SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I like Asante, however I would not consider him an elite, shut down CB. He lacks the speed to be out on an island. I'd be happy if we could get one 1st rounder for him.
I would NOT trade him for a #1.
Long term that may be the best result, but to win in 07 our chances are reduced without Samuel on the field.
I could easily take the argument of the value of top picks, but ultimately the value of putting experienced developed players on the field has to be considered as well.
There needs to be a balance between talent being developed to win in the future, and talent to win with now. I think the scales are heavily tilted in this case that Samuel, given the mix of our roster holds a lot more value to us than another #1 pick.
Let the debate begin! Is a cash payment equivalent to a draft pick?
Paying franchise money for one player is one thing, at worst you wind up with dead money or an injury settlement. Coughing up two of the more significant team building tools in your arsenal needs more thought - would you give up a potential Richard Seymour and Ty Warren for Tommy or Peyton? Would it be more palatable if they were Graham and Watson?
Yes, there is the uncertainty factor of draft picks, but there is also the diversification of risk (to use a term my wallet fantasizes over) and that blue chip potential. Bonds of stocks? Given BB's economic thinking as applied to cap management and team building, two #1 picks for a Lawrence Taylor or other impact player would seem to be a difficult expenditure to justify. I might do it for the QB, the LB, probably not.
I would NOT trade him for a #1.
Long term that may be the best result, but to win in 07 our chances are reduced without Samuel on the field.
I could easily take the argument of the value of top picks, but ultimately the value of putting experienced developed players on the field has to be considered as well.
There needs to be a balance between talent being developed to win in the future, and talent to win with now. I think the scales are heavily tilted in this case that Samuel, given the mix of our roster holds a lot more value to us than another #1 pick.
It is not an either or situation. If it comes down to a trade it is because they couldn't reach an agreement. With no agreement in place the options are to trade him or force him to play under the tag.
If he plays 2007 under a tag and then walks in 2008 we get one year from him taking $8M of cap space and might get lucky with a 3rd round pick for compensation in 2009.
If he is traded for a 1st round pick we get a top 30 college player under contract control for 5-6 years.
If an impass is reached and there is a number 1 draft pick being offered I would be stunned if the Patriots didn't jump all over it.
He could also be tagged next year. I think one thing is certain he wont sit out and leave 8 mill on the table (that is I believe mroe than he has made combined in his life so far) That makes it in his interest to resign here because he cannot resign anywhere else. He will get a signing bonus larger than 8 mill, so the risk of a career ending injury, or just waiting indefinitely for the payday give him incentive to sign here and now.
The tag for this player next year will be at least $9.4M making him the highest paid player on the roster ahead of Brady and Seymour, and the second highest cap hit behind only Brady for the second season in a row.
This kind of analysis makes no sense.
1. The cap has gone up at least 27.5% since the the Brady and Seymour deals were done.
2. They Brady and Seymour deals are multi-year deals that provide substantial financial security in the event of a career ending injury. NFL players understand perfectly well that they accept a salary discount in exchange for achieving this security.