Franchising Givens

[Digger44]

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?

 

[tatepatsfan]

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.

 

[PATSNUTme]

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.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

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.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Preaching to the choir.

 

[BelichickFan]

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.

 

[Weishuhn]

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.

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.

 

[BelichickFan]

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.

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.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

 

[Miguel]

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.

How do you know this??

 

[Miguel]

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?

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

 

[Miguel]

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.

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

 

[Miguel]

2. You just franchised your #2 WR. What in the world are you going to do with your #1 WR next year?

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.

 

[BelichickFan]

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

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.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.

 

[stinkypete]

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.

 

[BelichickFan]

but if we threw Jeruvicious in his place

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.

 

[dhamz]

And how much will he cost ?

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.

 

[BelichickFan]

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.

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.

 

[Digger44]

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.

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