zevo Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough! 1. Verbal contract....he'd sue our asses 2. We don't want that much money spent on a CB in this system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Toboggan M.D Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 um... marv has his reputation at stake, and his respect. When someone gives their word and doesnt keep it, he will lose respect from players all over the league. When something like this happens several players will not want to sign in buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 They should have never made the promise in the first place, but once made should stick to it. By the way has anyone in the Bills organization ever confirmed that this promise was indeed made? I've never seen it spoken of officially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 They should have never made the promise in the first place, but once made should stick to it. By the way has anyone in the Bills organization ever confirmed that this promise was indeed made? I've never seen it spoken of officially. Levy answered a question about it in the press conference today, saying they agreed to it to avoid a long holdout and to ensure they had a full team in camp with the new coaching staff. they can't go back on their word now. the good news is that Samuel can't drive up the price by setting a high market value, Clements only negotiating tool is pitting the Bills up against the other 31 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 .....good news is that Samuel can't drive up the price by setting a high market value, Clements only negotiating tool is pitting the Bills up against the other 31 teams. I'd think the opposite would be the case. Having only one high class CB on the market will increase the cost due to supply & demand.....not decrease it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough! This is an interesting concept....one that I am sure would be very popular with the other 1600 players in the league. It would make us beloved destination all the more--with the interesting weather, high taxes, cap inflexibility and now add untrustworthy management... Cool! I am for it -- let's give it a try.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I'd think the opposite would be the case. Having only one high class CB on the market will increase the cost due to supply & demand.....not decrease it. you would think so, and it may be that way. but, the supply was already low enough that taking Samuel away will not increase the demand for Clements significantly. the price was going to be high either way. what i am saying is that an early signing by Samuel is taken out of the equation, thus giving the agents for Clements less to gauge a market value deal on. if Samuel were to sign early for 6 years, $50 million with an $18 mil signing bonus, that sets a clear value for Nate. since that won't be happening now, the best they can go on is to shoot high and say they want Champ Bailey money. they might get it if someone wants him bad enough. but, if the early offers don't come close to that number they can only base Nate's value on the offers that do come in, not a value that has been set by an early signing by someone who really Samuel and was willing to pay dearly for it him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 you would think so, and it may be that way. but, the supply was already low enough that taking Samuel away will not increase the demand for Clements significantly. the price was going to be high either way. what i am saying is that an early signing by Samuel is taken out of the equation, thus giving the agents for Clements less to gauge a market value deal on. if Samuel were to sign early for 6 years, $50 million with an $18 mil signing bonus, that sets a clear value for Nate. since that won't be happening now, the best they can go on is to shoot high and say they want Champ Bailey money. they might get it if someone wants him bad enough. but, if the early offers don't come close to that number they can only base Nate's value on the offers that do come in, not a value that has been set by an early signing by someone who really Samuel and was willing to pay dearly for it him. The second part is a reasonable point but I can't see it counteracting supply & demand much at all. Teams already will have a rough figure amount that they would be willing to pay for a FA CB. If there are 2 teams willing to spend huge numbers on a FA CB & there are 2 CBs, they will bid a bit but can pretty much call the shots. If there is only 1 FA CB, then the two teams will bid upto one of their maximums that they will go. If there is more bidders than CBs, there is more chance that the maximum that some team will pay is higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough! Once you make a promise, you have to keep it. As much as I'd love for the Bills to hold onto Clements, they can't use the tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nichebiche Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The second part is a reasonable point but I can't see it counteracting supply & demand much at all. Teams already will have a rough figure amount that they would be willing to pay for a FA CB. If there are 2 teams willing to spend huge numbers on a FA CB & there are 2 CBs, they will bid a bit but can pretty much call the shots. If there is only 1 FA CB, then the two teams will bid upto one of their maximums that they will go. If there is more bidders than CBs, there is more chance that the maximum that some team will pay is higher. there are many factors that determine value for a player. the one you describe is one for sure. the one i describe also comes into play, as do others. it just means one factor has now been eliminated from the equation. if 2 teams want Clements bad enough to get into a bidding war, the sky is the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 1. Verbal contract....he'd sue our asses Yeah, a judge is going to hear that one. It's hard enough to get written contracts upheld in court let alone some verbal contract nonsense. So they said they wouldn't tag him? Then sign him. Can't sign him? Tag him and trade him. It's all very simple........and exactly what every other well managed NFL team would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Yeah, a judge is going to hear that one. It's hard enough to get written contracts upheld in court let alone some verbal contract nonsense. So they said they wouldn't tag him? Then sign him. Can't sign him? Tag him and trade him. It's all very simple........and exactly what every other well managed NFL team would do. Actually DIBS is 100% correct, and that probably WOULD hold up in court. Really all you need for a verbal contract is an offer, and acceptance. Then you have to prove it. Considering that Marv Levy has publicly noted that this was the case, then the proof part is easy. The offer was made, and Nate accepted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The second part is a reasonable point but I can't see it counteracting supply & demand much at all. Teams already will have a rough figure amount that they would be willing to pay for a FA CB. If there are 2 teams willing to spend huge numbers on a FA CB & there are 2 CBs, they will bid a bit but can pretty much call the shots. If there is only 1 FA CB, then the two teams will bid upto one of their maximums that they will go. If there is more bidders than CBs, there is more chance that the maximum that some team will pay is higher. The other thing working in NC's favor is that since teams are lying to their opponents who they are after, if a player says he has another offer he is considering a team choose to disbelieve him at their own risk. We likely saw a case like this with Jonas Jennings and SF year before last as a look at the who might be looking for an LT based on who they already had revealed that demand for him was likely fairly low (as the LT position was such a hot commodity a few years back teams had committed fairly significant contracts to LTs i considered fairly middlin talents). Certainly no one, the Bills included were likely offering the kind of scratch which SF paid JJ because folks who watch the Bills alot knew better than anyone how injury prone he was. As it turned out the offered him an extraordinary deal and spent much of his time so far in SF om the IR. With NC all it take is one team to give you a big contract and you have it and 31 teams are going to be guessing if someone else will do it and he likely can have competition even if there is only one bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough! Even if you tag him, he does not have to sign it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Even if you tag him, he does not have to sign it. And he can hold out and sue. Great distraction. We need lots of distractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 And he can hold out and sue. Great distraction. We need lots of distractions. Sniff...sniff...where is our Government when we need them most?...sniff...Schumer is not enough...we need all the Solons of Washington to help us...to guide us...Curt Flood, where are you now?...come help us, help us...Isn't there some appointed-for-life Federal judge somewhere, anywhere, to issue an edict?...oh, the humanity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Once you make a promise, you have to keep it. As much as I'd love for the Bills to hold onto Clements, they can't use the tag. We could call it a franchise sticker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Actually DIBS is 100% correct, and that probably WOULD hold up in court. Really all you need for a verbal contract is an offer, and acceptance. Then you have to prove it. Considering that Marv Levy has publicly noted that this was the case, then the proof part is easy. The offer was made, and Nate accepted it. While I agree with your outcome, you also need an exchange of consideration. Nate would most likely have to prove that the Bills received something of value in exchange for agreeing not to tag him. He could argue that this avoided a hold-out, increased team cohesion, etc. Either that or he could argue that he detrimentally relied on the promise (didn't pursue other offers, etc.) But I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk. As for the thread topic, I'll echo several other sentiments. You don't publicly go back on a deal with a player. Buffalo is already unattractive enough to potential FAs...why throw managerial deceit into the mix of our other selling points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zevo Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 This is an interesting concept....one that I am sure would be very popular with the other 1600 players in the league. It would make us beloved destination all the more--with the interesting weather, high taxes, cap inflexibility and now add untrustworthy management... Cool! I am for it -- let's give it a try.. You are not funny. Why dont you try something new and stop trying to be like the other smartasses on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts