Nield

[Tecno]

BOLO left us in free agency, we didn't get rid of him.

Had this conversation before... it's the same thing.  If a guy is up for FA, if we don't offer a contract, it's exactly the same as a cut.  If we wanted him, we'd give him a contract.  And if we really wanted him, we'd match better offers.

You never "lose" anyone in FA unless you want to lose them, or simply don't want to pay up.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Had this conversation before... it's the same thing.  If a guy is up for FA, if we don't offer a contract, it's exactly the same as a cut.  If we wanted him, we'd give him a contract.  And if we really wanted him, we'd match better offers.

You never "lose" anyone in FA unless you want to lose them, or simply don't want to pay up.

I didn't mind the move at the time and can't fault them for letting BOLO go, everyone thought Clercius was going to become more than he has and Woli had many more years of productivity left.  No one ever thought they were going to move to 3 Natl. receivers. 

If BOLO ever became available I'd pursue him and offer him the same salary Nield is now costing, he would be a valuable addition to the receiving corps. if used and not ignored.

[dd]

But we have been known to late-season bench a perceived "safe" player for another PR guy.  Late last season & playoffs we benched Clercius for Corcoran.

It is 100% within Mafia norms to bench a guy like Nield and switch to Corcoran or even Singer (though ratio-changing is rarer for us).

If Nield drops more of those, and especially if he also whiffs on blocks, he could ride the pine.

Aside from Demski and white, everyone else on our receiving corps is expendable/benchable. I don't think they'd bench Neild, he's one of their prized off season acquisitions so he's not likely to be cut or benched. Should he be? Definitely could save some$$ if we re tight on cap space and not lose anything in the process.