Samuel and Free Agency

[aabtec]

Thanks for your comments.

I would rephrase your remark that "...the Pats are/have a reputation for not paying their players. Remember it is not what we believe it is what the players believe." I would put it that the Pats have a reputation for not paying more than they think a player is worth. And, I don't think that the players "believe" this, I think they "know" this. I'm not going to go into a lecture on the Kraft-Pioli-Belichick philosophy, as everyone who posts out here knows what it is. But the bottom line is that this has worked so far and they ain't gonna get off this horse for a long time. They want to be consistently competitive, which doesn't mean winning a SB every year. However, of the 32 teams in the NFL, only one has won a Playoff game in each of the last four years and it isn't the Redskins...

As for your remark that "The shelf life of the 3 SB's only lasts so long," I really disagree with the logic behind it. A little perspective: in 41 years, only 17 NFL Franchises have actually won a SB. Of those 17, 10 have won two or fewer (six have won "only" one). Only seven Franchises have won three or more: The Packers, Patriots, Redskins, Raiders, 49ers, Cowboys and Steelers. Those teams pretty much comprise the elite of the NFL. So, I would suggest that the "shelf life of...3 SB's" is long indeed. (In fact, only 26 Franchises have ever even GONE to a SB. Of those, 12 have gone to two or less and eight have gone to only one. And, just eight franchises have played in five or more SB's: the 49'ers, Dolphins, Patriots, Redskins, Broncos, Steelers and Cowboys.).

So, have some perspective on what the Patriots have accomplished, especially over the past six years. And, don't assume that their approach to the game won't continue to work.

The approach the Pats had was good while it lasted. The major monkey wrench was the new CBA and a much higher cap number. Suddnely all of the "idiot" teams got out of jail and all teams got alot more money to spend.

The dynamic has changed which really stinks. It let the morons off of the hook. My other comment about the shelf life of the 3 SB's is relevant more to the Corporate Suite Holders and the folks that purchase the red seats.
These seats are the premium seats and the Pats make alot of money from them.

My concern is that if the Celtics do get the Number #1 pick this year they will grab the 2 foot kid from Ohio State. The Celtics have won alot more championships than the Pats have. The marketing for the Celtics would be simple to do. Plus they would be able to advertise the opportun ity to see one of 40 games.

Pats fans will still go to the games and root for the team. But the die hards are what you are seeing now with the Bruins and Celtics. There are alot of fans disguising themselves as empty seats.

I would love to see the Pats franchise Samuel and then trade him for a number 1 this year if at all possible. The Pats need to reload over the next 2 years. We cannot afford a draft like 2004 or a free agent year like 2002.

BTW...One more thing: FIRE SKIPPY....

 

[mgteich]

It doesn't take tampering to understand value in a marketplace. That is much of what agents are paid to assess.

I wouldn't call it "evil", rather a concession.

In 1993, the owners had broken the union six years previous and the players had recently won on anti-trust suits that basically put an end to Plan B FA. Had the players insisted on absolute FA to the point of striking, it would have been a repeat of 1987. So the NFLPA agreed to the transition/franchise tags, RFA, and the salary cap.

The biggest problem with FA, IMO, is tampering. Agents seem to "know" exactly what their clients command on the open market, otherwise they wouldn't be so hasty to break off from their teams. Lawyer Milloy, Deion Branch, and Ty Law come to mind.

I place the blame of tampering squarely on the owners. Agents are going to do what they are supposed to do, get the most for their clients. But when owners tamper, they are really slicing their own throats. The results are inflated salaries and increased player resentment. Moreover, Tampering is difficult to prove, at best.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Right, just like limiting non first round picks to 4 year deals. I'm sure Pioli hates that. We got nothing out of Jackson for a year, we're now down to 3 years for that pick.

PURE EVIL.

Thank Tom Condon. His hatred of the Pats is permeating the NFLPA.

 

[aabtec]

I wouldn't call it "evil", rather a concession.

In 1993, the owners had broken the union six years previous and the players had recently won on anti-trust suits that basically put an end to Plan B FA. Had the players insisted on absolute FA to the point of striking, it would have been a repeat of 1987. So the NFLPA agreed to the transition/franchise tags, RFA, and the salary cap.

The biggest problem with FA, IMO, is tampering. Agents seem to "know" exactly what their clients command on the open market, otherwise they wouldn't be so hasty to break off from their teams. Lawyer Milloy, Deion Branch, and Ty Law come to mind.

I place the blame of tampering squarely on the owners. Agents are going to do what they are supposed to do, get the most for their clients. But when owners tamper, they are really slicing their own throats. The results are inflated salaries and increased player resentment. Moreover, Tampering is difficult to prove, at best.

If the NFL hit a couple of teams with penalites for tampering (like loss of draft picks) and cap number reduction then some of this crap would end.

 

[dhamz]

No, this is ridiculous. You suggest that because the players signed the CBA that they agree with every condition within it.

There is no question where the players stand on the teams being able to keep players out of free agency. They oppose it. They always have. They always will.

No, not at a premium price! That's silly. If the tag were lifted, the player always gets more money. The tag is a way for a team not to have to negotiate with a player. They get to keep one player slave, while the rest are allowed to move through free agency.

They have no problem taking a stand againt other things that are really improtant to them. Why don't they take a stand on this one if they hate it as much as you say they do?

And are you saying that the 8 million dollars it would cost to franchise Samuel is somehow not a premium price for an NFL football player? What percentage of the players in the league will make 8 million in 2007?

 

[mgteich]

What percent are franchised?

They have no problem taking a stand againt other things that are really improtant to them. Why don't they take a stand on this one if they hate it as much as you say they do?

And are you saying that the 8 million dollars it would cost to franchise Samuel is somehow not a premium price for an NFL football player? What percentage of the players in the league will make 8 million in 2007?

 

[mgteich]

They have taken a stand many times. The issue of the tags and the existence of a salary cap is an item that the owners will not budge on.

They have no problem taking a stand againt other things that are really improtant to them. Why don't they take a stand on this one if they hate it as much as you say they do?

And are you saying that the 8 million dollars it would cost to franchise Samuel is somehow not a premium price for an NFL football player? What percentage of the players in the league will make 8 million in 2007?

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

If the NFL hit a couple of teams with penalites for tampering (like loss of draft picks) and cap number reduction then some of this crap would end.

Problem is it's tough to prove. All it takes to tamper is a "general" conversation complete with hypotheticals.

Agent (or someone with hidden connection to agent): "Off the record, I know you guys need a CB. How much would you play for, say a CB comming off a 10 INT season?"

Owner (or someone with hidden connection to owner): "Off the record, I would give such a CB a $14mil signing bonus for starters".

 

[dhamz]

What percent are franchised?

In that question you answer why the players association doesn't care enough to go to the mat to eliminate the franchise tag. If every team applied it every year it impacts less than 2% of its members. The rule is in there and will stay becuase not enough players care to make it a priority for their representatives.

They have taken a stand many times. The issue of the tags and the existence of a salary cap is an item that the owners will not budge on.

The owners will never budge on the cap or the draft. Those are the two non-negotiable things. Every other thing in the CBA is negotiable if the price is right. The owners budged on the tags in the last CBA since the players took a hard stance on the "Walter Jones rule" - it changed the rules for franchising a player multiple times.

If it were important enough to the players to get rid of the tags and they were willing to give the owners something they really wanted in return (which would no doubt need to be something big), it could get done. The players aren't willing to give up something significant in exchange for a concession from the owners that impacts so few of them. And to be honest, they shouldn't.

 

[mgteich]

Your argument is well made.

I guess the consequence is that the top players need to do whatever they can to maximize their salaries, and protect their interests, since the CBA will never do so. Alternatively, they can simply understand that the team can determine where they play.

In that question you answer why the players association doesn't care enough to go to the mat to eliminate the franchise tag. If every team applied it every year it impacts less than 2% of its members. The rule is in there and will stay becuase not enough players care to make it a priority for their representatives.



The owners will never budge on the cap or the draft. Those are the two non-negotiable things. Every other thing in the CBA is negotiable if the price is right. The owners budged on the tags in the last CBA since the players took a hard stance on the "Walter Jones rule" - it changed the rules for franchising a player multiple times.

If it were important enough to the players to get rid of the tags and they were willing to give the owners something they really wanted in return (which would no doubt need to be something big), it could get done. The players aren't willing to give up something significant in exchange for a concession from the owners that impacts so few of them. And to be honest, they shouldn't.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The approach the Pats had was good while it lasted. The major monkey wrench was the new CBA and a much higher cap number. Suddnely all of the "idiot" teams got out of jail and all teams got alot more money to spend.

The dynamic has changed which really stinks. It let the morons off of the hook. My other comment about the shelf life of the 3 SB's is relevant more to the Corporate Suite Holders and the folks that purchase the red seats.
These seats are the premium seats and the Pats make alot of money from them.

My concern is that if the Celtics do get the Number #1 pick this year they will grab the 2 foot kid from Ohio State. The Celtics have won alot more championships than the Pats have. The marketing for the Celtics would be simple to do. Plus they would be able to advertise the opportun ity to see one of 40 games.

Pats fans will still go to the games and root for the team. But the die hards are what you are seeing now with the Bruins and Celtics. There are alot of fans disguising themselves as empty seats.

I would love to see the Pats franchise Samuel and then trade him for a number 1 this year if at all possible. The Pats need to reload over the next 2 years. We cannot afford a draft like 2004 or a free agent year like 2002.

BTW...One more thing: FIRE SKIPPY....

maybe you'll think i have a pollyanna view, but i think the jury is definitely out on whether the patriots strategy is finished ("good while it lasted"). I don't think the cap increase is significant enough to change the fundamental dynamic of competiton in the NFL and of the need to build depth at 53 positions if a team is to succeed. you may be right in the short run when a few marginal teams will have "found money" to spend, but just give those teams a year or two and they'll be gagging on their cap excesses, just as they have in the past.