PDA

View Full Version : Clements Franchise Tag Is Now Only 5.89 Mil


Night Train
02-03-2006, 04:51 AM
NFLPA released their new figures on Thursday. The figure for DB's dropped from 8.8 Mil to 5.89 Mil. - according to Fridays Buffalo News. With expected cuts of certain players, it's now a foregone conclusion.

Nate isn't going anywhere.

Also, Jauron announced Fewel is going to run a 4-3 Cover 2 Defense. Learned it well under Lovie Smith in Chicago.
ddaryl
02-03-2006, 04:58 AM
but NC is not a franchiseable CB

I'd throw the transition on him, but he did not do enough to deserve the franchise tag, unless the Bills have suitors
clumping platelets
02-03-2006, 05:24 AM
Already had this info in the salary cap forum a few days ago :(
LtFinFan66
02-03-2006, 05:25 AM
Way to be on the ball Clump
vicmantak
02-03-2006, 05:47 AM
but NC is not a franchiseable CB

I'd throw the transition on him, but he did not do enough to deserve the franchise tag, unless the Bills have suitors
Sorry but what did you mean?
Are you sure that Nate Clements is not franchisable?
ddaryl
02-03-2006, 06:00 AM
He is franchiseable if the Bills want to, but IMO we should not place the franchise tag on him unless we have definite suitors line up to give us a #1 pick.

NC did not play at a top 5 CB level last year, therefore you don't pay him top 5 CB money IMO. If we do pay him that we over paid. NC needed a stand out season in 2005 , and that didn't happen.

We can use the transition tag and have 1st right to match. Should cost us less $$$
don137
02-03-2006, 06:01 AM
The heck with the NFLPA, we have the Clumspter which hit it right on the head...
At 5.9 million NC is worth it because if the Bills do not want him he is very marketable at that price.
Night Train
02-03-2006, 06:42 AM
Already had this info in the salary cap forum a few days ago :(

No disrespect. Your hard work finding that info is fantastic. Just passing on a news article.
ICE74129
02-03-2006, 06:56 AM
Nate IS going somewhere. That number makes it easier to trade him. NYG will only have to eat an immediate 5.9 mill vs 8-10 to trade for him. Then they hammer out a long term deal.

Look we have 6.5 or so going into FA. We have less than a month before the start of FA and unless something is done cap wise, we have less than 1 mill to start FA with (Thanks you fuggin moron Donahoe!) if we tag and don't trade Clements.

There is no way he just walks. He will walk up the turnpike to NE and do it on the first day of FA and just about everyone knows it.
Saratoga Slim
02-03-2006, 07:09 AM
but it does make it a no brainer to slap the franchise tag on him. the thought of eating 5.8 if we can't do a trade is not scary enough to let him walk for nothing. and like you said ICE, it makes him much more tradeable if that is what we want to do. 5.8 is simply not enough to scare most teams with cap space away from a CB of Nate's caliber
ICE74129
02-03-2006, 08:04 AM
but it does make it a no brainer to slap the franchise tag on him. the thought of eating 5.8 if we can't do a trade is not scary enough to let him walk for nothing. and like you said ICE, it makes him much more tradeable if that is what we want to do. 5.8 is simply not enough to scare most teams with cap space away from a CB of Nate's caliber

At least get a high 2nd for the guy. Don't just let him walk
ddaryl
02-03-2006, 11:49 AM
Yeah after rethinking this We should definitely slap the tag on Nate. He is an asset, and letting him just walk for nothing is rediculous. Plus we can work out a long term deal that's less the the Franchise number, with more then the franchise cash as a signing bonus. Yearly cap hits could be 5 mil or less.

He had an off year like the rest of our D, but if our D gets back in form you can expect Nate to be looking like a pro bowler again.
Griz78
02-03-2006, 11:55 AM
ddaryl is right on, we need assets. Whether we keep him or not, we need something. Honestly, if we do not get a low 1st for him, I'd keep him. It is only about 2 mill more than what we paid him last year and at least he plays. We'd be better off trimming fat in Williams, Posey, B.Anderson, Neufeld.
Devin
02-03-2006, 01:54 PM
Where else would we use the franchise tag this year?

For that price I tag him and worst case hes here 1 more year.
clumping platelets
02-03-2006, 08:26 PM
No brainer......tag him

Just so y'all know......most teams no longer have transition tags available. I'm, not sure if the Bills do but transition tag is NOT the way to go if they do....why? YOU CANNOT TRADE A PLAYER WHO HAS BEEN TRANSITIONED
Billsrock4life
02-04-2006, 10:39 AM
Where else would we use the franchise tag this year?

For that price I tag him and worst case hes here 1 more year.

exactly they should be able to keep him 4 atleast 1 more year
patmoran2006
02-04-2006, 12:44 PM
At 5.9 million, he WILL get tagged..
IMO< he's not worth it.. BUT, this defense cant take any steps back, only forward. They will not get anyone better than him at that spot, and have plenty of chances to trim money in other cuts to make the front four better..

Forget about a trade.. For one, it just wont happen,... For another, a team would be paying a lot more than 5.9 mill for him. A team will not trade for him unless they know they can sign him long term and Nate as well all know wont sign a long term deal for less.

If we don't tag him by some chance.. KC or NE are the two teams I can see him going to.