SeanBruschi54

Your point doesnt stick as much as you think. Unless you think Samuel plays at a HOF level then the stuff about Emmit and Jones is moot.

PatsFanInVa

Q, as regards your phrasing, it is at the least unfortunate, but certainly not as unfortunate as what you're passing off as reasoning.

I'm editing to directly answer your question here (left out in my first draft):

Of course Merriwether's understanding of the Pats' team will be influenced by what happens with the franchise tag in Samuel's case. Just as important, Merriwether's agent's understanding will be influenced by it.

You ask a hypothetical as if to dismiss it: Do you really think Merriwether will not try as hard? My answer is that motivations come from a number of sources, about which more later. But I see it as a distinct possibility. "Do you really think a player tries harder in his contract year?" The question has the same ring, but the answer, based on the data we all have access to, is a resounding yes.

MY GOD!! You mean they are dogging it until their contract year!??!?!?!? You must not respect them much!

No, that is just how incentives work.

First of all, we either do or do not have a quarrel over the actual options available. Your most recent stand on the matter seems to be that we have a quarrel over only one phrase. Please correct me if this constitutes putting words in your mouth.

Again, my admittedly potentially imperfect reading of your last post, suggests that you also differ with the notion that young players' effort levels could be influenced by perception of incentives, such as those I mentioned in one of my recent posts. You further stipulate that I have a lower degree of respect for our younger players, because I imagine that incentives and disincentives would have an effect on their play.

Oddly enough, I notice that in reality, incentives and disincentives affect every type of contract labor. Were this not the case, we could make everything much cleaner, and give each player the sum total of a multi-year deal's money on day one, and expect said player to perform to his highest potential throughout a multi-year contract.

I respect our young players enough to look at them as human beings, with human motivations. It is the coach's job, on the field, to align those motivations with the team's goals. It is the FO's job, off the field, to structure financial instruments so as to minimize risk, and so as to create workable incentives. Not only the position of bonus payouts, but also the existence of performance escalators, makes this relationship of incentive and contracting painfully obvious to even casual observers.

This being the case, it is erroneous to say that discussing incentives is a priori proof of disrespect of the persons whose behavior we mean to influence through these instruments.

If, however, the particular points I've made about incentives are wrong, as regards the consecutive use of the franchise tag, you are welcome to discuss them. Certainly, the points are speculative.

To me, Q, your reactions look like an adamant emotional reaction to a perfectly reasonable premise.

Is your position that no incentives have an affect on our young and rookie players?

Or is your position that some do and some do not?

Is there a reason why you would class the dynamic I pondered as unlikely to occur?

Do you have counterexamples to cite, in which players expressed pleasure at having been "tagged" for consecutive years? Or perhaps you know of younger players who look forward to the day that they, too, can be tagged for two years running, when their goal is long-term payout?

Or do you believe our young players -- and their agents -- look upon this possibility without any sort of reaction?

If so, why was Samuel's first demand that he not be tagged for consecutive years?

Again, I do not say we should not keep the re-tag option, although I say that we will not re-tag. And in saying that, and in your saying that the FO might well choose the route I've explained, we don't seem to have an issue as to the actual parameters of next year's decision.

The only difference we seem to have is that I believe the FO will appropriately consider the disincentive effect of tagging players in consecutive years. You believe such consideration to be "idiotic."

But you have presented no evidence to suggest that your position has any merit; indeed, the specifics of your position, other than its manifestation as repeated insult, are unclear.

So do clarify: do no incentives exist in the minds of our Noble and True Young Players (or their agents)? Or do only some incentives exist in their minds? Are the ones I discussed particularly unlikely to play a part? If so, why?

PFnV

PatsFanInVa

You're absolutely right.

There are surgeons, however, who will work for Mount Sinai hospital or the Mayo Clinic, even if Community General wants to lure them away with a rock-star bump in salary.

Just adding in a corollary: monetary rewards are the first and foremost rewards for most, almost all, players.

However, non-monetary rewards play various roles in the minds of various players.

My observation thus far leads me to believe that in Samuel's case, non-monetary rewards are not paramount.

PFnV