Okay, all details always seem mangled until the ink is dry on something. But what could possibly incentivize the Pats to sign him to #1 money, when the franchise tag is actually cheaper (the average of top 5 money)?
I guess for some reason Shavers et al. found it strategically valuable to tell the press Samuel's side is ready to talk, pssst... about Nate Clements' deal.
Why sign a guy for 10M if you can get him for $7.89M in franchise tag dollars? At the money he wants, it won't be cheaper in the long run, and it won't be cheaper in the short run, unless they're just putting him on a credit card. Even then, the big guaranteed money is the whole point -- so within 2 years, he'd end up being a huge cap money drain (not to mention a real money drain, since after all the team's owners and other employees "have to feed their families" too.)
The only reason the Patriots would "roll over" and do the Samuel deal, is if they valued him as the kind of game-changing presence that they valued Seymour as (plus inflation since that time.) Even then, it is possible that for the Pats, the secondary truly is "secondary," when you look around and say what position will get you the big contract. ("Stop the run first." CBs just don't do that.) Or, maybe that's a rule that would go out the window if/when a Deion Sanders shows up.
But even then, look at what this year gives you: You get to see him on the field six games, and have him for the playoffs, for your money.
Let's say he performs unimaginably well. You can then compare notes, and decide he is that incredible, game-changing presence, and we can not let him get away.
So, to keep him, you can pay him like the best corner in the game.
Which is exactly what his camp is asking for now
So in the unlikely event that Samuel convinces you over the course of his contract year that he's worth the money, you sign him. If not you don't.
But there is no incentive for the team to come to a deal with Samuel, as long as he truly is asking for what he's reported to be asking for. The only reason to do it is to avoid a holdout... and the Pats can make the post-season without him, and probably even just sharpen him up from weeks 11-16, working him in slowly.
By the way, there is a risk that Ellis Hobbs excels during Samuel's absence. What if Hobbs nails 11 int.s this season? Doesn't Samuel begin to look like another "made in Foxboro" product?
I always say I support a player's right to make any move he likes under the law, including a holdout. But I also support management's right to pursue the team interest.
What gets me is these guys seem not to understand that it is still possible to get burned in one way or another. I maintain that I still hear Branch express remorse over having to move on, how he "never intended to be traded."
I don't see any of that in Samuel... however, I do see a guy who might not see the risk of a weaker bargaining position during the 2008 offseason than he is in at present. I suppose they've rolled those dice now...
Oh well, Asante. Knock yourself out and hold out for 10 games, and don't eat too much turkey this thanksgiving. You'll need to earn your keep in six games plus postseason, and play impressively enough to get your multiyear deal next year (if not franchised again, because the franchise number is STILL below the cost of a year of your services...)
PFnV
