If the Patriots can trade Samuel its a BIG win

[solman]

6) What is incomprehensible on part of the patriots part is their apparent ostrich syndrome. This happened last year with Law and Branch. The team simply assumed that they were getting those players, and had no real Plan B. The team had millions of cap money left and no one to buy for 2006. I fear that we are in the same place again. We can blame all we want on Samuel. From where I sit, the team MUST have a plan without Samuel, much as we might disagree with that plan. Graham and Banta-Cain were replaced quickly. Wide receivers were added, albeit a year late. But where is the corner? Even we think that Samuel will sign for a year, where is the 2008 corner?

It would have been nice if a great CB were still on the board at pick #28. But, at least in BB's opinion, there wasn't. (I'm not sure he thought there was one in the entire draft.)

I don't think that the goal of the front office should be creating a completely dominant team during a single year.

The goal should be creating a serious Super Bowl contender every year.

BB/SP have consistently done that.

Were BB/SP blindsided by the Branch situation last year? Yes. But we still came within a hair of a fourth Super Bowl.

The 2007 Patriots secondary without Asante isn't remotely as weak as the Patriots 2006 receiving corps without Branch and Givens.

It we had complete freedom of choice in the Asante situation (which we don't) we would be choosing between:

A. Being the prohibitive 2007 Super Bowl favorites and

B. Being the clear 2007 Super Bowl favorites, but also significantly improving the competitiveness of the 2008-2012 squads

I would happily choose B. I figure that Brady will be around through 2012 or 2013. I want to see how many titles these Patriots can win. One more trophy isn't enough for me.

 

[arrellbee]

It is so meaningless to say that the team would be stronger if they could keep Samuel. Of course it would.

That is so totally not the point.

The point that gets forgotten over and over every time a 'good' player might go elsewhere, is that there is only so much money available (ie cap).

When not wailing that this 'good' player is so crucial that they team 'must' sign him no matter what the cost, the board has a pretty good sense that the success of the Patriots is to get as much value as they possibly can for every dollar spent.

There are tradeoffs ! For folks familiar with the concept, an NFL roster is a zero sum game. Which means simply that if you pay more for one roster spot you have less to spend elsewhere. If the Patriots had done all of the big contracts that people felt were absolutely necessary or it was a 'huge' mistake, they would not have enough money to keep a balanced roster. If you think otherwise, go back and figure out the dollars advocated and figure out which other players in the roster you would cut in order to free up that money. You would have to cut some pretty important contributers - and that's not how you compose a solidly strong team.

So back to the 'max value' approach. It has been observed on this board many times and even in the media in their more sane moments, that the Patriots apparently 'budget' roughly what amounts they feel represent the value of a playing position relative to all other positions. They then exercise reasonable discipline in not varying too far from those amounts and spend what appears to be a huge amount of man-hours and effort in trying to find the best players for the value for EVERY position. It should be obvious to everyone that this means that they will almost never overpay a free agent just for the sake of getting a particular player or overpaying to get more talent at a position. For the aforementioned need for reasonable balance.

What folks seem to lose sight of is that the Patriots have valued some of these 'must have' players more highly than you might actually imagine. They offered rather surprisingly large contracts to Ty Law and Deion Branch, for example. Certainly bigger contracts than I would have thought they would consider for the particular position and player. So you simply cannot accuse them of disregarding that your 'must have' player is indeed worth significant dollars. Where they draw the line is that they will not sacrifice the overall roster balance too far for a given player. They have PROVEN that they can win superbowls without top talent at every position. Case in point is certainly the cornerback position as has been pointed out in various posts.

I often wonder if the folks who are so critical of the Patriots not spending the big bucks on their 'must keep' players and so quick to declare 'huge mistake' wouldn't be the very ones who would be lambasting the Patriots for getting into cap trouble if they had actually signed all these big contracts. Amusing thought.

So Solman made a very interesting scenario about how the Patriots might view the 'value' situation in terms of Samuel. I thought this was very pertinent to how the Patriots must approach each of these situations. I have no idea, as I suppose none of us can, just what kind of numbers the Patriots themselves assign to the Samuel situation. But you can bet that they have applied their best judgment in terms of the overall team balance and strength.

I think one of the most pertinent comments made in this thread is that - the Patriots don't control what Samuel or other teams may do. So very important to keep in mind !

So the Patriots are obviously crafting their approach based much like what Solman layed out where they feel that no matter what ends up happening, they will get approximately the same value considering not only this year BUT FUTURE YEARS AS WELL - AND considering relative value of all positions on the team. Comment was made about 'plan B'. I really think there is only 'plan A' or one plan where the value of each of the things that may happen (out of the Patriots control) have roughly the same value in their estimation.

So if Samuel signs a contract they offer, they will proceed that way. If he plays for the franchise tag, they will proceed that way. If he sits out until week 10, they will proceed that way (maybe he can fill in for Patriots star-crossed injuries). Etc, etc.

What happens, like it or not, is out of our control also ! All we can do is sit on pins and needles to see which 'branch' the situation takes.

 

[solman]

Right - as I said before, the Pats need to make an example of Samuel to dissuade players from playing this game in the future.

I think that the Patriots HAVE established a reputation for not giving into player demands.

Branch was hardly a capitulation. He got absolutely nothing out of the Patriots until he offered enormous value in return.

It is not in the Patriot's bests interests to go out of their way to make players miserable.

If a player is able to offer substantially more value in trade than he is worth on the field, the Patriots should be happy to part ways.

If not, the Patriots should force the player to eat his salary and any fines they are permitted to levy.

Current Pats would be foolish to expect otherwise.

 

[patchick]

The point that gets forgotten over and over every time a 'good' player might go elsewhere, is that there is only so much money available (ie cap).

When not wailing that this 'good' player is so crucial that they team 'must' sign him no matter what the cost, the board has a pretty good sense that the success of the Patriots is to get as much value as they possibly can for every dollar spent.

Who has forgotten about the cap? Who has said the Pats must sign Samuel no matter the cost? Hasn't this whole thread been about a one-year franchise contract, which is already counting against the cap even as the Pats have added an unprecedented crop of impact veterans?



I thought the question was whether the Pats should actively shop Samuel, thus:

- maximizing the value of the compensation they get for him
- erasing his big footprint on the salary cap
- removing a distraction
- significantly weakening their 2007 secondary
- setting an ugly precedent that you can whine your way out of a franchise tag

It's frankly ugly either way, and people can reasonably come down on either side without "wailing," "forgetting about" or "losing sight of" anything. But perhaps you've lost sight of that.

 

[solman]

- setting an ugly precedent that you can whine your way out of a franchise tag

Is the precedent that you can whine your way out of the Franchise tag?

Or is the precedent that you can trade your way out of the Franchise tag by offering the Patriots more value than you are worth?

 

[zippo59]

Holding out under the franchise tag doesn't seem like a smart move if you look at the history of it. I'm trying to think of a player who was franchise tagged, held out, and turned out better for it. I can't.

On the otherhand, I can ring up a whole bunch of names who played under the franchise tag and went on to get their payday. Shaun Alexander, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Adam Vinatieri, Walter Jones, Edgerrin James, Nate Clements, John Abraham just to name a few.

History strongly says that the best move for Samuek would be for him to get his butt into camp.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I've had a consistent view of capology for years. What I "discovered" was this board. Not surprisingly, what got me posting here was the ridiculous assertion that the Branch trade wasn't a big win.

LOL tell that to Brady and Belichick as they watched the Colts win our 4th in 6 against the freakin' Bears. That they got more for Branch than some expected, and that he and we perhaps got more than he was worth, was a nice consolation prize, but one BB would have gladly foregone for another Lombardi.


I started this thread with a long post in which I estimated the expectation value of Asante Samuel at $7.8M. Saying that I view him as a $2M player is a deliberate misrepresentation.

I am saying that paying $7.8M for a $7.8M player is not a big win. Paying $15M for five years of a $6M player IS a big win. Teams that pass up opportunities like this are ultimately forced to put less talent on the field.

WOW - you think it's all about winning the projected cap value battles. It's not. Sound cap management is part of the foundation of a winning franchise, but it is not the be all or end all or Philly would have multiple rings by now.

It's about assembling sufficient talent and coaching/molding it into a high functioning team without overmortgaging the future. Something this organization managed to do even when it was digging out from under a mismanaged cap. And while getting twice the production at half the cost is most fans wet dream, players with half a brain won't stand for it for long and I don't think Belichick honestly expects them to. He just wants them to be willing to be realistic and look at the bigger picture and hopefully factor in the ability to play with coaches and teamates who are also willing to sacrifice a dollar for the opportunity to play football with an organization to whom winning championships matters and counts against leaving that last dollar on the table for the next guy they also need to win.


If the Patriots lose Asante Samuel and don't do anything to replace him (not likely), the following will still be true:

1. They will have a squad that is the clear favorite to win the superbowl.

A pre season honor that went to the Colts over the last 4-5 seasons...and only panned out once.

2. They will have used more of their long term cap preparing for this season, than preparing for any other season in recent memory.

If they have, and I'm not sure that's the case, it's because the cap has risen exponentially in the last 2 seasons and they were rebuffed in their efforts to expend the increase last season and found themselves both flush in the short as well as long term following a season in which they came up frustratingly short of the goal.

Nobody is going to look back on this offseason, and say that it was too heavily devoted towards building for future years. In my opinion, the 2007 Patriots without Asante, are clearly better than the 2003-2004 squads.

All the more reason not to take the loss of a starting corner lightly. IMO you are foolishly comparing a pre season paper roster to a team that won 21 straight and 2 superbowls. And while some players have improved with experience since 2003-4, including Asante, others have just aged and lost a step or become fragile and unreliable, and the newer additions remain untested or insufficiently proven in this system. The 2005 team looked great on paper, easily poised to threepeat. Until they unexpectedly lost both starting ILB and their backups couldn't figure out the system, and then they lost a pro bowl SS, C, LT in quick succession, and in the process realized the FA CB they traded for couldn't play, and their 1600 yard HOF candidate RB was essentially a one year wonder. **** sure does happen to this team once the bell rings...

I understand the fan's impulse to throw as much talent at his team before the season starts as possible, but aren't we already there? The Patriots were not built by focusing on one season at the expense of all future seasons. Keeping Asante, when we have a team this talented and a #1 pick is offered, would be the epitome buying the present at the cost of the future.

How condescending of you. Only the Patriots weren't built by focusing on the future at the expense of the present either. One game and one season at a time, with a watchful eye on the cap and mindful of the future is the way Pioli always characterizes it. But job one in Foxboro is to field the best possible team THIS season. Same as it's been every season since Bill got here. Sometimes it doesn't work out, but that's because of miscalculations or misjudgements or misfortunes - it's not intentionally undertaken as a means to be compulsively careful of the future. Bill always says that if there is a player out there who is available who could help this team now, it's his job to try and get him here. I think that can easily be taken a step farther to include that if there is a player presently on this team who can help this team win now, it's his job to try to retain him. He won't always be able to, as was the case with Deion, but fans should never confuse that with his not wanting to.

He's not going to overpay Asante long term, but he isn't going to undervalue his on field presence on THIS team this season relative to the value of a 2008 draft pick either. If he wanted to flip him he'd have been gone in April. He'd obviously prefer to play him, which is apparently why he tagged him, and for that reason he won't trade him unless the player gives him no choice. And then he will get value for him.

He won't make an example of him because at the end of the day it won't do the team any good in the present or necessarily in the future. When it comes to business, players will do what players do - some will be reasonable because they choose to stay and others will be unreasonable because they care more about getting paid every last dollar than winning championships and still getting paid a whole lot of dollars.

 

[arrellbee]

Who has forgotten about the cap? Who has said the Pats must sign Samuel no matter the cost? Hasn't this whole thread been about a one-year franchise contract, which is already counting against the cap even as the Pats have added an unprecedented crop of impact veterans?



I thought the question was whether the Pats should actively shop Samuel, thus:

- maximizing the value of the compensation they get for him
- erasing his big footprint on the salary cap
- removing a distraction
- significantly weakening their 2007 secondary
- setting an ugly precedent that you can whine your way out of a franchise tag

It's frankly ugly either way, and people can reasonably come down on either side without "wailing," "forgetting about" or "losing sight of" anything. But perhaps you've lost sight of that.

I'm not really sure how you think I have lost sight of anything. Do you disagree with the overall premise of my post ? Or not ?

If you are saying that my use of loaded terminology is not applicable to this thread, I somewhat agree with you. I was taking license to refer to other threads without number on this board rather than so much to do with this thread.

However, advocating that the Patriots are better off one way or another, which has been expressed on various sides throughout this thread, is, I submit, losing sight of the probable judgment of the Patriots that all eventualities have approximately equal weight with them - and is how they have probably deliberately positioned themselves. I really believe that is a perspective that should be kept in mind.

While I certainly agree that 'wailing' is very inappropriate with respect to your posts, do I misread, or are you taking a defnite advocacy position that the Patriots should take steps to keep Samuel ? If you are, then you must also be advocating that they increase their offer to Samuel. Which is to the point of my first post of course. ... or perhaps you are just indicating your preference as which 'branch' will turn out to happen. In which case, my post would not be applicable of course.

.............
Given the tremendous potential of this year's Patriots and the fact that they already have 5 day-1 picks for 2008, I think I'd rather have the player than the pick this time.

........
Shopping Samuel without a strong prospect behind him, IMO, tilts the balance too much toward gambling on the future at the cost of the present.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Holding out under the franchise tag doesn't seem like a smart move if you look at the history of it. I'm trying to think of a player who was franchise tagged, held out, and turned out better for it. I can't.

On the otherhand, I can ring up a whole bunch of names who played under the franchise tag and went on to get their payday. Shaun Alexander, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Adam Vinatieri, Walter Jones, Edgerrin James, Nate Clements, John Abraham just to name a few.

History strongly says that the best move for Samuek would be for him to get his butt into camp.

Alexander didn't play under the tag - he signed a one year deal for the tag salary early in TC that stipulated he would not be tagged again in 2006. Then against the odds they got a long term deal done after the season and before FA reopened.

Manning never played under the tag. He was tagged for a week (exclusively) until the Colts and Condon hammered out a deal. His cap hit under that tag would have been $18M. Brees was fighting for the right to remain the franchise QB on a team that had drafted his replacement 2 years earlier. And it almost backfired on him when he suffered a shoulder injury at the end of that season that severely limited his options and contract potential in 2006. Adam was a kicker so it's a little less risky proposition. Jones is the rare exception who to some extent beat the system. James held out bitterly but the RB market was slow and he had no takers despite an agreement to trade him if Rosenhaus could find any trading partner willing to even part with a 2. And his long term deal in Arizona paid less than he'd hoped. Clements extracted the promise to not tag again before he reported to the Bills. Abraham only reported because JETS management assured him they would get a long term deal done. Then they got canned or quit and the new mangenius management tagged him with the understanding it was only to trade him essentially to the team of his choice (Atlanta).

The Raiders also tagged Woodson only to have him report and go lame. Still he got a new deal with GB after pocketing $10M of Al Davis' money for essentially hanging on IR. The Eagles tagged Corey Simon, then when he refused to sign they pulled the $6M tag amid concerns about his weight and committment. Didn't stop Polian from signing him to a $30M deal, $14M of which he has already banked for playing half a season in 2005.

The idea that holdouts hurt players more in the long run than the risk of injury under a one year deal doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny. These guys are ****y, and believe in themselves. If Asante believes he's worth $8-9M per, he likely believes he could holdout until week 10 and then underscore his value in the remaining (potentially) 9-10 games of the season. Hell, all the hoopla over him this off season is based on his performance in the last 9-10 games of last season.

 

[patfanken]

A couple of things that need to be stated or re-stated.

1. If there ARE other teams that are out there who would pay Assante MORE than the Dre Bly deal that the Pats offered, where are those OFFERS. There hasn't been a single one reported.

2. The onus of making a trade happen is clearly in the hands of Samuel and his representatives. He is the technical FA. He is free to go to any team and shop himself. If he is so disappointed in the way the Pats are treating him, why isn't he out there visiting other teams making something happen.

3. Coming back after 10 games is not required. He can stay out the entire year. Coming back after 10 game merely gets him an extra year toward his pension, and at the contract level he's going to be at, a pension 30 years down the road is not a reason to come back if he's that stupid to sit down for 10 games.

4. I'd trade Samuel for Winfield and a 2nd in a nanosecond. You'd get a CB with just under elite capabilities (inother words very good), plus a good pick in next years draft. I think Winfield's contract is in the Dre Bly range, so its within the Pats budget. He would give the Pats probably 2 more years of top notch play, which is time for them to find their next top flight CB to pair with Hobbs. BTW- Hobbs, IMHO is ahead of Samuel's development at this stage of his career.

5. I think we are vastly underrating the aquisition of Torrey James. Don't forget that this guy was in Hawaii 2 years ago. I see him as a reincarnation of OTIS. Like Smith, he is a big CB, who can physically handle the bigger WRs in the short zone with over the top help. He is definitely on the downside, but so was OTIS. He also has better ball skills than OTIS. Put in the right situations he will be very effective, even if Samuel remains.

6. Samuel will probably end up missing most of TC if things keep on this track, but I CANNOT envision him holding out. To what end. What does that accomplish other than hurt his marketability, hurt his teammates and his relationship to them, and cost him millions of dollars.

If he is unwilling to come down on his demands, and the Pats are unwilling to come up, then he has no choice but to eventually sign the tender and play like hell the ENTIRE year. Sitting out 10 games is ridiculous, and only hurts HIM more than the team. Sitting out the entire year, is even more stupid.

BOTTOM LINE - I would as the board to explain to me how sitting out 10-16 games helps Assante Samuel in any manner. I just can't see it.

 

[patchick]

I'm not really sure how you think I have lost sight of anything. Do you disagree with the overall premise of my post ? Or not?

OK, fair question. I responded in frustration to your post because it seemed like a classic straw man argument. You created a mythical opponent for your argument who thought and behaved in a ridiculous manner: "wailing that this 'good' player is so crucial that they team 'must' sign him no matter what the cost" and being "so critical of the Patriots not spending the big bucks on their 'must keep' players and so quick to declare 'huge mistake'." This would be the equivalent of me complaining that people who are eager to trade Samuel "think that we should trade every veteran for draft picks and that extending Seymour and Brady was a mistake because of the draft windfall we missed out on." Nobody thinks that, so it's not productive to argue against it.

Do I disagree with the fundamental point of your post? In all honesty I'm not certain I understand it:

So the Patriots are obviously crafting their approach based much like what Solman layed out where they feel that no matter what ends up happening, they will get approximately the same value considering not only this year BUT FUTURE YEARS AS WELL - AND considering relative value of all positions on the team. Comment was made about 'plan B'. I really think there is only 'plan A' or one plan where the value of each of the things that may happen (out of the Patriots control) have roughly the same value in their estimation.

So if Samuel signs a contract they offer, they will proceed that way. If he plays for the franchise tag, they will proceed that way. If he sits out until week 10, they will proceed that way (maybe he can fill in for Patriots star-crossed injuries). Etc, etc.

What happens, like it or not, is out of our control also ! All we can do is sit on pins and needles to see which 'branch' the situation takes.

Is the point just that the Patriots are a well-managed team, they'll make the best of the situation however it plays out, and we can't control what they do? Well sure, I agree with that! So right now they're facing a tough decision, and we're all weighing in with our opinions on what they should do about it. Why not?

 

[Vern]

If we enter the 2008 offseason with tons of adjusted cap space and 3 first round picks and no ring, Belioli will not consider that a big win but rather a crashing disappointment. Because they will have squandered another season in Brady's prime - not to mention potentially the final season of impact players like Harrison's and Bruschi's and Brown's and Seau's careers.

I think this is very short sighted thinking. I'm not interested in milking one more ring from the classic crew anymore. All that does is move you up clear one notch ahead of Dallas and on par with the Steelers of the 70s.

Based on what the Krafts appear to be capable of as owners, I'm more interested in establishing a 49er's type run of sustained dominance: 15+ years of constant contention, without ever suffering a fall back year (not a single losing season if you discount the strike year) from 81 to 98. This was then punctuated by SB wins about every 3 or so years on average. Also, you have to be realistic. Of the 49er's 5 SBs, none of the key folks, including Montana, Walsh and Rice won more than 3 each.

To establish that kind of run, you have to be thinking constantly about 3 years from now as much as this year. One of these years, that "extra" first rounder may well find you Brady's heir (whether directly or via a trade).

Here's the SF run in all it's glory. Compared to what we've done, we're just getting started, and will at best be only half way when Brady retires.

SF Run
(1980 6-10, missed playoffs)
1981 13-3, #1, SB Champion, 3-0
1982 3-6, (strike season)
1983 10-6, div, lost NFC, 1-1
1984 15-1, #1, SB Champion, 3-0
1985 10-6, wc, lost WC, 0-1
1986 10-5, div, lost div, 0-1
1987 13-2, #1, lost div, 0-1
1988 10-6, div, SB Champion, 3-0
1989 14-2, #1, SB Champion, 3-0
1990 14-2, #1, lost NFC, 1-1
1991 10-6, missed playoffs
1992 14-2, #1, lost NFC, 1-1
1993 10-6, #2, lost NFC, 1-1
1994 13-3, #1, SB Champion, 3-0
1995 11-5, #2, lost div, 0-1
1996 12-4, wc, lost div, 1-1
1997 13-3, #1, lost NFC, 1-1
1998 12-4, wc, lost div, 1-1
(1999 losing season and missed playoffs, also in 2000)

17 years w/o losing season, 5 SBs (0 SB losses), 5 NFC Champ Game losses, 5 Divisonal losses, 1 Wildcard loss, 1 missed playoffs

- - -

Pats Run
2001 11-5, #2 (div), SB Champion, 3-0
2002 9-7, missed playoffs
2003 14-2, #2 (div), SB Champion, 3-0
2004 14-2, #1, SB Champion, 3-0
2005 10-6, div, lost div round, 1-1
2006 12-4, div, lost AFC Champion, 2-1

6 years w/o losing season, 3 SBs, 1 AFC Champ loss, 1 div loss, 1 missed playoffs

We've got a LONG way to go, folks.

 

[mgcolby]

Not trying to be a smartass but Montana won 4 SB's.

Other than that I think your premise is accurate. But I think your starting it too late. As 1994 could infact act as your starting year. Unless you base your premise on the first SB win.

 

[cstjohn17]

To establish that kind of run, you have to be thinking constantly about 3 years from now as much as this year. One of these years, that "extra" first rounder may well find you Brady's heir (whether directly or via a trade).
We've got a LONG way to go, folks.

I agree it is a long way from over but SF's heir was a Hall of Famer.
Young ended up with 2 league MVPs, a Superbowl MVP and the highest passer rating of any QB in NFL history. I know people believe in Cassell but the HOF may be a stretch.

SF also did it with 2 coaches, and their dynasty happened exactly once in the history of the league.

5 SBs is not out of the question for the Patriots but if it happens there is a strong chance it will be because of this coach and this QB.

Amazing, who would hvae thought before the 2001 Superbowl that the Patriots would be mentioned in the same breath as San Fran, Pittsburgh and Dallas.

These are the glory days! Enjoy the ride.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think that the Patriots HAVE established a reputation for not giving into player demands.

Branch was hardly a capitulation. He got absolutely nothing out of the Patriots until he offered enormous value in return.

It is not in the Patriot's bests interests to go out of their way to make players miserable.

If a player is able to offer substantially more value in trade than he is worth on the field, the Patriots should be happy to part ways.

If not, the Patriots should force the player to eat his salary and any fines they are permitted to levy.

Current Pats would be foolish to expect otherwise.

I disagree - I think the Branch situation was a capitulation. A player under contract refuses to play unless he gets a new contract.

What happens? He gets a new contract because he refused to play.

This cause and effect certainly wasn't missed by Samuel, who actually IS a free agent though franchised.

Don't get me wrong - I was glad to have something in return.... but the precedent is in the process of being set that if you aren't happy with your contract or franchise tag or salary negotiations, threaten to hold out until the 10th game of the season, and you'll be traded and get your new contract.

I don't want players to be miserable either. Samuel can earn as much in one year as he has in his entire career this year alone. But no one can force him to play. That's his choice. And if he's miserable - that's because of his choice as well.

The Patriots are well within their rights not to trade him and put the tag on him next year just as Samuel is within his rights not to play until the 10th game. Unless everyone sees that the best situation for everyone is to accept the rules of the game and respect the franchise tag, surely no one's going to be truly happy but that's their call.

The bottom line is that the team needs to stop rewarding players who hold out.

 

[ClevTrev]

It is so meaningless to say that the team would be stronger if they could keep Samuel. Of course it would.

That is so totally not the point.

The point that gets forgotten over and over every time a 'good' player might go elsewhere, is that there is only so much money available (ie cap).
.
.
.
There are tradeoffs ! For folks familiar with the concept, an NFL roster is a zero sum game. Which means simply that if you pay more for one roster spot you have less to spend elsewhere. If the Patriots had done all of the big contracts that people felt were absolutely necessary or it was a 'huge' mistake, they would not have enough money to keep a balanced roster. If you think otherwise, go back and figure out the dollars advocated and figure out which other players in the roster you would cut in order to free up that money. You would have to cut some pretty important contributers - and that's not how you compose a solidly strong team.
.
.
.
So the Patriots are obviously crafting their approach based much like what Solman layed out where they feel that no matter what ends up happening, they will get approximately the same value considering not only this year BUT FUTURE YEARS AS WELL - AND considering relative value of all positions on the team. Comment was made about 'plan B'. I really think there is only 'plan A' or one plan where the value of each of the things that may happen (out of the Patriots control) have roughly the same value in their estimation.

So if Samuel signs a contract they offer, they will proceed that way. If he plays for the franchise tag, they will proceed that way. If he sits out until week 10, they will proceed that way (maybe he can fill in for Patriots star-crossed injuries). Etc, etc.

What happens, like it or not, is out of our control also ! All we can do is sit on pins and needles to see which 'branch' the situation takes.

Great post. You know the Pats realize they can't control everything in this scenario. However, you know based on their history that they are planning for every possible eventuality. They have assigned a value to each scenario, and as the Samuel situation plays out, they will move to the one that ensures the best value for the team.

Yes, we'd all favor another year with Asante at CB if he signs for the franchise amount or they can agree on a contract that fits his value in the context of the roster; however, that's not going to happen if Asante & his agent insist on a contract that is higher than the team has pegged his value. That's where we are now, and it's not going to change until at least 15 July or later.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I think that having Samuel's services for this season outweighs the benefits of having yet another 1st round pick in 2008. I think the Pats should just offer Samuel the 1 year contract with the clause they won't repeat the franchise tag. The Pats are set up to win it all this year. We need to get this done. There's still time but they shouldn't let this drag out.

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

Since discovering the existence of the cap your obcession with it has begun to warp your perception of value in team building. Cap space doesn't trump talent, it allows you to acquire or retain it. The Pat's actually want Asante to stay and play here - otherwise they would have goaded him into screaming louder sooner and traded "roughly zero" for that draft pick prior to the 2007 draft. They have offered him a long term deal that averages $6M per and therefore likely includes a double digit signing bonus well in excess of $7.8M, which means they do not share your cap value/holdout induced view of him as a $2M player. Nor do they covet that potential $10M cumulative draft value down the road more than the substantially greater than zero value of having playmaking talent and stability in their backfield for the upcoming season, not to mention the next 4-5 seasons.

If they end up trading him for a 1st in the 2008 draft it will not be a big win, but rather having made the best of an unfortunately unworkable situation. Same as with Deion, whom they also actually would have much preferred to retain long term. We may or may not be better off without him going forward talent and cap wise, having already traded out of the first with our second pick in the round this season because having 2 first rounders in a shallow draft didn't represent substantial value. And we certainly weren't better off without him in 2006, and will apparently be paying someone (or ones) the money he rejected to cover the position in 2007. We saved substantial cap space going forward last season by replacing an unsignable Branch and Givens with Caldwell and Gaffney et al, but it cost us in offensive production/efficiency and wins. We have been unable or unwilling to replace that via the draft, so we have now begun trading draft picks for veteran WR and paying them as much or more in cap than Branch and Givens would have cost to remedy that deficiency in 2007 and potentially beyond.

Championships aren't won on paper, solman, and the only real value of cap space or draft picks is measured in the talent it enables you to field being sufficient to meet your goals in the present as well as the future. If we enter the 2008 offseason with tons of adjusted cap space and 3 first round picks and no ring, Belioli will not consider that a big win but rather a crashing disappointment. Because they will have squandered another season in Brady's prime - not to mention potentially the final season of impact players like Harrison's and Bruschi's and Brown's and Seau's careers.

I think they will figure out a way around this with or without Asante. But I'm not going to kid myself by trying to rationalize how this was their plan all along. Anything short of signing him to a reasonable deal long term is just some variation of plan B.

Wow. Very well said.

 

[solman]

Only the Patriots weren't built by focusing on the future at the expense of the present either.

I'm sure I don't have to recount here the countless decision that BB/SP have made in favor of maximizing long term talent at the expense of talent during the current season.

I'm can't think of any decision that the Patriots made that put the present season ahead of maximizing long term talent (present + future).

If I'm so wrong about how the Patriots were built, why don't you give me an example of how the Patriots have been willing to sacrifice total long term talent to improve talent during the present season.

 

[solman]

Alexander didn't play under the tag - he signed a one year deal for the tag salary early in TC that stipulated he would not be tagged again in 2006. Then against the odds they got a long term deal done after the season and before FA reopened.

Manning never played under the tag. He was tagged for a week (exclusively) until the Colts and Condon hammered out a deal. His cap hit under that tag would have been $18M. Brees was fighting for the right to remain the franchise QB on a team that had drafted his replacement 2 years earlier. And it almost backfired on him when he suffered a shoulder injury at the end of that season that severely limited his options and contract potential in 2006. Adam was a kicker so it's a little less risky proposition. Jones is the rare exception who to some extent beat the system. James held out bitterly but the RB market was slow and he had no takers despite an agreement to trade him if Rosenhaus could find any trading partner willing to even part with a 2. And his long term deal in Arizona paid less than he'd hoped. Clements extracted the promise to not tag again before he reported to the Bills. Abraham only reported because JETS management assured him they would get a long term deal done. Then they got canned or quit and the new mangenius management tagged him with the understanding it was only to trade him essentially to the team of his choice (Atlanta).

The Raiders also tagged Woodson only to have him report and go lame. Still he got a new deal with GB after pocketing $10M of Al Davis' money for essentially hanging on IR. The Eagles tagged Corey Simon, then when he refused to sign they pulled the $6M tag amid concerns about his weight and committment. Didn't stop Polian from signing him to a $30M deal, $14M of which he has already banked for playing half a season in 2005.

The idea that holdouts hurt players more in the long run than the risk of injury under a one year deal doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny. These guys are ****y, and believe in themselves. If Asante believes he's worth $8-9M per, he likely believes he could holdout until week 10 and then underscore his value in the remaining (potentially) 9-10 games of the season. Hell, all the hoopla over him this off season is based on his performance in the last 9-10 games of last season.

None of these guys held out. Obviously its a good thing when teams and players are able to work out their differences. But if the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, there are few scenarios in which it makes sence for the player to hold out.

As far as I am aware there is NO example of a franchise player who held out, and improved his financial position as a consequence.