Here's How I'd Get Samuel Done

[BelichickFan]

Sorry - but there's not much else to talk about.

First, two assumptions :

1 - Samuel would play the whole season if we promised not to re-tag him after 2007.
2 - The Patriots would decline such as offer to protect their investment at the end of 2007 (keep him tradable).

I think these assumptions are valid as that's what happened with Branch so it's reasonable, though not guaranteed, that the sides would feel the same way with Samuel.

Additionally the reason I think Samuel thinks the Patriots aren't being fair is their demand for two #1s to trade him. Unless a team forks over that incredibly high price, Samuel is stuck.

So . . . middle ground time.

Samuel plays this year including reporting to training camp on time. The Patriots DO NOT promise to not Franchise him next year. However they do agree to take less than two #1s in compensation. Whether that agreement is for one #1 or a #2 would be negotiable - but clearly the less the Patriots are willing to take the more likely Samuel could get his longterm deal while the Patriots would still get to trade him.

It seems like a win-win. The Patriots get their player now and can still trade him for a valuable draft pick but not the insane price of two #1s. Samuel gets his $8M now and knows that he'll get his long term deal next year as the agreed to trade price would be reasonable enough that someone would pay it.

Honestly I'd take a #2. Get Samuel in for this year and have two picks in each of the first three rounds next year. And Samuel could rest assured knowing someone would trade a #2 for him - his only problem would be having an equally, or close to equal, good year next year. And that might be a real problem.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I saw the thread title and was ready for something really dumb. I should have looked at who started the thread. It's actually a really good idea. Promise him something but don't entirely sacrifice the value of franchising him again next year.

I actually hope that NE guarantees him nothing and does nothing if he sits. Let him come back in week 10. He'd be guaranteed healthy and it would be in Asante's best interest to play his rear off when he came back. They need him more for the playoffs than the regular season anyway.

BB is rational and unprecitable, and such an approach would fit that description.

 

[patsox23]

Definitely not mind-blowingly stupid like a lot of proposals on messageboards are. Good thoughts.

 

[ironwasp]

I don't know whether your prescription is right but it's along the right lines. At some point good sense has to prevail in this and a compromise be found, because nobody is benefitting from this senseless impasse. Let's have our season out of him and find a way out at the end of 2007 when he can ride off into the sunset.

 

[GoWhalers]

An interesting idea, but what if the only trade offer comes in from the Jets/Bills/Dolphins?

Imagine this scenario:

1. Samuel plays well next season, wants to be well-paid on a long term deal
2. Jets have a lot of room under cap, offer a 2nd for Samuel
3. Other teams want Samuel and would offer more than a 2nd, but can't come up to Samuel's financial desires

So now there's a situation where:

a) Samuel won't sign with any team other than the Jets because of $$
b) The Patriots cannot raise the price tag on Samuel because of the aforementioned agreement
c) The Jets get to simultaneously weaken the Pats and strengthen themselves for a bargain price

Yikes, no?

 

[Two Eight]

Give him nothing, call his bluff, no way he sits out 10 games (losing more money than he's made in his entire life in the process). Giving him anything justs makes the next guy think he can get away with more, this is part of the price we're still paying for the Seymour deal....IMHO

 

[BelichickFan]

An interesting idea, but what if the only trade offer comes in from the Jets/Bills/Dolphins?

That is a valid issue - however he can get loose from us a year later anyway. Say we lost him to The Jest - at least we'd get the pick, say a #2, for him. As opposed to losing him to the same team for nothing a year later.

I guess the key would be to make the pick that we agree to high enough that if this worst case scenario happened we wouldn't be getting too little but low enough that Samuel could realistically think he'd get a strong offer with the team also giving up the pick - as opposed to the prohibitive two #1s.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

An interesting idea, but what if the only trade offer comes in from the Jets/Bills/Dolphins?

Imagine this scenario:

1. Samuel plays well next season, wants to be well-paid on a long term deal
2. Jets have a lot of room under cap, offer a 2nd for Samuel
3. Other teams want Samuel and would offer more than a 2nd, but can't come up to Samuel's financial desires

So now there's a situation where:

a) Samuel won't sign with any team other than the Jets because of $$
b) The Patriots cannot raise the price tag on Samuel because of the aforementioned agreement
c) The Jets get to simultaneously weaken the Pats and strengthen themselves for a bargain price

Yikes, no?

I'll never understand the constant fear of trading within divisions, leagues, conferences, etc. in sports.

If the Patriots do not think Samuel is worth $8M a year, and the Jets are willing to overpay him and trade a pick for him, isn't that a good thing? The pick strengthens you while weakening them AND they use their resources unwisely by overpaying him. How is that bad?

This post does do a good job of pointing out why you don't make a deal like this, and if you do you put the deal in writing and try to word it in the most favorable way for the franchise if such a dispute occurs.

Then again, I have no problem giving Asante the right to choose the team as long as NE gets a #1 out of it. As long as NE were to get a first rounder Asante could go to the superbowl champion Jets for all I care.

LOL, "superbowl champion Jets." It's so absurd it makes me smile.

 

[sieglo]

An interesting idea, but what if the only trade offer comes in from the Jets/Bills/Dolphins?

Imagine this scenario:

1. Samuel plays well next season, wants to be well-paid on a long term deal
2. Jets have a lot of room under cap, offer a 2nd for Samuel
3. Other teams want Samuel and would offer more than a 2nd, but can't come up to Samuel's financial desires

So now there's a situation where:

a) Samuel won't sign with any team other than the Jets because of $$
b) The Patriots cannot raise the price tag on Samuel because of the aforementioned agreement
c) The Jets get to simultaneously weaken the Pats and strengthen themselves for a bargain price

Yikes, no?

So just structure the deal so that he can be traded to any team but the Jets, Dolphins or Bills. Or whatever other team you're worried about -- take your pick.

 

[mgcolby]

If he sat out to week 10 I would look for the first bookie that offered an over/under on an injury for him. Karma is a b!tch and there is a long list of folks that have held out only to come back and blow out their knee and I can't think of one person that actually sat out 10 games (while healthy).

 

[mgcolby]

Well thought out post BF. The only problem that I can see with it is that you are trying to be rational with an irrational situation.

 

[Pats726]

Sorry - but there's not much else to talk about.

First, two assumptions :

1 - Samuel would play the whole season if we promised not to re-tag him after 2007.
2 - The Patriots would decline such as offer to protect their investment at the end of 2007 (keep him tradable).

I think these assumptions are valid as that's what happened with Branch so it's reasonable, though not guaranteed, that the sides would feel the same way with Samuel.

Additionally the reason I think Samuel thinks the Patriots aren't being fair is their demand for two #1s to trade him. Unless a team forks over that incredibly high price, Samuel is stuck.

So . . . middle ground time.

Samuel plays this year including reporting to training camp on time. The Patriots DO NOT promise to not Franchise him next year. However they do agree to take less than two #1s in compensation. Whether that agreement is for one #1 or a #2 would be negotiable - but clearly the less the Patriots are willing to take the more likely Samuel could get his longterm deal while the Patriots would still get to trade him.

It seems like a win-win. The Patriots get their player now and can still trade him for a valuable draft pick but not the insane price of two #1s. Samuel gets his $8M now and knows that he'll get his long term deal next year as the agreed to trade price would be reasonable enough that someone would pay it.

Honestly I'd take a #2. Get Samuel in for this year and have two picks in each of the first three rounds next year. And Samuel could rest assured knowing someone would trade a #2 for him - his only problem would be having an equally, or close to equal, good year next year. And that might be a real problem.

If he plays the year..he's a FA again..so are you saying a sign and trade after the season?? I wonder if he'll gamble on a good season this year..

 

[BelichickFan]

If he plays the year..he's a FA again..so are you saying a sign and trade after the season??

Right, we can Franchise him again. At a 20% raise which we may not end up being willing to pay but as long as we could generate the cap space while he's Franchised (a requirement to Franchise) then we could do it for the purpose of trading him.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

If the Patriots do not think Samuel is worth $8M a year, and the Jets are willing to overpay him and trade a pick for him, isn't that a good thing? The pick strengthens you while weakening them AND they use their resources unwisely by overpaying him. How is that bad?

I think the answer is that most front office people -- even in this organization -- understand they are not psychic.

Yes, you can do the best you can to value a player, but I think part of being smart in making football moves is understanding you're never infalible and maximizing gain while minizing risk. If you're right about Asante's value, trading him to a division rival has a double benefit. But if you're wrong, which does happen, it's a double whammy. So, you make the best decision you can about a player's value and do your deal. There's nothing wrong with also hedging your bet a little but avoiding a double whammy, even if it means that success is hitting a double instead of a triple.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I think the answer is that most front office people -- even in this organization -- understand they are not psychic.

Yes, you can do the best you can to value a player, but I think part of being smart in making football moves is understanding you're never infalible and maximizing gain while minizing risk. If you're right about Asante's value, trading him to a division rival has a double benefit. But if you're wrong, which does happen, it's a double whammy. So, you make the best decision you can about a player's value and do your deal. There's nothing wrong with also hedging your bet a little but avoiding a double whammy, even if it means that success is hitting a double instead of a triple.

well that makes perfect sense. I just like assuming the team that has employed the guy for the past 4 years will be a better judge of the guy than an outside team. I can't really fault hedging your bets though.

I think it's safe to say that some of it is conventional wisdom, though. "We don't want to trade him within the division" has become almost become the default, rather than a situational thing.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

So let's see: Samuel does play this year. For a one-year 7.8M payout, he risks being exposed as not worth more, and risks injury (whereas if he sits until week 10, some of the sting is taken away if he even plays passably, because, well, he was not up to speed due to the Patriots hard-line front office.)

The Pats promise not to make a trade prohibitive.

Asante has gained:
- the possibility of a trade for negotiating rights, for a long term deal, without being superman (pretty much what's expected for two #1s.) So all he needs to do is play well enough for someone to pay a Clement-like deal to him, AND trade a #1 for his services. Still a high bar.
- He gets his 7.8M for playing this year.
- He doesn't look "difficult" to another GM (which doesn't seem to really hurt anybody anyway. But heck, fans will like him more.)

Asante has lost:
- The hope of a long-term deal this season

Asante has risked:
- 10 additional opportunities for injury
- the possibility that his timing will damn him to a deal half the size he wants, by having a "journeyman" season to follow up his "star" season in what he believed was his "contract year."

The Pats get what they want out of the deal: He plays in 08, and they only give up something we haven't seen bandied around lately anyway, a 2 first-rounder trade. Deion was supposed to be one, and it never happened. We got 1 first-rounder for him, have a nice life, no hard feelings. More on that later.

So for the Pats, there is very little risk indeed. It also turns 07 into a "prove it" year, essentially another "contract year", and if he tests out, the Pats might even value him as highly as he values himself (doubtful.)

If, as is more likely, he has a decent season but perceives himself to be the second coming of Deion Sanders, we get shed of him rather than pay him in the $10M, 1 year range, by using the franchise tag again.

I think his present stance - as was the case with Branch - is meant to apply pressure on the Pats to make their move this season. The Pats have dug in and essentially said, Nooooo, Asante, you are franchised. The rules say we can do this. You do not have to play, but if you play anywhere, it's got to be here.

He's not just "itchin' to get paid," this is a strategy:

I need to cut my deal now, while the iron is hot. I don't want to gamble on a worse year, and screw myself out of millions. I would prefer my last complete season to be the one in which I led the league in interceptions. Better yet, I would prefer my long-term deal to happen NOW, before we roll the dice, by playing this season.

And to that end, I will apply what pressure I have at my disposal.

So basically, the proposal, reasonable as it sounds to us, does not address his primary concern, of parlaying a trend line into multi-year fiscal paradigm (without multiple years playing at the level he demands pay for.)

One more note - the unfolding of the Branch situation last year currently describes the limits of Belichik/Pioli's power. They painted themselves as willing to cut a deal in the 11th hour to avoid drama, and good on them. If the Pats, some other team, and Samuel cut a deal like the Seattle/Branch deal, I would not be miserably unhappy.

Especially if his 2007 is like Branch's 2006.

But the point here, in my opinion, is that your proposal sounds good to us, because we're fans of the team... while a given player is usually a fan of his own self-interest, when it comes to a contract. It's in Samuel's best interest to "get paid" now, if he can possibly make it happen.

By the way, congrats on that pickup, Seattle

PFnV

 

[BelichickFan]

So basically, the proposal, reasonable as it sounds to us, does not address his primary concern, of parlaying a trend line into multi-year fiscal paradigm (without multiple years playing at the level he demands pay for.)

It guarantees he gets the long term deal in 8 months - it's a deal Branch offered, playing for the Patriots last year if we promised not to Franchise him. While I can't say for sure Samuel would do it, I think it's reasonable based on Branch's offer.

 

[ilduce06410]

samuel wants serious money

That is a valid issue - however he can get loose from us a year later anyway. Say we lost him to The Jest - at least we'd get the pick, say a #2, for him. As opposed to losing him to the same team for nothing a year later.
I guess the key would be to make the pick that we agree to high enough that if this worst case scenario happened we wouldn't be getting too little but low enough that Samuel could realistically think he'd get a strong offer with the team also giving up the pick - as opposed to the prohibitive two #1s.

BB/SP are NOT going to give him the money he wants. if they'd been willing, they'd have locked him up 9 months ago.
all they want is to use da nflpa agreement to lock up a 1st round draft choice. they locked up koppen, light, mankins. seymour, warren. eugene wilson. all before they got into their walk years.
then there are mcginest, lawyer milloy, many role players. who went into their walk years and slowly twisted in the breeze.

there's no problem to be solved for BB/SP. they want his services for this year, and that's all.

for a NFL player, i don't see the difference between a one-year, $7.79m contract and a 4-year, $34m deal. except for the size of the bonus. but these guys undergo car crashes 30 plays a game. life of an nfl player is veryvery short.
asante wants to get his money. it's clear that BB/SP will not do the deal. is he worth the coin he wants? only time would tell that.
but i'd have given him his cash 12 months ago and avoided all the suspense and intrigue.

we're gona lose him, and that's the end of the story. time to move3 on.
is he worth it? remains to be seen.

 

[Tunescribe]

Let him come back in week 10. He'd be guaranteed healthy and it would be in Asante's best interest to play his rear off when he came back. They need him more for the playoffs than the regular season anyway.

This absolutely is not going to happen. How does BB and the team suddenly drop all the ill-will that festers during the 10 weeks of this prima donna holding out? Besides, Samuel will not be in football shape, his timing will be off, he'll have missed out on numerous important meetings and practices ... And how would BB justify benching whoever is the starting corner at that stage of the season, who worked hard to be where he is?

I'd like to know if any player in the NFL ever has sat out nine games in a contract dispute and come back to his starting role without missing a beat. I'll bet it's never happened.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

BFan, I see what the intent is, and like I said, it puts all the risk on Samuel, so it is worth a shot. Why not offer it, if you think it will get even a hearing? After all, the downside risk for the Pats is that he's a guy someone would pay two #1s for at the end of this year -- in which case you cut the deal yourself, or franchise him again and not trade him.

It doesn't, however, address Samuel's issue with not being franchised again next year. He would just get franchised with a realistic shot at a trade, a la Deion. Which is actually exactly where we are now, although the rumblings aren't out there yet during these dog days.

I think the Pats know what they have here: good merchandise at the peak of perceived value, but without enough track record to document a likely return commensurate with the commitment he's asking.

Absent the hold-out, the Pats' options are open, given the effect of the franchise tag. Asante wants them to promise to limit their own options. They have every right to refuse. He has every right not to play. For now, they're playing chicken, and we might see a development at the end of camp -- or he might rot for 10 games.

Still, yes, I'd make Asante that offer, but again, I would not hold out hope for a friendly reception for it.

(But I'm the first to say, hey, what do I know?)

PFnV