- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 33,985
- Reaction score
- 14,475
Gentlemen,
I'm thinking of the Samuel situation, and every time I see "trade his ***** outta here" or something of that nature, I get a little steamed. Why? Because Branch could be seen as a precedent, and Samuel as a confirmation, that if you hold out or threaten to, you can get traded into the deal of your dreams, although your rights belong to New England.
Here is how I see it:
Samuel (last year, Branch,) have their rights and their tools under the CBA. This includes holding out, filing a grievance, and holding their breath until they turn blue. Whatever. I am not against this exercise of their rights.
The team has its rights and tools under the CBA. This includes franchising a player, trading a player's negotiating rights (at the team's discretion,) cutting the player, etc.
I am not sure these players could play much more hardball than they are now, under this system, short of leaving football. Somebody double-check that. IF Samuel filed a grievance, we now have a grievance on top of a holdout. What else could he do to the team?
By comparison, the team is expected to make the player's dream come true, if not by paying him exactly what he wants -- lately that always seems like top dollar -- or trading him to someone who will.
Let's discuss the idea of making this very, very hard on Asante -- all within the CBA, of course.
The pros: the message gets sent. Make reasonable offers. Don't play hardball with us, we won't with you. Bargain in good faith, and the team will do the same. Yes, Asante "values himself" at 30M guaranteed and an average of $10M/year, according to all the reports we have talked about here. That delusion falls into the category of "his problem." The team does not have a cornerback. That falls into the category of "our problem" (with "our" meaning the team -- yes, this is all from the mgt.s point of view.)
Well, we have "our problem." What else can Asante do to the Pats? Well, there is filing a grievance against the team, for exercising its rights. But unless the Pats have been firing shotguns at his agent or something, I don't understand the grounds.
Shouldn't the Pats consider giving Asante a little taste of how big "his problem" can get?
I don't say this because I hate the guy. I don't say it because I'm mean in general. I say it because this is the second year in a row that players have gone the hardball route. Again, you CBA and cap wizards explain to me how the players could be more hardball in their approach.
So, one option I can think of is, let him sit for 10 games. Refuse to trade him. Make clear that it will not happen, and that he will be franchised again, no ifs, ands, or buts, come next off-season, if it is in the Pats' interests. (That's pretty much what they've done already, except perhaps not in those words.) Then... if all is going well... sit his happy ***** on the bench, and let him be irrelevant for a season.
If all is not going well, let him audition this year, on the off chance that the Pats will let him go elsewhere. Then don't let him go anywhere with a winning record.
I see the value in trades, I really do. But I also see the value of putting a stop to this behavior as best as we can.
Now, the cons...
Players would rightly view New England as a sick, hard-core negotiating "adversary." Some players would just plain never consider playing here. Some draftees would curse the day New England drafted them, and would do so the next day. People would make comments like "Yeah I could play for New England and make five dollars."
And the fact is, this post is somewhat in anger, and in labor-management terms, is obviously management-biased. There is a tendency for fans to be that way, and God help me, I am a fan.
Is it realistic to think the Pats can just plain stonewall an Asante Samuel, to send the message all the way around? What do we think is the percentage of players who think $10M is so much more than (for instance) $8M? 100%? 50%? somewhere in between?
"Demanding" hometown discounts is downright silly. But for every Samuel, there is a Moss, accepting a cheap deal for the chance to prove himself again, and to play for a real contender.
Should we, or should we not, start thinking about getting medieval on these guys?
PFnV
I'm thinking of the Samuel situation, and every time I see "trade his ***** outta here" or something of that nature, I get a little steamed. Why? Because Branch could be seen as a precedent, and Samuel as a confirmation, that if you hold out or threaten to, you can get traded into the deal of your dreams, although your rights belong to New England.
Here is how I see it:
Samuel (last year, Branch,) have their rights and their tools under the CBA. This includes holding out, filing a grievance, and holding their breath until they turn blue. Whatever. I am not against this exercise of their rights.
The team has its rights and tools under the CBA. This includes franchising a player, trading a player's negotiating rights (at the team's discretion,) cutting the player, etc.
I am not sure these players could play much more hardball than they are now, under this system, short of leaving football. Somebody double-check that. IF Samuel filed a grievance, we now have a grievance on top of a holdout. What else could he do to the team?
By comparison, the team is expected to make the player's dream come true, if not by paying him exactly what he wants -- lately that always seems like top dollar -- or trading him to someone who will.
Let's discuss the idea of making this very, very hard on Asante -- all within the CBA, of course.
The pros: the message gets sent. Make reasonable offers. Don't play hardball with us, we won't with you. Bargain in good faith, and the team will do the same. Yes, Asante "values himself" at 30M guaranteed and an average of $10M/year, according to all the reports we have talked about here. That delusion falls into the category of "his problem." The team does not have a cornerback. That falls into the category of "our problem" (with "our" meaning the team -- yes, this is all from the mgt.s point of view.)
Well, we have "our problem." What else can Asante do to the Pats? Well, there is filing a grievance against the team, for exercising its rights. But unless the Pats have been firing shotguns at his agent or something, I don't understand the grounds.
Shouldn't the Pats consider giving Asante a little taste of how big "his problem" can get?
I don't say this because I hate the guy. I don't say it because I'm mean in general. I say it because this is the second year in a row that players have gone the hardball route. Again, you CBA and cap wizards explain to me how the players could be more hardball in their approach.
So, one option I can think of is, let him sit for 10 games. Refuse to trade him. Make clear that it will not happen, and that he will be franchised again, no ifs, ands, or buts, come next off-season, if it is in the Pats' interests. (That's pretty much what they've done already, except perhaps not in those words.) Then... if all is going well... sit his happy ***** on the bench, and let him be irrelevant for a season.
If all is not going well, let him audition this year, on the off chance that the Pats will let him go elsewhere. Then don't let him go anywhere with a winning record.
I see the value in trades, I really do. But I also see the value of putting a stop to this behavior as best as we can.
Now, the cons...
Players would rightly view New England as a sick, hard-core negotiating "adversary." Some players would just plain never consider playing here. Some draftees would curse the day New England drafted them, and would do so the next day. People would make comments like "Yeah I could play for New England and make five dollars."
And the fact is, this post is somewhat in anger, and in labor-management terms, is obviously management-biased. There is a tendency for fans to be that way, and God help me, I am a fan.
Is it realistic to think the Pats can just plain stonewall an Asante Samuel, to send the message all the way around? What do we think is the percentage of players who think $10M is so much more than (for instance) $8M? 100%? 50%? somewhere in between?
"Demanding" hometown discounts is downright silly. But for every Samuel, there is a Moss, accepting a cheap deal for the chance to prove himself again, and to play for a real contender.
Should we, or should we not, start thinking about getting medieval on these guys?
PFnV