The one concession franchise players (including Asante) should get and ask for

[Fencer]

If they sign for the one-year figure, the contract should be guaranteed. Now it usually isn't.

That's a small "favor", and they DO have the right to negotiate for more than the offer the team makes.

Otherwise, they should either sign a long-term deal, trading income maximization for security; get another offer; or else (as is their right) hold out without all the whining.

There's nothing wrong with not going to work and accordingly not getting paid. But publicly demanding money that is being taken from your teammates rather than you? That can be and too often is overdone.

 

[pats1]

Franchise tag tenders are already guaranteed once signed.

 

[Fencer]

Franchise tag tenders are already guaranteed once signed.

I believe there are two levels of franchise offer. In one version the player can't negotiate at all; in the other, he can but there's the two 1st round pick payback if he goes elsewhere.

I believe the second kind are not guaranteed.

Admittedly, that makes no sense. If I'm mixing it up with RFA tenders, great.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I believe that the franchise contract is guaranteed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Franchise tags are guaranteed period once signed. So to now are transition tags. You do have to show up and play though which is the part some franchise tagged players also seem to bristle at.

The difference in franchise tags is the level of compensation and the ability of players to test the market. Exclusive franchise tag players cannot talk contract with another team, but they are paid a premium as a result. They are paid the average of the top 5 salaries for their position this year. Non-exclusive franchise tag players may shop themselves and sign elsewhere (provided the signing team pays the pre set compensation price or something else a team agrees to in exchange or trade for signing the player). They get the average of the top 5 salaries at their position during the preceding year.

 

[pats1]

I believe there are two levels of franchise offer. In one version the player can't negotiate at all; in the other, he can but there's the two 1st round pick payback if he goes elsewhere.

I believe the second kind are not guaranteed.

Admittedly, that makes no sense. If I'm mixing it up with RFA tenders, great.

Both levels of the franchise tag are guaranteed.

No levels of the RFA tenders are guaranteed.

 

[Miguel]

If they sign for the one-year figure, the contract should be guaranteed. Now it usually isn't.

From the CBA itself:
"If a player subject to a Franchise Player designation accepts the Required Tender, the resulting Player Contract shall be fully guaranteed if the player’s contract is terminated because of lack of comparative skill; as a result of an injury sustained in the performance of his services under his Player Contract; and/or due to a Club’s determination to create Room for Salary Cap purposes. For purposes of this Subsection only, any contract termination due to the failure of the player to establish or maintain his excellent physical condition will be subject to review of a neutral physician appointed by the parties under Article X (Injury Grievance), whose physical findings will be conclusive in any arbitration proceeding relating to the physical condition of the player
at the time of the exam, providing such exam takes place within twenty (20) days of the contract termination.

But publicly demanding money that is being taken from your teammates rather than you? That can be and too often is overdone.

I disagree with this notion that Samuel is demanding money that would be taken away from his teammates.

The Pats are way under the cap even with Samuel's $7.79 million cap hit.
A long term deal with Samuel would free up even more cap room in 2007.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I disagree with this notion that Samuel is demanding money that would be taken away from his teammates.

The Pats are way under the cap even with Samuel's $7.79 million cap hit.
A long term deal with Samuel would free up even more cap room in 2007.

Since the Patriots spend to the cap every year, it's clear that the money that goes to Samuel won't be going to his teammates. Not sure why you'd be questioning this.

 

[Fencer]

Thanks for the correction, guys!

 

[solman]

I disagree with this notion that Samuel is demanding money that would be taken away from his teammates.

The Pats are way under the cap even with Samuel's $7.79 million cap hit.
A long term deal with Samuel would free up even more cap room in 2007.

Come on.

$7.8M to Asante this year is $7.8M less to other Patriots over the next few years.**

$20M guaranteed to Asante this year is $20M less to other Patriots over the course of the next decade, whether or not the CBA temporarilly allows the Patriots to amortize that money over six years.**

This doesn't mean that its an inherently bad idea. It just means that the performance we get from Asante in exchange for that money needs to be better than what we can get from current and potential future Patriots for that same money.


**I'll allow for the possibility that the CBA isn't renewed without an uncapped year or that the Patriots stop using their entire cap, but its an improbable possibility that is too difficult and unlikely to plan for.

 

[Miguel]

Come on.

$7.8M to Asante this year is $7.8M less to other Patriots over the next few years.**.

This presumes that the 2007 Patriots cap is a zero-sum game. It is not. The phony LTBE move directly contradicts the notion that the cap is a zero-sum game. When Koppen got a $1.97 million LTBE incentive in 2006, from what players did that money come from??

What player on the 2007 Patriot roster is adversely affected by Samuel's cap number?? That is, which 2007 Patriot can point to Samuel's cap number as the reason that his cap number is lower than it should?? Why should any 2007 Patriot point to Samuel's cap number as the reason his cap number is not high as it should be when the Pats are so far under the cap and when a 2007 long-term deal would free up even more cap room in 2007???

 

[Miguel]

Since the Patriots spend to the cap every year, it's clear that the money that goes to Samuel won't be going to his teammates. Not sure why you'd be questioning this.

Because I do not see why any 2007 Patriot can point to Samuel's cap number as the reason why his cap number is not higher than it is.

 

[Fencer]

Because I do not see why any 2007 Patriot can point to Samuel's cap number as the reason why his cap number is not higher than it is.

It's not just 2007. It's future years. And even other future players who might help win.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

It's not just 2007. It's future years. And even other future players who might help win.

Kind of an absurd argument. People could look to Brady or Seymour with the same line of thinking. No one has to renogiate anything if they are under contract. and if the pats can't afford to pay them because money is tied up in another player then they should just go to another team. we've seen this with Woody, Andruzzi, Givens, etc.

 

[Isaac]

The concession I'd love to see, and I don't see why this isn't obvious to the NFL, is for the league to pay for insurance to guarantee 3 years of franchise-level salary against injury. I don't know how much this would cost but it has to be less than the headaches of holdouts, which I think this would all but eliminate. Injuries are the only excuse they give, for them to hold out with insurance would only mean "I actually suck and that will be obvious if I play another season and no one will pay me next year". I don't know if Samuel has such insurance now, but it might be more expensive than he can afford at this point.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

The concession I'd love to see, and I don't see why this isn't obvious to the NFL, is for the league to pay for insurance to guarantee 3 years of franchise-level salary against injury. I don't know how much this would cost but it has to be less than the headaches of holdouts, which I think this would all but eliminate. Injuries are the only excuse they give, for them to hold out with insurance would only mean "I actually suck and that will be obvious if I play another season and no one will pay me next year". I don't know if Samuel has such insurance now, but it might be more expensive than he can afford at this point.

so if Asante gets injured then he gets 24 million? I don't see insurance companies doing that. And what constitutes injury? I could see teams taking the smallest thing and trying to use it as an excuse to release the player because of bad performance.

 

[BelichickFan]

The concession I'd love to see, and I don't see why this isn't obvious to the NFL, is for the league to pay for insurance to guarantee 3 years of franchise-level salary against injury. I don't know how much this would cost but it has to be less than the headaches of holdouts, which I think this would all but eliminate. Injuries are the only excuse they give, for them to hold out with insurance would only mean "I actually suck and that will be obvious if I play another season and no one will pay me next year". I don't know if Samuel has such insurance now, but it might be more expensive than he can afford at this point.

He can buy his own damn insurance.

He can afford it because one of two things will happen (once the contract is signed) :

1) He won't get hurt and gets $8M this year.
2) He will get hurt and the insurance company pays.

Either way the insurance company will get their money.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The insure him crowd makes me chuckle. Got any idea what the premiums, let alone the terms for a policy like that might be...LOL

The league isn't concerned about this issue because it effects 1-2 players a season on average. Fans here only care because one of those players is ours this season. The NFLPA has allowed the tag to remain only because eliminating it would require a quid pro quo tradeoff that would effect the rank and file - who apparently aren't losing sleep over what happens to a couple of highrollers a year. But one thing the union wouldn't do is sit idly by while the league or a team tried to find a way around the remaining unpalatability of the tag in the present day market. It was intended to be a bridge to a long term deal or a franchise caliber players eventual release, nothing more or less. Their opposition to the so called rolling tag approach is underscored by the normally prohibitive escalators they built in and even strengthened in the last CBA.

In baseball, with it's guaranteed contracts representing massive future liability, teams insure the bulk of their contracts to the extent they can (with players deals also including language that indemnifies a team where a potential pre existing condition is concerned). That enables the insurance companies to spread the risk - they are collecting premiums on multiple deals that will not ever pay out n the majority of cases. Yet each players premium is carefully calculated to assess risk, and it's sometimes impossible to get a particular risk or player insured (the Sox apparently had that problem with a Pedro deal extending beyond 2004).

If there is anyone on this board with a legitimate connection to the insurance underwriting industry, it would be interesting to see what the ballpark might actually be for a deal that guarantees 2 additional seasons of an $8M franchise tag in the event of injury. My wild assed guess is that the premium on a one time individual policy of this sort would be in the prohibitive 20-25% range minimum or $3-4M in premiums to fully guarantee $16M in future earnings for an NFL corner even including terms that would make it a tough policy to collect on in all but the most dire of circumstances. And as part of any "deal" with the player, that would all have to be subject to the cap.

 

[Isaac]

so if Asante gets injured then he gets 24 million? I don't see insurance companies doing that. And what constitutes injury? I could see teams taking the smallest thing and trying to use it as an excuse to release the player because of bad performance.

Sure they would as long as they are making money.

As to what constitutes an injury--I'm sure that could be figured out, yes there would be a fuzzy line there, but as long as they make money, it works, which they would.

As to releasing, yes, it will be rare for a franchised player to fail to make say 3 years worth of franchise-level salary in his career without a legitimate injury, and if it's rare, it's okay in terms of insurance (just another risk factor).

 

[Isaac]

He can buy his own damn insurance.

He can afford it because one of two things will happen (once the contract is signed) :

1) He won't get hurt and gets $8M this year.
2) He will get hurt and the insurance company pays.

Either way the insurance company will get their money.

Then why doesn't he? And if he does, then he should have signed already because it's wise financially. What I'm saying is that perhaps the burden of insurance is too much for a player but not necessarily for the league.