How the Pats Should Handle the Samuel Negotiations

[MoLewisrocks]

To quote MLR: "Some of you guys really just don't get Bill Belichick."

I'm not sure reading this if you are one of them or one or us but I' leaning toward them...

Now you're the one making a horrible comparison. BB doesn't give two turds about the games people play in the media, because that's all it is... a silly game for negotiating. In February 2004, Ty Law was singing BB's praises. Seriously, you should look up the quotes... Law was practically fawning over the guy. Couple months later, he was pissed because he wasn't cut when he wanted to be. It's just an offseason song and dance. But fact is Ty Law showed up when it was time to show up, and played all the games that year until the injury. If Asante shows up in July, then he will be a valuable member of this team. If he sits out until November, he will not be allowed to come back just in time for a playoff and Super Bowl run.

Bill has a real thing about putting the best players on the field he can to give his team their best shor at winning. If Asante is allowed to hold out through the first 9 weeks, it will be because BB believes he still represents value in week 10 and beyond. Otherwise, he is here in week 1 or gone.

Well, let me respond to this question with another question: Last year, when having problems with Deion Branch, this team had a seriously depleted WR corps (not from injury, but simply because they sucked). Did BB cave in to Branch back then...? IIRC, all BB had to do was promise Branch not to franchise him and he would have showed up. Did BB cave in to that relatively minor demand, or did he stand firm..?

We didn't believe we sucked headng into camp. Remember - Caldwell replaced Givens. Bill had options, like Stallworth, he wasn't even looking into or Walker he couldn't get to come here. We didn't suck until the bell rang and Deion still wasn't there.

Did he cave? Well, Deion did get Reggie Wayne money while we got a first round pick in a weak draft and Doug Gabriel for a waste of a 5th in that same draft. Deion was asking for one of three things, and he got one of them. Agreeing to not tag a player currently under contract who had yet to even be tagged was a precedent no GM would want to set. Rumor has it we would have given Deion his money at the 11th hour if he would have sat down with us minus his agent. But seeing as he had a deal on the table with Seattle by then that paid him exactly what we had been unwilling to offer upto that time, he said no thanks. So yeah, if you consider it a cave when a player gets what he wants, we caved.

Unless you consider any alternative that results in them not getting to play and win here well short of a cave. I personally only consider it a cave if you agree to pay a player more than you believe they are worth in order to keep them. That's a precedent I just know in my bones Bill is totally unwilling to set here.

Agreeing not to tag a player the following season if he agrees to play under the tag in the current season isn't a precedent. In fact it is widely reported and assumed we did just that, though not in writing as far as I know, with Adam in 2005. Buffalo reportedly did it with Clements last season. Seattle stipulated it in writing with Shaun Alexander, and as a result of the good will that engendered they even got the deal they said they wanted to do with him done at the end of that season.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Patriots should merely say to Asante:

"See you in week 10, until then, go to hell".

I think if it comes to that what they will say is "See you in week 10, until then try to stay in shape so you'll be ready help for the stretch run."

 

[QuiGon]

I'm not sure reading this if you are one of them or one or us but I' leaning toward them...

Oh, I got the impression we are on opposite sides of the issue, but I still liked your quote I think Asante will be here by the start of the season. I am just saying that I don't see any chance in hell BB lets him just come strolling back week 10.

Rumor has it we would have given Deion his money at the 11th hour if he would have sat down with us minus his agent.

I never put much credence into that. It's like saying to a criminal "We'll offer you a great plea bargain, but you have to talk to us without your lawyer." If Deion ever agreed to represent himself in contract talks, he would have a fool for a client.

Agreeing not to tag a player the following season if he agrees to play under the tag in the current season isn't a precedent.

Oh, I agree there is precendent in the NFL to do that, but it is something BB has said he will never do.

In fact it is widely reported and assumed we did just that, though not in writing as far as I know, with Adam in 2005.

I have never heard such reprorts and, quite honestly, I wouldn't believe any of that as anything more than mediot speculation and guessing.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I never put much credence into that. It's like saying to a criminal "We'll offer you a great plea bargain, but you have to talk to us without your lawyer." If Deion ever agreed to represent himself in contract talks, he would have a fool for a client.

He apparently already had a fool for a client if he goal was to remain here. They didn't want him to represent himself, just ditch his existing agent whom they apparently erroneously believed was the root problem.

Oh, I agree there is precendent in the NFL to do that, but it is something BB has said he will never do.

Really...when did he ever say that? I believe the media said no team would ever agree to what Deion was demanding, but I've never seen Bill even address sush issues and I doubt you have either.

I have never heard such reprorts and, quite honestly, I wouldn't believe any of that as anything more than mediot speculation and guessing.

Adam never denied it though he was quoted after signing with the Colts as saying he would not have refused to play under the tag had they chosen to tag him again. The media widely reported that the team had promised him in 2005 if he reported to camp, and he did, that they would not re tag him in 2006. And they didn't, while apparently offering him the same salary as he'd have gotten if they had, and nothing beyond that guaranteed. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....well you get it.

 

[QuiGon]

Really...when did he ever say that?

I believe it was during the Branch negotiations, but it may have been prior to that. It may have come up during the Seymour negotitation of the previous year. But it certainly makes sense since that one little promise would have gotten Deion to report to the team last year.

I believe the media said no team would ever agree to what Deion was demanding, but I've never seen Bill even address sush issues and I doubt you have either.

No, I am quite certain I have. Think about it... the Patriots preferred trading Deion to giving him a promise not to franchise him.

Adam never denied it though he was quoted after signing with the Colts as saying he would not have refused to play under the tag had they chosen to tag him again.

Just because Adam never denied a made up story doesn't mean it is true.

The media widely reported that the team had promised him in 2005 if he reported to camp, and he did, that they would not re tag him in 2006.

I don't remember any such articles and I certainly don't remember any such articles being "widely reported."