I don't like the Clements signing

[GG]

Unless there is something going on that makes the Bills believe they will be able to sign him long term, and that could very well be the case, they gave him away with this signing.

685107[/snapback]

 

That is the operative statement. Kazoo head reported on only one side of the deal - Bills wouldn't franchise NC if he signed the tender. What's missing is NC's part of the bargain (signing the tender isn't it)

[I Forgot My Last Username]

Maybe the orginaization is focusing on character, and sending out a signal to future FA's that they won't be trapped in Buffalo, and Buffalo is a good place to play.

 

FA's don't like to be franchised, so this kind of sends a signal to NFL that Marv is a square dealer. There might be need for damage repair after the TD years too.

 

and lets face it, with the players we drafted we already new NC wasn't staying.

685182[/snapback]

 

Excellent point. This is a good faith move. The anti-TD move. Instead of treating players like business commodities, pawns to be moved around, instead he is saying "We understand what you want. I will compromise and meet you half way - you sign, and you will be free to sign with us or some other team next year."

 

The Buffalo News article compares this to the Shaun Alexander move, where they franchised him but told him that they would not be franchising him next year, so he comes out and is motivated to have a good year.

 

This is the type of move a winning TEAM organization makes. I like it.

 

 

There is no incentive for that now. If Clements doesn't sign a long extension, he will just be free to go anywhere, and he will likely get his outrageous contract from someone. If we didnt agree to this we could have done the Peerless scenario next year, which is what would have likely happened. But now we cannot trade him at all. Unless it's before this year and that ain't likely to happen.

685270[/snapback]

 

Five years of Peerless Price-type moves only get you so far, huh? How bout time to consider a more old fashioned, respectful way of dealing with players.

 

By the way, there is some incentive for clements to re-sign - the Bills showed him good faith. If he truly gets the team concept, he re-ups his contract with us. If he does not, he leaves, and good riddance.

 

But one extra draft pick is not worth the animosity generated among the players for franchising NC year-in year-out.

[Rico]

Excellent point.  This is a good faith move.  The anti-TD move.  Instead of treating players like business commodities, pawns to be moved around, instead he is saying "We understand what you want.  I will compromise and meet you half way - you sign, and you will be free to sign with us or some other team next year."

 

The Buffalo News article compares this to the Shaun Alexander move, where they franchised him but told him that they would not be franchising him next year, so he comes out and is motivated to have a good year.

 

This is the type of move a winning TEAM organization makes.  I like it.

Five years of Peerless Price-type moves only get you so far, huh?  How bout time to consider a more old fashioned, respectful way of dealing with players.

685321[/snapback]

It's good to a point... remember nice guys finish last.

 

I don't care how it happens,

JUST WIN, BABY!

[Coach Tuesday]

I don't see what the big deal is. As someone who negotiates for a living, I can attest that there is definitely value in gestures of good faith. Yes there is the chance that they'll lose Clements for nothing, but there was equally the chance that they franchise him again and have an unhappy distraction/headache. This move is really not as big of a deal as it seems.

[JDG]

That is the operative statement.  Kazoo head reported on only one side of the deal - Bills wouldn't franchise NC if he signed the tender.  What's missing is NC's part of the bargain (signing the tender isn't it)

685311[/snapback]

 

Are you *sure* that getting Clements into minicamp for installation of the new defense wasn't it?

[JDG]

If they couldn't sign him long term, what if he plays great this year? Which is probably a 50-50 proposition. Now we have nothing to hold him.

685107[/snapback]

 

Given Clements' play last year, I actually peg it at a lot less than 50-50. Additionally, the franchise tag prices are all going up next year. If Marv has already concluded that based on Clement's play last year and in the previous years that there is little chance that we would use the franchise tag at 2007 prices on Clements, then we have gotten something for nothing year - Clements into minicamp for installation of the new defense, without promising anything that we weren't going to do anyways.

 

Also, given the way the Players' Association took the League to the cleaners in the last negotitions, I wonder if there aren't some new restrictions on being able to "tag and trade" ala Peerless Price. At the very least, we now know that we could only use the tag on Clements for a max of two years, so its not like we could have tagged him forever....

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

Excellent point.  This is a good faith move.  The anti-TD move.  Instead of treating players like business commodities, pawns to be moved around, instead he is saying "We understand what you want.  I will compromise and meet you half way - you sign, and you will be free to sign with us or some other team next year."

 

The Buffalo News article compares this to the Shaun Alexander move, where they franchised him but told him that they would not be franchising him next year, so he comes out and is motivated to have a good year.

 

This is the type of move a winning TEAM organization makes.  I like it.

Five years of Peerless Price-type moves only get you so far, huh?  How bout time to consider a more old fashioned, respectful way of dealing with players.

 

By the way, there is some incentive for clements to re-sign - the Bills showed him good faith.  If he truly gets the team concept, he re-ups his contract with us.  If he does not, he leaves, and good riddance. 

 

But one extra draft pick is not worth the animosity generated among the players for franchising NC year-in year-out.

685321[/snapback]

You make a couple of decent points, and you may be right. I don't, however, think there is any animosity from other players/teammates when a guy like Nate is franchised. They want him to stay, not sign with another team. They may say to themselves, hey, the Bills did Nate right, that's cool. But they may just as likely say, damn, we lost Nate and now what? Or we could have gotten a high pick for him.

[dave mcbride]

What does that have to do with giving him this guarantee they didnt have to? That injury concern was true last year, is true now, and remains true until he signs a long term deal with anyone.

685298[/snapback]

i'm merely replying to the suggestion that he holds all the cards and faces no unfortunate consequeneces if he doesn't sign a longterm deal.

[Pyrite Gal]

You make a couple of decent points, and you may be right. I don't, however, think there is any animosity from other players/teammates when a guy like Nate is franchised. They want him to stay, not sign with another team. They may say to themselves, hey, the Bills did Nate right, that's cool. But they may just as likely say, damn, we lost Nate and now what? Or we could have gotten a high pick for him.

685495[/snapback]

 

 

I agree with you acknowledging that I the poster who call himself I Forgot... made a couple of good points looking at the issue that the Bills are handling this based on operating with a trust relationship with a player.

 

In addition, I think JDG made a great point that folks who are hyperventilating that NC now has no incentive to make a deal are ignoring the possibility of injury (which is the big incentive for NC to make any deal.

 

It also is a great point that given the likelihood the cap # is gonna go up, that the Bills believe there is no way they are gonna undergo the franchise cap hit next year so if you are not going to use this option anyway, its useful to get something out of giving it away by getting NC into camp early this year and setting a positive tone for the relationship (which both the Bills and NC seem to be doing with their comments).

 

Finally, there is also the factor that NC is definitely coming off a disappointing year which has lowered his leverage. He seems to have great confidence in himself that he will play well and reverse this next year, but he also needs to have confidence in the new defensive system which depends a lot on the there being a good pass rush to allow him not to get burned too much.

 

All these factors mean to me:

 

1. Anyone who concludes that ALL the leverage is now NC's are simply ignoring reality.

 

If only that no one can predict the future the prime leverage for making a deal is still there for NC and the Bills may well have given up one piece of leverage they had decided they would lose and many could predict they would lose anyway.

 

2. The major occurence here is the reality of both sides articulating that they are much happier with the current situation than they were before (NC says he has come to grips with him being forced to merely take the multi-million dollars of the tag and Jauron expressing great happiness with NC being in camp.

 

I'm afraid all the distress may end up coinciding with a bad result later, but for right now it probably says more about the poster than about the situation.

 

We have a lot of driving to do but the Bills are still in the driver's seat on this situation.

[JDG]

In addition, I think JDG made a great point that folks who are hyperventilating that NC now has no incentive to make a deal are ignoring the possibility of injury (which is the big incentive for NC to make any deal.

685577[/snapback]

 

Actually, Dik ;-), my point isn't so much injury as the distinct possibility that just maybe Nate Clements isn't very good any more. Our defense was cover-your-eyes awful last year, and it can't be because we had all good players. As I was watching the games, it seemed more Clements was getting burned far too often for comfort (or to write off as simply being the product of the scheme.) He also had only 2 INT's next year. In the dreaded Miami game, Chris Chambers didn't have all 15 catches going up against Rashad Baker.

 

I think Marv's deal is predicated on the idea that we can't come anywhere's close to paying Clements like the best CB in the League when he isn't even the best CB on our team.

 

JDG

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

I kind of agree too. If they can't sign him by July, they likely won't at all. After that they probably wouldn't sign him till next off season, and if they were going to franchise him again next season, it likely would be at a much higher number since the cap probably will increase alot due to new CBA. That also could stop his replacements development for another year. Clements also is taking a risk not signin if he were to get hurt. If you don't sign him by July, then give up, let the new guy learn from him, and move on.

 

 

There is another consideration here that many have missed because it is part of the new rules.  The Bills and Clements must be close to a long term deal or are not even discussing one for the following reason.  If the Bills don't sign him to a long term contract until after July 15, Clements keeps the Franchise Tag until the end of his new contract: no matter the duration of that contract.  That means that the Bills are not able to tag anyone else.  The fact that the Bills promised not to tag him next year suggests that there is going to be a deal before the 15th of July, or there is no deal.  I'm going with the idea that they are trying to work out a long term deal, but I don't think they should give him more per season than what he is getting next year.  No CB is worth that, even if their name is Champ Bailey.

685185[/snapback]

[scribo]

A quick question here:

This "agreeement" is that the Bills won't hit Nate with the franchise tag next year. But, and here is the questiion, is it possible to slap the transition player tag on him still? I believe so, and that would force a teamt give the Bills a 1st-rounder for him. Correct?

[Kelly the Dog]

A quick question here:

This "agreeement" is that the Bills won't hit Nate with the franchise tag next year. But, and here is the questiion, is it possible to slap the transition player tag on him still? I believe so, and that would force a teamt give the Bills a 1st-rounder for him. Correct?

686416[/snapback]

I think I read that they agreed not to slap either tag on him.

[scribo]

I think I read that they agreed not to slap either tag on him.

686420[/snapback]

I've read several articles and have yet to see that other tags mentioned.

[John from Riverside]

Perhaps the plan is not to retain Nate at all....and since that is the plan they want to have him get in as soon as possible and mentor Yobooty and King

 

Either way...I dont fill badly about the situation is all......after this year we will be able to withstand the loss of Clements and even without a pick we still pick up cap space.....

[Dawgg]

I think this is a great move for two reasons. First, the Bills made a good faith gesture to Clements and his agent, which makes them more amenable to working with the Bills.

 

Second, it gives the front office another year to sit back and watch to see how Nate does in this system, without breaking the bank for a double digit signing bonus. Suppose Nate plays like a complete superstar, then he might be worth retaining for top cornerback money. If the brass feels he's too expensive, let him walk. Suppose he plays mediocre -- they may be able to get him at a lower pricetag.

 

The bottom line is that Buffalo is close to Nate's hometown in Ohio and they avoid having to pay him a ton of money before seeing how he plays in the new scheme. I see it as a win-win when you avoid paying the big money now and get one more year to evaluate your options.

 

Nate was going to play for us this year, and was going to play for a big payday. He wasn't sitting out. There was zero chance of that. Again, I am not criticizing this if they have a long term deal in the works they are very confident they can sign him to. But if they don't, this is a bad move.

685107[/snapback]

[Bill from NYC]

A quick question here:

This "agreeement" is that the Bills won't hit Nate with the franchise tag next year. But, and here is the questiion, is it possible to slap the transition player tag on him still? I believe so, and that would force a teamt give the Bills a 1st-rounder for him. Correct?

686416[/snapback]

 

The Bills no longer hold the "Transition" tag. If I am not mistaken, they lost it with Wright many years ago.

[Bill from NYC]

Perhaps the plan is not to retain Nate at all....and since that is the plan they want to have him get in as soon as possible and mentor Yobooty and King

 

Either way...I dont fill badly about the situation is all......after this year we will be able to withstand the loss of Clements and even without a pick we still pick up cap space.....

686506[/snapback]

 

Your post makes the assumption that this 3rd round pick will be as good as Nate Clements.

Granted, Ralph will save a ton of cash, but Clements is a very good player and the chance of this kid being an upgrade appear slim.

 

If we keep Clements in 07, a disproportionate chunk of the salary cap will be allocated toward the secondary, but this is unlikely to occur imo.

What I see happening is for Clements to leave Buffalo in 07. Ralph will save money and Levy will grab another early cornerback in the 07 draft.

 

Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

[Kelly the Dog]

I think this is a great move for two reasons.  First, the Bills made a good faith gesture to Clements and his agent, which makes them more amenable to working with the Bills.

 

Second, it gives the front office another year to sit back and watch to see how Nate does in this system, without breaking the bank for a double digit signing bonus.  Suppose Nate plays like a complete superstar, then he might be worth retaining for top cornerback money.  If the brass feels he's too expensive, let him walk.  Suppose he plays mediocre -- they may be able to get him at a lower pricetag.

 

The bottom line is that Buffalo is close to Nate's hometown in Ohio and they avoid having to pay him a ton of money before seeing how he plays in the new scheme.  I see it as a win-win when you avoid paying the big money now and get one more year to evaluate your options.

686508[/snapback]

Of course they should have franchised him for this year, and seen how he played in the new system. Of that there is no question. The problem is the promise. Now he is gone, with very little chance of keeping him if he is great, or getting anything in return for him.

[Dawgg]

Understood. The problem with franchising him again next year is that we are essentially holding the team hostage until a deal is made. Teams have learned from the Peerless Price deal that got the Bills a first rounder. The likely scenario is that a team would offer nothing better than a 2nd or 3rd and will wait until the last moment possible to make a deal, knowing that the player is going to leave anyway. To make matters worse, Clements won't exactly want to help the Bills and even if the Bills had a deal worked out, he could simply say he refuses to negotiate with that team... and all this time, he is on the books for $8-10M and the Bills have to account for that space in the cap.

 

Doesn't sound like an appetizing proposition to me.

 

Of course they should have franchised him for this year, and seen how he played in the new system. Of that there is no question. The problem is the promise. Now he is gone, with very little chance of keeping him if he is great, or getting anything in return for him.

686519[/snapback]