Peter King's MMQB--Fletch and Kelsay

[jahnyc]

Sorry, can't do a link, but Peter King thinks some team will pay Fletcher $6 million per year. He adds that his "upset special for a no-name guy who will get the richest: Buffalo defensive end Chris Kelsay." I don't even want to think about the kind of dollars that Clements will be getting.

 

With crazy amounts to be spent in free agency this year, what a terrible lack of planning not to have re-signed Clements a long time ago and to announce a cash to cap strategy for this year.

[The Tomcat]

Sorry, can't do a link, but Peter King thinks some team will pay Fletcher $6 million per year. He adds that his "upset special for a no-name guy who will get the richest: Buffalo defensive end Chris Kelsay." I don't even want to think about the kind of dollars that Clements will be getting.

 

With crazy amounts to be spent in free agency this year, what a terrible lack of planning not to have re-signed Clements a long time ago and to announce a cash to cap strategy for this year.

 

 

According to Jr....Kelsay will be staying....we shall see....JR is correct!

[2003Contenders]

Sorry, can't do a link, but Peter King thinks some team will pay Fletcher $6 million per year. He adds that his "upset special for a no-name guy who will get the richest: Buffalo defensive end Chris Kelsay." I don't even want to think about the kind of dollars that Clements will be getting.

 

With crazy amounts to be spent in free agency this year, what a terrible lack of planning not to have re-signed Clements a long time ago and to announce a cash to cap strategy for this year.

 

 

I always thought it was odd that TD saw fit to sign McGee to a big-dollar extension, but never did so with Nate. I honestly blame the current situation with Nate on TD, rather than Marv.

[jahnyc]

I do as well.

[silvermike]

what a terrible lack of planning not to have re-signed Clements a long time ago and to announce a cash to cap strategy for this year.

 

Yeah, really sh------- planning to not have the extra hundreds of millions of dollars available to dole out signing bonuses. I guess the way to most improve the team is move to LA and run a bigger profit.

[Dawgg]

TD tried to resign Nate but couldn't get it done... Nate was smart and knew that the amount of money out there would only increase if he reached free agency.

 

TD offered Clements, Schobel and Jennings contract extensions early and only Schobel bit. Don't think you can blame him for not trying... it was Marv who served up free agency on a silver platter. Nice work, Marv!

 

 

I always thought it was odd that TD saw fit to sign McGee to a big-dollar extension, but never did so with Nate. I honestly blame the current situation with Nate on TD, rather than Marv.

[ROCCEO]

McGee didnt really get a huge deal for a CB. Clements would laugh at it. Thats probobly why TD extended him, easier and cheaper to do. Clements is gonna want a contract in the 50Million range with around a 18-20 mil signing bonus.

[Dual RB way to go]

McGee didnt really get a huge deal for a CB. Clements would laugh at it. Thats probobly why TD extended him, easier and cheaper to do. Clements is gonna want a contract in the 50Million range with around a 18-20 mil signing bonus.

 

Champ Bailey didn't get the broncos into the playoffs and they have a better team than the bills. Let clements walk and soak up another teams cap space, bills need to pour in cash in more urgent places (stopping the run).

 

Bye clements!

[Kelly the Dog]

Jerry Jones of all people said an interesting thing on the NFL Network on Saturday. He admitted he made mistakes overpaying for free agents in the last year or two. And then said that even though there is a ton of money around, people may not be as spend crazy as everyone thinks. He could be blowing smoke up everyone's ass, and surely there will be some ridiculous contracts for some marginal players, but I genuinely think he has a point. And reading between the lines, he sounded to me like the owners have talked about this, and that if they go crazy this year because there is so much money but there is a crappy group of players, it will cost them fortunes in the long run, because the better players agents will be saying "if this joker got paid X, my guy is worth 4X". I think there's some validity to that.

[keepthefaith]

McGee didnt really get a huge deal for a CB. Clements would laugh at it. Thats probobly why TD extended him, easier and cheaper to do. Clements is gonna want a contract in the 50Million range with around a 18-20 mil signing bonus.

 

That was a smart move by TD. Extended a guy who is on the upswing and got it done at a lower rate. Bills need to be working more of their roster this way with guys like Lee Evans, JP, (Peters and Crowell got done already).

[Dan]

Jerry Jones of all people said an interesting thing on the NFL Network on Saturday. He admitted he made mistakes overpaying for free agents in the last year or two. And then said that even though there is a ton of money around, people may not be as spend crazy as everyone thinks. He could be blowing smoke up everyone's ass, and surely there will be some ridiculous contracts for some marginal players, but I genuinely think he has a point. And reading between the lines, he sounded to me like the owners have talked about this, and that if they go crazy this year because there is so much money but there is a crappy group of players, it will cost them fortunes in the long run, because the better players agents will be saying "if this joker got paid X, my guy is worth 4X". I think there's some validity to that.

That's exactly been my stance on players like Nate, Kelsay and Fletcher. As good as they may be, we had all these guys on this team for several years and all we have to show is one of the worst ranked defenses in the league - that alone should be enough to cause concern over giving any of them huge contracts.

 

But to think long term, if you give these guys huge contracts, what kind of contract will you have to give JP or Evans a year from now? Just because you can pay alot, doesn't mean you should.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Jones follows his own advice. My guess is there will always be an owner or 2 willing to overpay; hence we'll probably lose Nate. However, there are multiple examples of teams that don't overpay for big time free agents and remain competitive. I see no reason why the Bills can't remain competitive even if we lose Nate. There's not a defense out there that's built around a corner back, why should we be the first.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

That was a smart move by TD. Extended a guy who is on the upswing and got it done at a lower rate. Bills need to be working more of their roster this way with guys like Lee Evans, JP, (Peters and Crowell got done already).

 

He did it because of my incessant e-mails to him!! I sent TD and Mularkey probably ten e-mails on the subject of extending McGee (2 of which made it on the old ask the coach feature on bb.com). Shortly thereafter TD got r done. I take full credit.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

God help them if they did. If the owners even talked about that over cocktails, that's collusion. MLB owners tried that one year and got sued so fast and lost their shirts. It may happen, but doubt the NFL owners would be dumb enough to talk about it.

 

And reading between the lines, he sounded to me like the owners have talked about this, and that if they go crazy this year because there is so much money but there is a crappy group of players, it will cost them fortunes in the long run, because the better players agents will be saying "if this joker got paid X, my guy is worth 4X". I think there's some validity to that.

[JimBob2232]

That's exactly been my stance on players like Nate, Kelsay and Fletcher. As good as they may be, we had all these guys on this team for several years and all we have to show is one of the worst ranked defenses in the league - that alone should be enough to cause concern over giving any of them huge contracts.

 

What the heck kind of logic is that? The Blue Jays have missed the playoffs for years, should they not resign Halladay?

 

You cant sour on your best players because the team failed. The oppposite is true. You have to keep your best players and improve the other failing positions.

[Dan]

What the heck kind of logic is that? The Blue Jays have missed the playoffs for years, should they not resign Halladay?

 

You cant sour on your best players because the team failed. The oppposite is true. You have to keep your best players and improve the other failing positions.

My point being that something needs to change. We've had Nate, a top corner back for years; we've had Fletcher for years; yet our defense is still near the bottom statistically. I agree that you should normally try to keep your best players, but every once in a while you have to try something new. Furthermore, I very much disagree with keeping those players if their salaries will hinder your chance of improving the other failing positions.

 

I know the thought has been to Franchise Fletcher, for example. But, is he really one of the top 5 LBs in the league. I'm not sure I can say that. So, if he wants that kind of money, I think we have to let him go. Similarly with Nate. if he wants to be paid as the top CB in the league, do we place all our eggs in that basket? Again, I'd vote let him go.

 

I'm all for keeping both of these guys, but I'm not about doing it at all costs just because they're 2 of the best players on the 29th (or whatever we were) ranked defense.

[stuckincincy]

My point being that something needs to change. We've had Nate, a top corner back for years; we've had Fletcher for years; yet our defense is still near the bottom statistically. I agree that you should normally try to keep your best players, but every once in a while you have to try something new. Furthermore, I very much disagree with keeping those players if their salaries will hinder your chance of improving the other failing positions.

 

I know the thought has been to Franchise Fletcher, for example. But, is he really one of the top 5 LBs in the league. I'm not sure I can say that. So, if he wants that kind of money, I think we have to let him go. Similarly with Nate. if he wants to be paid as the top CB in the league, do we place all our eggs in that basket? Again, I'd vote let him go.

 

I'm all for keeping both of these guys, but I'm not about doing it at all costs just because they're 2 of the best players on the 29th (or whatever we were) ranked defense.

 

I wouldn't care to pay Fletcher big bucks either. The chronic reality is, that this team has little bench, regardless of position. They were fortunate that the slew of injuries that fell on other clubs passed by.

[JimBob2232]

I wouldn't care to pay Fletcher big bucks either. The chronic reality is, that this team has little bench, regardless of position. They were fortunate that the slew of injuries that fell on other clubs passed by.

 

They did?

Spikes, Vincent, Milloy, Crowell & McCargo all missed time the last 2 years. And thats just the defense. Fletcher is one of the few guys who has stayed healthy.

 

I'm not one who is big on resigning fletcher. Its better to let a guy go a year too early than a year too late, but come on guys, you cant doubt that fletcher has been a stud and has a few more good years left in him. If he doesnt break the bank, you have to get it done.

[Kelly the Dog]

God help them if they did. If the owners even talked about that over cocktails, that's collusion. MLB owners tried that one year and got sued so fast and lost their shirts. It may happen, but doubt the NFL owners would be dumb enough to talk about it.

IMO, there is technical collusion and there is serious collusion. I wouldn't call a couple owners having drinks and one of them saying "Look at the crap that's out there and all that money. If we start paying 40 million for this joker, that joker will want 80". Technically, that may be collusion. But unless they start calling each other and saying lets not go crazy guys, we need to keep the prices down so we all benefit, spread the word," those are two different animals.

[Dan]

They did?

Spikes, Vincent, Milloy, Crowell & McCargo all missed time the last 2 years. And thats just the defense. Fletcher is one of the few guys who has stayed healthy.

 

I'm not one who is big on resigning fletcher. Its better to let a guy go a year too early than a year too late, but come on guys, you cant doubt that fletcher has been a stud and has a few more good years left in him. If he doesnt break the bank, you have to get it done.

I agree completely. I have absolutely no problem re-signing Fletcher, but I don't think we can nor should make him one of the top 5 paid LBs.

 

Nate, also, is a great player and definitely one I'd love to see back. But, again, at what price? If re-signing Nate diminishes our ability to stregthen the lines, then I'd say its a bad decision.

 

Given Marv's statements, past and present, I think that's the approach he'll take. He'll make both fair offers and we'll see what the market bears. I could see Fletcher possibly staying, but like most, I think someone will pay Clements way too much money and he'll be elsewhere.

[ChevyVanMiller]

Sorry, can't do a link, but Peter King thinks some team will pay Fletcher $6 million per year. He adds that his "upset special for a no-name guy who will get the richest: Buffalo defensive end Chris Kelsay." I don't even want to think about the kind of dollars that Clements will be getting.

 

With crazy amounts to be spent in free agency this year, what a terrible lack of planning not to have re-signed Clements a long time ago and to announce a cash to cap strategy for this year.

 

I guess King must have had Sunday brunch with Marv. Talk about clairvoyant.