FWIW, here are the receiving stats for Daniel Graham, whose "role was changed" by the Patriots despite him being one of the league's "best players," and who went on to a team that would use him to greater advantage. Since he was never healthy enough to play more than 14 games in a season with the Pats, I'll use receptions per game played as my metric:
2002 NEP 1.25
2003 NEP 2.71
2004 NEP 2.14
2005 NEP 1.45
2006 NEP 1.75
2007 DEN 1.60
2008 DEN 2.00
So Graham's first two years were outliers, one low and one high. Since then he's been roughly a 1.75 catches a game guy, with normal variance, regardless of team. (For perspective, the "great disappointment" Ben Watson has averaged 3 or more catches a game in 2 of his 4 seasons.)
Graham was a great blocker for the Pats but never a major threat as a receiver. Denver gambled that the Pats were under-using him in the passing game, talked about their plans to showcase him as a receiver, paid him accordingly, then discovered that "he is what he is." Midway through his first season in Denver Graham was already grumbling that the Broncos weren't using him right (and bitterly bad-mouthing his old team too just for good measure).
So I'll put aside all of the flashing neon signs saying that Graham really wanted to go to Denver and answer your question at face value. If the Patriots had it to do over again and could have signed Graham simply by besting the huge contract with $15 million in guarantees from the Broncos, would they? I say nope, not even close. Baker, Smith and Watson combined are all making less than Graham, and it's far from clear how to rank those four players.
1.) His role did change, as Watson (I believe) noted.
2.) I didn't mean to say Graham was one of the league's best players, and if the way I wrote my point made it seem that I did, my apologies. He was one of the best players available in free agency (Only so many tight ends come free each season). As everyone who follows the game knows, the signings of the top free agents usually come fast and furious at the beginning of the free agency period.
3.) Again, he negotiated with the team and they couldn't come to an agreement. That should come as no surprise, given the amount he eventually signed for.
4.) You claim all the flashing neon signs, but you've offered no examples of them. I, on the other hand, quoted from an article refuting your claim. Even if it were true that Graham had a preference, and I don't care if he did, the Patriots could have offered him more money had they chosen to. The Patriots did what they so often do: they gambled that they could adequately replace Graham's production. The Patriots were wrong. It wasn't the first time and it was the last. It happens to every team. It will happen to the Patriots again in the future. They were able to overcome the problem every game that season, except one.
5.) Graham is better than Baker, Smith and Watson IMO. So, there's that ranking. He's paid more and he's better. Oddly enough, quality blocking has become a rarity for tight ends, as they've mostly become over sized wide receivers in today's game.
6.) Pointing to receptions as some proof of talent or utility is misleading, given that he's used on the line for blocking more than anything else. That's his 'issue', as a matter of fact, so holding it against him seems to be less than an honest way to evaluate to my way of thinking. However, I don't much care about the man's receiving. His blocking is what was missed.
