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

[Isaac]

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.

I would love to hear some legitimate numbers on this. They had some guy on NFL Network that does this for many players but they never gave out numbers, which was unfortunate. However he does do these policies so whatever the numbers are, they can't be so outrageous as to make it unworkable. I'm sure you'd stop chuckling if this guy offered you his job because he is getting very rich on this.

20-25% is pretty high, but I don't have experience. Just guessing, it seems that perhaps 5% of franchised players would fail to earn 3 years worth of money in their careers due to a documentable injury, could be less. Seems like the insurance companies could make easy money by charging 10%. Maybe that's too much for the league to bear, or too much for the player, or too much for a team--but maybe they could spread the burden somehow (3-way split?). Hell maybe the league should have an internal insurance system so that there is no premium, just occassional payouts that the league could easily eat.

It just seems that there ought to be a sensible solution to avoid having this annual situation where the league's best are whining and holding out.

 

[BelichickFan]

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.

Don't ask me. He's insulted by getting in one year about 4 times what I'll make in a lifetime. It's all the respect B.S. But given that he's either gonna make $8M this year or get a big insurance payoff, he clearly CAN go in that direction if he chooses.

 

[BelichickFan]

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

I don't know the answer either. But I would be stunned if it were that high. How many players suffer an injury so bad that they're pretty much done - legitimately career threatening ? Very, very few in a given season.

Torn ACL ? Broken leg ? No worry, Samuel would still get his big contract after those. Insurance would cover only the very rare - paralysis type - head or neck trauma so they have to retire - maybe the kind of triple ligament tear that Harrison and Magahee suffered. At Samuel's age, all but he once a year type injuries are rehabbed from with no problem.

25% for a once a year injury ? I don't think so.

 

[Isaac]

Don't ask me. He's insulted by getting in one year about 4 times what I'll make in a lifetime. It's all the respect B.S. But given that he's either gonna make $8M this year or get a big insurance payoff, he clearly CAN go in that direction if he chooses.

Well, I assume that these franchised players aren't getting insured, not just Samuel, so apparently it's too expensive for them unless they generally would (whether they are insulted or not). Insurance is always cheaper when you can spread the risk--that's why it's more expensive for a self-imployed person to get insurance than an employee of a company (unless the self-imployed person enters a pool of some sort).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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).

Not sure how you could project them making money since this would be a very limited type of policy that might only be written once in a blue moon. And just one bad experience would likely wipe out any hopes of profiting from this kind of policy underwriting for years.

In the past teams were franchising franchise caliber players. This year not so much because of the cap flush. Asante is the poster child for that phenomenon.

Looking back at say Charles Woodson, who as a #4 draft pick and defensive ROY and three time pro bowler was certainly a franchise caliber player... He was tagged twice by Oakland and his tags reached $10.5M in year 2. He missed 13 games over those two tagged seasons over a variety of injuries coupled with a bad attitude, and was finally allowed to walk to FA. His agents (the Poston Brothers also shopping a limping Ty Law at the time LOL) wanted a mega deal with a $16M signing bonus. What they got from GB late in the FA season was a phony backloaded and incentive laden 7 year deal that actually pays him $18M over the first three seasons - or $6M per.

 

[QuiGon]

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.

A lot of players (especially top college prospects) buy insurance against injury, and they generally do so under the radar. It isn't exactly headline making news.

But one thing you can't insure against is having a crappy year. Asante's value right now is probably as high as he could ever reasonably expect it to be. That's why he really really wants to be a UFA. Unfortunately for him, his own union collectively bargained in good faith for a clause that allows the team to apply their franchise label.

 

[BelichickFan]

Insurance is always cheaper when you can spread the risk.

And it's also based on the likelihood of an event - a career ending injury being VERY unlikely. It's just greed. The player wants the big, longterm deal and doesn't want to put a certain percentage of the measly $8M into insurance. It's not that that can't do it, they just don't want to.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I don't know the answer either. But I would be stunned if it were that high. How many players suffer an injury so bad that they're pretty much done - legitimately career threatening ? Very, very few in a given season.

Torn ACL ? Broken leg ? No worry, Samuel would still get his big contract after those. Insurance would cover only the very rare - paralysis type - head or neck trauma so they have to retire - maybe the kind of triple ligament tear that Harrison and Magahee suffered. At Samuel's age, all but he once a year type injuries are rehabbed from with no problem.

25% for a once a year injury ? I don't think so.

But you're not talking about DONE here, you're talking about his not being able to work for 2 years - or at least potentially at a high level - as a result of a football injury. That happens a LOT in this league. Under the present day tag, Samuel would be on his own rehabbing after the injuries you mention. Then he's likely facing a make it contract. That's part of the contingency he would need to be insured against, not merely paralysis but simply losing a step and being shown the door to FA and told to limp through it. That lost step might still get him cut from a long term deal eventually, depanding on his dead cap, but it leaves him with his guaranteed money and salary paid in the interim in hand.

You are going all fan boy on this one BF. Asante isn't the enemy here, just a jerk maybe, wending his way through the system as it exists.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

Money can be moved from year to year fairly easily, but that doesn't change the fact the the supply of money is not only limited, it is precisely defined.

It is like your salary. You get a certain amount of money every year.

Every dollar you spend on restaurant meals is a dollar you are not spending somewhere else. Your remaining budget must account for it if you suddenly eat out three meals a day in fine restaurants for the next year.

You can use saved money from last year, you can whip out your cedit cards, but that does not change your income.

Your income, like the cap, is a zero sum game.

It has nothing to do with deferred money or advance bonuses or any other thing. You cannot give all 53 players 8 million dollars each this year. We cannot. If you give enough players 8 million dollars, you run out of money before you run out of players. That is why someone said money spent on one player is money spent on another player.

 

[Isaac]

But you're not talking about DONE here, you're talking about his not being able to work for 2 years - or at least potentially at a high level - as a result of a football injury. That happens a LOT in this league. Under the present day tag, Samuel would be on his own rehabbing after the injuries you mention. Then he's likely facing a make it contract. That's part of the contingency he would need to be insured against, not merely paralysis but simply losing a step and being shown the door to FA and told to limp through it. That lost step might still get him cut from a long term deal eventually, depanding on his dead cap, but it leaves him with his guaranteed money and salary paid in the interim in hand.

You are going all fan boy on this one BF. Asante isn't the enemy here, just a jerk maybe, wending his way through the system as it exists.

Not sure if it could work like this, but I would think that the insurance should be based on a career, not the specific years--big difference I realize. But I think that ultimately a player wants to make sure he's gonna get his fat payout and the remainder is icing. If Asante were certain that he's gonna make ~25 million, even if it takes 10 years, I think he'd sleep happy that he's getting it eventually and he'd get to camp to try and make more.

 

[BelichickFan]

But you're not talking about DONE here, you're talking about his not being able to work for 2 years - or at least potentially at a high level - as a result of a football injury. That happens a LOT in this league. Under the present day tag, Samuel would be on his own rehabbing after the injuries you mention. Then he's likely facing a make it contract.

Well I disagree.

a) What's the probability of a career ender ?
b) What's the probability of a (next) season ender (like a torn ACL) ?

(a) is what he's insuring against for sure. (b) is optional, if he wants to increase the premium.

Regardless he still has his $8M this year.

We don't know the premium but it's not going to be that much for the very unlikely (a) and it will still be reasonable for the still unlikely (a) + (b).

 

[mgteich]

Miguel and I are usually on the same page, but this time I disagree. The cap is INDEED a zero sum game. Presuming that the team spends all the cap (this year or rolls it over), then money spent on one player is money not available for others. There are various cap strategies. No one has disagreed that the 2007 cap would be helped if we signed Samuel to a long-term contract, but the money would come out of other's pockets in the future. In fact, the $7.9M takes money out of the future. We certainly could simply trade Samuel and roll most of this money over.

I am not taking a position on how much Samuel is worth. I accept the team's position that he is worth $7.9M this year, although it not even clear that the team believes this. They can and could always have been planning to sign him to a long-term deal or trade him once he signs. Personally, I think that the team is comfortable with Chad Scott starting and with Gay, Meriweather, Wilson and/or hawkins at nickel. James is this year's wildcard jag. I expect to sign another couple before camp ends.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

And yet you apparently agree with me that the Patriots spend to the cap limit every year - so that it really is a zero sum game (over the years). The money not actually paid out in one year does get pushed to the next year and paid out then. What percentage of the cap have the Patriots paid out over the last 10 years? And what percentage of the money that has been pushed forward into this year will eventually get paid to the players? The money's going to the players; it's just how the money will be divided up.

The overall team salary structure is the real issue here. Simply because you and I don't know how the Patriots would have spent the money should an extra 2 million (for example) be available under the cap (because they paid Asante 2 million less than he originally wanted) doesn't mean that ultimately it's 2 million less for Asante and 2 million more for the other guys on the roster. Because it is. One possible scenario is that the Patriots will be able to afford a few better players (that they each pay a little more money to) than the guys they currently have on their roster because they have the money to spend.

 

[Miguel]

And yet you apparently agree with me that the Patriots spend to the cap limit every year

The Pats do use the entire cap each year

- so that it really is a zero sum game (over the years). .

I disagree because

1.)The cap goes up each and every year.
2.) I'm pretty sure that the Pats have spent more than the cap during the BB/Pioli era.

 

[Miguel]

Your income, like the cap, is a zero sum game.

I wish that my income experienced the same type of increase as had the cap.

It has nothing to do with deferred money or advance bonuses or any other thing. You cannot give all 53 players 8 million dollars each this year.
We cannot. If you give enough players 8 million dollars, you run out of money before you run out of players. That is why someone said money spent on one player is money spent on another player.

That's an extreme hypothetical that does not take into account that
1.)there are not 53 players on the Patriots worth $8 milllion this year.
2.) that the 2006 draft pick class can not redo their deals.
3.) that the ERFAs and RFAs (Gay, Alexander, etc.) had their salaries pre-defined


Here's an extreme in the other direction.
Every Patriot player plays for 1 million a year. Would the cap then be a zero-sum game??