colin Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 corners being overpriced in FA means you SHOULD draft one as that is the only way to get them at a low enough price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 In particular when one takes into account that th Bills were committed to a scheme within which a CB who covers WRs all over the field is not going to be utilized in that way, it made perfect football sense to do what the Bills did which was to wish NC well but let him go. It would have been dumb even to franchise him another time as the market required a payment of the average of the top 5 CBs in the league and we were not going to utilize NC in that way even if he stepped up his play. Even if all that were true, the Bills should've franchised him to get a first-rounder in a trade. By not franchising him and letting him leave without compensation, the Bills cost themselves the addition of a talented player to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Even if all that were true, the Bills should've franchised him to get a first-rounder in a trade. By not franchising him and letting him leave without compensation, the Bills cost themselves the addition of a talented player to the team. actually, just the opposite - by not tagging clements they had room to sign dockery.......with the tag that wouldn't have happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 actually, just the opposite - by not tagging clements they had room to sign dockery.......with the tag that wouldn't have happened No, they wouldn't have had to pay Clements. The idea is to franchise him to retain his rights until a trade could be worked out with another team. The Raiders gave up a high second-rounder and a fifth-rounder for DeAngelo Hall. I'm betting Clements would've netted a low first-rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 No, they wouldn't have had to pay Clements. The idea is to franchise him to retain his rights until a trade could be worked out with another team. The Raiders gave up a high second-rounder and a fifth-rounder for DeAngelo Hall. I'm betting Clements would've netted a low first-rounder. and you think dockery would have sat around waiting to get signed? of course not, he would have signed elsewhere......wasn't worth tying up all those cap dollars while quality free agents were getting snapped up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playman Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 corners being overpriced in FA means you SHOULD draft one as that is the only way to get them at a low enough price. so very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 and you think dockery would have sat around waiting to get signed? of course not, he would have signed elsewhere......wasn't worth tying up all those cap dollars while quality free agents were getting snapped up Umm, you work out the trade BEFORE the start of free agency. Why do I have to explain this stuff? There's always about a 3 week period between when you can first designate a franchise player and the start of free agency. In actuality, the not exactly free spending Bills probably had a much longer timeframe than 3 weeks because they probably had plenty of cap room. Your entire point rests on an assumption that the Bills were up against the salary cap and could not have fit both Clements and Dockery under the cap, despite the ability to prorate bonuses and backload contracts of newly signed free agents. I doubt that is true unless you can provide a link, and even if it were true, they still had 3 weeks. Why do you think teams franchise players all the time, even if they end up trading them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 No, they wouldn't have had to pay Clements. The idea is to franchise him to retain his rights until a trade could be worked out with another team. The Raiders gave up a high second-rounder and a fifth-rounder for DeAngelo Hall. I'm betting Clements would've netted a low first-rounder Huge assumption here. The only way you get a low first rounder is if a team with a low first round pick signs him. Seeing as how SanFran was the team interested in him, they would have had to give up a high first rounder. Maybe that would be something they wouldn't want to do. So maybe they don't sign Clements. So maybe he stays on the team last year, sucks it up and plays remarkably average because he's pissed, tells other FAs don't sign with Buffalo because we have no Applebees, walks this year, and here we are today talking about how the front office failed because they didn't sign a long-term contract with a player that made it pretty clear that he wanted out of Buffalo. Furthermore, plenty of teams franchise big name players only to have those players stay. How often does a franchised player actually switch teams. Sure it happens, but (without looking it up), I'm willing to bet that the majority of the time a player is franchised, he plays for that team. To sign a franchised player, you have to pay lots of money and draft picks. It seems like a high price. Hence, Moss is still in NE, Briggs stayed in Chicago, Haynesworth is a Titan, and so on. I find all this talk of CBs interesting. Exactly what big hole did losing Clements create? Greer stepped in and did well enough. CB play was far from the weakest link on defense. So, until we use the #11 pick on a CB, can we all step back, take a breath and talk about the real needs on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Huge assumption here. The only way you get a low first rounder is if a team with a low first round pick signs him. Seeing as how SanFran was the team interested in him, they would have had to give up a high first rounder. Maybe that would be something they wouldn't want to do. So maybe they don't sign Clements. So maybe he stays on the team last year, sucks it up and plays remarkably average because he's pissed, tells other FAs don't sign with Buffalo because we have no Applebees, walks this year, and here we are today talking about how the front office failed because they didn't sign a long-term contract with a player that made it pretty clear that he wanted out of Buffalo. Furthermore, plenty of teams franchise big name players only to have those players stay. How often does a franchised player actually switch teams. Sure it happens, but (without looking it up), I'm willing to bet that the majority of the time a player is franchised, he plays for that team. To sign a franchised player, you have to pay lots of money and draft picks. It seems like a high price. Hence, Moss is still in NE, Briggs stayed in Chicago, Haynesworth is a Titan, and so on. I find all this talk of CBs interesting. Exactly what big hole did losing Clements create? Greer stepped in and did well enough. CB play was far from the weakest link on defense. So, until we use the #11 pick on a CB, can we all step back, take a breath and talk about the real needs on the team. Low first-rounder, high second-rounder, whatever -- I'm sure you wouldn't scoff at adding such an asset to the team? Why didn't the Bills TRY to get something for Clements? I mean, I know why -- they made that silly promise not to franchise him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted April 22, 2008 Author Share Posted April 22, 2008 Even if all that were true, the Bills should've franchised him to get a first-rounder in a trade. By not franchising him and letting him leave without compensation, the Bills cost themselves the addition of a talented player to the team. If memory serves me right, NC agreed to be franchised in 06 with the explicit promise by Marv that they wouldn't slap the tag on him again in 07. Not that they needed him to agree, but that was the deal. Could Marv have gone back on his word? Sure, but the FO's credibility with the players would have tanked. You can fault the Bills for agreeing to this in the first place, but not for sticking by their promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Umm, you work out the trade BEFORE the start of free agency. Why do I have to explain this stuff? There's always about a 3 week period between when you can first designate a franchise player and the start of free agency. In actuality, the not exactly free spending Bills probably had a much longer timeframe than 3 weeks because they probably had plenty of cap room. Your entire point rests on an assumption that the Bills were up against the salary cap and could not have fit both Clements and Dockery under the cap, despite the ability to prorate bonuses and backload contracts of newly signed free agents. I doubt that is true unless you can provide a link, and even if it were true, they still had 3 weeks. Why do you think teams franchise players all the time, even if they end up trading them? and your entire point rests on an flawed assumption that other teams would be dumb enough to think that bills were going to keep clements and thus would pay them a high draft pick just for the right to throw tons and tons of money at him! why does SF (or any team for that matter) work out a trade when it's obvious the bills aren't going to keep the tag on him?? all they have to do is wait them out, no?? seems pretty ridiculous that any team would take the bills seriously and it's extremely likely they would just make them squirm and address the need elsewhere or hope that the bills lifted the tag as for your link, here ya go: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=4621 so with what the bills had to spend it would have been impossible to re-sign kelsey and sign dockery/walker while also tagging clements........it was an either/or proposition, and i'm glad they chose dockery over clements because if they tried to get cute with clements the situation could have dragged out for a month (like the hall situation did) and the end result would have been the bills missing out on a guy the caliber of dockery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 If memory serves me right, NC agreed to be franchised in 06 with the explicit promise by Marv that they wouldn't slap the tag on him again in 07. Not that they needed him to agree, but that was the deal. Could Marv have gone back on his word? Sure, but the FO's credibility with the players would have tanked. You can fault the Bills for agreeing to this in the first place, but not for sticking by their promises. I agree. I'm definitely not faulting them for sticking by their promise. In fact, when others wanted the Bills to go back on their word to Clements a year ago, I argued against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 and your entire point rests on an flawed assumption that other teams would be dumb enough to think that bills were going to keep clements and thus would pay them a high draft pick just for the right to throw tons and tons of money at him! why does SF (or any team for that matter) work out a trade when it's obvious the bills aren't going to keep the tag on him?? all they have to do is wait them out, no?? seems pretty ridiculous that any team would take the bills seriously and it's extremely likely they would just make them squirm and address the need elsewhere or hope that the bills lifted the tag And how would any team know that the Bills wouldn't decide to keep Clements if they couldn't get what they wanted in a trade? as for your link, here ya go: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=4621 so with what the bills had to spend it would have been impossible to re-sign kelsey and sign dockery/walker while also tagging clements........it was an either/or proposition, and i'm glad they chose dockery over clements because if they tried to get cute with clements the situation could have dragged out for a month (like the hall situation did) and the end result would have been the bills missing out on a guy the caliber of dockery Where in your link does it say it they could not have tagged Clements and also signed Dockery / Walker / Kelsay? Remember, bonuses are prorated and contracts are backloaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 And how would any team know that the Bills wouldn't decide to keep Clements if they couldn't get what they wanted in a trade? because the bills publicly stated in that link i provided how much they were going to spend in the '07 off-season.........if they tagged him and then went out and signed dockery/walker they would have been over that number......seems pretty obvious to me and i'm sure an NFL GM could figure that out as well Where in your link does it say it they could not have tagged Clements and also signed Dockery / Walker / Kelsay? Remember, bonuses are prorated and contracts are backloaded. you obviously have no understanding of C2C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 because the bills publicly stated in that link i provided how much they were going to spend in the '07 off-season.........if they tagged him and then went out and signed dockery/walker they would have been over that number......seems pretty obvious to me and i'm sure an NFL GM could figure that out as well How would the GM know that the Bills intended to sign Dockery / Walker, and at the figures they were signed at? you obviously have no understanding of C2C I understand it just fine. The only thing that's happening here is you desperately trying to save face. It's pathetic. Instead of just saying, "Oh, my bad. I forgot about the three weeks between the franchise date and the start of free agency," which would have been perfectly understandable, you're being intentionally dense to prolong a losing argument that nobody even cares about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 How would the GM know that the Bills intended to sign Dockery / Walker, and at the figures they were signed at? you said they could have done all of that and still franchised clements.......i've proven that isn't the case I understand it just fine. The only thing that's happening here is you desperately trying to save face. It's pathetic. Instead of just saying, "Oh, my bad. I forgot about the three weeks between the franchise date and the start of free agency," which would have been perfectly understandable, you're being intentionally dense to prolong a losing argument that nobody even cares about. i proved that the bills couldn't have resigned kelsey, signed dockery, and signed walker while also franchising clements, which is completely contrary to your claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 you said they could have done all of that and still franchised clements.......i've proven that isn't the case i proved that the bills couldn't have resigned kelsey, signed dockery, and signed walker while also franchising clements, which is completely contrary to your claims No, you haven't. You're also not understanding that the Bills can both use a "cash to cap" philosophy (dealing with real dollars) and also be aware of how they are complying with the salary cap (dealing with salary cap dollars). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 No, you haven't. You're also not understanding that the Bills can both use a "cash to cap" philosophy (dealing with real dollars) and also be aware of how they are complying with the salary cap (dealing with salary cap dollars). let's play this out as you suggest: the bills tag clements the bills sign dockery and walker the bills are now over on C2C (temporarily) but under the salary cap this is what your proposing the bills should have done, correct? do you not think other teams would have realized they were over the C2C once they signed those two players? why wouldn't they just wait for the bills to lift the tag, knowing full well that they didn't have the room to carry him going forward? but you say he would have been traded the minute the clock struck midnight for the free agency period, thus giving the bills a pick and still giving them the dollars to sign dockery and walker? what if they couldn't trade him right away? what do you do then? how long do you wait until you lift the tag? how many marquee free agents do you watch sign elsewhere? but wait, what happens if clements signs the f-tag and it becomes guaranteed? oops, your now over the C2C permanently and have really screwed things up does this seem like a risk that the bills should have taken just to ATTEMPT to get a draft pick? it came down to either tagging clements and trying to get something out of him or being active in free agency.........it was never a realistic option to do both......it really isn't that hard to understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 let's play this out as you suggest: the bills tag clements the bills sign dockery and walker the bills are now over on C2C (temporarily) but under the salary cap this is what your proposing the bills should have done, correct? do you not think other teams would have realized they were over the C2C once they signed those two players? why wouldn't they just wait for the bills to lift the tag, knowing full well that they didn't have the room to carry him going forward? but you say he would have been traded the minute the clock struck midnight for the free agency period, thus giving the bills a pick and still giving them the dollars to sign dockery and walker? what if they couldn't trade him right away? what do you do then? how long do you wait until you lift the tag? how many marquee free agents do you watch sign elsewhere? but wait, what happens if clements signs the f-tag and it becomes guaranteed? oops, your now over the C2C permanently and have really screwed things up does this seem like a risk that the bills should have taken just to ATTEMPT to get a draft pick? it came down to either tagging clements and trying to get something out of him or being active in free agency.........it was never a realistic option to do both......it really isn't that hard to understand You again gloss over the 3 week period between tagging a player and the start of free agency. I noticed above you ignored my question about how GMs could've known what the Bills free agency plans were during that 3 week period. I don't blame you for ignoring the question, of course, since it renders your arguments moot. You also now apparently believe that due to a press release about cash to cap, that other teams had a complete grasp on the Bills financial situation and whether they would've been willing to re-sign Clements or not. Right. Uh huh. And that Clements would've signed a one year offer instead of exploring his options for a long-term contract. Right. Uh huh. Can't you just say "I forgot about that 3 week period" and be done with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 You again gloss over the 3 week period between tagging a player and the start of free agency. I noticed above you ignored my question about how GMs could've known what the Bills free agency plans were during that 3 week period. I don't blame you for ignoring the question, of course, since it renders your arguments moot. You also now apparently believe that due to a press release about cash to cap, that other teams had a complete grasp on the Bills financial situation and whether they would've been willing to re-sign Clements or not. Right. Uh huh. And that Clements would've signed a one year offer instead of exploring his options for a long-term contract. Right. Uh huh. Can't you just say "I forgot about that 3 week period" and be done with this? i ignored the "3 week period" because once again your facts are wrong - a team cannot trade a player before free agency opens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts