Herald Article about Franchise Tags Graham & Asante

[Krazy Koz]

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=959

"Most players don’t like being franchised, and CB Asante Samuel figures to be firmly in that camp — even if he would be guaranteed to make the $7.79 Million that the franchise number dictates, which is far more than he’s made in his first four years as a pro. Consider that Charles Woodson signed a deal last year with the Packers that paid him $10.5 Million in its first season and $18 Million through three years. And consider that Woodson wasn’t even that hot a name. He was someone who was set to turn 30, carried an injury history and was thought to have lost a step.

On the Patriots’ side, it’s hard to see them swallowing the idea of committing $7.79 Million in cap space to one player for 2007. Yes, it could happen and with close to $30 Million in cap space, there’s certainly room to facilitate it. But after the Deion Branch fiasco last season, it could lead to a holdout and may hamstring the team’s other offseason dealings. Bottom line: Don’t count it. And while the transition tag may be an option, there seems to be little use in applying it to Samuel. If he’s tagged with that and wants out, he’ll be able to leave without much of a problem.

That brings us to the only other player that would warrant one of these tags at this point: TE Daniel Graham. The Patriots’ history says this could happen. The Patriots have franchised just two players in the Bill Belichick era: K Adam Vinatieri and S Tebucky Jones. The two of those guys relate directly to Graham. Kickers/Punters carry the lowest franchise tender, while safeties have the third-lowest number. Wedged right in between those two positions? That’s right, tight end. So there is some history of the Patriots using the tag in that salary neighborhood.

Again, there is risk involved. The team/player relationship can be affected to a point of no return on these things, so the Patriots may have to tread lightly. The wild card here is that there is depth at that position, with Benjamin Watson and promising ‘06 rookie David Thomas on board, and ‘06 fourth-round pick Garrett Mills waiting in the wings. That said, Graham brings a level of blocking that’s not there with the others and has been invaluable in helping the line protect against premier pass rushers, skills that can’t be discounted. Certainly, the Patriots naming Graham a captain in midseason shows how much they think of him. And the guess here is that if someone’s going to get franchised, it will be him. "

 

[MoLewisrocks]

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=959

"Most players don’t like being franchised, and CB Asante Samuel figures to be firmly in that camp — even if he would be guaranteed to make the $7.79 Million that the franchise number dictates, which is far more than he’s made in his first four years as a pro. Consider that Charles Woodson signed a deal last year with the Packers that paid him $10.5 Million in its first season and $18 Million through three years. And consider that Woodson wasn’t even that hot a name. He was someone who was set to turn 30, carried an injury history and was thought to have lost a step.

On the Patriots’ side, it’s hard to see them swallowing the idea of committing $7.79 Million in cap space to one player for 2007. Yes, it could happen and with close to $30 Million in cap space, there’s certainly room to facilitate it. But after the Deion Branch fiasco last season, it could lead to a holdout and may hamstring the team’s other offseason dealings. Bottom line: Don’t count it. And while the transition tag may be an option, there seems to be little use in applying it to Samuel. If he’s tagged with that and wants out, he’ll be able to leave without much of a problem.

That brings us to the only other player that would warrant one of these tags at this point: TE Daniel Graham. The Patriots’ history says this could happen. The Patriots have franchised just two players in the Bill Belichick era: K Adam Vinatieri and S Tebucky Jones. The two of those guys relate directly to Graham. Kickers/Punters carry the lowest franchise tender, while safeties have the third-lowest number. Wedged right in between those two positions? That’s right, tight end. So there is some history of the Patriots using the tag in that salary neighborhood.

Again, there is risk involved. The team/player relationship can be affected to a point of no return on these things, so the Patriots may have to tread lightly. The wild card here is that there is depth at that position, with Benjamin Watson and promising ‘06 rookie David Thomas on board, and ‘06 fourth-round pick Garrett Mills waiting in the wings. That said, Graham brings a level of blocking that’s not there with the others and has been invaluable in helping the line protect against premier pass rushers, skills that can’t be discounted. Certainly, the Patriots naming Graham a captain in midseason shows how much they think of him. And the guess here is that if someone’s going to get franchised, it will be him. "

It amazes me when these reporters have a brain cramp like ignoring the franchise tag and trade potential which Reiss at least acknowledged last week. In fact he said in hindsight he sees that as a likely scenario. Franchising Graham will not work because his trade value isn't nearly as good (See Jones, Tebucky) if he balks at being tagged, and as a perceived core player, captain and team leader alienating his with the cap as anything more than a bridge to a deal taking a few extra weeks to work out would be just setting themselves up for another alienated core player. While the transition tag makes perfect sense for him if they are willing to meet his market should it exist as he and his agent have likely assumed. I don't think you will see the poison pill raise it's ugly head again this season as the new commissioner is still pushing for the union to agree to elimitate it's use officially, and he has told teams in no uncertain terms he will take a dim view of anyone trying to pull that crap in the interim because it makes a mockery of a collectively bargained option .

 

[JoeSixPat]

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=959

On the Patriots’ side, it’s hard to see them swallowing the idea of committing $7.79 Million in cap space to one player for 2007. Yes, it could happen and with close to $30 Million in cap space, there’s certainly room to facilitate it. But after the Deion Branch fiasco last season, it could lead to a holdout and may hamstring the team’s other offseason dealings.

I just don't see a one year only committment of $7.8 million for a CB who had 10 INTs as being as problematic as the Herald thinks.

Would I prefer a longer term deal that allowed for a lower cap amount? Sure - but that includes the long-term risk for the team as well. There's no long term risk here.

Would the team need to prepare for the contingency of Asante sitting out the season? Yes - and that would require them to add quality depth - something that they should do anyways - and something they can afford to do with $30 mil in cap space.

Do I think Asante would really sit out an entire season, leaving him in the same or worse bargaining situation next year with $7.8 million less in his pocket? No I don't.

Seems to me that playing the Tag card makes a lot of sense for the Pats, and having everyone come to a 4 year contract agreement with a signing bonus in excess of $8 million makes the most sense for everyone.

I'm just not understanding why Tagging Samuel is so problematic for the Pats.

 

[BelichickFan]

I just don't see a one year only committment of $7.8 million for a CB who had 10 INTs as being as problematic as the Herald thinks.

I don't either . . . and it kind of a contradictary article because it talks about Samuel not wanting to be tagged - no surprise there - but all that means is he won't be quick to sign the offer so tagging him is a low risk way to keep our options open with him.

Do I think Asante would really sit out an entire season, leaving him in the same or worse bargaining situation next year with $7.8 million less in his pocket? No I don't.

Right, when Branch was talking about sitting out 10 games that would have cost him about $625K. Samuel sitting out 10 would cost him just about $5M.

 

[patsgo]

I just don't see a one year only committment of $7.8 million for a CB who had 10 INTs as being as problematic as the Herald thinks.

Would I prefer a longer term deal that allowed for a lower cap amount? Sure - but that includes the long-term risk for the team as well. There's no long term risk here.

Would the team need to prepare for the contingency of Asante sitting out the season? Yes - and that would require them to add quality depth - something that they should do anyways - and something they can afford to do with $30 mil in cap space.

Do I think Asante would really sit out an entire season, leaving him in the same or worse bargaining situation next year with $7.8 million less in his pocket? No I don't.

Seems to me that playing the Tag card makes a lot of sense for the Pats, and having everyone come to a 4 year contract agreement with a signing bonus in excess of $8 million makes the most sense for everyone.

I'm just not understanding why Tagging Samuel is so problematic for the Pats.

it shows what they know, actually a large contact would take a big chunk of the cap money, so even if its a little bit more by fanchising him its worth it because its cheap insurance to make sure hes not a one year wonder, he has been inconsistent in his early years, so it would be perfectly lodgical to tag him, see what he does next year then make your decision to pay him millions, he wont hold out because he has no other option, hell loose 8 million which he wont do

 

[patsox23]

The Patriots can place the Franchise Tag as many times as they want, but only to one player at a time. Is that right? I wonder if this situation would encourage the Patriots to:

1) Franchise Samuel early.

2) Take offers for him.

3) Get an offer for him.

4) Remove the Franchise Tag for the purposes of trading him.

5) Apply the Franchise tag to Graham in hopes of negotiating a long-term deal. If not, try to trade him.

As I mentioned above, it would mean moving EARLY on Samuel, just to give us a time-frame that would allow all of that to happen within the two weeks. Thoughts?

 

[PromisedLand]

I just don't see a one year only committment of $7.8 million for a CB who had 10 INTs as being as problematic as the Herald thinks.
.

I also agree with that and have said so in the past. Not only is there no long term risk but the player is STILL playing for a contract. So, if Samuel's marked improvement during 2006 was an aberration, no risk to the team. If Samuel is capable of playing a second season comparable to 2006 then good for him, he deserves to be paid like a top 5 CB.

In fact, I would almost rather see him play under the franchise tag than to see him sign a long term contract with the kind of numbers which have been thrown around here. Because I am not convinced that 2006 was NOT an abberation. Or that if Samuel has the ability to perform like that, that he would do so if he wasn't playing for a contract. He never never did it before, why should we be so sure he will again?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Right, when Branch was talking about sitting out 10 games that would have cost him about $625K. Samuel sitting out 10 would cost him just about $5M.

So the risk/reward factor was obviously much different for Branch. He had nothing to lose, everything to gain - and playing only risked his health

$8 million is nothing to sneeze at for Assante. While he does risk his health with only 1 year's franchise salary guaranteed, what's he looking at as a long term signing bonus? $16 million? He can get that in two years being franchised and still be on the market in 2009.

There's no way he'd sit and give up that type of money. He'd make the Pats squirm but he'd play - and even if he sat out 10 games, I get the feeling that if the Pats had it to do over again, they might have wanted Branch going into the playoffs.

Yes it would have been a distraction in the regular season - but you know they still would have won the AFC East and been in the playoffs with Branch as a weapon.

So Assante can't count on being traded if he chooses to sit out - all he can count on is having $5 million less than if he played.

 

[salty]

I think it makes sense for the Patriots to use the franchise tag on Samuel rather than lose him for nothing. I agree that Samuel wouldn't like it, but come on...8 million dollars, guaranteed? For one year? I think he would play for that. He's been making 400-500K, so that is still quite a payday in comparison.

And from the Patriots side of things, that is a lot of cap space to tie up on one player for a year, but they do have $30 million in cap space, and it would allow them to groom somebody to take over for Samuel after he left. Who would be the starter if he left now? Gay? Wilson? Those guys can't even stay off IR.

 

[mgteich]

Let me get this straight. You would pay $8M for a player who didn't show up for camp and didn't show up until Week 10?

So the risk/reward factor was obviously much different for Branch. He had nothing to lose, everything to gain - and playing only risked his health

$8 million is nothing to sneeze at for Assante. While he does risk his health with only 1 year's franchise salary guaranteed, what's he looking at as a long term signing bonus? $16 million? He can get that in two years being franchised and still be on the market in 2009.

There's no way he'd sit and give up that type of money. He'd make the Pats squirm but he'd play - and even if he sat out 10 games, I get the feeling that if the Pats had it to do over again, they might have wanted Branch going into the playoffs.

Yes it would have been a distraction in the regular season - but you know they still would have won the AFC East and been in the playoffs with Branch as a weapon.

So Assante can't count on being traded if he chooses to sit out - all he can count on is having $5 million less than if he played.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

Let me get this straight. You would pay $8M for a player who didn't show up for camp and didn't show up until Week 10?

no, you'd pay closer to 3, wouldnt you?

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Let me get this straight. You would pay $8M for a player who didn't show up for camp and didn't show up until Week 10?

Asante would lose 5 million dollars if he sat out. That is alot of $$$$$$. The downside of NOT franchise tagging Samuel, is that if you don't, Daniel Snyder will give him an insane contract in FA. You will lose him and get nothing. By tagging him, you at the worst will trade him for a 1st round pick. There is a good percentage that he will play under the tag. And hopefully, the two parties can come to terms. We were able to do it with Sey.