I think if either of us tried sitting in on a negotiating session, the Pats FO would quickly have us escorted off premises.
Seriously, though -- I'm well aware of what's been said about the Pats' negotiating strategy. In fact, it was Samuel himself who painted the most vivid picture of it in his conversation w/ Jackie McMullen:
"You want to believe they know what you've done. So you hope for the best, but you end up feeling underappreciated. You feel disrespected, especially how they come at you with so much negative stuff. They show you such a low regard."
In general, I tend to assume that BB is far wiser than I in all matters of football -- this is one of the few areas where I can't help but second guess him. While I'm all in favor of driving a hard bargain and refusing to overpay a player, it seems to me like far too many negotiations end up turning antagonistic, and I wonder if this strategy has something to do with it.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure BB could cobble up some game tape that would prove that Champ Bailey himself wasn't Champ Bailey, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove about Samuel in particular.
When BB actually spoke to the issue of FA player assessment in his final appearance of the season on WEEI, I figured Asante was gone if he was looking for a top 5 type contract long term. Bill made it a point to say that while he takes nothing away from Asante's talent or hard work, he believes the system and this coaching staff (and he singled Dean Pees out in particular for working tirelessly with this player over the last two seasons) put him in a position to have the individual success he had at the position this season.
That's a really slanted way of looking at what BB was trying to say. He had been asked what kinds of things he felt the Pats could do better next season, and he said "everything," and then focused on the fact that he believed that he and Pees could do a yet better job of putting the players in a position to succeed. He praised Samuel for his "outstanding, great year," and when he said he didn't want to take anything away from Asante, he
meant it -- the point of what he was saying is that he felt that Dean Pees had done an outstanding job helping put him in position to make the plays he did. It would be a HUGE mistake to infer from BB's praise of Pees that he was suggesting the Pats' defensive system is more important than having talented players.
And I'm not discounting the fact that Bill likely feels that way about most of the players on this team.
Precisely. He could have said the same thing about McDaniels and Tom.
The rare exceptions are the guys who consistently give better than they get. Those are his core guys, whom Bill will extend himself for, but even they are expected to deliver at or below not just market value but value to this team. Because that is part of what makes them so valuable to this team - their desire to win is only exceeded by their desire to win here. They want their money too, but money isn't the top three criteria on their list of needs.
Yes, guys like Bruschi, and now Adalius Thomas, talented players who are willing to take below-market deals are incredibly valuable for a team, but they're rare enough that it's just not feasible to think that you can field a team with only guys willing to give a serious home-town discount. For the vast majority of players, a compromise will be necessary. The fact is, we don't know what kind of deal Asante wants, and what kind of deal the Pats have offered, so any judgments .
Clearly Asante is a good fit for this system. But lots of guys have been. Unfortunately one (Starks) wasn't and I think that so shook the fan base that they forget what the Belichick system does for these players by and large. It surrounds them with sufficient hghly motivated and well coached talent and scheme to maximize their potential. That doesn't mean they are not good players in their own right, but if they were great players and demanded to be compensated accordingly, compensating them would require adjusting the entire system to account for the cost of maintaining them as opposed to it.
Yes, I know we have a good defensive system. As you yourself mention, it didn't look so good in 2005 when, due to injuries and a few personnel misfires, we didn't have the personnel to run it effectively. I also know that it's better to have a solid, deep unit than a couple of overpaid stars and a bunch of scrubs. Don't act like I made any statement about what the Pats should or shouldn't pay Samuel. In fact, the sole argument my post made was that Samuel's "one good year" looks to me more like a young player breaking out in his 3rd year starting than a fluke.
LB, Safety, DE. Those are this systems first three priorities on defense. And we won't even overpay for those. Overpay for CB and the system is weakened. Therefore the CB you overpay better be Champ Baileyesque. At the Pro Bowl this year Bill was overheard when miked saying to Ed Reed - boy, if I had you and those two corners that's all I'd need, ALL. Which makes sense financially too because that would then be all he could afford.
Is that why BB devoted $8.8 and $10.2 million dollars of (pre CBA) cap space to Ty Law in '03 and '04? Is that why he's prepared to devote $7.8 of cap space to Samuel this year? While BB has said that you build a defense from the front (line) back (to the secondary,) the fact is that he'd laugh at the notion of being able to rank positions in terms of value to the team. A defensive player's value to the team is determined almost entirely by his own ability -- what position he plays is a relatively minor part of it. What's true of the draft is true w/ veterans as well -- you look at individuals, not positions. This is why we spent money to acquire Adalius Thomas this year, but didn't go after, say, Lavar Arrington last off-season -- It's certainly not that we didn't have that much less of a need for a LB.
. I think he's an above average player who had a great year and deserves a raise but not as big a one he wants. At the end of the day if he wants too much trade him then.
