Franchising Givens

[brdmaverick]

the Patriots will not franchise Givens

I love the guy but it would not be a wise move to do so.

 

[oldrover]

I agree... hell, at $3mil, Adam V. is getting pricey. Once his contract is done, though, I think the Pats WILL franchise Seymour next year if they don't reach a contract deal.

 

[Triumph]

How do you know this??

Nobody offered a 1st round pick as far as I know. Givens was tendered the 3rd highest tender @ 1.43 Mil. Pats had right of first refusal and compensation worth 1 1st round pick if any team wanted Givens.

There are actually 4 tenders. The highest is very obscure and never used. I dont know why that is, but I read that bit of info from John Clayton a few years ago IIRC. It may have changed since then, but I didnt see anything alluding that happening.

 

[Brady#12]

i think we should Franchise AV i think Givens will re-sign with us

 

[Miguel]

Nobody offered a 1st round pick as far as I know. Givens was tendered the 3rd highest tender @ 1.43 Mil. Pats had right of first refusal and compensation worth 1 1st round pick if any team wanted Givens..

MLR's quote presumes 3 things.

1.) that the Patriots offered Givens to the 31 teams for a 3rd round pick.
2.) no one accepted the offer.
3.) Givens was stunned by 1 and 2.

Why would the Pats accept just a 3rd round pick for Givens when McCariens was worth a 2nd and Doug Jolley a 1st???

Let's presume that 1 and 2 is true. How does MLR know 3??

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The "a 3" in my post yesterday was a typo. Should have read "a 1" (as opposed to two 1's as compensation for signing a Franchise player). It was written more than once in the Boston papers that Givens and his agent were stunned that there was no - repeat - no interest in signing him. We don't have to shop a RFA, and in many cases wouldn't want to - he can shop himself, and Givens agent did and found no takers. Had he we would have faced the decision to match the offer or take the draft pick compensation. I'm not sure BB would have balked at taking the 1 for his 7, but it never came to that.

Givens might have been tendered lower but for his own 7th round draft status. At that level of compensation he would have been offered a contract and we would have been hard pressed not to match it as opposed to taking somebody else's 7th in 2005.

I'm sure there will be interest in David Givens the UFA in 2006. I guarantee you there would be none in David Givens the Franchise Tag player, which is why he won't be.

 

[Miguel]

The "a 3" in my post yesterday was a typo.Should have read "a 1" (as opposed to two 1's as compensation for signing a Franchise player).

I thought that it was a mistake but was not sure since a 3rd round pick would not have been his RFA compensation.

It was written more than once in the Boston papers that Givens and his agent were stunned that there was no - repeat - no interest in signing him.

Never wrote those reports. Hence, the question.

I'm sure there will be interest in David Givens the UFA in 2006. I guarantee you there would be none in David Givens the Franchise Tag player, which is why he won't be.

I'm also sure that there will be interest in David Givens the UFA in 2006. I think that David Givens will not be franchised but for a different reason. The Patriots can not afford to tag Givens with Branch coming up next year. In fact, I think that the Patriots will not make an offer to Givens.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

The Patriots can not afford to tag Givens with Branch coming up next year. In fact, I think that the Patriots will not make an offer to Givens.

I'm not sure I get this. If they Franchise Givens and he plays under that for a year, he's a UFA again in 12 months and they'd have this period now to sign Deion without Givens' 2006 salary interfering . . . or am I wrong ?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm not sure I get this. If they Franchise Givens and he plays under that for a year, he's a UFA again in 12 months and they'd have this period now to sign Deion without Givens' 2006 salary interfering . . . or am I wrong ?

Miguel may be hinting it's more of a pecking order interference thing and setting the bar much higher than they want to. And BB may not want to set a precedent that has Deion dragging his feet in his negotiation because he assumes worst case he'll be franchised.

Givens and Branch were both drafted in 2002. Aside from the million dollar bonus Deion got for being selected in the 2nd round, he and the 7th rounder had made the same base minimum salary through 2004. Then last year David (who as a 7th rounder only signed a 3 year deal) got a mid level tender at $1.43M. He's now made just about the same over the last 4 seasons, and don't think Deion isn't aware of that on some level. Players often want to get caught up for previous underpayments when their next contract is negotiated. Teams can't afford that kind of thinking.

Even though he hasn't put up gaudy numbers Deion is substantially underpaid for a young #1 WR who already owns a SB receiving record previously held by Jerry Rice and who has an MVP trophy on his nightstand. David isn't substantially underpaid for a nice young #2. Add $6M to the insult this year or even give David a market contract while Deion waits for his 5 year rookie deal to run out and he becomes a tougher signing. He may be tough enough to re-sign on his own anyway.

 

[dhamz]

I'm not sure I get this. If they Franchise Givens and he plays under that for a year, he's a UFA again in 12 months and they'd have this period now to sign Deion without Givens' 2006 salary interfering . . . or am I wrong ?

Every deal you make has impact on other players.

If you decide Givens is worth 6.1 million and franchise him, Branch and his agent will decide (and rightfully so) that he is worth more and the Pats will have a very hard (likely impossible) time coming to an agreement with him on a deal.

Franchising Givens - a starter but not one of our elite players - throws the entire team's salary structure out a line at a time where some of our key guys we need to keep (Branch, Seymour) are looking for new deals.

 

[Miguel]

I'm not sure I get this. If they Franchise Givens and he plays under that for a year, he's a UFA again in 12 months and they'd have this period now to sign Deion without Givens' 2006 salary interfering . . . or am I wrong ?

MLR and Dhamz pretty much answered my question. IMO, I will just add that giving Givens the franchise tag will greatly affect any Branch negotiations. Givens will immediately sign the franchise tag. Why?? Because it ensures him a very good payday and unless he suffers an major injury in 2006 another very good payday in 2007. If he is tagged, why would any major wideout (ARE, Moulds, Bryant) come here?? They can easily be paid more money to be a #2 elsewhere.

Edited to correct a typo - replaced payday with injury.

 

[Miguel]

David isn't substantially underpaid for a nice young #2. Add $6M to the insult this year or even give David a market contract while Deion waits for his 5 year rookie deal to run out and he becomes a tougher signing. He may be tough enough to re-sign on his own anyway.

Right now, David is not being paid at all. So he can't be underpaid. Givens in his 4-year career made $2.39 million or about $600,000 per year. According to page 38 of the belowmentioned NFLPA research document the average cap number for a WR in 2005 was 826,000. According to page 55 the average cap number for a STARTING wideout was $2.2 million.
600,000 is about 27% of $2.2 million. 1.43 million is 65% of $2.2 million. Either number shows me that Givens was underpaid in 2005. He has been paid less over his career than has Bethel Johnson. 88 wideouts took home more than $2.39 million from the years 2002-2004. So even after his $1.4 million take in 2005, there will be at least 100 wideouts who have taken in more money than Givens since 2002. There is no way that 100 wideouts have performed better than Givens over the past 4 years. In 2002 there were 82 wideouts with a cap number of $600,000 or higher. In 2003 there were 93 wideouts with a cap number of $600,000 or higher. In 2004 there were 102 wideouts with a cap number of $600,000 or higher. USAToday has not provided the numbers for 2005 but it seems safe to safe that there will be at least 100 wideouts with a cap number of over $600,000. These numbers tell me that Givens has indeed been substantially been underpaid during his career. There is no nice young #2 wideout playing under a deal that pays him just $600,000 a year that is not also playing under his rookie deal.

Footnotes:
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/foot...yersbyposition.aspx?pos=4&order=CapValue+desc

http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/20...y_Averages_&_Signing_Trends_November_2005.pdf

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I think Deion and his agent are smart enough to realize that a one year deal will have a totally different dollar value per year than a 4 or 5 year deal.

 

[ilduce06410]

cafardo said so

How do you know this??

i'm pretty sure i read it in one of cafardo's mail things last year.
of course that's not take-it-to-the-bank stuff like mcdonough always had.
i really really like givens.
i like what he's done to make himself the receiver he is.
there is still upside there. he has a way to go, on his deep patterns and on situational awareness.
i wonder who's telling him he's worth so much money.
for that matter, how do we know how much he wants?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Right now, David is not being paid at all. So he can't be underpaid. Givens in his 4-year career made $2.39 million or about $600,000 per year. According to page 38 of the belowmentioned NFLPA research document the average cap number for a WR in 2005 was 826,000. According to page 55 the average cap number for a STARTING wideout was $2.2 million.
600,000 is about 27% of $2.2 million. 1.43 million is 65% of $2.2 million. Either number shows me that Givens was underpaid in 2005. He has been paid less over his career than has Bethel Johnson. 88 wideouts took home more than $2.39 million from the years 2002-2004. So even after his $1.4 million take in 2005, there will be at least 100 wideouts who have taken in more money than Givens since 2002. There is no way that 100 wideouts have performed better than Givens over the past 4 years. In 2002 there were 82 wideouts with a cap number of $600,000 or higher. In 2003 there were 93 wideouts with a cap number of $600,000 or higher. In 2004 there were 102 wideouts with a cap number of $600,000 or higher. USAToday has not provided the numbers for 2005 but it seems safe to safe that there will be at least 100 wideouts with a cap number of over $600,000. These numbers tell me that Givens has indeed been substantially been underpaid during his career. There is no nice young #2 wideout playing under a deal that pays him just $600,000 a year that is not also playing under his rookie deal.

Footnotes:
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/foot...yersbyposition.aspx?pos=4&order=CapValue+desc

http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/20...y_Averages_&_Signing_Trends_November_2005.pdf

Guess for openers I should have said was. And in my mind I was comparing him to others playing under their rookie contracts although his was shorter than Deion's and he'd already been a mid level tender RFA.

Sometimes after I say something and then you say something I have a feeling we are conversing in in two different languages - and neither one of us fluently speaks or understands the others'.

I think in comparing things like salary to cap numbers or all WR to one WR (who only really played 3 seasons thus far and never a complete one as a starter) as opposed to WR in als in their 4th year perhaps, you can end up comparing apples and oranges. You could also correlate stats as well as salary or cap and perhaps develop a more meaningful comparison, though even within that comparison, some of the apples may be overpaid and some of the stats may be skewed by any number of variables. Doesn't mean the oranges deserve to be overpaid too or have been underpaid as a result. IMHO anyway.

 

[Triumph]

Couldnt the Pats Franchise Givens and retain his rights until July 15 working out on a deal and keeping him off the FA market? If no deal is reached thats acceptable to NE and Givens, cant NE recind the Franchise tag and let Givens go in July?

 

[dryheat44]

Couldnt the Pats Franchise Givens and retain his rights until July 15 working out on a deal and keeping him off the FA market? If no deal is reached thats acceptable to NE and Givens, cant NE recind the Franchise tag and let Givens go in July?

Givens would most likely sign the tender, giving him a top-five WR salary and hitting the FA market next year.. I don't think we're prepared to pay him that much.

 

[ilduce06410]

how much are the SB kicks worth?

I agree... hell, at $3mil, Adam V. is getting pricey. Once his contract is done, though, I think the Pats WILL franchise Seymour next year if they don't reach a contract deal.

pricey, shmicey.
bob kraft would have put $10 million down on the barrelhead for that 45-yard punch, off snow, in a swirling win, against oakland.
he'd have signed another cashier's check, 10 million with not an ounce of regret, for the 47-yarder, right down the g*ddam middle, no suspense, no intrigue, no pressure. just run on the field, line it up, and knock that baby through.
worthy of minnesota fats.
pay the man. too much. it won't break the bank. this is too cute, by half.

 

[dryheat44]

pricey, shmicey.
bob kraft would have put $10 million down on the barrelhead for that 45-yard punch, off snow, in a swirling win, against oakland.
he'd have signed another cashier's check, 10 million with not an ounce of regret, for the 47-yarder, right down the g*ddam middle, no suspense, no intrigue, no pressure. just run on the field, line it up, and knock that baby through.
worthy of minnesota fats.
pay the man. too much. it won't break the bank. this is too cute, by half.

You are aware of the salary cap, right? What Kraft is willing to pay is irrelevant.

Don't forget that Adam missed two figgies from very makeable range in SB38, and two in the Denver playoff game.

Were those not important kicks? He's hardly automatic.

 

[Triumph]

You are aware of the salary cap, right? What Kraft is willing to pay is irrelevant.

Don't forget that Adam missed two figgies from very makeable range in SB38, and two in the Denver playoff game.

Were those not important kicks? He's hardly automatic.

Yes, but AV made the FG that mattered the most in SB38. The missed FG's in Denver werent the reason why NE lost that game. Brady's INT put the game 2 scores out of reach @ NE 6 - DEN 17. Brady shoud have just thrown it away and let AV kick the chipshot FG making the game NE 9 - DEN 10.