carolinatony

We have the money so my question is; would you sign him to a contract?
Is he worth this kind of money for 4/5 years to the Pats? Do we get better value to franchise him and try to trade him.

If you were BB, what would you do?

ironwasp

This is the sort of decision that makes me glad I am not BB. Can he really win here? To resign Samuel, who had a terrific year, costs a small fortune and ties up a lot of cap space, possibly to the extent that it prevents the Pats from addressing other needs in FA.

If he doesn't then you take out the team's best DB of the season, our only play-maker back there now that Rodney is in his dotage, and leave Peyton et al the opportunity to pick on CBs led by Ellis Hobbs - who I like a lot, btw, this is not an attack on him - and probably a rookie, or maybe Geno is the guy can stay on the field through week two.

It's an invidious position to be in. If there's a chance to do a long term deal at a price that doesn't paralyse the team's ability to work the cap for the next five years, then I do it. If there isn't then you franchise him and trade him out of town.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BelichickFan

There's little doubt the best "value" is in trading him. Other than Brady, that's always the case. However these are people, not pieces of fantasy teams, so you can't just move guys in and out.

Look at The Jest, though. They traded Franchised UFA John Abraham for the pick to get Nick Mangold. They got (probably) a better player, certainly a healthier one. He's younger. And he is way cheaper - they can/could spend the extra $5M elsewhere.

The DREAM scenario ? Trade Samuel for something good then use the money we would have signed him with to sign Nate Clements. Get a better CB, maybe at a little more money, and get good draft pick(s). Or sign two good players, say Fletcher and Curtis or the like with the money and take the picks. It's the best VALUE way to go.

satz

what no one is thinking is we go through DB`s at a alarming rate.BB/FO always have a budget for a set position.If you pay asante then will we be okay to not use 15 DB`s and use 4-5 DB`s as they spend all alloted money on asante.

From the last 5 yrs it should tell us that , 1 CB however good is not better than 5-6 avg CB due to our injury history.That is a gamble as if we pay him andm he plays for 3 full yrs withot any injury we are good or else we are screwed as we will no money to hire 10 DB`s over the season.

If we do not sigh and have some dough ...look for a offer made in end 2007 year to Mr Ty Warran as his contract ends in 08 as they did with dan koppen.

__________________
NFL - A perfect american business model .
HarleyDavidson-Turning gas into noise for more than 100 yrs without the side effects of power and still making a tonne of money a great american business model.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

stinkypete

Great point. Samuel is not worth the money if the team is forced to carry 10 defensive backs like it typically does. That would force us to sacrifice quality at other positions.

Franchise and trade Samuel. Bring in a couple of vets to upgrade over Gay and Scott, then bring in a day 1 rookie to compete.

patsgo

if you sign him to a market contract his cap number will be high to, your better off franchising him playing him and making sure hes the real deal, if hes a bust or inconsistent you wont have the cap hits in future years if you sign long term for big bucks. , so you may pay more franchising hin but its almost like insurance, if he performs next year you can pay him or frnchise hin again and trade him

DarrylS

Pretty close to my thoughts also, do not want to overpay Samuel, it will throw the salary structure of the Pats out the window, and will not settle in well with the other 52 guys. I also do not know if this year was the exception or the reality for this guy, last year he played like a nickel this year he played for the contract. Who will emerge in '07, the hungry guy we saw this year or the guy we saw in the '05 year? I favor franchise and trade and am sure if/before they franchise that the trade is already set up.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PonyExpress

I would franchise Samuel. His agent seemed to threaten that Samuel would be "unhappy" if he gets the franchise tag, implying that the Pats might not get a committed player playing at 100% under those circumstances in 2007. Knock yourself out, 'Zant. Samuel does not have a resume that can survive a down year in 2007 if he plays like an "unhappy" man. A down year would degrade his open market value. The Pats have the upperhand here. Franchise him in 2007, franchise him again in 2008 and trade him for a 1st rdr. Use the money you save by trading him to help sign Ty Warren to a long term deal.

MoLewisrocks

We all thought Branch didn't have the resume to survive a holdout - the player always has the upper hand. If they tag him to play, and he agrees to to sign the tag, they are on the hook for almost $8M. If he goes down, or gets dinged and is reluctant to play through it and risk further injury while playing under a tag, they are effectively screwed. If he sits out - which he could do as a franchise player because unlike Branch's situation the sit out gets him to UFA, they get nothing but a comp pick now in 2009. He won't come in in week 10 for $3M because that would allow them to rinse, spin and repeat the same cycle. Belichick wouldn't do that dance with Deion, and he isn't gonna do it with Asante. He will want value for him either on the roster or in trade.

If they can't get a deal done, and it's a good bet they can't given how far apart they were in November when the buzz on Asante was just a murmur, tag and trade him for what should be a pretty decent package of picks and use the $6-8M you don't have to spend on him to improve both the secondary and areas that take pressure off the secondary. That is the Belechick model.

PonyExpress

Maybe I'm wrong, which wouldn't be a surprise. Did the franchise rules change, so you can't franchise a player 2 years in a row? If so, the MoLewis scenario seems best.