Schefter: Asante got conditional guarantee he won't be franchised

[patsox23]

NE will almost certainly get a 3rd rounder no matter what.

We have no idea what happened behind closed doors. Samuel could very well have said that he was going to continue to stay away otherwise. NE looked at it and said, "We're going to have two 1st rounders next year regardless. Is the upgrade from a #3 to a #1 worth the turmoil that Samuel could cause?"

Right, EXACTLY - Asante may have said that, and it's so clearly complete B.S. I can't believe they fell for it. He's going to stay away, and lose HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A WEEK? Come on. This is ludicrous. If they thought he would follow through on that, they're not nearly the shrewed guys I thought they were. I'll withhold much more judgment until we see the conditions, but it seems like a stretch to think Asante would actually sit out 'til week 10.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Then they won't. I just don't understand what the big deal is. My assumption is that the Patriots believed they were getting something for this that was more valuable than the right to sign him for $9 million next year. If they feel the snap number for Asante is more valuable than that right, their track record at figuring out the better play in each situation is pretty darned good, so I'm fine with it.

I think it's probably a pretty fair assumption that after he banks his $7.8 million, Asante would have much much less incentive to report next year under the franchise and likely would just end up sitting out until week 10 then, which does nobody any good. If he was thinking about it last year, he'll probably do it next year and if the Patriots think the franchise power in that circumstance is minimal so be it.

It seems to me as though the Patriots make rational team-based decisions and that's why they've achieved so much. If they listened to fan message boards, they'd make instinctive, retributive, emotional decisions.

Please...give that man a cigar.

They know the odds of getting a #1 in trade for that player are also pretty remote because other teams know that too. So next year the Pats would be up against it to trade a player counting almost $10M against their cap. The player would also be getting squeezed since he would never be a UFA and would be forced to agree to go to whatever team offered them the best trade compensation while also willing to sign him to the kind of lucrative deal he is entitled to persue. Or he could say screw it, I'll play here for $10M and force your hand again. All Asante would have to do is communicate the the media that he is not willing to play ball in tag year 2 to drag this out past the draft in April. Then the Pats are stuck angling for a trade that nets them lesser compensation in the 2009 draft, a draft n which they would have gotten a 3rd rounder in comp anyway if he walks.

If they wanted draft compensation for Asante they would have attempted to trade him this season. They didn't. They tagged him to play. That tells me they may think a little more of his individual skills than many of us do and they may just want a second shot at getting him signed long term. This move creates the good will necessary to have a shot at getting that done.

Either way they didn't cave, they did what they believe is in the best interest of the team first in the immediate term and second in the longer term. They were willing (albeit grudgingly) to give Deion what he wanted in a long term deal at the 11th hour last year (cave ) and when he wouldn't even agree to take it, they punched his ticket out of town (cave ). This time they did what they had to insure the player not only plays here this year but could potentially play here long term (OMG they didn't bust his ass??? ). It may not work out that way when all is said and done, but that is the track they have chosen to persue in this teams best interest. That fans who cannot see this because they had a preconceived notion etched in stone that THEY had it all figured out, should come as no shock even here where fans of a three time champion all envision themselves to be smarter than most.

 

[patchick]

DO YOU GUYS ACTUALLY BELIEVE that we're saying we wanted the Franchise Tender to be available so we could keep Asante UNDER the Franchise number again?! Because NO ONE is arguing that. We're talking about leverage, the ability to do so SO THAT WE CAN TRADE ASANTE instead of him walking away for nothing. THAT is the big deal.

Could it work out, anyway? Sure, I guess. It's possible. But please, for the love of Christ, stop wondering what the "big deal" is! The "big deal" is a chance for elite compensation for a guy who won't be on this team a year from now. It's not complicated.

I understand the concept, but as I said earlier I think people may be overvaluing the compensation we'd get. When everybody knows you don't really want to keep the player under the franchise number, your trade leverage is lousy. A #1 pick is probably unrealistic. So let's generously say a #2 + #4. Then let's say that by letting Samuel walk the Pats would get a #3 or #4 comp pick. Then the expected value of this concession by the standard draft value chart is:

Average value (#2 + #4) - Average value (last #3 + last #4)/2

Interestingly, the result (406 pts) is equivalent to the picks we gave up to get Wes Welker and Corey Dillon. This is not nothing, but it is comfortably in the range the Pats routinely "spend" to get a proven veteran in camp. And, of course, it's all conditional.

All in all, I'm ok with it.

 

[QuiGon]

I think it's probably a pretty fair assumption that after he banks his $7.8 million, Asante would have much much less incentive to report next year under the franchise and likely would just end up sitting out until week 10 then, which does nobody any good. If he was thinking about it last year, he'll probably do it next year and if the Patriots think the franchise power in that circumstance is minimal so be it.

I think that's a bit presumptuous. it would still be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

It seems to me as though the Patriots make rational team-based decisions and that's why they've achieved so much. If they listened to fan message boards, they'd make instinctive, retributive, emotional decisions.

There is nothing retributive, emotional or vindictive about what I am saying. Given that I believe Samuel reported and was going to join the team this week no matter what, I think the wise move is to leave all options open for next year.

 

[Rob0729]

Add Branch and NE wins rather easily. The defense sucked in the second half, but the offense did it no favors.

A lot of the problems on offense would have been out of Branch's hands. We had no running game in the second half. Heath Evans had a costly too many men in the huddle and Troy Brown (who probably would have been on the field anyway) had a costly pass interference on a play that would have been a first down that we ended up not getting on that drive because of that penalty. Brady looked down his receiver on the final INT.

You might argue that Branch might not have dropped the ball that Caldwell did a few plays earlier to the INT, but I still put our passing offense rather low on why we lost that game.

 

[patsox23]

If they wanted draft compensation for Asante they would have attempted to trade him this season.

They felt the 7.79 mill was a one-year deal they were willing to take. Next year's jump in pay won't be as attractive. That doesn't mean they wouldn't want draft compensation when he DOES become cost-prohibitive.

 

[Oswlek]

A lot of the problems on offense would have been out of Branch's hands. We had no running game in the second half. Heath Evans had a costly too many men in the huddle and Troy Brown (who probably would have been on the field anyway) had a costly pass interference on a play that would have been a first down that we ended up not getting on that drive because of that penalty. Brady looked down his receiver on the final INT.

You might argue that Branch might not have dropped the ball that Caldwell did a few plays earlier to the INT, but I still put our passing offense rather low on why we lost that game.

Branch is a much, much better player than any of NE's WRs last year. The passing offense may not have been the *reason* NE lost the game, but it certainly wasn't a strength to pull them through. With Branch I think it would have been.

For the record, I may be one of the most vocal about how much injuries, the flu and crappy officiating impacted that game, but I don't blame the passing offense at all. NE made their bed and had to lie in it.

 

[patsox23]

When everybody knows you don't really want to keep the player under the franchise number, your trade leverage is lousy.

This is simply not true, and it's the kind of thing that gets trotted out constantly on messageboards all over the web, especially this one. It takes just TWO teams to create trade leverage - and if you guys want to argue that NO ONE would be willing to give up a #1 pick for what many seem to consider an elite CB, you're nuts. Teams were willing to do it THIS year, but the Pats didn't want to deal him for just a #1 (they stuck to TWO #1's) b/c they felt, at 7.79 mill, Asante was worth it for one year.

But this idea that somehow teams wouldn't make an offer b/c "no way the Pats will pay him X amount of dollars" is silly. You don't think they could find AT LEAST two suitors who'd trade their #1 for an established, elite-in-their-eyes cornerback? Really?

 

[patsox23]

There is nothing retributive, emotional or vindictive about what I am saying. Given that I believe Samuel reported and was going to join the team this week no matter what, I think the wise move is to leave all options open for next year.

Perfectly put.

 

[RayClay]

Please...give that man a cigar.

They know the odds of getting a #1 in trade for that player are also pretty remote because other teams know that too. So next year the Pats would be up against it to trade a player counting almost $10M against their cap. The player would also be getting squeezed since he would never be a UFA and would be forced to agree to go to whatever team offered them the best trade compensation while also willing to sign him to the kind of lucrative deal he is entitled to persue. Or he could say screw it, I'll play here for $10M and force your hand again. All Asante would have to do is communicate the the media that he is not willing to play ball in tag year 2 to drag this out past the draft in April. Then the Pats are stuck angling for a trade that nets them lesser compensation in the 2009 draft, a draft n which they would have gotten a 3rd rounder in comp anyway if he walks.

If they wanted draft compensation for Asante they would have attempted to trade him this season. They didn't. They tagged him to play. That tells me they may think a little more of his individual skills than many of us do and they may just want a second shot at getting him signed long term. This move creates the good will necessary to have a shot at getting that done.

Either way they didn't cave, they did what they believe is in the best interest of the team first in the immediate term and second in the longer term. They were willing (albeit grudgingly) to give Deion what he wanted in a long term deal at the 11th hour last year (cave ) and when he wouldn't even agree to take it, they punched his ticket out of town (cave ). This time they did what they had to insure the player not only plays here this year but could potentially play here long term (OMG they didn't bust his ass??? ). It may not work out that way when all is said and done, but that is the track they have chosen to persue in this teams best interest. That fans who cannot see this because they had a preconceived notion etched in stone that THEY had it all figured out, should come as no shock even here where fans of a three time champion all envision themselves to be smarter than most.

Exactly.

Do you really want a very expensive, unhappy player around for two years in a hostage type situation?

I think they league needs to revisit this franchise tag rule, but it's unlikely the Pats want a distraction for another year, and a very expensive one at that.

They have maintained good will, or at least remained professional towards players that weren't civil (Ty Law) and that helps them whether the inevitable morale threatening situations like Milloy or Deion occur.

Everybody's got these unpleasant business decisions and I think the Pats maintain control and ultimately seem fair, but strong.

 

[Oswlek]

This is simply not true, and it's the kind of thing that gets trotted out constantly on messageboards all over the web, especially this one. It takes just TWO teams to create trade leverage - and if you guys want to argue that NO ONE would be willing to give up a #1 pick for what many seem to consider an elite CB, you're nuts. Teams were willing to do it THIS year, but the Pats didn't want to deal him for just a #1 (they stuck to TWO #1's) b/c they felt, at 7.79 mill, Asante was worth it for one year.

But this idea that somehow teams wouldn't make an offer b/c "no way the Pats will pay him X amount of dollars" is silly. You don't think they could find AT LEAST two suitors who'd trade their #1 for an established, elite-in-their-eyes cornerback? Really?

I agree with you that NE could have gotten a #1, I just think that this FO has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Sure it is entertaining when you feel that you could do something better, but it feels to me like some of us here found something that appears black and white and are clinging to it.

I just believe that there is more here. Maybe MLR is right that NE wants another crack at signing him. Maybe they legitimately believe he would have held out. I don't know, but I do know that BB and SP wouldn't have just thrown that in there unless they felt it was necessary,

 

[patsox23]

Eh. I guess so. It's just hard to see where they would need to, even if he bluffed he wasn't coming back 'til week 10. And that being the case, if they DO believe him, then they should've been better prepared for life without him, beyond Chad Scott and the hope he wouldn't get injured (oops).

 

[amazinPats]

This is simply not true, and it's the kind of thing that gets trotted out constantly on messageboards all over the web, especially this one. It takes just TWO teams to create trade leverage - and if you guys want to argue that NO ONE would be willing to give up a #1 pick for what many seem to consider an elite CB, you're nuts. Teams were willing to do it THIS year, but the Pats didn't want to deal him for just a #1 (they stuck to TWO #1's) b/c they felt, at 7.79 mill, Asante was worth it for one year.

But this idea that somehow teams wouldn't make an offer b/c "no way the Pats will pay him X amount of dollars" is silly. You don't think they could find AT LEAST two suitors who'd trade their #1 for an established, elite-in-their-eyes cornerback? Really?

I think the team could get a first round pick for Asante in 2008 if he were franchised again. Didn't Atlanta pay at least one first rounder (plus more) for John Abraham, who was franchised twice?

Still, I've warmed up to the recent agreement, and will happily take the projected third round compensatory pick in 2009. Who knows? Maybe we can agree to a longterm deal next year, but I go along with an earlier poster who said that he believes that Beoli have some doubts about Asante's value.

 

[RayClay]

No, it's those things OR they have the right to franchise and TRADE him for a valuable asset.

Believe it or not, I do agree with the argument that we should probably let this go and focus on the fact that we have a stellar team, all in the fold now, and that it's going to be a great season. I'm just so stunned by this ridiculous cave on an obvious BLUFF and so disappointed to (probably) lose the chance to deal the guy for another #1 pick, that it's hard to let go.

We are reaching the enviable stage where these draft picks don't help us a lot anymore. We practically gave away this year's draft and it's questionable how many players out of our double 1st and 3rd round draft next year we can use.

It seems they have smoothed this over so we have our top cornerback this year and can try to work out something long term.

The alternative is an expensive, then very expensive disgruntled player for two years.

If the Patriots would rather have the first scenario, then they didn't lose anything.

 

[Oswlek]

We are reaching the enviable stage where these draft picks don't help us a lot anymore. We practically gave away this year's draft and it's questionable how many players out of our double 1st and 3rd round draft next year we can use.

It seems they have smoothed this over so we have our top cornerback this year and can try to work out something long term.

The alternative is an expensive, then very expensive disgruntled player for two years.

If the Patriots would rather have the first scenario, then they didn't lose anything.

Yes, but by the same token, they then could have taken two 1st rounders and still had a chip to slide over to the next table. Or they could have moved around a little more.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see that as a major factor. You can *always* use more 1st day draft picks.

I have no idea why, but I didn;t even read the last couple lines. I guess you were boring me. I am more inclined to agree with those.

 

[patsox23]

We practically gave away this year's draft and it's questionable how many players out of our double 1st and 3rd round draft next year we can use.

This is not a sign that we don't really need day one picks or whatever nuttiness that was. We did not "give away" this year's draft - we TRADED into a much better draft. We got value, which is always the focus on the Patriots, and which is why I'm having such a hard time with this negotiating move. We now have risked, to the point of likely LOSING, an incredibly valuable asset, a #1 pick.

I would have no problem with this if I believed there was no other way. But the idea that they gave in to a demand that was so clearly a bluff is hard to fathom. I have to think there's something else to this - as some have suggested, maybe we want to sign him long-term after this season (if he proves himself) or maybe the conditions are unlikely to be met ('though I doubt it). We'll just have to see.

 

[14thDragon]

This is not a sign that we don't really need day one picks or whatever nuttiness that was. We did not "give away" this year's draft - we TRADED into a much better draft. We got value, which is always the focus on the Patriots, and which is why I'm having such a hard time with this negotiating move. We now have risked, to the point of likely LOSING, an incredibly valuable asset, a #1 pick.

I would have no problem with this if I believed there was no other way. But the idea that they gave in to a demand that was so clearly a bluff is hard to fathom. I have to think there's something else to this - as some have suggested, maybe we want to sign him long-term after this season (if he proves himself) or maybe the conditions are unlikely to be met ('though I doubt it). We'll just have to see.

Well, you are assuming that when they reached the comprimiise that the FO just blinked and gave in. If it was as simple as that I could agree with you. But given that it is happening now, it really makes you wonder if the Samuel camp did not sweeten the pot a little to get the consesion. Perhaps some consideration in long term negotiations.

In the end, it really is not a win-lose situation. The Patriots get their best corner on the field for the season and he gets paid a large sum of money for it.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Here's what the Pats have...

1. A young, healthy, productive CB who KNOWS the system available for the full season
2. Good relations with the players, Asante says he's happy & his agent is praising Pioli & Kraft; no 'controversey'
3. A window to sign Asante to a long term deal starting around Xmas
4. The option to let him go and likely get a #3 compensation pick in 2009

Somehow, I can't get myself worked up that this is a bad thing.

On to the quest for ring #4,

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Here's what the Pats have...

1. A young, healthy, productive CB who KNOWS the system available for the full season
2. Good relations with the players, Asante says he's happy & his agent is praising Pioli & Kraft; no 'controversey'
3. A window to sign Asante to a long term deal starting around Xmas
4. The option to let him go and likely get a #3 compensation pick in 2009

Somehow, I can't get myself worked up that this is a bad thing.

On to the quest for ring #4,

And a contingency that they can franchise him in certain events that are not entirely clear to us yet.

 

[patsox23]

Fair enough. I've said all I can say. And I certainly agree with those of you emphasizing the here and now. As of right now this team is F-ing loaded and that is indeed a good thing.