If we let Asante go for 2 first rounders IT MUST BE WITH DETROIT

[dryheat44]

You're all forgetting the simple fact that Belichick almost certainly doesn't want a pick in the top 10. The value of the player isn't in line with the value of the contract. In all likelihood, he'd rather trade him for a late first and two seconds.

 

[Mainefan]

Yeah, but then I think of Revis and Landry...

 

[sebman2112]

You're all forgetting the simple fact that Belichick almost certainly doesn't want a pick in the top 10. The value of the player isn't in line with the value of the contract. In all likelihood, he'd rather trade him for a late first and two seconds.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

Probably no higher than 12th-13th overall if it was a straight up trade for a single pick. I don't think BB and Pioli like the idea of one draftee having a larger contract than both players picked at 24+28 combined.

 

[BelichickFan]

You're all forgetting the simple fact that Belichick almost certainly doesn't want a pick in the top 10. The value of the player isn't in line with the value of the contract.

Well I don't want a Ferrari either. But if I could trade my Dodge Intrepid for a Ferrari and would make the trade . . . then sell the Ferrari.

 

[dryheat44]

Well I don't want a Ferrari either. But if I could trade my Dodge Intrepid for a Ferrari and would make the trade . . . then sell the Ferrari.

Where's the Ferrari in the equation? You're dealing with unknown entities. Like Monty Hall offering you what's in Box #1, Box #2, and Box #3. Then you'd have to be certain of getting proper value for the Box when it's time to flip it.

 

[sebman2112]

Where's the Ferrari in the equation? You're dealing with unknown entities. Like Monty Hall offering you what's in Box #1, Box #2, and Box #3. Then you'd have to be certain of getting proper value for the Box when it's time to flip it.

And who knows, you could trade for the 9th overal/8th overall pick, and someone ends up taking Landry at 6th/7th overall. You can't count your eggs before they hatch. Also if the Patriots had that high of a pick they'd probably pick Levi Brown, Branch, or Carriker. I don't think they'd draft a Safety in the top ten.

 

[BelichickFan]

Where's the Ferrari in the equation? You're dealing with unknown entities. Like Monty Hall offering you what's in Box #1, Box #2, and Box #3. Then you'd have to be certain of getting proper value for the Box when it's time to flip it.

If someone wants to give you a top ten pick but you want to pick in the 15-32 range, you can clearly trade down. Is it a Ferrari ? Maybe not. But this talk of not wanting a high pick is silly - you can always trade it. Or use it . . . that Seymour character at #6 turned out OK.

 

[sebman2112]

If someone wants to give you a top ten pick but you want to pick in the 15-32 range, you can clearly trade down. Is it a Ferrari ? Maybe not. But this talk of not wanting a high pick is silly - you can always trade it. Or use it . . . that Seymour character at #6 turned out OK.

Well, that's a good idea right there. I thought you only wanted to trade for that high of a pick to use it on Landry.

If you are advocating trading Samuel to someone for their top ten pick, then trading that pick for Later picks I'd be all for it. I don't think NE could get that high of a pick for Samuel, though. Also, this would depend on being able to ship that high first rounder.

 

[BelichickFan]

Well, that's a good idea right there. I thought you only wanted to trade for that high of a pick to use it on Landry.

I'm not sure who I would use the pick on if we had to use it.

Purely hypothetically, if we were at #6 like Washington offered to Chicago . . .

The two that would really intrigue me would be Joe Thomas or Gaines Adams. Both gone you say ? Maybe but surprises happen.

If they were both gone I'd probably look at Leon Hall although trading Samuel and a #1 for Hall leaves me uninspired.

 

[dryheat44]

If someone wants to give you a top ten pick but you want to pick in the 15-32 range, you can clearly trade down. Is it a Ferrari ? Maybe not. But this talk of not wanting a high pick is silly - you can always trade it. Or use it . . . that Seymour character at #6 turned out OK.

Yes. We earned the Seymour pick by sucking. We didn't willingly trade up to draft him. In general, it's a lot easier to find a partner who wants to trade down than one who wants to trade up (for fair value) in the first round.

 

[dryheat44]

If they were both gone I'd probably look at Leon Hall although trading Samuel and a #1 for Hall leaves me uninspired.

Exactly. If you weren't able to trade the pick, you'd regret making that trade. Such is the danger. Now, if I got as high as #6, and Calvin Johnson was on the board at #3.....

 

[JDSal45]

This is a dumb thread. If Detroit wanted to do this, they would have already. They don't have to make a trade, they could just sign Asante to the contract they wanted....knowing the Pats wouldn't match.

Realistically, I see the Pats possibly getting a late first rounder for Asante. Maybe the Giants at 20 or Dallas. Detroit certainly is not giving up their second pick, let alone their pick next year as well. We could possibly get their second rounder this year and next.

J D Sal

 

[sebman2112]

I don't think non-exclusive franchise tagees work that way. You're describing the restricted FA system. The Lions can sign Asante to the greatest contract ever, but the Patriots are under no obligation to match it or let him go. Asante isn't going anywhere unless the Patriots trade him or cut him.

Maybe I'm wrong.

(I think) What he's saying is if the Lions wanted to give up their 2007 first and their 2008 first for Samuel they would have just signed him to a contract, instead of trying to trade for him?

I'm pretty sure that if Asante was to sign a contract with another team (not involving a trade) NE would have a chance to match that contract, or refuse and get that teams two first rounders.('07-'08)

 

[dryheat44]

(I think) What he's saying is if the Lions wanted to give up their 2007 first and their 2008 first for Samuel they would have just signed him to a contract, instead of trying to trade for him?

I'm pretty sure that if Asante was to sign a contract with another team (not involving a trade) NE would have a chance to match that contract, or refuse and get that teams two first rounders.('07-'08)

Yep...my bad. I had to re-read the non-exclusive franchise rules. But it still makes sense for Detroit to seek a trade. The Patriots would probably be willing to trade him for a second this year and a first next year, or something considerably less than two #1s.

 

[Jimke]

If a team signed Asante to an offer sheet, they would give up #1 draft

picks in two consecutive years. Before signing him, that team would probably

trade down to Chicago or Indianapolis to lessen the value of the #1 pick.

 

[dryheat44]

If a team signed Asante to an offer sheet, they would give up #1 draft

picks in two consecutive years. Before signing him, that team would probably

trade down to Chicago or Indianapolis to lessen the value of the #1 pick.

That last part's probably illegal. When signing RFAs to a contract, the draft picks have to be your originals or higher. I can only assume the same rules would apply here.

 

[Canada's #1 Pats Fan]

Honestly, isn't Samuel a product of the system just a little bit? I'd be happy picking someone like Revis with that pick. Honestly Samuel really only had one good season, so I would be perfectly happy getting a first rounder for him.

Agreed, don't forget everyone, we started an UDFA in the Superbowl against the Eagles - and he held his own.

 

[sebman2112]

I mean think about it. BB and staff take 3rd-4th rounders and turn them into good/top level starters. They find street free agents and turn them into solid contributors. Give them someone with first round talent? I'm just saying I think someone like Revis in NE's system could turn into a very good CB.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Where's the Ferrari in the equation? You're dealing with unknown entities. Like Monty Hall offering you what's in Box #1, Box #2, and Box #3. Then you'd have to be certain of getting proper value for the Box when it's time to flip it.

I'm feeling a bit used for some reason...

 

[italia44]

Detroit would make the best possible trade for Asante,We could grab its #2 pick this year with the best wideout to come out in years Calvin Johnson or the Best D player in 2007 in Laron Landry and deal with a so so secondary like we have been able to do for the past several years.

Next year we would then almost guaranteed get a top 10 pick again with Detroit expected to be a punching bag in the NFC again this year.

A trade for Samuel MUST be with Detroit IMO.

Of course its only if Asante finds no way he wants to return here,otherwise keep it as-is

WTF?.........you could trade Asante+#24+#28 and it STILL wouldn't be enough to get Detroit's 2007
and 2008.

and even if we did it,having two top-of-the round
draft choices,would make us......let me see.......

The DETROIT FRIGGIN' PATRIOTS!....no thanks