Samuel and Free Agency

[mgteich]

One strategy for Samuel
-----------------------
1. Stop returning calls from the patriots the day the cap is placed on him.
2. Continue to negotiate with others.
3. If the pats do not remove the tag, then sign the tag on the last day per the CBA.
4. Do not show up at any practices, or team functions.
5. Stay in shape.
6. Collect weekly checks
7. Show up for the 10th game.
============================

I had no sympathy for Branch's position at all. He refused to play under his contract. Here, Samuel has no contract. If the pats want to exercise their rights under the CBA, then he should feel to do the same.

A franchise tag is an attack by the team on a player. There are occasionally times when a team and a player are OK to use it to set annual contracts or as a a short term price until the contract is complete. That might happen with Graham.

 

[fgssand]

The "TAG" - just a few questions that I hope someone may have the answers for....

MG, your comment about an "attack" has me wondering if there is any reason to ever think the "tag" is a good thing or useful in any way other than the agreed upon tag to buy time to finish a negotiation.

Does anybody have a record of all layers that have been franchised by their teams and the respective outcome??

Did any player go through and play season - then move on?

How many times has there been "tag & trade"?

Has any player been tagged twice in a row?

How many have held out? Does the player/agent really feel it is offensive to even think of applying the tag?

What freaking good is the tag if the reaction ends up totally adversarial?

Is it my imagination or does it seem other teams can tag with little or no repercussion, but the Pats players take great umbridge at the mere suggestion?

Is there any reason for us to even think about applying the "tag" if it is going to result in hostility and hold out?

 

[Gumby]

I don't know about actual #s;

Did any player go through and play season - then move on?

How many have held out?

If my recollection is right the vast majority of franchised players have played for their team for the franchise season. Then they either move on or even sign a long term deal right where they are.

A few have been tagged and traded; and a very very very few have tried to sit out or retire.

Does the player/agent really feel it is offensive to even think of applying the tag?

Is it my imagination or does it seem other teams can tag with little or no repercussion, but the Pats players take great umbridge at the mere suggestion

No it is not just Patriots players who take umbrage. All the players do.

Not sure why as to me it is a sign from the team that says "this guy is the MOST IMPORTANT FA player on my team or ANY OTHER team in the league".

So if they players viewed it that way; that the team just wants some maneuvering space to work out a deal; I think they would be less hostile.

Because they want to have total freedom to decide where they go and for how much money - (which I can understand).

But also they are, IMO, being told by their agents to be angry. The agent wants to break the bank and if he can get a big SB deal he can potentially end up with more money with multiple high SB deals which never go to fruition over the career of the player. That is good for the agent - bad for the fan who wants player-stability so he can root for HIS guys.

I can also understand that for some players it feels like it puts them in limbo. if you can't make a deal before the March cap deadline; then you can't even talk until August sometime about a new deal. But the team can make a deal to trade you somewhere else. Not completely fair.

But then there is NO INCENTIVE for a player to make a deal with the home town team without the threat of the Franchise. And the players-agents have to realize - THERE IS NO LEAGUE WITHOUT THE FANS. Fans want player stability so they have to give something up too to keep the league going. It is not just the teams that have to give up revenue to keep the players coming.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

we've all seen this film before.

asante samuel is a very good player who is going to do the smart thing for himself and his future by taking a very rich deal that is either irrational for the paying team or that makes rational economic sense for a specific team at a specific time. whichever it is, the cash will still be in his bank account.

this is a restricted free market, which the NFL has set up (differently than MLB): there is a limited amount of capital (cap money) chasing a limited number of resources (players). (Yes, i know, capital is limited in every market, but here i am talking about the specific limitations imposed by the NFL. Even in the MLB, there is a theoretical limit on the capital available, i.e., an amount equal to the operating earnings of the teams plus the liquid net worth of the owners--fully leveraged--less the newly imposed cap penalties).

in the NFL, capital is allocated either rationally or irrationally, as it is in every market. irrational allocations of capital ultimately come back to bite their sources (see the Redskins and the Dotcom craze). rational allocations of capital lead to super bowl victories (see Brady/ Seymour and an investment in Google two years ago).

the patriots and bob kraft fully understand what i have written above and typically, except in the cases of Brady and Seymour, are not in the market to test the outer limits of this capital allocation process. they won't this time either.

So, the only rational option, IMO, is to tag Asante and then quickly trade him for less than he is really worth but for more than the big Zero we'd get if he goes away as a free agent.

 

[Patriot Missile]

The Deion Branch holdout was closely watched by almost every facet of the NFL. If Asante and other Tagged players keep doing what Branch did they will bring their cause front and center. Soon,very soon this whole holding out thing will be a thing of the past.

Make no mistake,If he holds out,let him sit for nothing less than a 1st rounder. I want to see this guy perform at this level for one more season before he get's a long term deal. One season does not make a career.

 

[BelichickFan]

One strategy for Samuel
-----------------------
1. Stop returning calls from the patriots the day the cap is placed on him.
2. Continue to negotiate with others.
3. If the pats do not remove the tag, then sign the tag on the last day per the CBA.
4. Do not show up at any practices, or team functions.
5. Stay in shape.
6. Collect weekly checks
7. Show up for the 10th game.
============================

First, I don't know why doomsday scenarios are already being talked about. This will likely go smoothly with a re-signing, letting go via UFA or Franchise and Trade.

But even with the scenario, the three I bolded aren't consistent. If he doesn't go to practices or games until Week 10, he's not going to get weekly checks.

 

[spacecrime]

One strategy for Samuel
-----------------------
1. Stop returning calls from the patriots the day the cap is placed on him.
2. Continue to negotiate with others.
3. If the pats do not remove the tag, then sign the tag on the last day per the CBA.
4. Do not show up at any practices, or team functions.
5. Stay in shape.
6. Collect weekly checks
7. Show up for the 10th game.
============================

I had no sympathy for Branch's position at all. He refused to play under his contract. Here, Samuel has no contract. If the pats want to exercise their rights under the CBA, then he should feel to do the same.

A franchise tag is an attack by the team on a player. There are occasionally times when a team and a player are OK to use it to set annual contracts or as a a short term price until the contract is complete. That might happen with Graham.

Jeez, little over-reaction maybe? The Pats haven't tagged Samuel. Why the "attack" vemon? If you want to talk about the tag and players in general, fine, but how about waiting until the Pats actually franchise Samuel before recommending he hold out against the evil Pats?

 

[aabtec]

we've all seen this film before.

asante samuel is a very good player who is going to do the smart thing for himself and his future by taking a very rich deal that is either irrational for the paying team or that makes rational economic sense for a specific team at a specific time. whichever it is, the cash will still be in his bank account.

this is a restricted free market, which the NFL has set up (differently than MLB): there is a limited amount of capital (cap money) chasing a limited number of resources (players). (Yes, i know, capital is limited in every market, but here i am talking about the specific limitations imposed by the NFL. Even in the MLB, there is a theoretical limit on the capital available, i.e., an amount equal to the operating earnings of the teams plus the liquid net worth of the owners--fully leveraged--less the newly imposed cap penalties).

in the NFL, capital is allocated either rationally or irrationally, as it is in every market. irrational allocations of capital ultimately come back to bite their sources (see the Redskins and the Dotcom craze). rational allocations of capital lead to super bowl victories (see Brady/ Seymour and an investment in Google two years ago).

the patriots and bob kraft fully understand what i have written above and typically, except in the cases of Brady and Seymour, are not in the market to test the outer limits of this capital allocation process. they won't this time either.

So, the only rational option, IMO, is to tag Asante and then quickly trade him for less than he is really worth but for more than the big Zero we'd get if he goes away as a free agent.

I agree and disagree with what you are saying.

The Pats have the leverage and I hope that they do not mess it up.

Tag Asante and offer to make a deal. If they cannot come to an agreement look to trade him to an NFC team where he will not come to bite us.

Now the drawback to what you are saying is the Pats are/have a reputation for not paying their players. Remember it is not what we believe it is what the players believe.

The Pats have their policies but at a certain time policies must be adapted to meet changing circumstances. The shelf life of the 3 SB's only lasts so long.

Its a business all the way around. The franchise, the players, the fans and the corporate suite owners.

The Pats have enjoyed the time that the Celtics and Bruins have been lousy.
The Celtics have the best chance of the two teams to make a return to glory.

The Celtics coming back would mean another competitor for Corporate and fan $$$$'s.

For Asante he has a few choices if he is tagged. He can sit out trainign camp incurring a fine. He can skip the first 10 games of the season and miss 10 checks. He could try to play the last 6 games if the Pats let him back on the team. He also risks the Pats tagging him for a 2nd year.

 

[hoosier_patriot]

Lets hope that this dosent turn out to be another Branch or worse Porter (Oakland) deal. I hope he stays. I think (at this moment) he could be an important piece to the puzzle for "Ring #4"

 

[dhamz]

A franchise tag is an attack by the team on a player.

That is ridiculous.

The franchise tag is a mutually agreed upon tool for teams to use to be able to retain one of its own players at a premium price. The team keeps the player, the player gets big $ for the season. The players themselves continue to agree that it is OK and yet again last offseason voted for a CBA that includes it.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

One strategy for Samuel
-----------------------
1. Stop returning calls from the patriots the day the cap is placed on him.
2. Continue to negotiate with others.
3. If the pats do not remove the tag, then sign the tag on the last day per the CBA.
4. Do not show up at any practices, or team functions.
5. Stay in shape.
6. Collect weekly checks
7. Show up for the 10th game.
============================

I had no sympathy for Branch's position at all. He refused to play under his contract. Here, Samuel has no contract. If the pats want to exercise their rights under the CBA, then he should feel to do the same.

A franchise tag is an attack by the team on a player. There are occasionally times when a team and a player are OK to use it to set annual contracts or as a a short term price until the contract is complete. That might happen with Graham.

mg, would he still get weekly checks if he is holding out until week 10?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I agree and disagree with what you are saying.

The Pats have the leverage and I hope that they do not mess it up.

Tag Asante and offer to make a deal. If they cannot come to an agreement look to trade him to an NFC team where he will not come to bite us.

Now the drawback to what you are saying is the Pats are/have a reputation for not paying their players. Remember it is not what we believe it is what the players believe.

The Pats have their policies but at a certain time policies must be adapted to meet changing circumstances. The shelf life of the 3 SB's only lasts so long.

Its a business all the way around. The franchise, the players, the fans and the corporate suite owners.

The Pats have enjoyed the time that the Celtics and Bruins have been lousy.
The Celtics have the best chance of the two teams to make a return to glory.

The Celtics coming back would mean another competitor for Corporate and fan $$$$'s.

For Asante he has a few choices if he is tagged. He can sit out trainign camp incurring a fine. He can skip the first 10 games of the season and miss 10 checks. He could try to play the last 6 games if the Pats let him back on the team. He also risks the Pats tagging him for a 2nd year.

Thanks for your comments.

I would rephrase your remark that "...the Pats are/have a reputation for not paying their players. Remember it is not what we believe it is what the players believe." I would put it that the Pats have a reputation for not paying more than they think a player is worth. And, I don't think that the players "believe" this, I think they "know" this. I'm not going to go into a lecture on the Kraft-Pioli-Belichick philosophy, as everyone who posts out here knows what it is. But the bottom line is that this has worked so far and they ain't gonna get off this horse for a long time. They want to be consistently competitive, which doesn't mean winning a SB every year. However, of the 32 teams in the NFL, only one has won a Playoff game in each of the last four years and it isn't the Redskins...

As for your remark that "The shelf life of the 3 SB's only lasts so long," I really disagree with the logic behind it. A little perspective: in 41 years, only 17 NFL Franchises have actually won a SB. Of those 17, 10 have won two or fewer (six have won "only" one). Only seven Franchises have won three or more: The Packers, Patriots, Redskins, Raiders, 49ers, Cowboys and Steelers. Those teams pretty much comprise the elite of the NFL. So, I would suggest that the "shelf life of...3 SB's" is long indeed. (In fact, only 26 Franchises have ever even GONE to a SB. Of those, 12 have gone to two or less and eight have gone to only one. And, just eight franchises have played in five or more SB's: the 49'ers, Dolphins, Patriots, Redskins, Broncos, Steelers and Cowboys.).

So, have some perspective on what the Patriots have accomplished, especially over the past six years. And, don't assume that their approach to the game won't continue to work.

 

[mgteich]

No, this is ridiculous. You suggest that because the players signed the CBA that they agree with every condition within it.

There is no question where the players stand on the teams being able to keep players out of free agency. They oppose it. They always have. They always will.

No, not at a premium price! That's silly. If the tag were lifted, the player always gets more money. The tag is a way for a team not to have to negotiate with a player. They get to keep one player slave, while the rest are allowed to move through free agency.

That is ridiculous.

The franchise tag is a mutually agreed upon tool for teams to use to be able to retain one of its own players at a premium price. The team keeps the player, the player gets big $ for the season. The players themselves continue to agree that it is OK and yet again last offseason voted for a CBA that includes it.

 

[mgteich]

The pats are not "evil". The franchise tag is.

It allows a team to prevent a player for getting to free agency until after an additional contract. Even franchise and tade greatly disadvantaes the player, since the team can determine where a player can play. We should all realize that we are talking about a player that completed his obligation to the team. We're not talking about a Branch situation.

Jeez, little over-reaction maybe? The Pats haven't tagged Samuel. Why the "attack" vemon? If you want to talk about the tag and players in general, fine, but how about waiting until the Pats actually franchise Samuel before recommending he hold out against the evil Pats?

 

[mgteich]

I do not know whether a player gets checks during a holdout. Someone can check; my bad.

 

[BelichickFan]

I do not know whether a player gets checks during a holdout. Someone can check; my bad.

We already know they don't, this was discussed plenty regarding Branch. Holding out until week 10 would cost him about $5M, it's not happening.

 

[BelichickFan]

The pats are not "evil". The franchise tag is.

Mark, get a grip. Guaranteeing a player the average of the top five at his position is not evil. It's just part of the agreement much like a player being able to sit out for 10 weeks then report and get a year accrued.

 

[mgteich]

It is part of the player agreement which is contentitious ever time out. Why not simply get rid of free agency and have a committee determine salaries.

I strongly support free agency with a salary cap. To exclude the best players from ever being able to choose what team they play for is simply wrong. However, the few top players don't have very many votes.

Mark, get a grip. Guaranteeing a player the average of the top five at his position is not evil. It's just part of the agreement much like a player being able to sit out for 10 weeks then report and get a year accrued.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

The pats are not "evil". The franchise tag is.

I wouldn't call it "evil", rather a concession.

In 1993, the owners had broken the union six years previous and the players had recently won on anti-trust suits that basically put an end to Plan B FA. Had the players insisted on absolute FA to the point of striking, it would have been a repeat of 1987. So the NFLPA agreed to the transition/franchise tags, RFA, and the salary cap.

The biggest problem with FA, IMO, is tampering. Agents seem to "know" exactly what their clients command on the open market, otherwise they wouldn't be so hasty to break off from their teams. Lawyer Milloy, Deion Branch, and Ty Law come to mind.

I place the blame of tampering squarely on the owners. Agents are going to do what they are supposed to do, get the most for their clients. But when owners tamper, they are really slicing their own throats. The results are inflated salaries and increased player resentment. Moreover, Tampering is difficult to prove, at best.

 

[BelichickFan]

I wouldn't call it "evil", rather a concession.

Right, just like limiting non first round picks to 4 year deals. I'm sure Pioli hates that. We got nothing out of Jackson for a year, we're now down to 3 years for that pick.

PURE EVIL.