Open market value is not a valid comparison. The Patriots own his contractual rights due to their offering a 1-year tender at an average of the top-5 salaries at the position. He isn't on a completely open market.
His choice is to play this season or not play at all, but his rights remain with the Patriots and will again next season if they choose to exercise the franchise tag.
If Samuel is blaming the Patriots for that, he is mis-directing his blame. He should bring the issue up with his Union, who collectively bargained these rules.
Market value is what Samuel is eyeing, and for good reason. His contract is up. Does the Tag have an effect on his thinking? Hell yes. That's why he's (reportedly) coming in this week.
But it's quite valid, from the player point of view, to compare oneself with those one believes to be one's peers.
I disagree with Samuel, regarding the Clement comparison. I do not believe they are equivalent. Samuel is invited to prove me wrong this season.
But I also don't expect him to come in with a position of "aw shucks, since I was franchised and he wasn't, I'll take whatever you offer."
I just think he and the Pats differ on the risk/reward basis of his valuation. I think a year under the tag would clarify who is correct.
Here's a shocker, as well: I believe if he does excel, it would be a class move for the organization to let him seek a new contract, rather than re-franchising him. I am not so sure they will, but by coming to camp rather than hold out 10 games, Samuel definitely puts himself in sight of that treatment.
Long term: reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. If Samuel signs his tender, bear in mind he played ball to that extent. It MAY be in the team's interest not to tag him again. Yes, reserve the right. Nobody stonewalls you into it. But let him walk if he does excel, and you do not want to pay top dollar. Of course, that's strategy rather than tactics.
This time next year, it will be all about tactics.
PFnV