Make an Example: Pros/Cons

[Pats726]

There is no question that Seymour and his agent played the PR game well. They knew that the action of not showing up was going to speak loudly enough and that speaking out about it is always a losing situation for the player. It looks almost like it was a pleasant experience when looked at next to the all around train wreck that was Branch. It was still a star player threatening to sit out if the team didn't pay him more money.

The idea that it was less of a holdout because of the lack of posturing in the press and that he showed up to party with the guys and get his ring at Kraft's house and played golf in a charity tournament is a reach. He held out for 2 months - from the end of the first week of June when he skipped mini-camp into August. He was violating a contract that had multiple years left at the time. And he only came back in when the team bumped his pay something like 45%.

Just to go back to my original point - it has not been just tier 2 guys. The last 2 have but the first was not. Seymour is as tier 1 as it gets.

What you say there is quite true..and it was also Ty Law who had a lot to say about his contract the year before that..03.. But it's the 2nd tiered players that have caused all the consternation and anxiety and drama, and not the top players. What you have said basically is what I have said..that the Seymour experienced hodout was quite different than Branch's or Samuel's. Why was that?? THAT is absolutely true. Both were holdouts and one led to an extension and a good result, the other did not. I think there's differences, you apparently equate them in many ways and do not in others. I do NOT think in the NFL that player's holding out is all of a sudden going to vanish and go away; it's part of what happens in the NFL these days. How a player and a team deal with the hold out is what is key as well as reasonableness, attitude and other attributes. It isn't LESS of a holdout but IT IS HOW the holdout that handled that you are totally missing. In one sense you see one as a pleasant experience the other as a train wreck, so you see them as the same?? The lack of posturing, his willingness to be part of the team etc etc DOES count for something...the reason WHY one was almost pleasant and the other a train wreck. As I said there are various reasons why the results were so different. Minicamp was June 9th of that year, he was back on the field August 2nd. It was longer than the 6 weeks, but less than two months.

 

[dhamz]

How a player and a team deal with the hold out is what is key as well as reasonableness, attitude and other attributes. It isn't LESS of a holdout but IT IS HOW the holdout that handled that you are totally missing.

I'm not missing it. I just don't see any relevance to it other than it gives us things to post about, weei things to talk about, and reporters things to write. I don't think any of it has any influence on the Pats decision making and I don't think it had any relevance in the resolution.

I think resolving holdouts comes down to 3 factors, how does the player view his value, how do the Pats view it, and how does the market (other NFL teams) view it.

Seymour views himself as the premier 2 gap DL in the NFL. The Pats view him the same way. So does the market. The negotiations could get done because they were on common ground.

With Branch, he viewed himself as top tier, the Pats thought of him as 2nd tier, and at least a segment of the market (Seattle for one) agreed with Branch. The only way a deal gets made is if one side changed their belief - either Branch by finding out that no one on the market views him that way or the Pats by reassessing his value. Both sides hardened their position and a deal was impossible.

Samuel falls more in line with Branch. He thinks he is an elite player. The Pats may have franchised him but if reports of their LT deal being backloaded with only 13m guarenteed are true, it is clear they do not view him as an elite player. Unless one side was going to change their opinion or Samuel concluded that the market was aginst him, a LT deal was nothing more than a pipe dream. The market can't really be judged accurately by us but it is probably safe to guess that Samuel's side is certain there is a team out there that would give him higher guarenteed $ meaning they see the market on their side.

 

[fgssand]

If there is one thing we can all agree on - Patriot management is really, really smart. Scott Pioli and Bill Belichick are at the head of the class.

They will always make the decision and be guided by what is in the very best interest of the New England Patriots.

My assessment is that they are trying to get Samuel to play this year either for the tender they offered or the long term value they have assessed. I think where they are smarter than the average front office comes with the discipline to hold to their value as opposed to signing him anywhere close to the kind of money he seeks. Doing so would inhibit their ability to sign other players deemed more essential to winning football over the next few years.

Does it not make sense that the money not used over the next few years for Samuel is earmarked for Ty Warren and then Wilfork?

Does it also make sense that in the Patriots so called model, they have placed a value for Asante and are simply not going to exceed that figure by very much?

We, as fans and observers, really do not know how good Zant really is. I assure you that BB/SP do. We realy don't know how Randall Gay compares to Asante now do we? I bet you BB knows and I have a feeling that were Gay to stay healthy for a year, he would be very close if not better than AS at a fraction of the price. That is value and that is smart thinking. Obviously, the HC of the NYJ made a run for Gay - he knows. Just because Gay has been injured does not mean he will be again, just as there is nothing to say AS stays healthy for another year. I am not really meaning to say Gay is better than Asante, but he could be?

I certainly have total faith and trust that these guys to do the right thing for the football club every time. While the situation they face may change from week to week with A/S (or not at all), their value assigned to the player will never waiver.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm not missing it. I just don't see any relevance to it other than it gives us things to post about, weei things to talk about, and reporters things to write. I don't think any of it has any influence on the Pats decision making and I don't think it had any relevance in the resolution.

I think resolving holdouts comes down to 3 factors, how does the player view his value, how do the Pats view it, and how does the market (other NFL teams) view it.

Seymour views himself as the premier 2 gap DL in the NFL. The Pats view him the same way. So does the market. The negotiations could get done because they were on common ground.

With Branch, he viewed himself as top tier, the Pats thought of him as 2nd tier, and at least a segment of the market (Seattle for one) agreed with Branch. The only way a deal gets made is if one side changed their belief - either Branch by finding out that no one on the market views him that way or the Pats by reassessing his value. Both sides hardened their position and a deal was impossible.

Samuel falls more in line with Branch. He thinks he is an elite player. The Pats may have franchised him but if reports of their LT deal being backloaded with only 13m guarenteed are true, it is clear they do not view him as an elite player. Unless one side was going to change their opinion or Samuel concluded that the market was aginst him, a LT deal was nothing more than a pipe dream. The market can't really be judged accurately by us but it is probably safe to guess that Samuel's side is certain there is a team out there that would give him higher guarenteed $ meaning they see the market on their side.

Not easy being the voice of reason in a sea of emotion. Well done.

I'll take your points one step further. Some people have romanticized Richards holdout because it never became as overtly adversarial as Branch's. What they forget is Richard was a core team leader, first of the group to publicly challenge Belioli philosophically/contractually, and he did that with TWO years remaining on his rookie deal. I'd bet that disappointed Belichick almost as much as when Richard's mentor, another guy he'd gravitated to as a football matters guy, refused to renegotiate in 2003.

Where do some folks think second tier Deion got the idea there might be something to be gained here in holding out except from Richard's example. People forget Richard went on national shows after 2004 and half jokingly reminded viewers that this home town discount contract blather meant nothing to him since his hometown was in GA. Who do you think was the former player who advised Deion's camp that they'd best be ready to go to the mat with their holdout because mere threats don't work here. The same one who admonished his teamates in 2002 to be mindful of getting your props and your money lest you be overlooked in the system. The same one whose voice echoed while Richard lips were moving to state that if he was one of the top or the top DL in the league then he deserved to be paid as such... And isn't that the same basic tennent Asante's team just reiterated on his behalf? It would be great if they could all see themselves in context or see that the price Lawyer paid for getting his due was ending up in Atlanta where the existence of Michael Vick and not football is what has always mattered.

Not every player is self assured or self motivated enough to fit this system on and off the field. Making an example of one who obviously isn't will do nothing but potentially alienate those who are or were. This isn't the gulag. Most players believe that the draft limits their life choices suffuciently upon entering the league that they are entitled to make choices at some point in their NFL career solely based on their wants or needs, whether a franchise or it fan base is comfortable with that or not. That point is FA. They understand the tag exists, even appreciate it to some extent (like Asante's camp who feel it underscored his league wide value at the outset). But they also understand that it was intended not as a means to retain or leverage a second tier player through his prime against his will. It was intended as a means to give small market or lower revevue teams a means to protect themselves from being pillaged at will by the Dan Snyders of the league and remain competitive. It was intended to allow them to retain their top tier franchise talent (not their second tier) short term to whom they would gladly give the mega deal if they could afford it, or at least get some draft value to resrock with in exchange for them in trade to a team who could afford to pay their market.

More interesting to me than the Samuel outcome is what will transpire between Richard and the FO over the next year or two in light of the Freeney and pretty soon Peppers deals. This FO did a very smart thing when they gave him what he said he wanted ($10M) a year early (so it averaged $8M against the cap) and in a short term deal(just 3 years at that price). It bought them time to assess the market and his durability and younger players already on the roster before deciding whether to heavily invest in Richard Seymour for the long haul into his 30's. It also gave them time to further assess his core leadership value. Richard was perhaps the most outspoken of the veteran leaders on the team when Branch was traded. Sure Brady was upset, as BB said he would expect a QB to be when his WR's are at issue, but Tom came out a day later and backed his FO and reiterated his respect for their committment to fiscal responsibility and acknowledged the role it's played in assembling and maintaining a team that could win 3 Lombardi's in 4 seasons. In fact he let it be known he was at least as disappointed with the Branch sides negotiating performance in the final analysis as he was with the FO who didn't find a way to retain him. Richard on the other hand merely whined about how we'd lost a player who represented everything "they" claim to want in their players...

The only hard line this FO needs to maintain is that if money and individual perception is what matters most to you then you probably won't get to remain here and be part of something special. You won't necessarily feel an immediate negative consequence if you make that decision, in fact you may realise a short term gain, but historically that's short lived as players who leave here for money and "respect" end up lamenting the day they did. Either because they toil in obscurity or morph into cap casualties on a team with little foundation on which to base retaining them, or become vagabonds seeking continued employment wherever they can find it, and often end up being more firmly than ever labeled products of a system by coaching staff that can't seem to figure out how to maximize them. Adam is the only one to date who has appeared to have benefitted across the board. But then, he was just a kicker and it's only been one season...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It's pretty easy to see that the approach changed between Seymour and Branch; Branch was a sort of "test case."

It is conceivable that the approach will change again between Branch and Samuel. Branch was given some of what he wanted (traded for big bucks,) but that still led to the current Samuel situation.

Now granted the "grievance" rumor seems to have no substance. But who wants a holdout each and every season?

As I say, I can conceive of a situation where the FO decides it's in everyone's best interests, for example, not to allow Samuel to seek at trade while franchised. I could see them doing that for 2 years, although that would be a lot to put on the guy. I could even see them sitting him, if the difference between the guys who are in, and Samuel, is not gaping -- or God forbid, if the secondary without Samuel outperforms the 2006 secondary with Samuel.

Football is still a business. Let's say that BB truly will not make any move that hinders the team on the field (which seems to make good sense.) All the above scenarios associate additional risk with holdout behavior without penalizing the team's chances.

I could see that being an attractive prospect from the FO perspective, given the three-holdouts-in-two-years pace.

PFnV

 

[Pats726]

I'll take your points one step further. Some people have romanticized Richards holdout because it never became as overtly adversarial as Branch's.

The bottom line was that it never became as adversial in comparison to Branch's holdout last year. That is a fact and you can call it all the names you like, but it was not the same in the way it was done...not close at all in the mode, style, attitude etc.

What they forget is Richard was a core team leader, first of the group to publicly challenge Belioli philosophically/contractually, and he did that with TWO years remaining on his rookie deal. I'd bet that disappointed Belichick almost as much as when Richard's mentor, another guy he'd gravitated to as a football matters guy, refused to renegotiate in 2003.

It was very true that Seymour was a leader, but I would wonder what would have happened if he had Chayut for an agent and negotiated in the way Branch did? I think there might have been different results. Whether BB was greatly disappointed by that we may not know for a long time, nor know exactly what happened with Milloy. There it seemed that negotiations were put off a few times, there may have been promises made and in the end, his refusal to renegotiate put the team into a corner where he needed to be cut to get under the cap. Again, these are things we can only speculate about.

Where do some folks think second tier Deion got the idea there might be something to be gained here in holding out except from Richard's example.

There's no doubt that is where he got his idea of a holdout...too bad he didn't use Srymour as an example in full. If he had done that, I truly believe he would stiull be with the team.

Most players believe that the draft limits their life choices suffuciently upon entering the league that they are entitled to make choices at some point in their NFL career solely based on their wants or needs, whether a franchise or it fan base is comfortable with that or not. That point is FA.

And I think most fans understand that as well and the cases of Seymour or Branch were both cases where they were under contract.

They understand the tag exists, even appreciate it to some extent (like Asante's camp who feel it underscored his league wide value at the outset). But they also understand that it was intended not as a means to retain or leverage a second tier player through his prime against his will. It was intended as a means to give small market or lower revevue teams a means to protect themselves from being pillaged at will by the Dan Snyders of the league and remain competitive. It was intended to allow them to retain their top tier franchise talent (not their second tier) short term to whom they would gladly give the mega deal if they could afford it, or at least get some draft value to resrock with in exchange for them in trade to a team who could afford to pay their market.

Whether they understand it one was to be used one way and is being used another way, are you saying that teams should not use it if its at their disposal? If players do not like the Franchise Tag they should talk to their union about taking it out of the CBA. What the Patriots did with the Franchise Tag was wise. Samuel DID play a great last half of the season, but they are unsure of his consistent play. (Would you have Franchised him after the first half of teh season? I think many would not have dreamed of that.) The Patriots are willing to pay him top dollar for a year to see if his play continues or levels off or recedes and FOR that year, he'll be paid top dollar. I see that as quite reasonable and most plasyer do.

More intteresting to me than the Samuel outcome is what will transpire between Richard and the FO over the next year or two in light of the Freeney and pretty soon Peppers deals. This FO did a very smart thing when they gave him what he said he wanted ($10M) a year early (so it averaged $8M against the cap) and in a short term deal(just 3 years at that price). It bought them time to assess the market and his durability and younger players already on the roster before deciding whether to heavily invest in Richard Seymour for the long haul into his 30's. It also gave them time to further assess his core leadership value.

I agree, that WILL be MORE interesting as well, but I also think that the contracts of Warren and Wilfork will also play a part in that. Certainly as those deals up the bar, it will be interesting to see what transpires.

The only hard line this FO needs to maintain is that if money and individual perception is what matters most to you then you probably won't get to remain here and be part of something special. You won't necessarily feel an immediate negative consequence if you make that decision, in fact you may realise a short term gain, but historically that's short lived as players who leave here for money and "respect" end up lamenting the day they did. Either because they toil in obscurity or morph into cap casualties on a team with little foundation on which to base retaining them, or become vagabonds seeking continued employment wherever they can find it, and often end up being more firmly than ever labeled products of a system by coaching staff that can't seem to figure out how to maximize them. Adam is the only one to date who has appeared to have benefitted across the board. But then, he was just a kicker and it's only been one season...

That does make a lot of sense and I agree.

 

[Water Boy]

I too am tired of agents and second tiered players demanding much more than they are worth...And I agree totally that these players have used their rights totally and fully..and certainly they can, but I also think they look like ****s doing it and if one notices it, I really believe that public opinion is NOT on their side at all.

Its hard to side with players in Asante's situation where the goal of their hold out is to be guaranteed to be insanely rich versus being very rich. To put it into perspective, if Asante played under the franchise tag next season and earned $7.8 million in salary, he would never have to work another day in his life to say the least. At 5% APR, $7.8 million will yield $390,000 per year. 'nough said.

 

[fgssand]

Its hard to side with players in Asante's situation where the goal of their hold out is to be guaranteed to be insanely rich versus being very rich. To put it into perspective, if Asante played under the franchise tag next season and earned $7.8 million in salary, he would never have to work another day in his life to say the least. At 5% APR, $7.8 million will yield $390,000 per year. 'nough said.

No question, it is virtually impossible for any one of us here to relate to what you so nicely put into perspective.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that in his mind he was disrespected by the Patriots "low offer" and upset over the entire process that doesn't allow him to be totally free. He feels he should be able to seek the payday that he feels others would offer were the cost to acquire him was no where near the 2 # 1's.

I hope he does not blame the Patriots for the playing by the rules. I am certain the Patriots do not blame Asante for using his rights to either accept the tender and report now, or in week 10, or, not at all and then possibly do it all over again next year.

Seems to me, all things considered, it is in Asantes best interest to report, play this year and prove he deserves the kind of money he thinks he does. Consensus seems to be that he needs another year of playing as well as last year in order to prove he is closer to Clement type money and not Vasher.

I think he will do just that, I say he reports around 9/1 and plays his heart out. That way he maximizes his earnings for this year as he collects his 7.8MM, sees his stock soar by playing well, collects another Superbowl ring and even passes Go!!

I say he reports....am I in the majority?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

First we should get the pleasantries out of the way:

I agree the Pats' FO is the best in the business. If nobody came out and said it, then there, I did. We know this.

I agree they know more than we do. That's a given.

I disagree that they are somehow omniscient, and "know" whether Gay is comparable to Samuel, any more than they "knew" that Andre Davis was a stud receiver just waiting to happen (or Doug Gabriel, for that matter.) We simply do not know what happens in a true holdout -- and neiher do the Pats -- but we may just be due to find out.

Weighing in with the obvious here,

PFnV

 

[Pats726]

First we should get the pleasantries out of the way:

I agree the Pats' FO is the best in the business. If nobody came out and said it, then there, I did. We know this.

I agree they know more than we do. That's a given.

I disagree that they are somehow omniscient, and "know" whether Gay is comparable to Samuel, any more than they "knew" that Andre Davis was a stud receiver just waiting to happen (or Doug Gabriel, for that matter.) We simply do not know what happens in a true holdout -- and neiher do the Pats -- but we may just be due to find out.

Weighing in with the obvious here,

PFnV

But it's good to state the obvious sometimes....

 

[Pats726]

Its hard to side with players in Asante's situation where the goal of their hold out is to be guaranteed to be insanely rich versus being very rich. To put it into perspective, if Asante played under the franchise tag next season and earned $7.8 million in salary, he would never have to work another day in his life to say the least. At 5% APR, $7.8 million will yield $390,000 per year. 'nough said.

What you said makes sense and to me is obvious about greed...

 

[fair catch fryar]

Exactly. BB isn't above briefly sitting someone for being a donk, but he's certainly not going to weaken the team while causing unnecessary trouble for himself.

If Samuel comes back a week before game one he won't be a starter but he'll play on the sub package by the second week. If Samuel plays out of his mind - like he needs to to get a big payday - he'll be a starter by week 4 at the latest.

Ditto for the week 10 scenario...BB won't make him sit just out of spite; but that doesn't mean Samuel will start enough games to be hot again as a FA.

Samuel has blown this chance every which way....

Here's a far fetched scenario. What if the secondary is playing well enough and Samuel does come back by week 10 and is in game shape. What will BB do? I'm a little worried, but what are your thoughts on our backfield if he doesn't come back?

 

[dhamz]

Here's a far fetched scenario. What if the secondary is playing well enough and Samuel does come back by week 10 and is in game shape. What will BB do?

Add him to the rotation. The last thing there would ever be to worry about is too many healthy good DBs.

 

[fair catch fryar]

It's pretty easy to see that the approach changed between Seymour and Branch; Branch was a sort of "test case."

It is conceivable that the approach will change again between Branch and Samuel. Branch was given some of what he wanted (traded for big bucks,) but that still led to the current Samuel situation.

Now granted the "grievance" rumor seems to have no substance. But who wants a holdout each and every season?

As I say, I can conceive of a situation where the FO decides it's in everyone's best interests, for example, not to allow Samuel to seek at trade while franchised. I could see them doing that for 2 years, although that would be a lot to put on the guy. I could even see them sitting him, if the difference between the guys who are in, and Samuel, is not gaping -- or God forbid, if the secondary without Samuel outperforms the 2006 secondary with Samuel.

Football is still a business. Let's say that BB truly will not make any move that hinders the team on the field (which seems to make good sense.) All the above scenarios associate additional risk with holdout behavior without penalizing the team's chances.

I could see that being an attractive prospect from the FO perspective, given the three-holdouts-in-two-years pace.

PFnV

It all amounts down to a poker game and BB has great poker face! IMO he won't win every game, but at the end of the night, he'll be walking away with full pockets!