When is the first day of free agency?

[ICE74129]

The Bills have a lot of work to do in regards to the cap. I wonder what is the first day this year?

[Dr. Lecter]

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/faq.asp

March 3.

[Dr. Lecter]

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/

This has more dates and info.

[ICE74129]

Thanks DL. March 3rd. Barely over a month. Sweet! I know the combine got moved up some.

On Feb 8th we can franchise clements. I say don't wait. Franchise then deal with him. Try to have a trade worked out so we can pull it off about 12:01 am on march 3rd and get his number off of our cap.

[patmoran2006]

I'm not sure if Franchising Clements and then trying to trade him is a great idea.

I know this much, with all the interior help we need combined with the piss poor season Clements had, he's not worth the money it will cost to keep him.

[ICE74129]

I'm not sure if Franchising Clements and then trying to trade him is a great idea.

I know this much, with all the interior help we need combined with the piss poor season Clements had, he's not worth the money it will cost to keep him.

I don't let him walk for nothing. He will head straight north to NE and there is no way we need that additional headache. Look I want a first but if say Tenn offers up the 3rd pick in the 2nd round, you take it.

[mysticsoto]

I'm not sure if Franchising Clements and then trying to trade him is a great idea.

I know this much, with all the interior help we need combined with the piss poor season Clements had, he's not worth the money it will cost to keep him.

No. Don't franchise him that fast. Let people look at him - let the Giants talk to him and get enamored with him. Then franchise him and make them pay if they really want him!!!

[ICE74129]

Mystic, he has to be franchised BEFORE the start of FA. You can't let him go talk to a team and them start talking contract then franchise him. do the tag then call the Giants.

[mysticsoto]

Mystic, he has to be franchised BEFORE the start of FA. You can't let him go talk to a team and them start talking contract then franchise him. do the tag then call the Giants.

??? Isn't that what we did with Peerless?

[ICE74129]

??? Isn't that what we did with Peerless?

No. You franchise first then call teams. That is what happened with Peerless. But what you do is tell Clements agent to go find a trade. That is what PP's agent did. We had it all in place by the first day of FA.

[The_Philster]

Without the Bills' permission, no other team can talk to or about any of our free agents until the free agency period begins.

[mysticsoto]

Without the Bills' permission, no other team can talk to or about any of our free agents until the free agency period begins.

And this is what I'm referring to. Give other teams permission now - way before FA starts. Let them fall in love with him before we tell them exactly how much he would cost them...

[Saratoga Slim]

I wouldn't expect this to happen until Marv and Dick have had a chance to at least attempt some negotiations with Nate. Obviously the best case scenario is for us to work out a long-term deal with Nate at a palatable $$. Seems like Marv should try to talk Nate off the ledge before we make it clear that he's tradebait.

Anyway, don't you think most teams will expect Nate to get tagged? I mean, it seems pretty silly to let him walk for nothing. If we negotiate smart, we make it clear that Nate's bad year was the result of the D unit's problems as a whole, and that he is still a top-5 corner in the league. He may not have as good a claim as the best 1-2 in the league as he did at the beginning of the season, but i think its still a fiarly strong case that he's in the top 5. If so, someone's going to be willing to eat his tag salary.

And I think someone will give us a #1 for him. I would be OK with a #2 also, so long as its a high #2. And I'd also be up for a trade for a veteran G, DT or DE.

[mysticsoto]

I wouldn't expect this to happen until Marv and Dick have had a chance to at least attempt some negotiations with Nate. Obviously the best case scenario is for us to work out a long-term deal with Nate at a palatable $$. Seems like Marv should try to talk Nate off the ledge before we make it clear that he's tradebait.

Anyway, don't you think most teams will expect Nate to get tagged? I mean, it seems pretty silly to let him walk for nothing. If we negotiate smart, we make it clear that Nate's bad year was the result of the D unit's problems as a whole, and that he is still a top-5 corner in the league. He may not have as good a claim as the best 1-2 in the league as he did at the beginning of the season, but i think its still a fiarly strong case that he's in the top 5. If so, someone's going to be willing to eat his tag salary.

And I think someone will give us a #1 for him. I would be OK with a #2 also, so long as its a high #2. And I'd also be up for a trade for a veteran G, DT or DE.

All I'm saying is to handle it like we did Peerless. Allow other teams to talk to him, so they don't get their heart set too quickly in getting a CB from the draft. Many teams were at the senior bowl this past week looking heavily at players and the Giants were reportedly looking strongly at some of the CBs that would be available. Let them talk to Nate from the onset so they don't make too many plans and then decide not to even consider Nate. But that doesn't mean Marv isn't trying to negotiate something with him either. In the mean time, make alternate plans just in case we will not have him next year. To tell you the truth, I consider Nate a decent CB, but not an elite one, and so I won't be too upset if we lose him. But the price better be worth it...

The Giants drafting at number 25...atleast the 1st 2 top CBs will be gone. So I feel we should get more than just a 1st rd pick. Otherwise, the Giants come out winning, trading a low 1st rd pick for a top/decent CB with good pro experience...

[ICE74129]

All I'm saying is to handle it like we did Peerless. Allow other teams to talk to him, so they don't get their heart set too quickly in getting a CB from the draft. Many teams were at the senior bowl this past week looking heavily at players and the Giants were reportedly looking strongly at some of the CBs that would be available. Let them talk to Nate from the onset so they don't make too many plans and then decide not to even consider Nate. But that doesn't mean Marv isn't trying to negotiate something with him either. In the mean time, make alternate plans just in case we will not have him next year. To tell you the truth, I consider Nate a decent CB, but not an elite one, and so I won't be too upset if we lose him. But the price better be worth it...

The Giants drafting at number 25...atleast the 1st 2 top CBs will be gone. So I feel we should get more than just a 1st rd pick. Otherwise, the Giants come out winning, trading a low 1st rd pick for a top/decent CB with good pro experience...

We applied the tag to peerless before his agent started talking to other teams. Feb 8th I think is the first day you can tag a guy and I bet we do it on that date. I bet we also hear Marv told his agent feel free to look for a trade. The giants pick would be great to have.

[mysticsoto]

We applied the tag to peerless before his agent started talking to other teams. Feb 8th I think is the first day you can tag a guy and I bet we do it on that date. I bet we also hear Marv told his agent feel free to look for a trade. The giants pick would be great to have.

I don't think it's enough. I think it should be a 1st and a 3rd or 4th. If they try and draft a CB for them to start and theoretically improve their team, they are automatically getting at best the 3rd best Dback in the draft. And one that doesn't have any experience. Nate has excellent experience and should be an automatic improvement to a team that was very close to the playoffs.

[ICE74129]

I don't think it's enough. I think it should be a 1st and a 3rd or 4th. If they try and draft a CB for them to start and theoretically improve their team, they are automatically getting at best the 3rd best Dback in the draft. And one that doesn't have any experience. Nate has excellent experience and should be an automatic improvement to a team that was very close to the playoffs.


But he nor any CB is worth QB money and that is what they are getting these days. No way. Put the money in both lines and this team is much better off even without clements.

[mysticsoto]

But he nor any CB is worth QB money and that is what they are getting these days. No way. Put the money in both lines and this team is much better off even without clements.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying pay him QB type money. I'm saying trade him, but get more than a 1st rd. There really aren't any other CBs available so it would be up to whether a coach would want to have a young new draftee taking the position. For ones like the Giants where they are very close to being a playoff contention team, they may be willing to part with a little more. Atleast you try and if you have to come down later...so be it.

[Dont drink the water]

But he nor any CB is worth QB money and that is what they are getting these days. No way. Put the money in both lines and this team is much better off even without clements.

It is NOT QB money. Good QBs get a big signing bonus which does not factor into franchise factor. He is getting a one year deal and takes all the risks of getting hurt.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying pay him QB type money. I'm saying trade him, but get more than a 1st rd. There really aren't any other CBs available so it would be up to whether a coach would want to have a young new draftee taking the position. For ones like the Giants where they are very close to being a playoff contention team, they may be willing to part with a little more. Atleast you try and if you have to come down later...so be it.

The Giants would love to get Clements--his name has already come up in the NYC area press a couple of times as a guy that they will probably target--but they aren't stupid (and neither are most NFL FOs), they know that he had a bad season, is looking for more money than he probably deserves, and that, while the Bills are likely to franchise Clements, they don't really want to keep him at what the franchise tag would cost them. The Giants (and I suspect any other team interested in Clements) aren't going to offer more than a 1st Round pick, perhaps not even more than a 2nd Round pick (See Patrick Surtain and KC last year; also Woodson and Buchanon), to the Bills for Clements, knowing that, if the Bills don't accept what they are offered, they will get stuck with Clements at the franchise tag price.

With Peterson's health problems and Allen being a free agent and something of a disappointment thus far, the Giants are the most likely to be willing to give up a # 1 pick for Clements (in part because it is low 1st Round), but it will be hard to find other teams that will be willing to give up that much, let alone more for him. They might be willing to pay him franchise money as a free agent, but not pay him that kind of money AND give up a high draft pick--not when they see how well Denver did with D.Williams and Foxworth or how NE did with Ellis Hobbs, or even how well Seattle did with replacing K.Lucas with the cheaper A.Dyson. With the rules changes that went into effect this year in the passing game, there are very few top-tier CBs who can have that much more of an impact on a game than a next-level-down CB to really be worth the kind of money that the top-tier CBs have been getting paid and that Clements wants.

Just look at McGee vs Clements: is Nate really worth THAT much more money than Terrance? More, yes, but as much as Clements is looking for....? If the Bills don't think so, the teams who might be willing to pay Clements that much aren't going to want to give up a lot in draft choices for the priveledge of paying Clements--especially if they think that, in the end, the Bills might withdraw the tag rather than pay Clements franchise money.

[mysticsoto]

The Giants would love to get Clements--his name has already come up in the NYC area press a couple of times as a guy that they will probably target--but they aren't stupid (and neither are most NFL FOs), they know that he had a bad season, is looking for more money than he probably deserves, and that, while the Bills are likely to franchise Clements, they don't really want to keep him at what the franchise tag would cost them. The Giants (and I suspect any other team interested in Clements) aren't going to offer more than a 1st Round pick, perhaps not even more than a 2nd Round pick (See Patrick Surtain and KC last year; also Woodson and Buchanon), to the Bills for Clements, knowing that, if the Bills don't accept what they are offered, they will get stuck with Clements at the franchise tag price.

With Peterson's health problems and Allen being a free agent and something of a disappointment thus far, the Giants are the most likely to be willing to give up a # 1 pick for Clements (in part because it is low 1st Round), but it will be hard to find other teams that will be willing to give up that much, let alone more for him. They might be willing to pay him franchise money as a free agent, but not pay him that kind of money AND give up a high draft pick--not when they see how well Denver did with D.Williams and Foxworth or how NE did with Ellis Hobbs, or even how well Seattle did with replacing K.Lucas with the cheaper A.Dyson. With the rules changes that went into effect this year in the passing game, there are very few top-tier CBs who can have that much more of an impact on a game than a next-level-down CB to really be worth the kind of money that the top-tier CBs have been getting paid and that Clements wants.

Just look at McGee vs Clements: is Nate really worth THAT much more money than Terrance? More, yes, but as much as Clements is looking for....? If the Bills don't think so, the teams who might be willing to pay Clements that much aren't going to want to give up a lot in draft choices for the priveledge of paying Clements--especially if they think that, in the end, the Bills might withdraw the tag rather than pay Clements franchise money.

I would have to say that the Bills SHOULD tag Clements and if we get stuck with him and can't trade him, so be it. Our choices are to release him and get nothing, or get him for an average of the elite (top 5) vs higher than all the elite, which he would like. Perhaps Fewller (sp ?) can get his best game out of him yet and send him to the pro-bowl next year while getting a real shut down performance out of him during the year.

Of course, alot of that also depends on the pass rush that we have up front. If it were a little better, maybe Nate might get more interceptions and make his tag price worth it to us.

We have 3 choices in my opinion:

1) Tag and trade him - the ideal maybe for everyone. We get something out of it, and he's happy b'cse he gets to make more money elsewhere. The Giants have shown interest, but KC or Jacksonville could easily be interested also - as well as the Patriots (doh!).

2) tag and keep him - not the ideal, but we don't pay the top price that he wants. Atleast we get a decent CB for another year while we perhaps begin breaking in a new one that has been drafted.

3) release him - we get nothing. This is a terrible idea. Some teams lucks out and picks up Clements (Patriots ?) and we're left here without a CB like idiots. That would be poor mgmt on Marv's part and I can't see him allowing that to happen.

Only options 1 and 2 are viable. If you can't do one, you have to do the other.