Asante Samuels and Nate Clements Watch

by Skin Patrol on Feb 19, 2007 10:26 AM EST in Analysis Comment 3 comments

Or should I say, former watch for Asante Samuels as he was recently franchised by the New England Patriots:

The New England Patriots designated Asante Samuel as their franchise player in a move that would keep the cornerback with the team for at least one more season.

The obvious implication for the Redskins is that Samuels, whom many fans had targeted as must-have free agency acquisition, will not be joining us. Perhaps that's best.

So does that mean Clements becomes a marked man in Washington by default? Perhaps, and even moreso now that the Bills are clearly going to let him walk:

The Buffalo Bills will maintain a modest approach to free agency this offseason, all but eliminating their chances of re-signing star cornerback Nate Clements.

Following meetings with team owner Ralph Wilson earlier this week, general manager Marv Levy said that the Bills have budgeted about $30 million to spend on acquiring players when the NFL's free agency period opens March 2.

And the $30 million is of course prohibitively expensive for a player that will demand 20M in signing bonuses alone. Given the Buffalo Bills intriguing approach to Free Agency spending, he's a goner: (emphasis added)

The Bills, Levy explained, arrived at their budget by taking a different approach than other teams. They used the NFL salary cap -- projected to be $109 million this year -- as a ceiling.

Under league rules, teams are allowed to spread guaranteed signing bonuses over the duration of a contract to reduce the cap hit. The Bills, however, count bonuses as dollars spent for that season no matter the contract's length.

"I don't think we're going to, quote, 'mortgage the future,' type of thing," Levy said. "That's the decision that was made."

Meaning Nate Clements will end up with a team that does mortgage its future. Question: What do the Buffalo Bills know about Nate Clements that the rest of the league doesn't?

0 recs | Comment 3 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Maybe...

they really just don't want to spend that much money.

Maybe Wilson and Levy, both 80+, are thinking to themselves "Back in my day, we could resign players for a nickel."

In my opinion, I don't see how signing the best free agent on the market to a market price is "mortgaging the future." Especially when he is one of your guys...

So maybe they do know something...

by TexSkins on Feb 19, 2007 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Their philosophy

is almost counter intuitive, but I totally respect the driving attitude behind it. The Bills refuse to be a team that will ever find themselves in a cap nightmare. By treating signing bonuses as spent the year they sign the player, they remain well below the cap and won't ever find themselves having to restructure ageing veterans to resign other players they want.

This attitude puts them at a comparative disadvantage when signing high profile players who will make big contracts in aggressive free agency, but these players are always overpaid as part of their inflated salary is due merely to the competition of the market.

Nate Clements is the best CB available, but is he worth the asking price? As I argued before, I don't think he's one penny better than Champ Bailey yet he is asking for the highest contract in NFL History for that position (a laurel previously held by Bailey).

The Bills will never "overpay" for a player because their strategy limits them from participating in that kind of bidding war. But isn't there something to be said for that? They have to fill their roster just like the Washington Redskins, meaning they'll do it with cheaper free agents or else draft picks. Many Redskins fans, myself included, feel that strategy has more merit than our current approach.

Also there is a happy medium between our spend-heavy ways and the Bills perhaps questionable frugality. What isn't disputable is that the Buffalo Bills won more games than the Redskins in 2006.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Feb 19, 2007 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs