Reiss take on the Franchise Tag

[cstjohn17]

He has switched and now considers a tag of Samuel to make more sense for the Patriots. I believe this matches the overall opinion of the board. I agree with his logic, there is simply no one behind him on the depth chart. Using the franchise tag is "the biggest no brainer in the history of the earth..."

• Best case - Franchise him - Work out a long-term deal.
• Good case A- Franchise him - Plays under franchise
• Good case B- Franchise him - If they can pickup players that they believe can replace him via the draft or free agency he can be traded.
• Worst case - They let him walk and have to scramble in free agency or the draft to replace him.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/02/franchise_analy.html

"So while we initially thought that the underrated Graham -- perhaps the NFL's best blocking tight end -- might be a more likely option for the franchise tag at $4.3 million, we're calling an audible. After further review, the feeling here is that it would be an upset if Samuel wasn't tagged should he not sign an extension before Feb. 22."

 

[koolaid23]

good point, except i wouldve thought that the "biggest no brainer on earth" was franchising perhaps one of the greatest clutch kickers off all time, and the game winner in all 3 of our super bowls, but apparently the pats brass has other plans. i still hope they franchise samuel though.

 

[zippo59]

The CB franchise is a lot of money though....

He'd have the 2nd biggest cap hit behind Brady.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Koolaid, I think they had already franchised Adam twice by last year. Also disagree that spending on AV in any form was a no-brainer. Look at Gost's work last year -- you can't argue you'd rather have AV in 3 years than Gost (or that you'd rather pay triple the price+ to have Adam, in the interim. Gost missed nothing in the playoffs, remember, and has the stronger leg.)

Totally agree, regarding Samuel. Re-sign if possible, though I doubt Samuel's self-perceived value will match the Pats' Brain-Trust's idea of his value. Otherwise, tag-to-trade. If he ends up playing out the year, he has to play well tagged, because in effect, it's his "contract year" all over again.

I think this might be a year the Pats go the opposite of the usual direction, spending against the future rather than pushing cap hits into the future, based on the deviant inflationary scenario introduced last year, and still working its way through the contracting process now.

Especially attractive is the use of the franchise tag.

PFnV

 

[Murphys95]

PFinVA - you're right. AV had been franchised twice. Once for a season, another time to work out a long-term deal. I never underestimate the impact of "tagging" a player. More often than not it creates animosity. And IMHO, it's one of the things that led AV to look elsewhere at the end of 2005.

As for Samuel, again I'm not sure how he'll react to being franchised. I still feel that the only way the Pats tag him is if it's with the understanding that a long-term deal will be worked out over the Summer.

The tag to trade idea is interesting, but I don't know how viable. Frankly two firsts just doesn't happen very often (only twice that I know of, and even then after long holdouts). But I agree, it would be nice for the Pats to get something in return if Samuel leaves.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Murphy's, yeah, the animosity is expected. This is where the business of football gets pretty nitty gritty, and the player can sink or swim by his maturity in the situation. Of course, a long holdout is not immature, but accepting the tag and sulking through it is. In that scenario, guess what, you still don't "Get Paid."

I'd love to think the tattoo is just a head game, or means something to him like "woo hoo rookie deal is over, now I'll get paid in the millions (plural) every year! What else could I ask for?" I doubt it though. And I doubt Samuel and the Pats will be on the same page.

But of course, none of us know a bloody thing, that's what makes now such a frustrating time. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Pats HQ (I promise I wouldn't tell anybody... just let me sit in guys...)

PFnV

 

[patsox23]

In the end, the Patriots did not make a mistake letting AV go. Gost stepped in and did a good job, and the impact of Adam in Indy and Gost in N.E. can't really be considered a help or hindrance, in terms of what ultimately occurred.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

good point, except i wouldve thought that the "biggest no brainer on earth" was franchising perhaps one of the greatest clutch kickers off all time, and the game winner in all 3 of our super bowls, but apparently the pats brass has other plans. i still hope they franchise samuel though.

Worse case scenario is twofold if they franchise him:

1. He signs the tender and you have a big one year cap hit.

2. He refuses to sign the tender which I think might be a possibility, but you control his rights and in essence he holds out and you still are able to trade him for compensation.

I would imagine he would want to be traded prior to the pre-season when teams have money and his market value is at the highest.

Considering there are essentially only two good corners on the market there is alot of negotiating power in franchising him.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

wow, Reiss finally figured out what most of us on this board figured out a month ago. and by "figured out" i mean we weren't dumb enough to overthink the fact that Asante has a lot of value and you therefore franchise him.

I think players disliking the franchise tag is overanalyzed, especially in the case of Asante "Get Paid" Samuel. he's only re-signing if the Pats offer him the most money. you can tick him off and he'll still re-sign if the Pats offer him the most money.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's a no brainer to Franchise him. Duh.

And the poor CB FA market can be looked at two ways. Sure it hurts our chances of replacing him but it also makes it more likely a team will happily surrender some draft choices to get him.

He'll get a long term deal - either from us or the team we trade him to.

 

[WhiZa]

By season's end I think the pats would have done the same as what they did with AV. It was a huge cost savings with little drop off in production. In fact we had better kickoffs this year because of it.

As for Samuel. I think the tag is a no-brainer. With all the cap space out there the franchise tag numbers are going to sky rocket in a few years. May as well use it now in a weak market. Worst case scenario you can trade for another 1st round pick or not have to worry about CB for another year.

 

[fgssand]

good point, except i wouldve thought that the "biggest no brainer on earth" was franchising perhaps one of the greatest clutch kickers off all time, and the game winner in all 3 of our super bowls, but apparently the pats brass has other plans. i still hope they franchise samuel though.

Except for the fact they promised him they would not use it - and BB kept his word.

Too bad AV did not show NE the respect they deserved and earned in return.

Just, please, don't go blaming the Patriots "brass" for losing him.

As for Samuel, I will go along with the value placed on him by BB/SP - if that means franchise, great, if not - In BB I trust.

 

[unoriginal]

wow, Reiss finally figured out what most of us on this board figured out a month ago. and by "figured out" i mean we weren't dumb enough to overthink the fact that Asante has a lot of value and you therefore franchise him.

I think players disliking the franchise tag is overanalyzed, especially in the case of Asante "Get Paid" Samuel. he's only re-signing if the Pats offer him the most money. you can tick him off and he'll still re-sign if the Pats offer him the most money.

Not if he doesn't let the Patriots match the offer he won't. (see Vinatieri)

Based on where the contract numbers were (far, far apart, by millions) and based on the progress recently in negotiations (none) I'd have to say it looks like the old tag n'trade for Mr. Samuel, if not this year, next year certainly. Samuel has far more value on the trade market than Graham does. I mean, if the Lions want a 2nd rounder for Bly...

 

[BelichickFan]

good point, except i wouldve thought that the "biggest no brainer on earth" was franchising perhaps one of the greatest clutch kickers off all time, and the game winner in all 3 of our super bowls, but apparently the pats brass has other plans.

Not really, Vinatieri would have cost a lot and wouldn't have significant trade value. If we Franchised him we would have kept him at that price. Samuel's different, we can Franchise him but trade him.

 

[MagicMarker]

There were a few other things going on when Vinatieri wasn't tagged last year. He, himself, said he'd welcome the tag (he'd have made about $3 million in 2006). If you recall, though, the collective bargaining agreement had not been approved yet -- if it had been rejected, and the cap stayed at $92 million instead of rising to $102 million, that would have been way to much to pay for a kicker.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

PFinVA - you're right. AV had been franchised twice. Once for a season, another time to work out a long-term deal. I never underestimate the impact of "tagging" a player. More often than not it creates animosity. And IMHO, it's one of the things that led AV to look elsewhere at the end of 2005.

As for Samuel, again I'm not sure how he'll react to being franchised. I still feel that the only way the Pats tag him is if it's with the understanding that a long-term deal will be worked out over the Summer.

The tag to trade idea is interesting, but I don't know how viable. Frankly two firsts just doesn't happen very often (only twice that I know of, and even then after long holdouts). But I agree, it would be nice for the Pats to get something in return if Samuel leaves.

Two firsts almost never happens, but tag and trade is becoming increasingly popular. The Falcons traded a first to the JETS for Abraham PRE DRAFT. As I recall their first was too high, so they found a third partner for the deal, Denver, who traded their late 1st and some additional picks to Atlanta for Atlanta's higher first. Then the Falcons, who had already reached an agreement in principle with Abraham traded the one late round first to NY for the player and signed him to the long term deal NY knew going in they couldn't give him. In fact when they tagged him they couldn't even afford the tag unless they cut players.

If Asante is gone, which is likely if he doesn't sign before FA opens, no reason to care if he leaves happy or pissed. Get value for him. In the best case scenario his agent and the Pats will work together to get the best deal for him with the best compensation for us. If that's a pick early in the second, I'd be happy. 4 of the first 60 players in the 2007 draft or added ammo to maneuver in the first or consider signing a RFA.

 

[spacecrime]

Using the franchise tag is "the biggest no brainer in the history of the earth..."

No brainer is right.

Anyone who thinks it is that simple is definitely a no-brainer.

Worst case scenario may not be let him walk and replace him in free agency. The no brainers think that solves the problem, but it only delays it one year. You replace him now or you replace him later.

We franchised Vinatieri agaisnt his will, and he was so pissed about it he cleaned out his locker the day after the Denver loss, and never came back, never intended to, and certainly never gave the Pats a chance to match the Colts offer.

Players don't like being franchised. There is a lot of stuff that teams must do that players don't like. Franchising is not a must-do.

If the team and player are close in negotiations, and the player won't mind, then franchising is an option to gain more time.

Franchising as a means of forcing player to be here against his will is such a stupid idea, I cannot believe anyone espouses it. If this is the case with Samuel, that they are close to an agreement, frachising is okay. Otherwise it is a disaster waiting to happen.

The best case scenario is that you have an unhappy player who keeps his unhapiness in the lockerroom and not across the media. Worst case is a repeat of the Deion fiasco, but whereas Deion was totally wrong and violated his contract and was a ****, in this case the Pats would be totally wrong and would deserve every bad thing that happened post-franchise.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No brainer is right.

Anyone who thinks it is that simple is definitely a no-brainer.

Worst case scenario may not be let him walk and replace him in free agency. The no brainers think that solves the problem, but it only delays it one year. You replace him now or you replace him later.

We franchised Vinatieri agaisnt his will, and he was so pissed about it he cleaned out his locker the day after the Denver loss, and never came back, never intended to, and certainly never gave the Pats a chance to match the Colts offer.

Players don't like being franchised. There is a lot of stuff that teams must do that players don't like. Franchising is not a must-do.

If the team and player are close in negotiations, and the player won't mind, then franchising is an option to gain more time.

Franchising as a means of forcing player to be here against his will is such a stupid idea, I cannot believe anyone espouses it. If this is the case with Samuel, that they are close to an agreement, frachising is okay. Otherwise it is a disaster waiting to happen.

The best case scenario is that you have an unhappy player who keeps his unhapiness in the lockerroom and not across the media. Worst case is a repeat of the Deion fiasco, but whereas Deion was totally wrong and violated his contract and was a ****, in this case the Pats would be totally wrong and would deserve every bad thing that happened post-franchise.

Except if you tag him knowing he won't sign and may not play - then you essentially tag and trade him. The tag in this case probably increases Asante's already inflated market value. If that pisses him off, so be it. He'll be gone in trade before the draft and we'll have another day one pick at least with which to fill the position.

I doubt he would play for the tag, and I doubt the Pat's would assume he would after the Deion lesson (sometimes the player means it).

 

[spacecrime]

If Asante is gone, which is likely if he doesn't sign before FA opens, no reason to care if he leaves happy or pissed. Get value for him. In the best case scenario his agent and the Pats will work together to get the best deal for him with the best compensation for us.

This is silly. You CANNOT get value for him unless he wants you to get value. You cannot trade him under the tag unless he wants to be traded. You describe the best case scenario. You say there is no reason to care if he is happy or pissed and expect the agent to go along with the Pats best case scenario when they are denying Samuel what he wants for no other reason then for them to get a draft pick.

If he is pissed, how are you going to trade him? All he has to do is refuse to sign a deal with the team the pats want to trade with. You can't trade the tag. If he doesn't sign a deal, there is no trade.

He has three choices if he is unhappy. He doesn't sign the franchise agreement until hours before the opening game. Then he doesn't have to attend any training camp functions at all. He shows up, gets paid, but doesn't get used much because he was not part of training camp and does not know any of the new plays.

Choice B is to not sign the agreement at all, to sit out until he feels like signing. He loses money, but the pats are up the creek. They have no CB. And if they trade for one during the season, but they have to keep 7.9 million of free space because Samuel can sign at any time. If they withdraw the tag, Samuel is a FA and the Pats have sent a clear message to every player in the league that they are a-holes.

Choice C is to sign the tag hours before the opening game, and talk to the press about anything he wants, describe every players injury, whatever he wants. Pats will take one week of this before dropping the tag and Samuel will be a FA and the Pats will be the same A-holes they were with choice B.

 

[spacecrime]

Except if you tag him knowing he won't sign and may not play - then you essentially tag and trade him.

Read post 19 and tell me how you will trade him if he insists on being a free agent and refuses to agree to a contract with any trading partner.