This is BullSh#$

[zevo]

Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough!

[Dibs]

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

[Mantis Toboggan M.D]

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.

[Dr. Fong]

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.

[nichebiche]

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.

[Dibs]

.....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.

[JoeF]

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..

[nichebiche]

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.

[Dibs]

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

[nichebiche]

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.

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

[daquixers_is_back]

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.

[Pyrite Gal]

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.

[nucci]

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.

[Nanker]

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.

[stuckincincy]

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...

[cåblelady]

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.

[bartshan-83]

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?

[zevo]

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.

[bartshan-83]

You are not funny. Why dont you try something new and stop trying to be like the other smartasses on the board.

Joe speaks the truth. Is fcking Nate to squeeze out one year of disgruntled play or a draft pick worth all the negative press and word-of-mouth trash talking the Bills organization will get in return? Forget the NFL, if you were a potential employee and you heard this is what a certain company did to one of their best employees, would you show them the slightest bit of interest?

 

I think the whole situation sucks, but there is nothing the Bills can do to correct it now. Marv made his bed. They have to play it out now.

[zevo]

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.

 

I just think it sucks that we ever made this "verbal agreement" in the frst place.If thatwas the case, Marv would have been smart to have look to trade him last year and get something. You grow this kid on your farm into a stud of a player and now have to let him walk because you are not going to pay him. Its frustrating to see all of the other big time players in the league sticking with their teams.

[JoeF]

You are not funny. Why dont you try something new and stop trying to be like the other smartasses on the board.

 

If you check the record -- I am only a smart ass when someone posts something so insanely stupid that it warrants such a response.

 

Its obvious you are mad about potentially losing Nate-- but violating a contract verbal or written-- (and by the way -- Marv acknowledged yesterday that its written and its standard practice---the Seahawks did it with Shaun Alexander 2 years ago) is just idiotic.

 

Quit posting like a 12 year old and I will quit being a smart ass.

[Simon]

We could call it a franchise sticker.

 

[THE GASH STATION]

Screw this loyalty to not tagging clements again. Tag his ace and if he doesnt like, tough!

 

Do you really think Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, et al would think about honor and a verbal promise made if it were their decision to francise Clements and get some pics or turn the tables in their favor?? Ralph cries that no one plays by the rules but insists on playing by them himself then wonders why he cant put a winning team on the field.

Rabble Rabble Rabble....

[In space no one can hear]

Do you really think Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, et al would think about honor and a verbal promise made if it were their decision to francise Clements and get some pics or turn the tables in their favor?? Ralph cries that no one plays by the rules but insists on playing by them himself then wonders why he cant put a winning team on the field.

Rabble Rabble Rabble....

 

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

Again, not in the real world. Let me give you an actual on what would happen in that scenario. A complaint would be filed by Clements agent/attorney. The judge would put off hearing it knowing full well that the situation will resolve itself in a few months. And before the flimsy complaint could ever be heard, Clements would be traded or signed with Buffalo. Either way, he gets paid there. But never in court. Won't happen. Net result, the Bills get Nate or an extra first or second round pick versus getting zilch. That's real world law, not business law 101 from Buff State.

[Pyrite Gal]

The decision to make this verbal agreement with NC was actually probably consistent with our plans (assuming this was our plan).

 

1. The Bills really doubted whether they would either reach a contract agreement with NC anyway for the 2007 season and beyond as our D scheme does not utilize him in the best way possible.

 

2. However, there was a recognition that either he might prove to be capable of excelling in our planned style (the Cover 2) or our planned style might not work out and we went to something that provided a good rationale to pay him all sorts of scratch.

 

3. There was the potential if he had another questionable season or if he suffered some Andre Reed like injury in a contract year (2006) we might want to sign him for a relative song.

 

4. Jauron had important things to do last season of installing his style and dealing with the distraction of NC holding out last year would have messed up important efforts like assessing an developing JP, the OL, WM, and a whole new D approach.

 

The verbal agreement with NC was good for the Bills in that it stalled off the day of reckoning with NC til this year (our Cover 2 worked well enough we decided to stick with it and NC performed well but not so well that he merited such a large portion of our cap.

[BADOLBILZ]

Do you really think Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, et al would think about honor and a verbal promise made if it were their decision to francise Clements and get some pics or turn the tables in their favor?? Ralph cries that no one plays by the rules but insists on playing by them himself then wonders why he cant put a winning team on the field.

Rabble Rabble Rabble....

 

First of all, they wouldn't make that ridiculous offer. Second, they wouldn't honor it if they did. Then they'd tell them that business is business........because IT IS. You want a guarantee, you get it in writing. I mean, these players play in a league where their contracts aren't guaranteed, where they can get cut after a serious injury the minute A TEAM doctor declares them healthy, even if they can't ever play again, and then they stop getting paid.

 

Where is The Barnes Firm when you need em', Dibs?

 

And the Bills are going to GIVE away a valuable player in the circumstance they are in? 7 years, no playoffs? $30M UNDER the cap? Just f*cking ridiculous. Hope it works out for ya', Marv, because there are going to be some ANGRY mofos in the stands this fall if this team takes a step back because you couldn't even retain what you had despite all the power and cash to do so. You think Donahoe's last year was ugly, you haven't seen 5-11 in 2007. Get er done, or die trying Marv, or you'll wish you never came back. THAT is a verbal guarantee right there.

[Ozymandius]

To say that Snyder/Jones/Kraft would not have honored the promise is speculative. HOWEVER, it is 100% accurate to say that they never would have made the promise in the first place. We were STUPID beyond belief to make the promise... but what's done is done. Honor that sh-t. Because it's the right thing to do. Because it's not enough to win, you have to be deserving of victory.

[BADOLBILZ]

The verbal agreement with NC was good for the Bills in that it stalled off the day of reckoning with NC til this year (our Cover 2 worked well enough we decided to stick with it and NC performed well but not so well that he merited such a large portion of our cap.

 

Did you watch the Bills this year?

 

Did you happen to see Nate break up that third down pass to Andre Johnson on the last Houston posession after Jauron punted the ball away with like 2:30 left on the clock and needing a TD yet to win? Ya' think Philadelphia could have used a player to step up like that after Andy Reid punted the ball away late in Philly's loss to New Orleans in the playoffs? But Jauron came out smelling like a rose and JP had his signature moment, courtesy of a play nobody on that team makes, except Clements.

 

And that's just the beginning. The Indy game? Dominated by Nate. The Jets game? If Clements doesn't take that ball to the house, the Bills were in trouble. It was slipping away while Willis nursed his hangover, err, stomach ailment, on the bench. Hell, if they had matched Clements on Gates in the SD game like the Bills once did with Antoine Winfield on Tony Gonzalez, the Bills win that home game, IMO. Instead, Gates made the #8 pick in the 2006 draft look like a 5'9" stong safety trying to cover a premier TE. And of course, who could forget Nate breaking up that ill advised pass from the 1 yard line into the endzone that floated into Ko Simpsons' arms, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat against Green Bay.

 

Anyone?

 

7-9 with a near miss against the SB champs sure looks a lot better than 5-11 or 4-12 doesn't it? If Nate wasn't out there, what is the perception of this "up and coming" team going into next season? Are we looking to draft a QB with that top 5 pick? Are we railing against Ralph for hiring a washed up old coach to be GM and a retread HC with an increasingly more dismal record? Ask Mike Mularkey how stupid not having Pat Williams in the lineup made him look coming off a 9-7 season.

 

So you can sit there and say Nate isn't worth as much cap space as 3 vital cogs like Larry Triplett, Tutan Reyes and Andre Davis combined, but I will differ on that.

[keepthefaith]

I just think it sucks that we ever made this "verbal agreement" in the frst place.If thatwas the case, Marv would have been smart to have look to trade him last year and get something. You grow this kid on your farm into a stud of a player and now have to let him walk because you are not going to pay him. Its frustrating to see all of the other big time players in the league sticking with their teams.

 

Maybe Marv made the agreement in exchange for a last look at a new deal if (when) Nate gets his best offer in free agency.

[Helmet_hair]

When you're poor all you got is your word

[Ozymandius]

I'll say this, though. The "unfair" excuse is completely made-up bullsh-t by Marv and the Bills.

 

What really happened is that:

(1) In the spring of 2006, Marv and the Bills made a decision that the team was two years away from being able to win. A full two years of rebuilding.

(2) Ralph determined that he was too cheap to pay Nate what he's worth long-term

 

Because of #1 above, the Bills expected to begin winning in 2008. Because of #2 above, Nate Clements could never be around for 2008 because while we could franchise him again in 2007, we were prohibited by the CBA to do it a third time. Thus, Marv and the Bills made the decision that if Nate wasn't going to be around in 2008 (the projected winning year), they would let him go after 2006 and begin preparing to replace him as early as the draft of 2006 (Youboty). In other words, the Bills thought that they'd be better off in 2008 (the projected winning year) by transitioning on without Nate in 2007 since there was no chance he'd be around in 2008 (due to Ralph's cheapness).

 

Unfortunately for Marv and the Bills , a couple of things happened along the way.

(A) Turns out the Bills were ready to win as soon as 2007. Oops. A lot of things went our way this past season, including the players buying into Jauron, Losman's nice development, Peters' easy transition to LT, Evans turning into a star, the d-line becoming the 5th-best in the league at sacking the QB (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl.php ) IN CONJUNCTION with a good secondary (back to that in a sec). The Bills should've been 3-13 in 2006 and 7-9 in 2007. We were a year early instead. Oops.

(B) Nate turned out to be the most indispensable player on defense, if not our entire team. Oops. By locking up the opponent's #1 WR, Nate allowed our d-line just enough time to finish off QBs or pressure them into mistakes. Previous to this season, Marv and the Bills regarded Nate as just another good corner that they can replace with the Tampa-2 system as long as they invest mightily in the safeties (Whitner at #8 overall). But, as it turned out, Nate became the team MVP basically. Oops.

(C ) Youboty struggled so much that he couldn't get on the field. Oops. Now it's very questionable whether a playmaker at corner in the Tampa-2 is currently even on the roster and signed for 2007. Oops.

 

Soooo, in the spring of 2006, Marv and the Bills basically mis-evaluated how close the team was to winning and how valuable Clements could potentially be to the Bills. Marv then made that no-franchise promise to Nate while looking ahead to 2008. Marv and the Bills f--ked up. Big time. We could sure use Clements for a playoff run in 2007 and we would've had him if not for the promise. Now they stand to lose the team MVP in his prime without any compensation. And instead of 2007 being a season of improvement, going from 3-13 to 7-9 as they expected, the Bills might be looking at treading water at 7-9 again or even regressing. Oops.

 

But, Marv and the Bills can't possibly admit to mis-evaluating the team, mis-evaluating Nate, and !@#$ up so bad. So they're going to use the smelly "unfair" explanation instead... as if anyone is buying that.

[keepthefaith]

I'll say this, though. The "unfair" excuse is completely made-up bullsh-t by Marv and the Bills.

 

What really happened is that:

(1) In the spring of 2006, Marv and the Bills made a decision that the team was two years away from being able to win. A full two years of rebuilding.

(2) Ralph determined that he was too cheap to pay Nate what he's worth long-term

 

Because of #1 above, the Bills expected to begin winning in 2008. Because of #2 above, Nate Clements could never be around for 2008 because while we could franchise him again in 2007, we were prohibited by the CBA to do it a third time. Thus, Marv and the Bills made the decision that if Nate wasn't going to be around in 2008 (the projected winning year), they would let him go after 2006 and begin preparing to replace him as early as the draft of 2006 (Youboty). In other words, the Bills thought that they'd be better off in 2008 (the projected winning year) by transitioning on without Nate in 2007 since there was no chance he'd be around in 2008 (due to Ralph's cheapness).

 

Unfortunately for Marv and the Bills , a couple of things happened along the way.

(A) Turns out the Bills were ready to win as soon as 2007. Oops. A lot of things went our way this past season, including the players buying into Jauron, Losman's nice development, Peters' easy transition to LT, Evans turning into a star, the d-line becoming the 5th-best in the league at sacking the QB (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl.php ) IN CONJUNCTION with a good secondary (back to that in a sec). The Bills should've been 3-13 in 2006 and 7-9 in 2007. We were a year early instead. Oops.

(B) Nate turned out to be the most indispensable player on defense, if not our entire team. Oops. By locking up the opponent's #1 WR, Nate allowed our d-line just enough time to finish off QBs or pressure them into mistakes. Previous to this season, Marv and the Bills regarded Nate as just another good corner that they can replace with the Tampa-2 system as long as they invest mightily in the safeties (Whitner at #8 overall). But, as it turned out, Nate became the team MVP basically. Oops.

(C ) Youboty struggled so much that he couldn't get on the field. Oops. Now it's very questionable whether a playmaker at corner in the Tampa-2 is currently even on the roster and signed for 2007. Oops.

 

Soooo, in the spring of 2006, Marv and the Bills basically mis-evaluated how close the team was to winning and how valuable Clements could potentially be to the Bills. Marv then made that no-franchise promise to Nate while looking ahead to 2008. Marv and the Bills f--ked up. Big time. We could sure use Clements for a playoff run in 2007 and we would've had him if not for the promise. Now they stand to lose the team MVP in his prime without any compensation. And instead of 2007 being a season of improvement, going from 3-13 to 7-9 as they expected, the Bills might be looking at treading water at 7-9 again or even regressing. Oops.

 

But, Marv and the Bills can't possibly admit to mis-evaluating the team, mis-evaluating Nate, and !@#$ up so bad. So they're going to use the smelly "unfair" explanation instead... as if anyone is buying that.

 

Hard to judge Marv on this now as it remains to be seen if Nate is a Bill this year and if not, who plays that position and how.

[daquixers_is_back]

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?

 

Courts seem to rely very heavily on a persons income. By promising a player that he will not be tagged next year, you are assuring him that he will be available to search a job in another market. I'm pretty sure that would hold up in court.

 

Again, not in the real world. Let me give you an actual on what would happen in that scenario. A complaint would be filed by Clements agent/attorney. The judge would put off hearing it knowing full well that the situation will resolve itself in a few months. And before the flimsy complaint could ever be heard, Clements would be traded or signed with Buffalo. Either way, he gets paid there. But never in court. Won't happen. Net result, the Bills get Nate or an extra first or second round pick versus getting zilch. That's real world law, not business law 101 from Buff State.

 

You want to talk about the real world? In the real world of the NFL that complaint would go to TWO places. 1 - The Players Association and 2 - an NFL Arbitrator. So I guess in a way I agree with you ... I don't think it would reach court. It would be settled long before that.

 

Stop being so Bills biased and realize that if the Bills were to pull this stunt, there could be some serious ramifications from the league, the players association, and in the end, Clements would probably win anyway.

 

Go read up on verbal contracts my friend.

[Koufax]

Nate is gone. Let's live with it. There is no chance we will be willing to pay what someone else will pay, and we are not going to tag him, which would be going back on Marv's word, and also would not help the team (the holdout / unhappy stuff talked about).

 

Right now we have Youboty and McGee on the roster, and KT as a possibility, along with some other minor names, free agents and potential draft picks. I for one do not mind Youboty/McGee/KT as our first three, and would settle for this downgrade in CBs if it allows us to be a better team because of upgrading elsewhere.

 

But Nate is gone, and we have to start to accept that.

[BADOLBILZ]

Maybe Marv made the agreement in exchange for a last look at a new deal if (when) Nate gets his best offer in free agency.

 

One name: Cornelius Bennett. Same circumstance, the Bills let him test the market in exchange for an opportunity to match, and he double crossed an outraged John Butler and never gave the opportunity to match. This from a guy who had been to 4 Super Bowls with the team and was part of a very tight knit group of Bills veterans that was a Super Bowl favorite at the time. The Wolford deal was simialar, in that Wolford(and his AGENT) allowed the Colts to put a "poison pill" in the matchable offer sheet he signed so that he could sign with a pathetic Indianapolis team for essentially the same money he would have gotten playing for a 3 time running AFC champion in Buffalo. I mean, free agency is like war, all is fair.

 

What makes anyone think Nate Clements would honor any such deal if those guys did not? How about his agent? Does he want to be the guy who negotiates his players deals by wasting other teams time? I think not. There are reasons why contracts aren't negotiated in this manner.

 

This organization is flat-out senile. They make the same mistakes over and over. Clements can be replaced, but it's going to take more chips(picks and cap space) to do so than it would to just get it done. The net loss for this team will be substantial, and inexcusable. The guy is 26 years old for chrissake, his best years are well ahead of him, and he's going elsewhere with nothing for the Bills to show for it.

 

Very nice, Marv.

 

Maybe we can waive McGahee next because it's "unfair" that he has to deal with disappointed media and fans. Or how about Lee Evans? Is it "fair" that he has to play in small market Buffalo, with a developing QB and as the only legitimate receiving threat when he could very well have been in the Pro Bowl last weekend if he were with a winner in a big market?

 

Marv is big on axioms, well I've got one, NICE GUYS FINISH LAST. Fortunately for Marv, when he was HC he had a prick like Polian running the organization.

[BADOLBILZ]

Go read up on verbal contracts my friend.

 

1) Don't know ya'

2) Not your friend

3) Players association is not an issue. Lawsuit was the issue, and the league doesn't have an inhouse courtroom, it still would have to be heard by a judge or AGREED to be arbitrated. Before it got that far, deals would be done. NFLPA, still the weakest such group in pro sports, if they weren't the Patriots would have to be dismantled for all the complaints against them, from inattention to injuries, to abusing the franchise tags........And YET, players continue to want to sign with them and they keep winning and playing team football.

 

That's because none of the offseason sh*t matters and the lockerroom could really give a sh*t if Nate gets $7M per year or $9M. I swear, some of you guys are living in fantasy football land sometimes. Business is TOUGH, things get done that make people unhappy, then people move on one way or another and it's completely forgotten, like the examples I've given.

 

This idea that it will make the Bills LOOK BAD? Get the f*ck out. Two things matter most to players, money and conditions. Jauron has a rep as a players coach, so they've got that. Marv has a rep for overpaying after last years scrapheap spendathon. They've got that. Don't kid yourself that whatever happens with Nate will have any impact on the Bills perception around the league, other than "look at those losers, they had $30M in cap space and couldn't even get their best defender re-signed".

[KG4ZDX]

One name: Cornelius Bennett. Same circumstance, the Bills let him test the market in exchange for an opportunity to match, and he double crossed an outraged John Butler and never gave the opportunity to match. This from a guy who had been to 4 Super Bowls with the team and was part of a very tight knit group of Bills veterans that was a Super Bowl favorite at the time. The Wolford deal was simialar, in that Wolford(and his AGENT) allowed the Colts to put a "poison pill" in the matchable offer sheet he signed so that he could sign with a pathetic Indianapolis team for essentially the same money he would have gotten playing for a 3 time running AFC champion in Buffalo. I mean, free agency is like war, all is fair.

 

What makes anyone think Nate Clements would honor any such deal if those guys did not? How about his agent? Does he want to be the guy who negotiates his players deals by wasting other teams time? I think not. There are reasons why contracts aren't negotiated in this manner.

 

This organization is flat-out senile. They make the same mistakes over and over. Clements can be replaced, but it's going to take more chips(picks and cap space) to do so than it would to just get it done. The net loss for this team will be substantial, and inexcusable. The guy is 26 years old for chrissake, his best years are well ahead of him, and he's going elsewhere with nothing for the Bills to show for it.

 

Very nice, Marv.

 

Maybe we can waive McGahee next because it's "unfair" that he has to deal with disappointed media and fans. Or how about Lee Evans? Is it "fair" that he has to play in small market Buffalo, with a developing QB and as the only legitimate receiving threat when he could very well have been in the Pro Bowl last weekend if he were with a winner in a big market?

 

Marv is big on axioms, well I've got one, NICE GUYS FINISH LAST. Fortunately for Marv, when he was HC he had a prick like Polian running the organization.

 

 

Since when does one man make or break a team? There 11 men on the defense, take away 1 and you hve 10. Plug a reasonable player in that spot and you continue on. "NICE GUYS" don't always finish last. Wake up and smell the roses,