Coach Tuesday Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I have an idea - why don't we name the new Jumbotron "Nate Clements"? Because that's what will be replacing him. I'm not joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. This has been common knowledge to Bills fans for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 nate's franchise tag this yr would be between 7.9 and 8.1 million..... ..not bad but the issue for most players is the cash up front from the signing bonus ....that being said ,,, business is business ,, tag him tell him to find a deal.. or trade his rights to someone like say denver for their 1st and 2nd... i m tired about players talking about loyalty,,,,,,, ,,that is until the cash is on the line ....... i hate the PATS but billy belichik .. got a first for a washed up bledsoe ..the milloy then branch among others .. ......... tag him and get something in return.. time to remember something....." nice guys finish last"!!! [/quote Ummm, Milloy was released by the Pats. No trade or compensation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks for the compliment, but you might be a little off here. Marv is able to offer Nate a long term deal without the tag kicking in. The Franchise Tag only applies to a one year deal, and it can force the players to sign the contract, or hold out. Orland Pace and Walter Jones were each tagged more than once as I recall, and eventually signed long term contracts with their respective teams. What Marv did was voluntarily, and for reasons that are beyond me, take this useful tool to hold onto a player out of his kit. Also, he deprived the Bills the "tag and trade" option which did net us a 1st round pick for Peerless Price. As for drafting a 1st round corner, bet on it, perhaps even if Nate does stay in Buffalo (which I give about a 5% chance, and I am being kind). I would like to be wrong about this as much as I hope anything for the Bills because if we do so, we are officially reduced to being a defensive back farm team of sorts, or damn close to it. You're very welcome. (Unfortunately) you're making me a believer with your assessment. Now nobody's ever told me THAT before! I appreciate your take on the possibilities that remain in play. It did not make sense to me that The Bills couldn't negotiate with their own player without going over the magic trigger amount. I thought that extended to multi-year contracts as well. Well, they could make him and offer that would keep him, but I doubt it as do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Marv fired? Not possible. It is hard enough to even question any of his moves, including this "promise" to Nate which was flat out stupid imo. Who said anything about Marv being fired? Of course, most mortals in their day to day jobs would get fired over such a colossal mistake. And the statement above contradicts itself - don't question his moves, but the "promise" was flat out stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 I think he was in actuality agreeing with you. But you are correct. It was totally boneheaded. For all the flak Donahoe takes around here, he at least understood this concept. Who said anything about Marv being fired? Of course, most mortals in their day to day jobs would get fired over such a colossal mistake. And the statement above contradicts itself - don't question his moves, but the "promise" was flat out stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 per Chris Brown, the Bills promised Clements that they would not apply the franchise OR transition tag on Clements so he is a lock to hit the free agent market with no compensation coming back to the Bills. Mark this as THE stupidest move by Marv and Co... the franchise tag was specifically designed for situations like these so that teams can have a certain degree of leverage in retaining their own players. To agree to forgo all options for leverage was flat out dumb, no matter how you try and spin it. Watch the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel this offseason. It's a microcosm of where Bills' management is compared to organizations like the Pats. http://buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1 yep, we should have lost him last year instead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 uhhh yeah... Retaining by declaring him as the franchise player would mean losing him last year. yep, we should have lost him last year instead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 yep, we should have lost him last year instead! I guess I shouldn't really get on Marv too much about this....it's obviously a tough concept to grasp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 I guess I shouldn't really get on Marv too much about this....it's obviously a tough concept to grasp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts