped he would at least make an appearance and begin learning the defensive system being installed by new coordinator Perry Fewell. But Clements' absence may be an indication he is not happy with the franchise tag. The Bills can lift the franchise label at any time, thus making him an unrestricted free agent. They would prefer to Clements to a long-term contract, but don't expect it to happen any time soon, if it happens at all. The two sides are not close to getting a deal done. It is believed Clements has not backed down on his demand to be among the highest-paid corners in the NFL. Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded on Saturday. Stand by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded on Saturday. Stand by. 670846[/snapback] What the hell, might as well just start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 It is very hard to trade a fanchised player. First the other team has to meet the players demand for a large signing bonus and a long term contract.. I doubt if any team is considering trading a 1st for Clements, let alone a top 10 1st. Teams know tha Clements have the Bills at a disadvantage. They know that since he is an unrestricted free agent with the TAG, the Bills either have to pay him top 5 money or trade him or meet his demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 I doubt if any team is considering trading a 1st for Clements, let alone a top 10 1st. 670897[/snapback] I'm not sure what we'd get in return for him but teams looking for a CB would be interested in him over an unproven rookie. Why let him walk for nothing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded on Saturday. Stand by. 670846[/snapback] I would. He's continuing to play the "Franchise chicken" game that most Franchisees play. He doesn't have to sign the tender until Summer, IIRC. Time is on his side, and he's not going to jeopardize that long term $$$ potential by risking injury in "voluntary workouts." He's not demanding to be traded, so at the very least the Bills will likely keep him even if it means paying out the franchise tender money for one year while they groom his replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 It is very hard to trade a fanchised player. First the other team has to meet the players demand for a large signing bonus and a long term contract.. I doubt if any team is considering trading a 1st for Clements, let alone a top 10 1st. Teams know tha Clements have the Bills at a disadvantage. They know that since he is an unrestricted free agent with the TAG, the Bills either have to pay him top 5 money or trade him or meet his demands. 670897[/snapback] From PFW: "A franchise player must be paid a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at his position at the end of last season or 120 percent of his previous year’s salary, whichever is greater. That qualifies him as “non-exclusive” franchise player, which means he can negotiate with other clubs. If he receives an offer sheet from another club, his team has the option of matching the offer and keeping him or else receiving two first-round draft choices as compensation for losing him. Designated as franchise players this year are New York Jets DE John Abraham, Detroit OT Jeff Backus and Buffalo CB Nate Clements. If a team designates a franchise player and chooses to pay him a minimum of (1) the average of the top five salaries at his position at the end of last season or (2) 120 percent of his previous year’s salary or (3) the average of the top five salaries at his position as of April 21, whichever is greater, he becomes an “exclusive” franchise player, meaning he cannot negotiate with another club. The third criterion is what separates an exclusive from a non-exclusive franchise player." A team can withdraw a franchise or transition designation from a player, which would make him an unrestricted free agent. That happened last year when the Eagles withdrew the franchise tag from DT Corey Simon, who proceeded to sign with the Colts. A team that withdraw such a designation would have to wait until the following year to use either the franchise or transition designation again. http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Featu...facts031006.htm DE Abraham was traded. Perhaps the Bills can engineer something, too, if that's their thinking. With that two 1st-rounder penalty, I don't suppose anyone will tender Clements an offer sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 I'm not sure what we'd get in return for him but teams looking for a CB would be interested in him over an unproven rookie. Why let him walk for nothing ? 670909[/snapback] They don't have to let him walk for nothing. There is no way Nate sits this year. It would kill his chances at a contract next year. If they can't get a deal worked out, he'll play under the franchise tag, hopefully have a much better year, and we start the whole thing over next season. Hopefully Jauron and Fewell can get the most out of him and he is worth more next year than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nero47 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Unless I am mistaken Alexander played for Seattle last year under the franchise tag, then produced and got a monster contract. Any player who refuses to play for one year is at a great disadvantage the following year, because you simply cannot stay in football shape on your own. Case in point Ricky Williams. The Bills do not have to let him go, and therefore maintain the leverage, not nate. He will play one way or the other and produce, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Unless I am mistaken Alexander played for Seattle last year under the franchise tag, then produced and got a monster contract. Any player who refuses to play for one year is at a great disadvantage the following year, because you simply cannot stay in football shape on your own. Case in point Ricky Williams. The Bills do not have to let him go, and therefore maintain the leverage, not nate. He will play one way or the other and produce, IMHO. 671028[/snapback] Agreed. It will take the Bills doing thw work of driving (basically this means keep talking an negotiating and say only positive things about wanting him as a player because being negative merely creates leverage in a situation where you are in charge ofr this year and potentially next if you choose) but the Bills are in the driver's seat in relation of NC playing. NC has the theoretical ability to throw a hissy-fit and refuse to play, but doing this (particularly after last season was disappointing for him) puts him at an even larger fiscal disadvantage that there is no logical financial reason for him to do this whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Agreed. It will take the Bills doing thw work of driving (basically this means keep talking an negotiating and say only positive things about wanting him as a player because being negative merely creates leverage in a situation where you are in charge ofr this year and potentially next if you choose) but the Bills are in the driver's seat in relation of NC playing. NC has the theoretical ability to throw a hissy-fit and refuse to play, but doing this (particularly after last season was disappointing for him) puts him at an even larger fiscal disadvantage that there is no logical financial reason for him to do this whatsoever. 671232[/snapback] You are 100% correct. I guess it would come down to how bad a team would want Nate to make Levy even consider moving him. It would take a lot, because Levy has been quoted as saying, "you can't have too many cornerbacks." In 1995, they drafted Kerner and Irvin with 3rd and 4th round picks, and followed this up with another 3rd for Stevens in 96. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalfan Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 .................. Wouldn't be surprised if he's traded on Saturday. Stand by. 670846[/snapback] I don't think teams are allowed to trade free agents. I think they can only trade guys under contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts