If the Patriots can trade Samuel its a BIG win

[BradyManny]

If we had a 2nd round CB sitting around then I'd feel great about trading him.

Well...technically, we do...he's just been playing safety for us....And while I'm not necessarily comfortable with moving Wilson back to CB and just assuming everything will work out, who was comfortable with him moving to S to replace Milloy? An NFL team is not going to go into the season with every starting position filled with a sure thing, it just doesn't happen.

So, if it comes to it, Wilson-Hobbs at CB might be fine, with Gay and James as backups.

 

[solman]

The only issue I have is we haven't really replaced him. Tory James could be OK but that's it from what I see. Gay ? He's OK too. Low picks from the past couple of years. If we had a 2nd round CB sitting around then I'd feel great about trading him.

I like Hobbs and Gay as starters. I don't think either of them are as good as Assante. But if they remain healthy, there is certainly the possibility that they could have breakout seasons the same way Asante did last year.

I don't know if Tory James can deliver or not, but I'm hopeful. If we have two starting injuries at CB (an unlikely event for any team but the Patriots) we still have the talent to contend for a Super Bowl, we'll just have a subpar secondary.

 

[Rob0729]

They have?? Jeez it must have been one of the Superbowls I missed. Let's see in SB XXXVI they had Ty Law and Otis Smith starting, in SBXXXVIII it was Ty Law and Ty Poole and in SB XXXIX it was Samuel and Randall Gay.

So with starting CBs Randall Gay and Ellis Hobbs, we have a better line-up than any of those do we???

I think Hobbs and Gay is better than Samuel and Gay in 2004 assuming Gay comes back from his injuries to close to what he was. I think Hobbs and James are better than Samuel and Gay from 2004. Samuel wasn't all that in 2004 and Gay was a rookie undrafted free agent. In fact, Samuel was never considered much more than average until late last season.

The fact of the matter is that Hobbs started the season as our #1 CB (playing the left side), not Samuel. That means that going into the season they coaching staff felt Hobbs was better than Samuel and that would certainly mean they felt Hobbs was better than Samuel was in 2004.

I think if Samuel returns this season, I wouldn't be surprised if Hobbs supplants Samuel as the #1 CB again. Hobbs did an excellent job shutting down Lee Evans. He did a far better job dealing with Javon Walker than Samuel did. Walker had three catches with 2 TDs that game. Samuel gave up an 80 yard TD and Hobbs gave up a 30 yard one. Hobbs covered him for most of the game and only allowed Walker to get two catches against him the entire game. In the Jet game, Hobbs did a great job in the first half shutting down Coles. It is unclear when he broke his wrist in that game, but Coles surge in the second half may have coincided with Hobbs' injury.

I still don't get when people all the sudden turned Samuel from an average CB to a shutdown CB. He certainly wasn't anywhere near as good in 2004 as he was last year and I feel his year last year was overrated.

 

[patchick]

Remember that in 2004 Samuel was just an OK player with one interception during the regular season.

He certainly wasn't anywhere near as good in 2004 as he was last year

This is absolutely true, the 2004 Samuel was still just a 2nd-year guy, not nearly the player he's grown to be since then. But...umm...isn't that an argument for proven veterans being more valuable than draft picks?

FWIW I actually agree that Samuel is overrated, but I still like the looks of this defense a lot better with him in the backfield.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Yeah, it's a big win for Samuel.

Right - as I said before, the Pats need to make an example of Samuel to dissuade players from playing this game in the future.

Short term a trade and draft pick makes sense. Long term in this game of "chicken" the organization can't back down and give into Samuels public demands.

Hopefully there can be a behind the scenes compromise in which Samuel at least will report to camp and play the entire season with the undertanding he won't be franchised next season, if not have a long term deal worked out by July 14th.

But if Samuel makes a public demand not to be franchised, that comes off the table as the Pats can no longer publically give in. Should he hold out, if I were BB I'd recommend franchising him next year, and the year after, and the year after that, as long as he threatens to continue to hold out until the 10th game each season.

Yes it will be painful for everyone short term but longterm we've got to break this trend.

 

[stcjones]

Since discovering the existence of the cap your obcession with it has begun to warp your perception of value in team building. Cap space doesn't trump talent, it allows you to acquire or retain it. The Pat's actually want Asante to stay and play here - otherwise they would have goaded him into screaming louder sooner and traded "roughly zero" for that draft pick prior to the 2007 draft. They have offered him a long term deal that averages $6M per and therefore likely includes a double digit signing bonus well in excess of $7.8M, which means they do not share your cap value/holdout induced view of him as a $2M player. Nor do they covet that potential $10M cumulative draft value down the road more than the substantially greater than zero value of having playmaking talent and stability in their backfield for the upcoming season, not to mention the next 4-5 seasons.

If they end up trading him for a 1st in the 2008 draft it will not be a big win, but rather having made the best of an unfortunately unworkable situation. Same as with Deion, whom they also actually would have much preferred to retain long term. We may or may not be better off without him going forward talent and cap wise, having already traded out of the first with our second pick in the round this season because having 2 first rounders in a shallow draft didn't represent substantial value. And we certainly weren't better off without him in 2006, and will apparently be paying someone (or ones) the money he rejected to cover the position in 2007. We saved substantial cap space going forward last season by replacing an unsignable Branch and Givens with Caldwell and Gaffney et al, but it cost us in offensive production/efficiency and wins. We have been unable or unwilling to replace that via the draft, so we have now begun trading draft picks for veteran WR and paying them as much or more in cap than Branch and Givens would have cost to remedy that deficiency in 2007 and potentially beyond.

Championships aren't won on paper, solman, and the only real value of cap space or draft picks is measured in the talent it enables you to field being sufficient to meet your goals in the present as well as the future. If we enter the 2008 offseason with tons of adjusted cap space and 3 first round picks and no ring, Belioli will not consider that a big win but rather a crashing disappointment. Because they will have squandered another season in Brady's prime - not to mention potentially the final season of impact players like Harrison's and Bruschi's and Brown's and Seau's careers.

I think they will figure out a way around this with or without Asante. But I'm not going to kid myself by trying to rationalize how this was their plan all along. Anything short of signing him to a reasonable deal long term is just some variation of plan B.

Good post.....I don't see trading away one of our proven, top defensive backs as a "BIG" win.......especially given that the rest of our secondary is still kind of a big question mark without him in there.....I for one, hope that they can find a way to keep him/re-sign him before the season starts......

 

[cstjohn17]

I've had a consistent view of capology for years. What I "discovered" was this board. Not surprisingly, what got me posting here was the ridiculous assertion that the Branch trade wasn't a big win.

Nobody is going to look back on this offseason, and say that it was too heavily devoted towards building for future years. In my opinion, the 2007 Patriots without Asante, are clearly better than the 2003-2004 squads.

It depends on what you call a big win, we saved some cap money and got a pick but Brady's spent a year in his prime working with a bunch of scrubs. When push came to shove the WRs came up short, maybe Branch would have helped. Also the biggest measure is not cap dollars saved, it is championships and the Patriots didn't get the job done. I would rather win 2 more Superbowls and then miss the playoffs for 5 years than to play the part of the Atlanta Braves.

The team would have been better with Branch on the field, just like they will be better if Samuel plays in 07.

All the talk about beating the Colts, without Samuel his replacement at CB will need Safety help on almost every play. This will open the middle up even more and expose the lack of speed at ILB.

I want Samuel to play because it increases the chances of winning, if he gets traded the then thats the way it goes but I wouldn't call it a win when James and Scott are getting regular snaps at corner.

 

[DaBruinz]

They have?? Jeez it must have been one of the Superbowls I missed. Let's see in SB XXXVI they had Ty Law and Otis Smith starting, in SBXXXVIII it was Ty Law and Ty Poole and in SB XXXIX it was Samuel and Randall Gay.

So with starting CBs Randall Gay and Ellis Hobbs, we have a better line-up than any of those do we???

For SB 39, it was a 2nd year Samuel and a 1st year Randall Gay. Currently it would be a 3rd year Hobbs and a 4th year Randall Gay. So, yes, I would consider Hobbs and Gay of this year to be better than the Samuel and Gay of 2004.

 

[Rob0729]

For SB 39, it was a 1st year Samuel and a 1st year Randall Gay. Currently it would be a 3rd year Hobbs and a 4th year Randall Gay. So, yes, I would consider Hobbs and Gay of this year to be better than the Samuel and Gay of 2004.

It was actually Samuel's second season, but he only had one career start before that season. Samuel started that season as a back up and was only given the starting job because Poole was IRed.

 

[cstjohn17]

It was actually Samuel's second season, but he only had one career start before that season. Samuel started that season as a back up and was only given the starting job because Poole was IRed.

Either way, we could mix and match with the group we have but over a season they would be exposed.

Could we win with them? Maybe
Would the team be better with Samuel? Yes

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Either way, we could mix and match with the group we have but over a season they would be exposed.

Could we win with them? Maybe
Would the team be better with Samuel? Yes

Absolutely but much like the situation with D. Branch last year, if he doesn't want to be here, there's nothing that will change it. However, if he carries through on his threat (via agent) to sit out until game ten, he will lose $4.76 million dollars ($7.78 million prorated to play remaining 6 games).
Will he be able to recover the lost opportunity costs with a new contract? He hopes so but I see this being resolved one way or the other sooner rather than later. The longer it drags out, the less cap space teams will have and the less $$$ Samuel gets....
Just my $0.02,

 

[mgcolby]

They have?? Jeez it must have been one of the Superbowls I missed. Let's see in SB XXXVI they had Ty Law and Otis Smith starting, in SBXXXVIII it was Ty Law and Ty Poole and in SB XXXIX it was Samuel and Randall Gay.

So with starting CBs Randall Gay and Ellis Hobbs, we have a better line-up than any of those do we???

Ty Law in the first two SuperBowls clearly trumps anything we have today. I was never a Ty Poole fan and he was nothing but a human turnstile in SB 38. In SB 39 Gay was a true undrafted rookie and Samuel was in his second season. Hobbs is going into his 3rd year and I think he will have a very good season.

Gay and Wilson can play CB. Merriweather could hopefully slide into the FS spot. Add in a few crafty vets (Scott,James and Hawk) and this secondary is easlily better than what we had during the 04 playoffs. Obviously Rodney is an unknown as is the rookie, but BB has had success working lesser rookies (at least in terms of draft status) into the mix. I'm not sure what I think of Sanders, other than he, at the very least adds decent depth.

My personal favorite was the 2001 secondary. In 2003 Law, Harrison and two rookies made up the secondary. Law is clearly bettter than anyone we would put out there now, Rodney of 2003 is better than than the Rodney of 2007. Hobbs in his third season is better than Samuel as a rookie and Wilson of 2007 SHOULD be better than the Wilson of 2003. Also, Merriweather has more potential than Wilson did in 2003, considering he won't have to play out of his college position. IMO, the secondary as a whole is better and deeper than both the 2003 and 2004 secondaries.

Not sure if any of that matters because we will most likely be on fourth or fifth street FA by week 12 anyway, given our luck with injuries in the secondary.

 

[ironwasp]

Not sure if any of that matters because we will most likely be on fourth or fifth street FA by week 12 anyway, given our luck with injuries in the secondary.

Ain't that the truth. So that's Willie Andrews and Mike Richardson as starting CBs in Superbowl 42 with Hank Poteat and Atrell Hawkins at safety.

 

[Water Boy]

The only issue I have is we haven't really replaced him. Tory James could be OK but that's it from what I see. Gay ? He's OK too. Low picks from the past couple of years. If we had a 2nd round CB sitting around then I'd feel great about trading him.

Those are my sentiments, exactly. I was really surprised that the Pats didn't target a top level CB in the draft as a fall back plan for a potential Samuel hold-out situation. It probably had to do with how thin this draft class was. I thought Damyeon Hughes would have been a lock with the Pat's 3rd round pick, but apparently the Pats didn't have high grades on him. It would have been interesting to see if they would have taken Revis over Merriweather, had he been available. I know its not likely that you will draft a rookie and have them start from day 1, but having a rookie to groom in the fold sooner rather than later would help give the Pats some leverage.

I believe the Pats took a chance that they could catch lightining in a bottle with Chad Jackson as a potential fall back for the Deion Branch hold out, but we all know how that turned out.

 

[mgcolby]

Ain't that the truth. So that's Willie Andrews and Mike Richardson as starting CBs in Superbowl 42 with Hank Poteat and Atrell Hawkins at safety.

Unfortunately.

Although this has been apperant for sometime, the Pats are due for a relative injury free year. What constitutes this is up for interpretation.

 

[RayClay]

What, wasp, did OTIS suddenly become an all pro since 2001. He was an old slow CB even then. THe Pats did a masterful job covering his weaknesses, and he did a marvelous job playing to his strengths. BUT let us not try to rewrite history and suddenly make OTIS better than he was. Who is to say Tory James isn't the next OTIS Smith, and James has a better pedigree.

AND then you trot out Ty Poole as an example of someone who is BETTER than what we have now?. He was just ANOTHER serviceable CB who did the job and was gone 2 years later. Poole had a great year here, but he wasn't a top CB at that point in his carreer.

Finally you want to compare Gay and Samuel. Well I think that Hobbs is ahead of where Samuel was in 2004 and Gay is certainly a better more experienced player than he was in 2004. Also our depth at the position is far better than what it was in either 2001, 3, or 4.

I agree completely with the post this came from, but I have to disagree with your premise on this one.

Ty Law, Otis smith and Terrel Buckley > Hobbs Hawkins? Wilson? Chad Scott?

Assuming Asante's out, am I missing a cornerback on this team?

(before anyone says it, the ? is just assumed after Gay's name, it's affixed until proven otherwise).

Ty Law > Asante. Ty Law shouldn't even be compared to Hobbs at this point.

I believe we left ourselves vulnerable by not drafting a day 1 type CB.

When Poole was healthy he was much better than anything we have minus Asante IMO. Granted, it was one year, but it was pro bowl caliber, (2nd team possible).

 

[mgteich]

Permit me to state my position, a contrary one to be sure.

1) Yes, Samuel signing a deal and playing his heart out this year would be great. Samuel deciding to play like a all-pro for a team that forced him to do so, even though he completed his contract (unlike others) would also be nice. Then the patriots can consider franchising him again next year, because after all, the CBA allows a team to keep one player out of free agency.

It would also be nice to win the lottey.

2) I do not expect Samuel to sign more than a one-year deal with the Patriots, even they were to offer a bit more than others might. As others before him, he'd rather play elsewhere. I know this is hard to believe for Boston fans; but there are other places players woudl rather live and play.

3) Samuel MIGHT sign a one-year no-franchise-in-2008 deal. But playing for the franchise this year, risking injury and be in the same situation next year is a non-starter. Samuel will be advised by his attorneys to fulfill the letter of CBA, and show up when required in Week 10. I would note this is within his rights, just as franchising was with the Patriot's rights. He should also be counseled not to risk injury by any heavy practice on his own.

4) Neither party has done anything but operate within the CBA, unlike Seymour and Branch.

5) Some would believe that the Patriots have already hurt themselves by not trading Samuel before the draft. I don't know if this is true. Samuel could be worth more now, or less, now that teams truly know what they have. In any case, we had no use for 2007 draft choices. If we received a 1st and 3rd for Samuel, we would have just traded them into 2008, as we already did with our 1st and 3rd.

6) What is incomprehensible on part of the patriots part is their apparent ostrich syndrome. This happened last year with Law and Branch. The team simply assumed that they were getting those players, and had no real Plan B. The team had millions of cap money left and no one to buy for 2006. I fear that we are in the same place again. We can blame all we want on Samuel. From where I sit, the team MUST have a plan without Samuel, much as we might disagree with that plan. Graham and Banta-Cain were replaced quickly. Wide receivers were added, albeit a year late. But where is the corner? Even we think that Samuel will sign for a year, where is the 2008 corner?

 

[solman]

Will he be able to recover the lost opportunity costs with a new contract?

The lost opportunity is far worse than ~$5M in current salary. He is also sabotaging his chances for a big contract.

If Asante sits for 10 games, he will have far less playing time. When (if) he does get on the field, he will be less prepared. This will cost him big time when he negotiates new contract.

It wouldn't hurt so badly if Asante had been performing at a high level for several years. But Asante has only played one great season. Just like the Patriots, the other NFL franchises will want to see some confirmation that Asante can consistently perform at a high level. Every game that Asante sits, he loses an opportunity to increase his next contract.

A second consecutive season at the level of 2007 would net Asante a contract north of what Nate Clements received. But I can't imagine any franchise parting with big guaranteed money and $8M per for a player with only one solid campaign under his belt.

Both he and his agent are acutely aware of this. Its yet another reason why Asante's holdout can't be taken seriously. If the Patriots want him to play, and he wants to maximize his money, he has absolutely no choice. He knows it, and the Patriots know he knows it.

His only leverage is saying negative things in the press. I don't have any problem with him using this leverage, but its not going to result in the Patriots offering him more than he is worth.

 

[patchick]

6) What is incomprehensible on part of the patriots part is their apparent ostrich syndrome. This happened last year with Law and Branch. The team simply assumed that they were getting those players, and had no real Plan B. The team had millions of cap money left and no one to buy for 2006. I fear that we are in the same place again. We can blame all we want on Samuel. From where I sit, the team MUST have a plan without Samuel, much as we might disagree with that plan. Graham and Banta-Cain were replaced quickly. Wide receivers were added, albeit a year late. But where is the corner? Even we think that Samuel will sign for a year, where is the 2008 corner?

I guess he's off somewhere doing the tango with the 2008 ILB.

It does look like the Pats were confident--alas, maybe overconfident--that they could keep Asante in the fold. BUT...I don't like to grouse unless I at least have a "should have done" scenario in mind. I can't think of a player they should have brought in in this case. Should they have outbid the outrageous deals for Clement or Harper while still holding out hope that Samuel signs the tender? (Who would they have to cut to make room for both contracts? Yikes.) Should they have drafted a CB at #28 when none came close to 1st-round value and the 2008 draft looks so much stronger? It's possible to end up in a bad spot without taking missteps. Maybe picking up a Tory James and hoping to make peace with Asante was the best path available under the circumstances.

 

[DW Toys]

this is all well and good but you have to find a team that wants AS's contract and is willing to trade a decent corner of their own. 1st round pick doesnt help us now but its the most likely trade.
Name a team and a corner that makes sense for both teams. Will that player we get in return just want money also?
I say swindle Houston into giving us Dunta Robinson. i dont know how, just make it happen.
Winfield is the other choice, but his contract status isn't settled either.

We all want a player for AS, but a pick might be a better value, and you know the Pats will always choose value

Cousin,
You have something there with Winfield. The Vikes CB is not as upset about his "show me the money, Get Paid cause I am Assante" contract, as he is about winning and the direction of the Vikes. He want the ring. After the Bills and the Vikes the window gets smaller for him. He is about the same size as Samuel, so that is a push. Assante is younger (advantage Samuel), but Winfield is perhaps the best tackling CB in the league. He had 99 in 2004, 100 in 05 and 97 in 06 compared to Samuels 64 (Advantage in a big way, Winfield)
Hey Winfield has one or two more good years left compared to Samuels 7 or 8, I would go with a trade and perhaps get a second from the Vikes for Winfield. He has his money. He wants to win. He is IMO, a better all around CB right now than Assante. Does The Godfather like people who will tackle?
DW Toys