Welcome to PatsFans.com

Franchising Givens

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Digger44, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. Digger44

    Digger44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I wanna take one last shot at this idea. We all love Givens. We all want to see him back. Why do people insist on the franchise tag? Ok we keep our # 2 WR, great. How do those who want the franchise reason through the following?

    1. You would have to pay him $5.8 mil for 1 year. That is $3.8 mil over his value in my opinion. At least say 2 mil over value.
    2. You just franchised your #2 WR. What in the world are you going to do with your #1 WR next year?
    3. Who in the world would give high draft picks for a #2 reciever with a price tag of $5.8 mil who does not have to restructure or extend if he doesnt want to play for you? (i know most likely the trade wouldnt take place without a deal, but the point is relevant bcs it scares off teams).
    4. What are you going to do with Seymour? An extra $3.8 mil would be nice to lock him up long term.
    5. You have 1 franchise and let AV walk. Who replaces him and for how much?
    6. Who wants to pay $5.8 mil to a #2 if he doesnt sign an extension? Huge risk.

    Many people raise the point that there are not many FA who we can sign, and that the draft is shallow. Oh ok, then answer this. Where did we find Givens? The first Round? The Second? The Third? The Fourth? Uhmm nope keep going. The point is that he is replacable bcs BB can and will find a replacement if needed.

    Again, I want Givens to stay, however not at the expense of the team. Am I off on my thinking here? Are my thoughts vaild?
  2. tatepatsfan

    tatepatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I am not for franchising Givens. He is worth a lot to the team, but not 5.8 mil. If anyone gets franchized this year it will be AV.
  3. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    [​IMG]

    This is about the 5th thread on this subject in the past week or so.

    We will not franchise Givens but we will make him a good offer, IMO. Will that be good enough, who knows.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2006
  4. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Five reasons why Givens most likely moves on unless he takes a 'hometown discount.'

    Seymour, obviously; but don't overlook that four others - Branch, Graham, Samuel, and Koppen - ALL hit free agency after the upcoming season. We all agree that Branch is one of our top players, but I'd say the other three on this list are all as, or even more, important than keeping Givens. WR's seem easier to replace. Plus, there are a number of other mid-level WR's hitting the market this year who will come more cheaply than Givens.

    Of course, one could argue the Pats need to resign Givens no matter what because they have fished around for spare WR's quite unsuccessfully of late - Terrell, Davis, Dwight, Sam, Kasper, Bethel Johnson, Dedric Ward, J.J. Stokes, Fred Coleman, Donald Hayes all have failed to have any significant impact. Only David Patten has worked really well as FA WR and it was Givens who made him expendable.

    Still, if they use what is saved by not signing Givens to sign Graham, Koppen, and Samuel it will be better for the team in the long run because while replacing Givens may prove difficult, losing these three instead would be a much bigger blow.
  5. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Preaching to the choir.
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    If they can Franchise Tebucky Jones to trade him they certainly could Franchise Givens to trade him. I don't think they will, and it would come with some risk (him signing the offer and not being able to trade him) but it's not as stupid as some think.
  7. Weishuhn

    Weishuhn Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Franchising Tebucky Jones, or even AV, is entirely different because they are at less valued positions. The financial risk of paying the average of the top 5 safeties in 2001, or the top 5 kickers now, is much lower than the average of the top 5 WR's, a glamour/big money position.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2006
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    That's true to some extent although the Safety Franchise number in 2002 was just over $3M.

    The 2002 cap was $71M, the 2006 cap is expected to be around $93.5M (they're saying between 92 and 95). That's a 32% increase which would put the 2002 Safety Franchise we used on Tebucky equal to just about $4M when accounting for salary cap inflation.

    So using approximately equal percentages of the cap it's Givens at $6M vs. Tebucky at $4M. At least Givens is a good player. For one year only I would say that I would risk paying $6M for Givens compared to paying $4M for Tebucky.
  9. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    Oddly enough I think first round drafted starting safety vs. #2 WR drafted in the 7th round was what made the Tebucky tag and trade doable. As I recall few in the league believed about Tebucky what BB had already figured out - he was not worth it. NO certainly had no inkling until it was too late, and even then Miami was willing to take another shot at him.

    Givens is simply a nice #2 in a lean season for WR period. Although with cap casualties on the horizen if a CBA is not forthcoming who knows. And that is the other reason you simply cannot tag Givens. Agents are predicting/fearing a FA ice age in the absence of a new CBA because of the amortization crunch. David and his agent may quickly find there is little practical interest in signing him at anything more than he would recieve here. He was a lot cheaper last year as an RFA and was somewhat stunned to find absolutely no takers willing to swap a 3 for him then with 5 year amortization available. RAC may be interested in overpaying for his Patriots mentality, but not if he has to trade a pick or two for the priviledge.

    Too easy for him to sign that tag and wait to be one of the few eligible to test the uncapped 3007 market these agents are fanticising about. Because this year the WR tag matches up pretty closely with what he'd get in guaranteed money in a new long term deal.
  10. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    How do you know this??
  11. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Besides Belichickfan, who else is insisting on the franchise tag??
  12. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    FYI -It will cost $6,172,000 to franchise Givens.
  13. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    2a. What are you going to do with the franchise tag next year??

    Scenario 1 - CBA is extended.
    If you do not the use on Givens in 2007, he then becomes a free agent in 2007. If you use the tag again on Givens, it is unavailable to use on Branch/Seymour/Graham/Samuel/Koppen.

    Scenario 2 - CBA is not extended
    If you use the tag again on Givens, it is unavailable to use on Branch/Seymour/Graham/Samuel/Koppen. The Pats could use the transition tag on one of the quintet. If the Pats were to place the franchise tag on one of the five, they could place the transistion tag on Givens but then his 2007 salary would be a 20% increase over his 2006 salary and his 2007 salary would then be guaranteed. Let's say that the Pats decide not to play eithe tag on Givens but decide to make him a RFA tender offer since Givens would be considered a RFA under the rules if 2007 is uncapped. The tender offer would have then be 110% of his 2006 salary and would include all of the principal terms (guaranteed salary) of his 2006 contract.
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Just to clarify my position, I'm not insisting on it. I fully understand the risk that we'd overpay him for one year. It's a chance I hope we take but I don't think it's a foolproof, obvious move.
  15. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    I'll repeat what I said in the other thread

    It depends on what happens with the CBA

    With a CBA long term deals are possible and we could offer Givens and others fair long term deals

    Without a CBA a team with current cap room can and would easilly outbid the Pats

    Without a CBA, and given the lack of affordable #2 WRs on the market, the Pats could and should consider overpaying him for one year only.

    Yes he'd be overpaid, but it would only be for a short period of time - and we need serious help at WR.

    We have a #1 WR, an excellent pass catching TE, and lots of question marks after that.

    WR is a top priority this offseason - its just that between the CBA situation and the lack of FAs, its a tough time to be in the market.
  16. stinkypete

    stinkypete Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There is no need to overpay Givens. Give him a market value offer, maybe even a little higher, if he goes, we can replace his production. I know we all love the guy, but if we threw Jeruvicious in his place then drafted a 3rd round WR, we'd match Givens typical production.
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    And how much will he cost ? Buying guys in FA isn't always cheap. If you're willing to cross off the top ten FA WR (of which JJ is one) and find one you like, then you may be able to get one or two of them cheap.
  18. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I can't say for sure but I'd be willing to to bet it would not be anywhere close to 6.1 million dollars for 2006.
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I think you can say that for sure but you'd be paying him good money for a multi year deal - if things didn't work out and we were stuck with Givens at that price it would only be for one year.
  20. Digger44

    Digger44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    point taken. i guess i was thinking more along the lines of if we overpay givens, we really overpay branch. not a good pattern.
  21. brdmaverick

    brdmaverick Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    the Patriots will not franchise Givens

    I love the guy but it would not be a wise move to do so.
  22. oldrover

    oldrover Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree... hell, at $3mil, Adam V. is getting pricey. Once his contract is done, though, I think the Pats WILL franchise Seymour next year if they don't reach a contract deal.
  23. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,867
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -2

    Nobody offered a 1st round pick as far as I know. Givens was tendered the 3rd highest tender @ 1.43 Mil. Pats had right of first refusal and compensation worth 1 1st round pick if any team wanted Givens.

    There are actually 4 tenders. The highest is very obscure and never used. I dont know why that is, but I read that bit of info from John Clayton a few years ago IIRC. It may have changed since then, but I didnt see anything alluding that happening.
  24. Brady#12

    Brady#12 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    i think we should Franchise AV i think Givens will re-sign with us :D
  25. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    MLR's quote presumes 3 things.

    1.) that the Patriots offered Givens to the 31 teams for a 3rd round pick.
    2.) no one accepted the offer.
    3.) Givens was stunned by 1 and 2.

    Why would the Pats accept just a 3rd round pick for Givens when McCariens was worth a 2nd and Doug Jolley a 1st???

    Let's presume that 1 and 2 is true. How does MLR know 3??
  26. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    The "a 3" in my post yesterday was a typo. Should have read "a 1" (as opposed to two 1's as compensation for signing a Franchise player). It was written more than once in the Boston papers that Givens and his agent were stunned that there was no - repeat - no interest in signing him. We don't have to shop a RFA, and in many cases wouldn't want to - he can shop himself, and Givens agent did and found no takers. Had he we would have faced the decision to match the offer or take the draft pick compensation. I'm not sure BB would have balked at taking the 1 for his 7, but it never came to that.

    Givens might have been tendered lower but for his own 7th round draft status. At that level of compensation he would have been offered a contract and we would have been hard pressed not to match it as opposed to taking somebody else's 7th in 2005.

    I'm sure there will be interest in David Givens the UFA in 2006. I guarantee you there would be none in David Givens the Franchise Tag player, which is why he won't be.
  27. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I thought that it was a mistake but was not sure since a 3rd round pick would not have been his RFA compensation.
    Never wrote those reports. Hence, the question.

    I'm also sure that there will be interest in David Givens the UFA in 2006. I think that David Givens will not be franchised but for a different reason. The Patriots can not afford to tag Givens with Branch coming up next year. In fact, I think that the Patriots will not make an offer to Givens.
  28. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    I'm not sure I get this. If they Franchise Givens and he plays under that for a year, he's a UFA again in 12 months and they'd have this period now to sign Deion without Givens' 2006 salary interfering . . . or am I wrong ?
  29. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    Miguel may be hinting it's more of a pecking order interference thing and setting the bar much higher than they want to. And BB may not want to set a precedent that has Deion dragging his feet in his negotiation because he assumes worst case he'll be franchised.

    Givens and Branch were both drafted in 2002. Aside from the million dollar bonus Deion got for being selected in the 2nd round, he and the 7th rounder had made the same base minimum salary through 2004. Then last year David (who as a 7th rounder only signed a 3 year deal) got a mid level tender at $1.43M. He's now made just about the same over the last 4 seasons, and don't think Deion isn't aware of that on some level. Players often want to get caught up for previous underpayments when their next contract is negotiated. Teams can't afford that kind of thinking.

    Even though he hasn't put up gaudy numbers Deion is substantially underpaid for a young #1 WR who already owns a SB receiving record previously held by Jerry Rice and who has an MVP trophy on his nightstand. David isn't substantially underpaid for a nice young #2. Add $6M to the insult this year or even give David a market contract while Deion waits for his 5 year rookie deal to run out and he becomes a tougher signing. He may be tough enough to re-sign on his own anyway.
  30. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Every deal you make has impact on other players.

    If you decide Givens is worth 6.1 million and franchise him, Branch and his agent will decide (and rightfully so) that he is worth more and the Pats will have a very hard (likely impossible) time coming to an agreement with him on a deal.

    Franchising Givens - a starter but not one of our elite players - throws the entire team's salary structure out a line at a time where some of our key guys we need to keep (Branch, Seymour) are looking for new deals.

Share This Page