Welcome to PatsFans.com

Say Hello To Another First Rounder (Samuel related Speculation)

Discussion in 'Patriots Draft Talk' started by sebman2112, Apr 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sebman2112

    sebman2112 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    According to the Globe Samuel wants 30M over the first three years, which is rediculous. If this is true (I do not doubt it) kiss Samuel goodbye, because NE will never pay him that kind of money. As I said before, I'll take my three first rounders, thank you. I'd like to keep Samuel but I don't want Mr. "Get Paid" at that kind of money. I've always thought the idea of him wanting a "Bly Deal" was a little off.

    Now here is a slight problem (potentially huge) if Samuel is asking for 30M over three years will that severily limit his worth on the market? Teams interested might go another direction with his contract demands being so high, and if they still want him they might try and get NE to accept less because of the contract being so high.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2007
  2. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    Who is Samuel and what does he know about where Fletcher Christian took the Bounty? The contract/trade/gossip will sort itself out in it's own time, I'm more worried to learn there is a slow football period in July! :eek:

     
  3. mcbee

    mcbee Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Exactly. HE may get an offer slightly better than what NE offers but then why would that team want to give up a #1 to pay top dollar?

    He's overestimating his market value. If he's worth 8M / year then a team may give up a #1 to sign him to 6M/ year. But since he thinks he's worth more than 8M / year anyway...what's the point again?
     
  4. mavfan2390

    mavfan2390 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The SeaHawks? All joking aside, if a team picking in the top ten feels that Asante is worth it the money, they might consider giving up their pick for him because top ten picks get insane money too. Might as well pay for a proven commodity.

    Also a team that feels they're ready to compete now and are just a few additions away...Falcons?
     
  5. sebman2112

    sebman2112 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's the other part, a team like the Redskins would be getting rid of a high priced rookie contract and replacing it with a high priced four year player, who has proven to be a good starter. Samuel hasn't proven anything in their system, but he's still young, and has at least proven something.

    Sometimes having a high draft pick can be a disadvantage, since you are putting so much money towards a player who hasn't proven anything. Also, these teams generally have more than one hole, and need these high draft picks to start from day one. This adds to the bust factor. The Patriots would have the ability to rotate just about any player they select, and wouldn't have to depend on that player to be a franchise player. NE could draft someone like Laron Landry and have him sub with Harrison and Wilson in year one then take over at SS when Rodney retires. With his speed (4.35) Landry also has the ability to help out at CB.

    I really don't like the contract that comes with a high draft pick, and that's probably the main reason I haven't completely advocated trying to swing a trade with the Redskins. However, NE would have something like $16.19M in cap space if they were to trade Samuel, so they are probably among the few teams who wouldn't be that effected by a top ten draftee contract.

    I would still rather get a mid/late first rounder straight up: NE would have three first rounders and could do just about anything they want. Personally, I think for a team like the Patriots three mid/late first rounders would have more value than one late first rounder, and one high first rounder. You're more likely to be able to move a mid/late first rounder than a high first rounder.

    On the other hand NE has been most successful with strong play from the Safety position. NE had Milloy who was very good in the system, then NE got Harrison who has been very good. Who is going to be the new Harrison?
     
  6. mavfan2390

    mavfan2390 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I have to disagree with you here. The top of the first round is loaded, the bottom of the first round has value, but in this years draft chances are a player drafted at 16 won't have much more of a contribution than one drafted later. I'd rather that Pats trade Samuel for a third this year and first next than a mid first this year. This is of course assuming no one fantastical falls, Peterson, Branch, and Willis are the most likely to fall into the mid first round so who knows.
     
  7. sebman2112

    sebman2112 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I like the mid/late first rounders because of the small risk associated. They have smaller contracts, the pick is easier to move, and NE has been successful picking in the mid/late first round. Also, if NE was able to aquire a mid first for Samuel they could likely get a very good player, and it would make trading away the 24th or 28th almost a no brainer.

    Plus, we're talking about giving up Samuel + 24th or 28th overall to get the 6th overall pick. Considering the contract associated with the 6th overall pick that's a lot to give up. This would be the same as giving up two first round picks to draft one player, and have to give him a huge rookie contract.

    If NE could get 6th overall for Samuel straight up that would be awsome, but that's not going to happen in this lifetime. We can talk about the Redskins being stupid, but they arent that stupid.
     
  8. mavfan2390

    mavfan2390 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    I guess it boils down to would you rather have Laron Landry, or two of Griffin, Beason, Meriweather, Timmons, Staley, etc.
     
  9. Boston Tim

    Boston Tim On the Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I've never liked the "pick the right one"/"boom or bust" thinking in regards to draft selection. Not that I'm saying you do, but your comment reminded me of this. I see the Patriot's draft success as a combination of picking the right raw material (at places of value) and being superior at coaching them into quality NFL players. The reason why I like the Landry trade is because I think he represents much better starting material than a Nelson or Merriweather and would become a much better player under BB's tutelage than either of those two could.
     
  10. sebman2112

    sebman2112 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's not what I was saying. I don't like having to give up Asante Samuel, a first round pick, and a high draftee contract to get Landry. I really like Laron Landry. You do realize the player selected at 6th overall will have a larger contract than both of the players selected at 24th & 28th overall combined?

    Basically, if NE were to get a mid/late first for Samuel it would cost them just a little more to sign all three players, than it would to sign just Landry himself. So, the major question is would you rather draft and sign three players for just a hair over what Landry would get himself (especially since NE has been successful at drafting in the mid/late first), or would you rather give all that money to Landry? This has nothing to do with boom or bust, but all to do with economics, and value. Remember you would be giving all that money to Landry, and still have to pay out another first round contract, if you didn't trade away the other first rounder.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>