bluelight05 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 It pretty obvious nate isnt comming back so what kind of deal do you think hes going to get? Im gonna go with 7 year 60 million with a 19 million dollar bonus. Im not sure with what team but im sure there will be 10 teams that will puruse him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelloNewman Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 It pretty obvious nate isnt comming back so what kind of deal do you think hes going to get? Im gonna go with 7 year 60 million with a 19 million dollar bonus. Im not sure with what team but im sure there will be 10 teams that will puruse him. I hear the redskins are targeting him which means probably 7 years 100 million with a 50 million signing bonus if redskin contacts are any indication of their shopping tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I hear the redskins are targeting him which means probably 7 years 100 million with a 50 million signing bonus if redskin contacts are any indication of their shopping tactics. You forgot the complimentary plane and yacht they give you, if you can make it through half a season without getting injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 It pretty obvious nate isnt comming back so what kind of deal do you think hes going to get? Im gonna go with 7 year 60 million with a 19 million dollar bonus. Im not sure with what team but im sure there will be 10 teams that will puruse him. I think we could actually compete with an offer like this.... Gaurantee the first 2 years of the contract and pay Nate--All in base salary or balloon roster incentives.. $12 Million (Y1); $12 Million (Y2); $10 Million (Y3); $10 Million (Y4); $6M (Y5); $5M (Y6); $5M (Y7) This has some tax advantages for Nate -- less withholding--other teams would hate it cause of the gauranteed years--but its Ralph's way to remain competitive... This still leaves us about $16 Million to play with (assuming we tender Greer and Hargrove and let Anderson and Shaud Williams go) -- we can address 2 of G, LB, DT with this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I think we could actually compete with an offer like this.... Gaurantee the first 2 years of the contract and pay Nate--All in base salary or balloon roster incentives.. $12 Million (Y1); $12 Million (Y2); $10 Million (Y3); $10 Million (Y4); $6M (Y5); $5M (Y6); $5M (Y7) This has some tax advantages for Nate -- less withholding--other teams would hate it cause of the gauranteed years--but its Ralph's way to remain competitive... This still leaves us about $16 Million to play with (assuming we tender Greer and Hargrove and let Anderson and Shaud Williams go) -- we can address 2 of G, LB, DT with this.... If you give that to a CB this year, what do you give your QB next year? Your OT? Your star WR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If you give that to a CB this year, what do you give your QB next year? Your OT? Your star WR? Considering we don't have any star QB or OTs, we don't have to pay them anything more. Evans would probably get a nice extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I think we could actually compete with an offer like this.... Gaurantee the first 2 years of the contract and pay Nate--All in base salary or balloon roster incentives.. $12 Million (Y1); $12 Million (Y2); $10 Million (Y3); $10 Million (Y4); $6M (Y5); $5M (Y6); $5M (Y7) This has some tax advantages for Nate -- less withholding--other teams would hate it cause of the gauranteed years--but its Ralph's way to remain competitive... This still leaves us about $16 Million to play with (assuming we tender Greer and Hargrove and let Anderson and Shaud Williams go) -- we can address 2 of G, LB, DT with this.... Lot's of ways to structure a deal and I am also in the camp that thinks the Bills can get this done if they really want to retain him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Considering we don't have any star QB or OTs, we don't have to pay them anything more. Evans would probably get a nice extension. Assuming JP becomes a star next year... and JP locks down his left side allowing no sacks. My point is you're trying to build a team not just retain a group of players. Start paying players salaries out of proportion to their team mates and watch the team crumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Assuming JP becomes a star next year... and JP locks down his left side allowing no sacks. My point is you're trying to build a team not just retain a group of players. Start paying players salaries out of proportion to their team mates and watch the team crumble. You mean like what Indi did ... oh wait. They have a SB ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You mean like what Indi did ... oh wait. They have a SB ring. Not sure I follow that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Not sure I follow that one. You were talking about how paying players salaries out of proportion to their teammates will cause the team will crumble .. that is what Indi has been doing for years now and they just won a SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You were talking about how paying players salaries out of proportion to their teammates will cause the team will crumble .. that is what Indi has been doing for years now and they just won a SB. Well, I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what Indy's players make. But you're telling me that Bob Sanders makes more than Peyton? That their DT makes more than Freeney? That Wayne makes more than Harrison? I'm not saying you don't pay your players big contracts. I'm saying there's a certain hierarchy just like all jobs, that you have to somewhat follow. If we make Nate our highest paid player - by far, I assure you JP and other players will eventually demand bigger contracts. I'm just suggesting we look at the bigger picture. As good as Nate may be, he can price himself right out of our plans if some team like the Redskins overpays for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Well, I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what Indy's players make. But you're telling me that Bob Sanders makes more than Peyton? That their DT makes more than Freeney? That Wayne makes more than Harrison? I'm not saying you don't pay your players big contracts. I'm saying there's a certain hierarchy just like all jobs, that you have to somewhat follow. If we make Nate our highest paid player - by far, I assure you JP and other players will eventually demand bigger contracts. I'm just suggesting we look at the bigger picture. As good as Nate may be, he can price himself right out of our plans if some team like the Redskins overpays for him. No but that is because those players are BETTER than the other player. For example. If we had Rex Grossman as our QB in the 90's. Who would make more? Bennet or Grossman? Hopefully Bennet. Clements is currently the best player at his position on this team. The only one close is Evans. Clements is in the top 4-5 of CB's in this league ... some would argue in the top 3. Because he is in the top 3 at his position, he should be paid accordingly. Now do you see what I am saying? Yes, Peyton is paid the most. That is because he is the best player at his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I think we could actually compete with an offer like this.... Gaurantee the first 2 years of the contract and pay Nate--All in base salary or balloon roster incentives.. $12 Million (Y1); $12 Million (Y2); $10 Million (Y3); $10 Million (Y4); $6M (Y5); $5M (Y6); $5M (Y7) This has some tax advantages for Nate -- less withholding--other teams would hate it cause of the gauranteed years--but its Ralph's way to remain competitive... This still leaves us about $16 Million to play with (assuming we tender Greer and Hargrove and let Anderson and Shaud Williams go) -- we can address 2 of G, LB, DT with this.... The first four years Nate Clements would be averaging 11 million dollars a year. Where on earth have you seen that Nate Clements is worth 11 million dollars a year? I've watched every game Nate Clements has played for the Bills and I must have missed something along the way. Because the Nate Clements I've seen is no where near an 11 million dollar a year player. I don't even think he's worth 8 million a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 No but that is because those players are BETTER than the other player. For example. If we had Rex Grossman as our QB in the 90's. Who would make more? Bennet or Grossman? Hopefully Bennet. Clements is currently the best player at his position on this team. The only one close is Evans. Clements is in the top 4-5 of CB's in this league ... some would argue in the top 3. Because he is in the top 3 at his position, he should be paid accordingly. Now do you see what I am saying? Yes, Peyton is paid the most. That is because he is the best player at his position. I do see what you're saying, but therein rests the Bills delimma. Our best player; therefore, potentially, highest paid player is a CB. That is not how you get to and win a Superbowl - building the defense around a CB. So, if retaining that CB dampens your ability to properly build a team then you have to make that tough choice and let him walk. I know it's seem counter intuitive. But, pay Nate or sign 3-4 other defensive guys to help you stop the run. I know our pass defense will suffer; but what good is having the #1 pass defense when we have the #32 run defense? If by letting Nate walk, we can get a passable (no pun intended) CB and then shore up the DL. The end result lets say we're closer to a #15 ranked pass D (because Nate left), but we're also a #15 run D (because we used that money to pay a few extra guys). Would that be better? Would that not get us closer to the ultimate goal. I'd argue yes. Now that's a simplistic example, of course. But, my point I'm trying to make is that if Nate demands so much money that it lessens our ability to build a solid team around him; then its an easy decision. Until we build up our lines, it doesn't matter who the CB is. I completely agree, we should keep Nate if at all possible. But, we shouldn't keep Nata at all costs. Some costs are too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 5 year deal -10 million siging and 5 mil per year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 The first four years Nate Clements would be averaging 11 million dollars a year. Where on earth have you seen that Nate Clements is worth 11 million dollars a year? I've watched every game Nate Clements has played for the Bills and I must have missed something along the way. Because the Nate Clements I've seen is no where near an 11 million dollar a year player. I don't even think he's worth 8 million a year. Only the first two are gauranteed. If he gets a $20 M signing bonus the first two years anywhere else in essence paid $10M average....you have to be creative if you want to retain him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If you give that to a CB this year, what do you give your QB next year? Your OT? Your star WR? You have to rely on the cap rising and Ralph always spending to the cap--therotically one of the advantages of this system is that the Bills will always have room to adjust and adapt. They are eliminating amoritization as a factor so amoritized bonus payments trend to 0 and we have expanded room to pay base....you use the room you have in base salary to retain the players you want... Its not great but its where we have to go under this system.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 You have to rely on the cap rising and Ralph always spending to the cap--therotically one of the advantages of this system is that the Bills will always have room to adjust and adapt. They are eliminating amoritization as a factor so amoritized bonus payments trend to 0 and we have expanded room to pay base....you use the room you have in base salary to retain the players you want... Its not great but its where we have to go under this system.. By not over spending, and being frugal, is how we got to having the second most cap room in the league. We don't need to open up money in the future so we can spend in the future we already did that and already have it. We don't have one player on this team with a "star" contract, with the possible exception of Spikes whose numbers are antiquated by now. McGee's is pretty good but he basically plays two roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I do see what you're saying, but therein rests the Bills delimma. Our best player; therefore, potentially, highest paid player is a CB. That is not how you get to and win a Superbowl - building the defense around a CB. So, if retaining that CB dampens your ability to properly build a team then you have to make that tough choice and let him walk. I know it's seem counter intuitive. But, pay Nate or sign 3-4 other defensive guys to help you stop the run. I know our pass defense will suffer; but what good is having the #1 pass defense when we have the #32 run defense? If by letting Nate walk, we can get a passable (no pun intended) CB and then shore up the DL. The end result lets say we're closer to a #15 ranked pass D (because Nate left), but we're also a #15 run D (because we used that money to pay a few extra guys). Would that be better? Would that not get us closer to the ultimate goal. I'd argue yes. Now that's a simplistic example, of course. But, my point I'm trying to make is that if Nate demands so much money that it lessens our ability to build a solid team around him; then its an easy decision. Until we build up our lines, it doesn't matter who the CB is. I completely agree, we should keep Nate if at all possible. But, we shouldn't keep Nata at all costs. Some costs are too high. Yes I understand what you are saying now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts