Schefter: Asante Samuel will report next week

[PatsFanInVa]

There is no "class move" in doing something stupid or forfeiting your rights under the CBA to franchise Samuel again. As a fan, I thank the good Lord that Belichick does not think like you do.

After this season, the team will evaluate their options based on his performance. If they feel his performance is worth another year at $9.3 million, they will exercise their rights to franchise him again (assuming they cannot come to terms on a long term deal).

There is a point to making certain nobody railroads you into a deal not to franchise them again.

There is a point to enlightened self-interest.

I am personally of the opinion that enlightened self-interest may be served by forfeiting that right to refranchise in 08, if Samuel excels in 07.

1) You end up paying an 08 salary in the $10m/year range
2) You simultaneously create a disincentive to excel among rookies and players still on their rookie deal.
3) Franchising twice tells the rooks and those on their rookie deal, your 5 year deal is a 7 year deal. They can not play elsewhere, but they can pray to GOD they are not the ones franchised, and leave if they have any degree of success, assuming their number is not up.

There is no advantage to taking the option off the table. That is why I did not suggest the team take the option off the table.

I also recommend -- as is the practice among the Pats brain trust, as I understand it -- that the FO consider personnel in a dispassionate light, rather than emotionally reacting to ancillary issues, as fans often do.

Your recommendation seems to be to franchise him a second time, deal with a REAL holdout situation, end up franchising to trade, accepting the ill will of all who will want to move on, and creating a precedent suggesting that at the end of the rookie deal, you get the hell out if at all possible. And by the way, you get to pay $9.35M a year for the pleasure of doing so.

Clearly, there are much more clever people than yourself working in the Pats' front office. Clearly, these people are smart enough that they know enlightened self-interest trumps vindictiveness.

And clearly, they would be able to judge better than either of us which path to take in 08.

The "analysis" in your post is unsurprising and hackneyed. It is the conventional wisdom on the subject, and is infused with a fair amount of irrational vitriol. I don't blame anyone; I have flip-flopped myself. A couple of weeks ago, I was urging that they slap the tag on him next year just on GPs. I also realize I was just plain pissed at the guy. Doesn't sound like a business strategy, sounds like a couple of beers too many.

The notion that the FO could make a "class" move that serves the team's interest -- characterized in the original post as "shocking" to begin with -- is an overlooked notion, and one that it is worth considering.

Of course, the beauty of your position is that, should Samuel not be franchised, it will then be characterized as a result of play not meriting the $9.35M. Given BB's prior commitment to high-performing CBs, it will be surprising to me if any level of play merits $9.35M, regardless of how much of a "bargain" that amount is compared to the best corner elsewhere in the league.

I am glad that BB does think like me on this subject. The KC Chiefs, on the other hand, might not be as sanguine about it.

PFnV

 

[QuiGon]

Re: Asante Samuel Will Report Next Week

Did I ever say that??? Or are you reading other threads??? Oh...you just took something out of context..typical for ones with no points to make..(that make sense anyway..) The only definition is the one you have made in your mind.. and said it was mine...

You said "Law though ACTED professional..was in camp on time..and did not hold out." Don't get mad at me for pointing out how silly that statement was. He did report to camp in time (roster bonuses will do that) but he most certainly did not act like a professional beforehand.

but again..same reason that ones like you do that who have no argument. Get glasses they may help as well.

Sure thing... I'll get glasses just as soon as you get a spell checker. I don't mind a mistake here and there - Lord knows I make enough of my own. But seeing the word "teh" 5 times in one post is a bit much.

"Law though ACTED professional..was in camp on time..and did not hold out. "....Acted professionally AFTER the Ty Law Hunger tour..and was in camp..Oh you get it now?? he didn't dog out like Samuel and Branch. Oh...you said Samuel was in camp....is he now...Breaking news.

Granted, my arguments have proceeded with the assumption that Schefter is right and Samuel has agreed to report. That's hardly breaking news. The fact that you have to resort to that pathetic response only shows your personal pettiness and intellectual bankruptcy therein.

 

[QuiGon]

1) You end up paying an 08 salary in the $10m/year range

That's right. Which is why I said "If the Patriots feel he is worth $9.3 million"... I cannot predict in August if the Patriots will assign that value to Samuel in February.

2) You simultaneously create a disincentive to excel among rookies and players still on their rookie deal.

With all due respect, that's pretty idiotic thinking. What do you think is going to happen...? Meriweather is going to say "Hmmmm... the Patriots franchised Samuel 2 years in a row... boy, I guess I'm going to stop trying so hard..."

3) Franchising twice tells the rooks and those on their rookie deal, your 5 year deal is a 7 year deal. They can not play elsewhere, but they can pray to GOD they are not the ones franchised, and leave if they have any degree of success, assuming their number is not up.

And that's a problem because...?

Your recommendation seems to be to franchise him a second time,

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I made no such recommendation and I am not going to sit here and recommend what the Pats should do regarding a decision that is 6 months away. What I said was "If they feel his performance is worth another year at $9.3 million, they will exercise their rights to franchise him again (assuming they cannot come to terms on a long term deal)."

Seriously... where is there a recommendation in that statement...?

deal with a REAL holdout situation,

What makes you think next year will be any different from this year..? He isn't holding out this year into the regular season, and probably wouldn't do so next year either.

end up franchising to trade, accepting the ill will of all who will want to move on,

Yeah... I am sure Meriweather will be so pissed if they franchise Samuel again that he will stop trying to excel...

and creating a precedent suggesting that at the end of the rookie deal, you get the hell out if at all possible.

Tell me, did franchising Samuel affect the Ty Warren negotiations at all...? So why in the world would you think that franchising him again would affect anyone else one iota..? Seriously, what color is the sky on your world..?

Clearly, there are much more clever people than yourself working in the Pats' front office. Clearly, these people are smart enough that they know enlightened self-interest trumps vindictiveness.

Clearly you just don't have the first clue what I am talking about here. I didn't even make any sort of recommendation whatsoever, but you've somehow inferred that not only do I think they should franchise him again, but that it should be done for purely vindictive reasons. Where do you come up with this stuff..?!?

Of course, the beauty of your position is that, should Samuel not be franchised, it will then be characterized as a result of play not meriting the $9.35M. Given BB's prior commitment to high-performing CBs, it will be surprising to me if any level of play merits $9.35M, regardless of how much of a "bargain" that amount is compared to the best corner elsewhere in the league.

You're probably right here... but one thing he is not going to do is sit back and worry about what the "classy" thing to do is.

 

[drakesta101]

Your recommendation seems to be to franchise him a second time, deal with a REAL holdout situation, end up franchising to trade, accepting the ill will of all who will want to move on, and creating a precedent suggesting that at the end of the rookie deal, you get the hell out if at all possible. And by the way, you get to pay $9.35M a year for the pleasure of doing so.

PFnV

I completely agree with this

1) A player like Samuel who has openly admitted his displeasure with the franchise tag would likely take great exception to being tagged twice. From the player's mind his potential longterm financial security is being stripped. To have this done twice to the same guy shouldn't be thought of lightly.

2) All of the prognosticators expected Samuel to return, as there was no way he could turn down the cash. Well, after he gets his compensation for 2007, does Samuel then decide his wallet is fat enough to sit out until week 10? If he had enough money today, perhaps this situation plays out differently and Samuel can afford to skip the season, thankfully he doesn't.

2) These sort of situations are not disregarded by other potential free agents and their sports agents. Sure, the franchise tag is used by all teams - but the Bears and Bills have gone the avenue of tagging once and then giving concessions to the players, allowing them to leave after the one year tender. A top sports agent will advise his player to avoid teams that don't allow their player(s) to join the open market, as it hurts not only the players wallet, but the agents as well.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

So basically, I said the team may choose not to tag him two years running. You said "Boy you're a dumbass, they will reserve the option of franchising him two years running." I said "You're saying they're going to, and I disagree." You said "Boy you're a dumbass. I never said that."

One can then conclude that the actual content, minus anger management issues amounts to me saying, they may decide not to tag him twice, followed by you saying they may decide to tag him twice.

Since neither of us has ruled out the possibility of the opposite outcome, and both of us seem to say that a number of factors are in play in the FO's evaluation of the matter, it would seem rather silly to pretend you have an enemy here (unless of course it just feels better that way.)

I would suggest counseling, regardless.

Drakesta, I agree wholeheartedly with your agreement (of course) and like the breakdown. Not everybody has to be a happy camper, but if there is no positive benefit, you don't want to be known as a dungeon players may have the misfortune of being slammed in upon being drafted. Oh they'll be happy at first, given the tradition of the franchise... but what happens when each guy is getting closer to the end of his rookie deal? You never want a situation where you win by coming in second, even if it is contradicted by the need to prove worth for the next contract. You can get out, sign a one-year deal elsewhere, and really turn it on for that team.

Do players "think" like that? Maybe not consciously. But anyone who follows the game knows to expect big things in a contract year. So these considerations do act as motivators. If you know the reward for excellence is that a team will consistently double-tag excellent performers, what does that do to your motivational mindset?

It's not the whole ball of wax, but the consideration has some value. It's akin to what happens if you cut all your guys at the last minute, figuring other teams don't get to pick them up, since you know they're pretty good, just not good enough to make the 53. Would you keep guys until the last minute, perhaps as part of the "shadow roster" concept? Seems like there's nothing illegal about it. But sometimes it pays not to be a ****.

That said, the importance of this summer's drama, if it truly is over, is that no precedent has been set where the FO must agree to not franchise a player. That is what the fight was originally over; of course, it is preferable not to buckle to such a demand.

It may also be preferable not to use the tag anyway, having won control of the decision.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh and by the way, you (Q), might want to constrain the frequency with which you call other posters "idiotic" and the like.

It is frequently the case that one's self-evaluation is out of step with one's performance in another's mind.

By claiming the idiocy of perceived rivals, one therefore posits a situation in which one is deemed intelligent by the forum in which one makes such a judgement, even if such a condition is not met, by any objective criteria.

Unless there is uniform agreement on the underlying assumption -- being in a position of judging one's peers -- one just makes a jacka$$ of himself, and ends up being invited to post elsewhere.

PFnV

 

[QuiGon]

So basically, I said the team may choose not to tag him two years running. You said "Boy you're a dumbass, they will reserve the option of franchising him two years running." I said "You're saying they're going to, and I disagree." You said "Boy you're a dumbass. I never said that."

Actually, that isn't even remotely an accurate synopsis of our conversation. Really... you're just making sh*t up now... if you want to debate like an adult, do not put words in my mouth.

What you are doing is putting words in my mouth and then responding to what you pretend I've said and not what I really said.

One can then conclude that the actual content, minus anger management issues amounts to me saying, they may decide not to tag him twice, followed by you saying they may decide to tag him twice.

I can't believe how worked up you're getting over one simple phrase that I disagreed with. You said (direct quote, your words): "it would be a class move for the organization to let him seek a new contract,". My response is that making the "class move" never comes into play with regards to the Patriots line of thought. Nor do they behave in a vindictive, spiteful manner. It's a business and it gets treated as such.

Since neither of us has ruled out the possibility of the opposite outcome, and both of us seem to say that a number of factors are in play in the FO's evaluation of the matter, it would seem rather silly to pretend you have an enemy here (unless of course it just feels better that way.)

That's why I am completely at a loss regarding why you are getting so worked up here over those two little words "class move."

I disagree with the belief you have that franchising Samuel will "create a disincentive to excel among rookies and players still on their rookie deal" (direct quote, your words). I do not know why in the world you think Meriweather or any other rookie would stop trying to excel if Samuel got franchised once again.

You must have absolutely zero respect for the Patriots' rookies and young players. Obviously I respect them much more than you and, unlike you, I believe they will operate with 100% professionalism regardless of what is going on with Samuel.

You really need to step back, calm down quite a bit, and respond to what I've written. Not what you pretend I've written in your world of make believe.

 

[QuiGon]

Oh and by the way, you (Q), might want to constrain the frequency with which you call other posters "idiotic" and the like.

That is, I admit, a problem of mine. I do tend to call a spade a spade. But unfortunately it is quite idiotic to suggest that rookies and young players are going to reduce their efforte (i.e. "a disincentive to excel" - direct quote, your words) because Samuel or anyone else gets a franchise tag.

Here's a yes or no question I would like to see if you can anser: Do you honestly believe that a rookie like Meriweather is going to lose his incentive to excel based on whether or not the Patriots franchise Asante Samuel..?

It's obvious you're carrying your personal vendettas against me from the political forum over here into the football forums. As a wise young Jedi one advised: "Let go of you hate." Really. You'll live longer.

 

[Miguel]

That being said, I stand by what I originally wrote. You CAN'T know football and thing that Samuel can come back after this exhibition game and with 10 practices be at close to 100% readiness for the first 3 games. Especially since by this time, contact will be severely limited.

See Walter Jones (the years that he missed TC) and still made the Pro Bowl. See Emmitt Smith in 1993 when he missed TC and the 1st two weeks of the regular season and still ended the season as the league's leading rusher.

I can probably come up with other TC holdouts that have played well during that season but I think that two should suffice to prove my point that it is possible to know football AND think that Samuel can be close to 100% readiness for the 1st 3 games.

 

[Miguel]

Re: Asante Samuel Will Report Next Week

If he is signed on the Franchise Contract, I believe such a contract it is fully guaranteed.

This is correct.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

See Walter Jones (the years that he missed TC) and still made the Pro Bowl. See Emmitt Smith in 1993 when he missed TC and the 1st two weeks of the regular season and still ended the season as the league's leading rusher.

I can probably come up with other TC holdouts that have played well during that season but I think that two should suffice to prove my point that it is possible to know football AND think that Samuel can be close to 100% readiness for the 1st 3 games.

Your point doesnt stick as much as you think. Unless you think Samuel plays at a HOF level then the stuff about Emmit and Jones is moot.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Q, as regards your phrasing, it is at the least unfortunate, but certainly not as unfortunate as what you're passing off as reasoning.

I'm editing to directly answer your question here (left out in my first draft):

Of course Merriwether's understanding of the Pats' team will be influenced by what happens with the franchise tag in Samuel's case. Just as important, Merriwether's agent's understanding will be influenced by it.

You ask a hypothetical as if to dismiss it: Do you really think Merriwether will not try as hard? My answer is that motivations come from a number of sources, about which more later. But I see it as a distinct possibility. "Do you really think a player tries harder in his contract year?" The question has the same ring, but the answer, based on the data we all have access to, is a resounding yes.

MY GOD!! You mean they are dogging it until their contract year!??!?!?!? You must not respect them much!

No, that is just how incentives work.

First of all, we either do or do not have a quarrel over the actual options available. Your most recent stand on the matter seems to be that we have a quarrel over only one phrase. Please correct me if this constitutes putting words in your mouth.

Again, my admittedly potentially imperfect reading of your last post, suggests that you also differ with the notion that young players' effort levels could be influenced by perception of incentives, such as those I mentioned in one of my recent posts. You further stipulate that I have a lower degree of respect for our younger players, because I imagine that incentives and disincentives would have an effect on their play.

Oddly enough, I notice that in reality, incentives and disincentives affect every type of contract labor. Were this not the case, we could make everything much cleaner, and give each player the sum total of a multi-year deal's money on day one, and expect said player to perform to his highest potential throughout a multi-year contract.

I respect our young players enough to look at them as human beings, with human motivations. It is the coach's job, on the field, to align those motivations with the team's goals. It is the FO's job, off the field, to structure financial instruments so as to minimize risk, and so as to create workable incentives. Not only the position of bonus payouts, but also the existence of performance escalators, makes this relationship of incentive and contracting painfully obvious to even casual observers.

This being the case, it is erroneous to say that discussing incentives is a priori proof of disrespect of the persons whose behavior we mean to influence through these instruments.

If, however, the particular points I've made about incentives are wrong, as regards the consecutive use of the franchise tag, you are welcome to discuss them. Certainly, the points are speculative.

To me, Q, your reactions look like an adamant emotional reaction to a perfectly reasonable premise.

Is your position that no incentives have an affect on our young and rookie players?

Or is your position that some do and some do not?

Is there a reason why you would class the dynamic I pondered as unlikely to occur?

Do you have counterexamples to cite, in which players expressed pleasure at having been "tagged" for consecutive years? Or perhaps you know of younger players who look forward to the day that they, too, can be tagged for two years running, when their goal is long-term payout?

Or do you believe our young players -- and their agents -- look upon this possibility without any sort of reaction?

If so, why was Samuel's first demand that he not be tagged for consecutive years?

Again, I do not say we should not keep the re-tag option, although I say that we will not re-tag. And in saying that, and in your saying that the FO might well choose the route I've explained, we don't seem to have an issue as to the actual parameters of next year's decision.

The only difference we seem to have is that I believe the FO will appropriately consider the disincentive effect of tagging players in consecutive years. You believe such consideration to be "idiotic."

But you have presented no evidence to suggest that your position has any merit; indeed, the specifics of your position, other than its manifestation as repeated insult, are unclear.

So do clarify: do no incentives exist in the minds of our Noble and True Young Players (or their agents)? Or do only some incentives exist in their minds? Are the ones I discussed particularly unlikely to play a part? If so, why?

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

He's not going to, nor does he have to. A surgeon isn't going to one day work as a janitor, for janitor's pay, to see what life can be like. They're going to make as much money as they can, which is very dependant on their profession. NFL cornerbacks don't make average person money, they make NFL player money, and that's the only benchmark Asante should be going by. By your logic, every player should take a 50% paycut and still be happy because it still beats the real world.

You're absolutely right.

There are surgeons, however, who will work for Mount Sinai hospital or the Mayo Clinic, even if Community General wants to lure them away with a rock-star bump in salary.

Just adding in a corollary: monetary rewards are the first and foremost rewards for most, almost all, players.

However, non-monetary rewards play various roles in the minds of various players.

My observation thus far leads me to believe that in Samuel's case, non-monetary rewards are not paramount.

PFnV