PFW - Clements is as good as gone

[The Senator]

haha I was just thinking, I know we told Nate Clements that we wouldn't franchise him again but wouldn't it be funny as hell if we made him our transition player this year....that would surely piss him off but god would that be funny to keep him for another year or get a first for him

871070[/snapback]

It is the smartest move the Bills can do and that is what Marv needs to thin about first. They no they have a team interested in him (the Redskins) and you know they are known for spending endless amounts of cash and handing away picks (did they even have a day one pick last year) so why not. Who cares if Nate gets pissed. You do this if Nate wants to test the market for himself, cause you know there is no way you retain him if that happens. Marv has to think about the team first and not a gentlmens agreement he made with Nate last year. I'm sure the redskins would give up a first for hm (if they still have one) and probably more so why not. This way we could still draft a 1st rd CB and not have Bill pissed about us doing it since it was an extra, lol

871088[/snapback]

You two are doing this just to piss me off, right?

 

OK - I'll try one more time

 

We don't get any compensation via the 'transition' tag -

 

Franchise and Transition Tags

 

Free Agency 101

 

Again - we have to use the 'non-exclusive' franchise player tag, which gives us the right to match any offer sheet or receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

 

You're on the right track, 'ski - Marv needs to think about using that non-exclusive' franchise tag, and hopefully he didn't promise Clements we wouldn't use that tool, but only that we wouldn't use the 'exclusive' tag - which would prevent Nate from any negotiations with other teams. That way, teams better be serious when they start offering the sun and the moon, 'cause they'll be coughing up 2 first-rounders if we let Nate go!

[apuszczalowski]

You two are doing this just to piss me off, right?

 

OK - I'll try one more time

 

We don't get any compensation via the 'transition' tag -

 

Franchise and Transition Tags

 

Free Agency 101

 

Again - we have to use the 'non-exclusive' franchise player tag, which gives us the right to match any offer sheet or receive two first-round draft picks as compensation.

 

You're on the right  track, 'ski - Marv needs to think about using that non-exclusive' franchise tag, and hopefully he didn't promise Clements we wouldn't use that tool, but only that we wouldn't use the 'exclusive' tag - which would prevent Nate from any negotiations with other teams.  That way, teams better be serious when they start offering the sun and the moon,  'cause they'll be coughing up 2 first-rounders if we let Nate go!

871115[/snapback]

Sorry, I wasn't refering to the transition tag, I know they get no compensation, I'm talking about the other, where the bills could get picks if someone signs him for more then we are willing to. Basically you do whatever you can toget something out of him if he does want to leave for the money

[Ozymandius]

Great point about the non-exclusive franchise tag, Senator.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract. Nice thought, but not plausible..

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract.  Nice thought, but not plausible..

871136[/snapback]

 

And you know that HOW?

[daquixers_is_back]

Im going to be buying my Clements (Bills) jersey while he is still on the team.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

And you know that HOW?

871138[/snapback]

 

 

On the face of it, it is a ridiculous proposition. More to the point, any agent/attorney would be guilty of malpractice/violation of NFLPA policies for not putting that into the contract. Look at the Poston situation with Arrington as an example of what happens when advisors don't adequately represent their clients--they get suspended for prolonged lengths.

[Dawgg]

Because Todd France isn't a MORON.

 

He's a good agent.

 

And you know that HOW?

871138[/snapback]

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

On the face of it, it is a ridiculous proposition.  More to the point, any agent/attorney would be guilty of malpractice/violation of NFLPA policies for not putting that into the contract.  Look at the Poston situation with Arrington as an example of what happens when advisors don't adequately represent their clients--they get suspended for prolonged lengths.

871156[/snapback]

 

So, Walter Jones' agent must be in agent hell, then?

[Bill from NYC]

My ideal draft:

 

Rd 1 - trade down from the 17th slot to the second round and pick up an extra third.

 

2 - CB

2 - DT

3 - G

3 - RT/C

(5 is gone - Hargrove)

4 - LB

6 - TE

7 - QB

870977[/snapback]

 

I hope you are wrong. There would be nothing "ideal" about wasting yet another 1st round pick on another defensive back.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

So, Walter Jones' agent must be in agent hell, then?

871162[/snapback]

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones. If you want to keep believing that, go ahead. It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones.  If you want to keep believing that, go ahead.  It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars.

871167[/snapback]

 

The point is, you said France would be guilty of malpractice if he allowed the Bills to do that to his client. Walter Jones was franchised, what, 10 years in a row?

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I'm not sure I understand your point on Walter Jones.  If you want to keep believing that, go ahead.  It is ridiculous to think that an agent would take a team at their word on such a huge issue that is literally worth tens of millions of dollars.

871167[/snapback]

 

My point is, the player has little to no recourse when it comes to the franchise tag.

[HurlyBurly51]

I think its kind of funny that people are assuming that Nate's agent didn't put a clause prohibiting any kind of tag being placed on him into his 2006 contract.  Nice thought, but not plausible..

871136[/snapback]

 

Well, if it is in the contract for any kind of tag, then the Bills are the dumb ones. Sorry, but you just don't give away the best tool in your arsenal for no reason.

[Kelly the Dog]

Well, if it is in the contract for any kind of tag, then the Bills are the dumb ones.  Sorry, but you just don't give away the best tool in your arsenal for no reason.

871186[/snapback]

It wasn't no reason, they got him to sign and come into camp. I personally think they didn't have to do it, and he would have had to come into camp, but they did it anyway. As kind of a goodwill gesture. And I believe that it was indeed written into his contract. And that Marv and Jauron have built up a lot of goodwill over the years for being straight shooters so there is no way in hell either of them are going to say, "Aha, Gotcha! We were only kidding!" Clements will surely hit the FA market unless we give him an outrageous offer, and Ralph simply cannot do that WHILE he is crying poor.

[bills_fan]

Or we simply use some of the 40+mil in cap space we have, and make Nate the highest paid CB in football. Then he doesn't even have to test the open market, we just made him the most expensive CB in football. Done.

 

Here's why that is a very good strategy...Nate is top 3 in the NFL this year. He's 26 years old. A 20 mil signing bonus (50 mil total contract) over 5 years + base salaries approximates to 10 mil per year (This can be adjusted with roster bonuses etc.). Given the expected rise in the salary cap over the next 5 years, and Nate's pure talent, I can live with that deal.

 

Nate is a star, and the reason we have won a few games this year. He ought to be rewarded with the richest contract for a CB in the NFL. It sends a great message to the team.

[HurlyBurly51]

It wasn't no reason, they got him to sign and come into camp. I personally think they didn't have to do it, and he would have had to come into camp, but they did it anyway. As kind of a goodwill gesture. And I believe that it was indeed written into his contract. And that Marv and Jauron have built up a lot of goodwill over the years for being straight shooters so there is no way in hell either of them are going to say, "Aha, Gotcha! We were only kidding!" Clements will surely hit the FA market unless we give him an outrageous offer, and Ralph simply cannot do that WHILE he is crying poor.

871195[/snapback]

 

You say yourself they didn't have to do it, and I agree. He would've had to come in eventually. I wonder what kind of goodwill Nate will show in return as he's walking out the door? Sorry, but giving up your right to use a tool that is rightfully yours per the CBA is just plain dumb. Marv has a fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and Nate has a lot of value on the open market, so essentially letting him walk for nothing in return is negligent.

 

Unless, of course, this is what he and Ralph wanted all along, then they could say we tried, Nate just wanted the highest bidder.

[plenzmd1]

The point is, you said France would be guilty of malpractice if he allowed the Bills to do that to his client. Walter Jones was franchised, what, 10 years in a row?

 

871171[/snapback]

 

But the rules have changed since Jones was being franchised. Now, if I am correct, one can only be tagged two years in a row, and then if tagged a third time must be paid the average of the top 5 PLAYERs, not just at his position. May not be exact, but something like that.

 

And this clause was absolutely put in writing, as was Alexanders last year.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

The point is, you said France would be guilty of malpractice if he allowed the Bills to do that to his client. Walter Jones was franchised, what, 10 years in a row?

 

871171[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, the difference is that Seattle never made that promise to Jones or Jones agreed to waive the clause.

[HurlyBurly51]

Or we simply use some of the 40+mil in cap space we have, and make Nate the highest paid CB in football.  Then he doesn't even have to test the open market, we just made him the most expensive CB in football.  Done.

 

871202[/snapback]

 

I still don't believe that will get it done. In order for that to work, he has to want to come back. He doesn't have to sign anything, and there's apparently nothing preventing him from walking out the door and finding his true value first. Nate wants to test the open market and find out his true worth. Simply being the highest paid CB might turn out to be settling once he finds out what teams might really be willing to spend on him. This is a business, and I think it's all about the benjamins with Nate.

[Robert Paulson]

i would love to keep nate but what motivation does he have after he hits the big one- we saw last year what a un motivated nate looks like

 

i would be happy with k thomas/ a yabouty fighting for the starter postion with the other as the nickel

 

k thomas has impressed me- he is a vet and should be resigned cheaply

[Ozymandius]

i would love to keep nate but what motivation does he have after he hits the big one- we saw last year what a un motivated nate looks like

871315[/snapback]

Don't underestimate the impact of poor coaching and team morale.

[HudsonValleyBillsFan]

I wonder about this too. Could they have given him a contract that didn't include the no franchise clause? If the answer is yes, then Marv Levy has made his first fatal error as a GM.

You always protect ur value and don't put any credence into "promises".

Marv is a good guy and i know he is smart, and i don't care about his age.

I do question whether or not he has the balls to be an NFL gm.

 

 

 

You got that right.  If it is written into his contract, can anyone explain why the Bills would give away the only leverage they had to keep the premiere free agent from just walking out the door? 

 

They did not have to do this when they tagged him last year.  It makes absolutely no business sense to just let one of your best assets get away for nothing, when you had the tools to prevent that from occuring in the first place.  That is just a dumb move if that ends up being the case, which no one knows for sure if it is. 

 

If Nate is dead set on hitting the open market to test his true worth, we have nothing to stop him, no matter how much we offer him.  He could always come back to the Bills offer if that's what he wanted, but once he hits the open market he is gone.  Reading the tea leaves from some recent commments Ralph has made indicate that no matter the cap space available, there is not going to be a spending spree this offseason.  He practically came out and said it yesterday with his comments about the team being one good draft away from being in the playoff mix.  I think he's setting us up to lower our expectations.

871022[/snapback]

[Fla Bills Fan]

What college players fit the Tampa-2?

870834[/snapback]

Ashton Youboty - 2006 Draft projection 1st-2nd round

[PatPatPatSack]

likely hinder our ability to get FAs.

 

870874[/snapback]

 

That might be true if indeed it wasn't just about the money. However it is just about the money.

 

Or better said, it's about the money. And the amount of it.

 

Money. Biggest pile, soonest wins. Everything else is the nice stuff you say after you get the biggest pile.

 

 

Ever go to a garage sale and see 2 guys making over 50k dickering over a quarter? Ever buy something on sale? Would you move to make 3 million dollars more?

 

I would and so would you. So just sit back and see if we can put the biggest pile of money in front of Nate. If we can't or don't want to - We just put the money back in Ralph's pocket. Remember, he didnt spend to the cap this year. No reason to assume that he will next year. So many unknowns. but simple rules. Most money wins.

 

Don't spoil this great fun by obsessing over someone else's pile of money.

 

The 53 man roster we have next year? Them's my bills.

[Koufax]

Or we simply use some of the 40+mil in cap space we have, and make Nate the highest paid CB in football.  Then he doesn't even have to test the open market, we just made him the most expensive CB in football.  Done.

 

Here's why that is a very good strategy...Nate is top 3 in the NFL this year.  He's 26 years old.  A 20 mil signing bonus (50 mil total contract) over 5 years + base salaries approximates to 10 mil per year (This can be adjusted with roster bonuses etc.).  Given the expected rise in the salary cap over the next 5 years,  and Nate's pure talent, I can live with that deal.

 

Nate is a star, and the reason we have won a few games this year.  He ought to be rewarded with the richest contract for a CB in the NFL.  It sends a great message to the team.

871202[/snapback]

 

Only if what we by having Nate instead of Ashton - McGee is worth more than what else we could get for that money. Spending "whatever it takes" because "we gotta keep him" (not your words, just a general sentiment) is something Marv is smart enough to avoid, and make each decision based on pros and cons.

 

Because Nate is better than Ashton and McGee and KT (also a free agent) he adds value to our team. But he adds value based on how much better than Ashton/McGee he is since both of those players are signed and one sits if Nate is back.

 

I don't think the value of that difference is worth as much as 50 mil would get us as a guard upgrade over Preston or Gandy, or what 25 mil each would get us at two upgraded positions, etc. Spend smart, draft smart, and play hard and smart.

 

I'd love to have Nate back if it works, and think we should make a pretty big offer to try to keep him. But I think it is very likey that Dan Snyder will offer Nate more than he is WORTH to the Bills. In that case thank him for his service and move on to building a Super Bowl winner without him.

[Pyrite Gal]

That might be true if indeed it wasn't just about the money. However it is just about the money.

 

Or better said, it's about the money. And the amount of it.

 

Money. Biggest pile, soonest wins. Everything else is the nice stuff you say after you get the biggest pile.

Ever go to a garage sale and see 2 guys making over 50k dickering over a quarter? Ever buy something on sale? Would you move to make 3 million dollars more?

 

I would and so would you. So just sit back and see if we can put the biggest pile of money in front of Nate. If we can't or don't want to - We just put the money back in Ralph's pocket. Remember, he didnt spend to the cap this year. No reason to assume that he will next year. So many unknowns. but simple rules. Most money wins.

 

Don't spoil this great fun by obsessing over someone else's pile of money.

 

The 53 man roster we have next year? Them's my bills.

871676[/snapback]

 

Actually its not ALL about the money, its actually mostly about the money.

 

This relatively small distinction can be very important when the amount of money offered is relatively the same (which they often are in NFL contracts as eveyone ia operating under the same slary cap).

 

There often can be real differences in the amount of money offered as different teams assess players differently, may be more risk averse particularly given injury history and concerns, or simply have different team building strategies/

 

However these gross differences usually cut 90% or more of teams out of the race for a particular player and of the few teams that are left they are really offering about the same amount of money for a player.

 

It is in the consideration between these few viable options (and it only takes one offer for a player to make more money than he thought was possible( where most things are equal financially and it comes down to decisions like whether a city seems to be a good place to live, the seeming quality of the organization and simply whether the player gets a good vibe or not.

 

It is because of this equation that the Bills have been able to fairly recently sign sought after FAs like TKO or a player like Triplett who has several teams publicly interested in him can visit Buffalo first and then simply decide not to do anymore visits.

 

People often theorize that Buffalo is at some great disadvantage in the FA pool because players do not want to come to our small town. However, it is the fact that Ralph's money is as green as anyone else's that in fact we can get into the game to bid for just about any FA we can afford. Once it gets to that point, there are variations on which teams and their owners are liquid enough to make a cpmtractual bid for a player though it is the same amount of money in total they are comfortable upfronting the money and the layer likes that advantage.

 

Hpwever, with the new CBA giving teams much more latitude in how they use their money and the revenues behind the new CBA giving the economic machines more cash to play with, even this advantage is now diminished in the new economics of the NFL.

 

Particularly since the Bills are looking for players they deem to be of a reasonable or high moral character, playing the game as straight-shooters is of real value to this team in getting good FAs.

[daquixers_is_back]

Something that I havent seen anyone mention yet (sorry if I overlooked it) ... but by letting Clements go just because we dont want to pay him big money, sends a message to all Free Agents that Buffalo is not a place to go if you want money. Especially now that we have let Winfield, Williams, Washington, and Cowart all go ... mostly due to money.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

But the rules have changed since Jones was being franchised. Now, if I am correct, one can only be tagged two years in a row, and then if tagged a third time must be paid the average of the top 5 PLAYERs, not just at his position. May not be exact, but something like that.

 

And this clause was absolutely put in writing, as was Alexanders last year.

871229[/snapback]

 

And you know this HOW? The Bills never release contract terms.

[Bill from NYC]

And you know this HOW? The Bills never release contract terms.

871776[/snapback]

 

Joe, there HAS been a rule change wrt the franchise tag. It MIGHT be that after the 1st year franchised, the player gets the top 5 QB pay instead of his regular position. Someone will know the exact rule.

[Phil Indablanc]

I hope we get him back, and am hopeful that with the team surge he will wan to stay.  But if we get into an irrational spending contest with Dan Snyder we are going to lose (whether we win the contest or not).

 

Just like when A-Rod left the Mariners for the Rangers for $252 million, it was unfortunate for the Mariners, but it would have been worse to pay him $253 and keep him.

 

I really really want Nate back, and think we are in a position to offer him a LOT of money.  But if the Redskins get crazy, I think we can find a way to move on, and think putting Ashton in for Nate is not a big enough downgrade to merit completely breaking the bank and having our hands tied for being able to make other moves.

 

I don't view this as a Pat Williams moment at all.  We will definitely court Nate, treat him right, and make him a big offer, and hope he accepts it.  If he doesn't take it we will pencil in Ashton and Terrance as our corners, and then look for other places to improve our team to compensate for the downgrade at corner.

870891[/snapback]

 

"But if the Redskins get crazy"

 

Your a funny guy.

[plenzmd1]

And you know this HOW? The Bills never release contract terms.

871776[/snapback]

 

Joe, there is no way to KNOW with 100% certainty i guess(unless we see the actual contract) that thi sclause is in writing, but I would give just about any odds that it is. No agent worth his salt would have taken the word of 87 yr old owner and an 81 yr old GM as to promices for next season, better chance both of em not here the next Feb. than both of em being here.

 

And just to play devils advocate. Marv talks about character all the time, really thing he would go back on his word?? Really? Would you even suggest that he should? I mean crimminy, he gave his WORD(which I am sure is in writing). Remember, Marv is part of the greatest generation, when everything didn't have to be written down, when it was good enough for a man to look it you in the eye and say heres the deal.

[PatPatPatSack]

Actually its not ALL about the money, its actually mostly about the money.

 

 

 

It is in the consideration between these few viable options (and it only takes one offer for a player to make more money than he thought was possible( where most things are equal financially and it comes down to decisions like whether a city seems to be a good place to live, the seeming quality of the organization and simply whether the player gets  a good vibe or not.

 

It is because of this equation that the  Bills have been able to fairly recently sign sought after FAs like TKO or a player like Triplett who has several teams publicly interested in him can visit Buffalo first and then simply decide not to do anymore visits.

 

871684[/snapback]

 

 

Bills sign players like Triplett based on pile o' green. They just say, "offer lasts until midnight". That's what makes them stop looking. And don't think the agents are not at the same time out making calls to other stops that say, "don't waste my time, but are you willing to top this?" If no, then I won't bother you, you don't bother me.

 

Quality of life, schools and etc. have 0 implication. We wish to think they do. There are no intangilbles, just straight up money.

 

Now, what about the patriots you say? It IS possible for a player to take less guarenteed money (pile o' green) to play in a situation that they think will make them ultimately more successful. However, I submit, that is just looking for a payoff later on down the line - a bigger pile of green.

 

Like a backup getting a starting slot. It's not the pride thing. It's the fact that becoming a starter means starter money. Maybe even superstar money. Can't make plays if your'e on the bench etc.

 

I still say that is all about money. The only subtlety is the schedule of payments/incentives.

 

Last point. Since the agents structure the deal. Agents get paid % out of the take. Agents don't take payments in % of quality of life. Money man, it's the only thing.