PatsFanInVa

Gentlemen,

I'm thinking of the Samuel situation, and every time I see "trade his ***** outta here" or something of that nature, I get a little steamed. Why? Because Branch could be seen as a precedent, and Samuel as a confirmation, that if you hold out or threaten to, you can get traded into the deal of your dreams, although your rights belong to New England.

Here is how I see it:

Samuel (last year, Branch,) have their rights and their tools under the CBA. This includes holding out, filing a grievance, and holding their breath until they turn blue. Whatever. I am not against this exercise of their rights.

The team has its rights and tools under the CBA. This includes franchising a player, trading a player's negotiating rights (at the team's discretion,) cutting the player, etc.

I am not sure these players could play much more hardball than they are now, under this system, short of leaving football. Somebody double-check that. IF Samuel filed a grievance, we now have a grievance on top of a holdout. What else could he do to the team?

By comparison, the team is expected to make the player's dream come true, if not by paying him exactly what he wants -- lately that always seems like top dollar -- or trading him to someone who will.

Let's discuss the idea of making this very, very hard on Asante -- all within the CBA, of course.

The pros: the message gets sent. Make reasonable offers. Don't play hardball with us, we won't with you. Bargain in good faith, and the team will do the same. Yes, Asante "values himself" at 30M guaranteed and an average of $10M/year, according to all the reports we have talked about here. That delusion falls into the category of "his problem." The team does not have a cornerback. That falls into the category of "our problem" (with "our" meaning the team -- yes, this is all from the mgt.s point of view.)

Well, we have "our problem." What else can Asante do to the Pats? Well, there is filing a grievance against the team, for exercising its rights. But unless the Pats have been firing shotguns at his agent or something, I don't understand the grounds.

Shouldn't the Pats consider giving Asante a little taste of how big "his problem" can get?

I don't say this because I hate the guy. I don't say it because I'm mean in general. I say it because this is the second year in a row that players have gone the hardball route. Again, you CBA and cap wizards explain to me how the players could be more hardball in their approach.

So, one option I can think of is, let him sit for 10 games. Refuse to trade him. Make clear that it will not happen, and that he will be franchised again, no ifs, ands, or buts, come next off-season, if it is in the Pats' interests. (That's pretty much what they've done already, except perhaps not in those words.) Then... if all is going well... sit his happy ***** on the bench, and let him be irrelevant for a season.

If all is not going well, let him audition this year, on the off chance that the Pats will let him go elsewhere. Then don't let him go anywhere with a winning record.

I see the value in trades, I really do. But I also see the value of putting a stop to this behavior as best as we can.

Now, the cons...

Players would rightly view New England as a sick, hard-core negotiating "adversary." Some players would just plain never consider playing here. Some draftees would curse the day New England drafted them, and would do so the next day. People would make comments like "Yeah I could play for New England and make five dollars."

And the fact is, this post is somewhat in anger, and in labor-management terms, is obviously management-biased. There is a tendency for fans to be that way, and God help me, I am a fan.

Is it realistic to think the Pats can just plain stonewall an Asante Samuel, to send the message all the way around? What do we think is the percentage of players who think $10M is so much more than (for instance) $8M? 100%? 50%? somewhere in between?

"Demanding" hometown discounts is downright silly. But for every Samuel, there is a Moss, accepting a cheap deal for the chance to prove himself again, and to play for a real contender.

Should we, or should we not, start thinking about getting medieval on these guys?

PFnV

patriot lifer

i like the hardball approach except that if he is put on the inactive list after holding out and signing the tender, then he will accomplish his goal of not risking injury. It would be a win for him.

PatsWickedPissah

Vindictiveness sends the WRONG msg to the team

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

PatsFanInVa

PWP, why? Just playing Devil's advocate here.

Think about it: IF you play hardball, we WILL be asses right back to you.

IF you cut off your nose to spite your face, we WILL respond in kind.

How many actually need the right to go balls-to-the-wall on their "big deal" negotiation? Is it everybody? Is it some but not others?

I don't blame anyone for using the tools... I am just saying, what if the Pats make it so there are consequences?

PFnV

PatsWickedPissah

You yourself cited the downside. Player perception, on the team and FAs.
If Asante sits 10 games, fine. If he can crack the starting lineup in game 11,12, whatever, play him. If he can't, THEN he sits. Odds are injuries will open a spot. The team philosophy is to play the best player. If he sits out, he's a non-person. BB can manage that.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

dhamz

"Make an example of him" is nothing more than emotional fanboy talk.

BB is neither emotional or a fanboy. When Samuel shows up, he'll be judged based on football reasons alone.

PatsSteve1

IMO, BBioli don't hold grudges in these things. I recall many posts here about how BBioli would never have Ty Law back after calling BB a liar yet there he was back the season at good money. I think Bbioli do whatever they think will give them the best chance to win. Whatever they feel that is. I don't think they'll being vindictive does that. These situations are going to happen just about every year and 1 doesn't lead to another, IMO. Each player has different motives.

Brady'sButtBoy

Exactly. BB isn't above briefly sitting someone for being a donk, but he's certainly not going to weaken the team while causing unnecessary trouble for himself.

If Samuel comes back a week before game one he won't be a starter but he'll play on the sub package by the second week. If Samuel plays out of his mind - like he needs to to get a big payday - he'll be a starter by week 4 at the latest.

Ditto for the week 10 scenario...BB won't make him sit just out of spite; but that doesn't mean Samuel will start enough games to be hot again as a FA.

Samuel has blown this chance every which way....

__________________
King of my matchbox sized world

mesoslo

I think this coming season, one team or another will get hit with the injury bug, and asante samuel might be great bait for a trade.

Basicly the patriots will play the first 9 games with a high powered offense and a vanilla BB defense.

If dungy and the colts can do so can the patriots.

Both BB and Asante know this, so they will both hold their positions, Asante will hope a team might want him for a late playoff push.

But having Asante will just make it harder for other teams to scheme against BB, but BB can out scheme the other teams back.

__________________
The Patriots logo looks the best!

PatsFanInVa

"Emotional fanboy talk" indeed. And your list of pros and cons would be...?

Belichick is also savvy enough to know a trend when he sees one. Once again, "football reasons alone" can, for my money, include the outcome of future negotiations.

Probably the truth is somewhere in the middle, that the Pats will be far more likely this time around to keep him under the tag, missing games, then tag him again next year (precisely the outcome Asante claims he feels is most odious.)

I will definitely admit to emotionality while posting, and tied to unsubstantiated rumor of a grievance, no less.

But it made me realize, the Patriots are not using the full set of tools available to them, and (at least in Branch's case,) these players are.

For a number of reasons, my thought on this since the end of last season was a "franchise-to-trade" scenario, such as many here believe will be the case. For all we know, the whole ballet is a tacit agreement for Samuel to end up on someone else's roster prior to September. One day comes the announcement that he's sought and been granted permission to seek a trade, then a week or two later comes news of the blockbuster deal -- and at this point, we breathe a sigh of relief.

But must we go through that every off-season? Why? Where is the yearly holdout threat on the Colts, or the Jets, or the Redskins, or the Texans, for that matter?

I can not help but notice that those who leave routinely become potzers on their new teams, when they are not surrounded by the Pats' system and their old teammates. They are not cashing in (for the most part) on innate skills and pure physical talent. I don't know why those teams do not catch on, and in a way, it's a competitive advantage if the rest of the league is so eager to overpay.

But at the same time, what's it to us if Asante Samuel is unable to showcase his talents elsewhere, or re-join the team 10 games into the season (for us)?

What's it to us if the Pats march on to Arizona, and he never gets fitted for a ring?

Annual holdout threats? Annual grievances? You think that isn't a little on the tired side right about now?

Yeah, there's some emotion there. But there's also a solid fact at the basis of it, which is that the Pats are putting up with holdout threats every year -- and possible that grievance for the second year running as well.

Yes, it is indeed tempting to say "screw it, take off the gloves." If one decided to do so, one would have very solid preventative reasons for it, provided that the consequences were of the intended, versus the unintended variety.

But hey, as I understand it, "this team hates its coach" already!

PFnV