Tweet
Signing Free Agents a year out of football
What are fellow posters view of signing players who have been a year out of football? I wonder if there is really much difference from signing players who have either been cut or UFA who have not been tendered offers from their teams. In today's league there seems to be the option to
a) either pay huge amounts for players who sometimes do not do as well in new surroundings
b) sign veterans where the concern is how much is left in the tank
c) signing backups to big money deals which can represent a gamble
There also seems to be a trend now with the large cap space for teams to sign their own younger veteran backups with upside to larger deals further compressing the Free Agency market into the very expensive upgrade or the potentially marginal upgrade.
Some teams seem to have success in giving players out of football for a year a second chance and I fail to see why the Bills can't have a look at this.
1) Signing costs would be low and salary bonuses could be based on performance indicators
2) Players don't initially succeed for a variety of reasons (coaching changes, environment, niggling injuries)
3) Players signed are likely to work hard even if they haven't demonstrated this before as they are 'drinking in the last gasp saloon'
4) If the gamble doesn't pay off the cost of doing this is minimal
three players I would like the Bills to take a look at are
Rocky Calmus, ILB, 6ft2, 235lbs .. could be at least a solution at MLB for 2-3 years
Tyrone Calicio, WR, 6ft4, 212lbs .. maybe failed because he was too close to home
Charles Rogers, WR, 6ft3, 225lbs .. been injured and one strike away from a years suspension due to silliness with pot but surely the accountants can work a way to pay him the veteran minimum and have his bonus and signing on fee returnable if he falls foul again
If they don't agree to the terms and conditions offered, then we immediately know they are not interested in football or prepared to work hard
Just my thoughts on the issue
What are fellow posters view of signing players who have been a year out of football? I wonder if there is really much difference from signing players who have either been cut or UFA who have not been tendered offers from their teams. In today's league there seems to be the option to
a) either pay huge amounts for players who sometimes do not do as well in new surroundings
b) sign veterans where the concern is how much is left in the tank
c) signing backups to big money deals which can represent a gamble
There also seems to be a trend now with the large cap space for teams to sign their own younger veteran backups with upside to larger deals further compressing the Free Agency market into the very expensive upgrade or the potentially marginal upgrade.
Some teams seem to have success in giving players out of football for a year a second chance and I fail to see why the Bills can't have a look at this.
1) Signing costs would be low and salary bonuses could be based on performance indicators
2) Players don't initially succeed for a variety of reasons (coaching changes, environment, niggling injuries)
3) Players signed are likely to work hard even if they haven't demonstrated this before as they are 'drinking in the last gasp saloon'
4) If the gamble doesn't pay off the cost of doing this is minimal
three players I would like the Bills to take a look at are
Rocky Calmus, ILB, 6ft2, 235lbs .. could be at least a solution at MLB for 2-3 years
Tyrone Calicio, WR, 6ft4, 212lbs .. maybe failed because he was too close to home
Charles Rogers, WR, 6ft3, 225lbs .. been injured and one strike away from a years suspension due to silliness with pot but surely the accountants can work a way to pay him the veteran minimum and have his bonus and signing on fee returnable if he falls foul again
If they don't agree to the terms and conditions offered, then we immediately know they are not interested in football or prepared to work hard
Just my thoughts on the issue
Comment