SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Hopefully, this is good news. Most likely he is there to help out a charity and that is it.
Holley just mentioned it...Samuel is there...which to me is good news!!
If it is true, it still speaks to the mentailty of Samuel. It says to me that he views this contract thing as business and is not bitter or spiteful of the team. That will mean it is more likely that this will be resolved.
Deion Branch did not attend the charity golf tournament during his hold out, while Seymour did. And their hold outs turned out to be polar opposites.
not if he wants to much money....
I don't think it was Branch's unwillingness that was the difference, the difference was the team's willingness to comprimise with Seymour. Remember, he got (at least some of) what he wanted when he held out: the team gave him some extra money for his troubles. Branch wasn't the game-changing player that Seymour is, so he didn't get that consideration.Obviously it hinges on the money but Branch was completely unwilling to comprimise where as Seymour was. Hopefully Samuel will be too.
It's good news in that it's not bad news for me.So why is this good news?
It's good news in that it's not bad news
Well..last year Branch was not and..you do remember what a fiasco that was...if you don't undesrtand why it is..I'm sorry..Don't see the connection. This is a run-of-the-mill business dispute. It's not even acrimonious (yet). I doubt it would get in the way of his other obligations/interests.
Exactly. Seymour wanted a deal done, still wanted to be part of the Pats. That's why he went to a team function. It still might not have worked out money-wise, but it was obvious it was all about the money with Seymour.If it is true, it still speaks to the mentailty of Samuel. It says to me that he views this contract thing as business and is not bitter or spiteful of the team. That will mean it is more likely that this will be resolved.
Deion Branch did not attend the charity golf tournament during his hold out, while Seymour did. And their hold outs turned out to be polar opposites.
It's good news in that it's not bad news for me.
Does it mean he's happy and about to sign long term ? No,. But the more he's around his teamates the more chance of him, worst case, playing this year - it doesn't mean he will but this is better than him sitting at home brooding over being tagged.
I don't think it was Branch's unwillingness that was the difference, the difference was the team's willingness to comprimise with Seymour. Remember, he got (at least some of) what he wanted when he held out: the team gave him some extra money for his troubles. Branch wasn't the game-changing player that Seymour is, so he didn't get that consideration.
That is true, but at the same time it won't be as much of an issue with Samuel because he is a free agent where as Branch wasn't so the team might be more willing to compromise with him as well. And obviously the Patriots think somewhat highly of Samuel because they tagged him instead of just letting him walk like they have done with so many other free agents.
With Branch, it was personal.
I disagree with this.
With Branch it was philisophical. Branch felt they should ignore the last year of his old deal and give him a new contract right away. The Pats felt the value of the last year of his rookie deal could not be ignored.
When you look at what Branch wanted and what the Pats offered, the difference came down to the Pats not giving up the value of the last year of his old deal. There wasn't a value difference other than that.
The Samuel dispute doesn't have any of that. It comes straight down to how much they think he is worth. If they can meet somewhere that both parties agree on his value, an extension will get done. If not, it won't.