Asante Samuel requests trade (1 Viewer)

[massraider]

Patriots | Samuel requests a trade

Wed, 4 Apr 2007 17:10:48 -0700

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports New England Patriots CB Asante Samuel has requested a trade because he is unhappy with the way contract negotiations have gone.

 

[Boston]

I don't think anyone is really surprised by this. The minute San Fran gave Clements the big deal this was a possibility. Hopefully this doesn't turn into another Briggs free-for-all situation. Yet, if it does than expect it to be one-sided with Samuel's side doing all the talking. The Pats won't get into a pissing contest.

 

[-OZ-]

Shocking that the Patriots aren't willing to pay what he has earned, comparatively to other CBs.

 

[massraider]

I think the Pats will be less likely to trade him than Branch.

While I think that it'll be easier to find a trade partner, as top CB's are at a premium, if I was NE, I'd rather have him for one more year, and then let him go for nothing. The Pats are Super Bowl contenders this season, make Asante show up, play well all year, then worry about replacing him after this year (maybe draft his replacement this month).

 

[Aaronstory]

Patriots | Samuel requests a tradeWed, 4 Apr 2007 17:10:48 -0700Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports New England Patriots CB Asante Samuel has requested a trade because he is unhappy with the way contract negotiations have gone.

Here we go again....

 

[Pat Patriot]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.

2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

 

[Z-Dog]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.

Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

 

[bostonfred]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

Walter Jones' annual holdout comes to mind.

 

[simmonjm]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

I dont remember hearing that Sameul signed the 1 year franchise offer. If he didnt sign it he can still visit with other teams.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

Wonder if Samuel will try and not make the same mistake Law made. To play extensively and get hurt with no long term deal.

 

[cstu]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

The Patriots aren't stupid enough to let him show up to play week 11 and still pay him $3M and then let him do that season after season all the while tying up the franchise tag.

 

[cstu]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

Walter Jones' annual holdout comes to mind.

AFAIK Jones never requested a trade.

 

[Pat Patriot]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

Wonder if Samuel will try and not make the same mistake Law made and play extensively and get hurt with no long term deal.

Law was completing a 5 year $50 million contract. He had plenty in the Bank and was an established STAR. Not the same case with Asante.What is he going to do? Not play to protect his health? He HAS to play.

 

[massraider]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

.I dont remember hearing that Sameul signed the 1 year franchise offer. If he didnt sign it he can still visit with other teams.

He hasn't and he can.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.

Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

The Patriots aren't stupid enough to let him show up to play week 11 and still pay him $3M and then let him do that season after season all the while tying up the franchise tag.

The only other player the Pats have used the Franchise Tag on was Adam Vinatieri. I dont think that is a big concern of theirs. If the player wont sign a long term agreement, they are not going to let Samuel force a trade.

 

[massraider]

Samuel is making the only play he can. Just like Briggs.

They have to go public, threaten the team with sitting out, and try and force the team to either trade them to a team that'll give them the deal, or paying them what they want.

It has worked before, and will probably work for both of these players. Teams don't want to risk a major disruption on a playoff team.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

.I dont remember hearing that Sameul signed the 1 year franchise offer. If he didnt sign it he can still visit with other teams.

He hasn't and he can.

Nobody is giving a 1st and a 3rd and signing Samuel to a $60 to $80 million contract. So the above point is moot.

 

[Boston]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.

Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

The Patriots aren't stupid enough to let him show up to play week 11 and still pay him $3M and then let him do that season after season all the while tying up the franchise tag.

The only other player the Pats have used the Franchise Tag on was Adam Vinatieri. I dont think that is a big concern of theirs. If the player wont sign a long term agreement, they are not going to let Samuel force a trade.

They used it on Tebucky as well...and than they traded him but it wasn't because he forced it.

 

[massraider]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

.I dont remember hearing that Sameul signed the 1 year franchise offer. If he didnt sign it he can still visit with other teams.

He hasn't and he can.

Nobody is giving a 1st and a 3rd and signing Samuel to a $60 to $80 million contract. So the above point is moot.

I think it's two firsts, actually. But Samuel doesn't need to sign a deal, he can just talk to ther teams and find out what they are willing to pay. You think that's the Pats preferred method of negotiation?

 

[David Yudkin]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

I'm not so sure about the logistics of franchise tagged players, but can't another team give up two first round picks to sign him? By definition isn't Samuel a free agent? By that I mean he is not under contract if he refuses to sign the franchise tender, so technically couldn't he just elect not to play?From what I remember, there are two types of franchise tags . . . "exclusive" and "non-exclusive." An exclusive tag, as it implies, means a player cannot negotiate with other teams. The trade off is that he has to be paid Top 5 at his position FROM THE CURRENT YEAR (in this case 2007).A non-exclusive tag lets a player negotiate with other teams and the original team could elect to match an offer or get two first round picks as compensation. If no other team signs the player to an offer sheet, the player would have to be compensated as a Top 5 player at his position based on the PREVIOUS year's salaries. I don't know if a player can opt NOT to take the tender. I assume that he can't, but I can't find anything that clarifies it 100%.All we hear about are players being tagged, but we never hear which way they are tagged. As far as I know, these are still the rules (unless the new CBA changed them).

 

[massraider]

Yeah, in order to find a player that forced a trade from the Pats, you have to go all the way back to last summer to find one.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

.I dont remember hearing that Sameul signed the 1 year franchise offer. If he didnt sign it he can still visit with other teams.

He hasn't and he can.

Nobody is giving a 1st and a 3rd and signing Samuel to a $60 to $80 million contract. So the above point is moot.

I think it's two firsts, actually. But Samuel doesn't need to sign a deal, he can just talk to ther teams and find out what they are willing to pay. You think that's the Pats preferred method of negotiation?

Unlike Branch last year, the Clements deal is a pretty fresh indicator as to what at least 1 team is willing to pay. Even though he has only done it one year, most seem to feel that Samuel is a top flight corner and on par with Clements. There was no WR to directly compare with Branch last season.

 

[Pat Patriot]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

I'm not so sure about the logistics of franchise tagged players, but can't another team give up two first round picks to sign him? By definition isn't Samuel a free agent? By that I mean he is not under contract if he refuses to sign the franchise tender, so technically couldn't he just elect not to play?From what I remember, there are two types of franchise tags . . . "exclusive" and "non-exclusive." An exclusive tag, as it implies, means a player cannot negotiate with other teams. The trade off is that he has to be paid Top 5 at his position FROM THE CURRENT YEAR (in this case 2007).A non-exclusive tag lets a player negotiate with other teams and the original team could elect to match an offer or get two first round picks as compensation. If no other team signs the player to an offer sheet, the player would have to be compensated as a Top 5 player at his position based on the PREVIOUS year's salaries. I don't know if a player can opt NOT to take the tender. I assume that he can't, but I can't find anything that clarifies it 100%.All we hear about are players being tagged, but we never hear which way they are tagged. As far as I know, these are still the rules (unless the new CBA changed them).

I think the most common tag is the exclusive tag. I cant remember which player but it was reported last year and emphasized that someone was a non-exclusive franchised player.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Who would be willing to sign him to a Clements type deal. Besides Washington.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Yeah, in order to find a player that forced a trade from the Pats, you have to go all the way back to last summer to find one.

I dont think Samuel has nearly the leverage that Branch had last year. Just my opinion though.

 

[Boston]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says. The Pats won't be effected by that. They just don't get into pissing contests in the media. No one will ever cause waves like Ty Law did when he got very personal with BB...and the Pats still brought him back and than tried to resign him. The Pats will do what's best for the team whether that's signing Samuel or dealing him. The big mistake they made with Branch was having the situation go down so close to the season when they didn't have many options to turn to at WR. Overall the trade was a good one long term but the timing was rough.

 

[massraider]

The 10-game holdout dance gives Samuel a fair bit of leverage.

Of the recent franchise players, how many have showed up to play after failing to secure long-term deals, or failing to come to an agreement about not using the franchise tag the following year? It seems to me that generally speaking, players DO have quite a bit of leverage in these situations.

There is one difference. Samuel was not a high draft pick. He hasnt had a pay day yet. If he wants to try and sit out 10 games, he is throwing away the majority of an $8 million payday and the Pats could then just franchise him again.The player only has leverage if the team allows them to play it. Branch had leverage because he was only making $1 million that year so he wasnt throwing away all that much and the Pats made the mistake of letting him test the market when he wasnt a free agent. They wont make that mistake again.

.I dont remember hearing that Sameul signed the 1 year franchise offer. If he didnt sign it he can still visit with other teams.

He hasn't and he can.

Nobody is giving a 1st and a 3rd and signing Samuel to a $60 to $80 million contract. So the above point is moot.

I think it's two firsts, actually. But Samuel doesn't need to sign a deal, he can just talk to ther teams and find out what they are willing to pay. You think that's the Pats preferred method of negotiation?

Unlike Branch last year, the Clements deal is a pretty fresh indicator as to what at least 1 team is willing to pay. Even though he has only done it one year, most seem to feel that Samuel is a top flight corner and on par with Clements. There was no WR to directly compare with Branch last season.

This all goes back to you saying the Pats won't make the same mistake about letting a player go off and make his own deal. Samuel isn't under contract, so he can talk to whoever he wants. The notion that contract parameters have been set by Clements isn't really relevant to that point.

 

[massraider]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

 

[Boston]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

 

[Demons]

Two first round picks isn't near as expensive for Chicago and Indy as most teams, given that they are at the end of the first round. But, the $$ is still big.

 

[cstu]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

We don't know what would have happened had the Seahawks not gave up their first. Had they not, maybe the Patriots would have traded him for a 2nd, maybe to a team they expected to be bad in 2006. Branch wasn't a franchise player so they would have been more likely to trade him than Samuel.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

 

[cstu]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.

2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

I'm not so sure about the logistics of franchise tagged players, but can't another team give up two first round picks to sign him? By definition isn't Samuel a free agent? By that I mean he is not under contract if he refuses to sign the franchise tender, so technically couldn't he just elect not to play? From what I remember, there are two types of franchise tags . . . "exclusive" and "non-exclusive." An exclusive tag, as it implies, means a player cannot negotiate with other teams. The trade off is that he has to be paid Top 5 at his position FROM THE CURRENT YEAR (in this case 2007).

A non-exclusive tag lets a player negotiate with other teams and the original team could elect to match an offer or get two first round picks as compensation. If no other team signs the player to an offer sheet, the player would have to be compensated as a Top 5 player at his position based on the PREVIOUS year's salaries. I don't know if a player can opt NOT to take the tender. I assume that he can't, but I can't find anything that clarifies it 100%.

All we hear about are players being tagged, but we never hear which way they are tagged. As far as I know, these are still the rules (unless the new CBA changed them).

Yes, he's "technically" a free agent but really he's being forced to sign a 1 year deal. He won't sit out the whole season (only 10 games) for two reasons - he'll lose an accrued year and the franchise status resets next year. Teams can franchise a player for 2 years paying him the average of the top 5 at his position, but the third time it will cost them the average of the top 5 of all players. No one is going to pay a CB that kind of money so chances are the Pats would make him a free agent. With that in mind, it makes sense to trade a player if they don't want to be somewhere since it only hurts the chemistry of the team and gains the team very little.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Am I on crack? I thought he was signed???

 

[David Yudkin]

Am I on crack? I thought he was signed???

No. He was frnachised. But he has yet to sign the franchise tender. And at this point the sides are way off in terms of signing a long term deal.

 

[Renegade of Funk]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

I'm not so sure about the logistics of franchise tagged players, but can't another team give up two first round picks to sign him? By definition isn't Samuel a free agent? By that I mean he is not under contract if he refuses to sign the franchise tender, so technically couldn't he just elect not to play?From what I remember, there are two types of franchise tags . . . "exclusive" and "non-exclusive." An exclusive tag, as it implies, means a player cannot negotiate with other teams. The trade off is that he has to be paid Top 5 at his position FROM THE CURRENT YEAR (in this case 2007).A non-exclusive tag lets a player negotiate with other teams and the original team could elect to match an offer or get two first round picks as compensation. If no other team signs the player to an offer sheet, the player would have to be compensated as a Top 5 player at his position based on the PREVIOUS year's salaries. I don't know if a player can opt NOT to take the tender. I assume that he can't, but I can't find anything that clarifies it 100%.All we hear about are players being tagged, but we never hear which way they are tagged. As far as I know, these are still the rules (unless the new CBA changed them).

I think the most common tag is the exclusive tag. I cant remember which player but it was reported last year and emphasized that someone was a non-exclusive franchised player.

Im not sure about last year, but I know this year the Colts slapped the non-exclusive franchise tag on Freeney, preventing him from negotiating with any other team.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

1. I bet the Pats wont make the same mistake by allowing Samuel to go out and find his own deal and then come back to them.2. The Patriots have control over Samuel for the next couple of years. He is franchised this year. If they dont get a deal signed and he plays well this year, they can just franchise him again. His only defense is the holdout.

I'm not so sure about the logistics of franchise tagged players, but can't another team give up two first round picks to sign him? By definition isn't Samuel a free agent? By that I mean he is not under contract if he refuses to sign the franchise tender, so technically couldn't he just elect not to play?From what I remember, there are two types of franchise tags . . . "exclusive" and "non-exclusive." An exclusive tag, as it implies, means a player cannot negotiate with other teams. The trade off is that he has to be paid Top 5 at his position FROM THE CURRENT YEAR (in this case 2007).A non-exclusive tag lets a player negotiate with other teams and the original team could elect to match an offer or get two first round picks as compensation. If no other team signs the player to an offer sheet, the player would have to be compensated as a Top 5 player at his position based on the PREVIOUS year's salaries. I don't know if a player can opt NOT to take the tender. I assume that he can't, but I can't find anything that clarifies it 100%.All we hear about are players being tagged, but we never hear which way they are tagged. As far as I know, these are still the rules (unless the new CBA changed them).

I think the most common tag is the exclusive tag. I cant remember which player but it was reported last year and emphasized that someone was a non-exclusive franchised player.

The only exclusive free agent tag used this year was placed on Dwight Freeney. Everyone else was non-exclusive.

 

[massraider]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

If Branch had not made a peep, and been happy to play his contract out, the Pats never would've traded him. He was their number 1 guy, and a good teammate, by all accounts. And with his contract and the FA tag, they had him for at least two more years.He made noise, demanded out, and got out. That the Pats got a good deal for him matters little."The Patriots don't play that" routine is over. Branch showed the way, and Samuel is just following his lead. Samuel has a very good idea what he is worth, and if he doesn't get it from the Pats, he'll force a trade.

 

[Banger]

Samuel >>> Branch. It's easy to find a "#1 WR" as opposed to arguably one of the best corners in the game. Samuel is going nowhere.

 

[Workhorse]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

If Branch had not made a peep, and been happy to play his contract out, the Pats never would've traded him. He was their number 1 guy, and a good teammate, by all accounts. And with his contract and the FA tag, they had him for at least two more years.He made noise, demanded out, and got out. That the Pats got a good deal for him matters little."The Patriots don't play that" routine is over. Branch showed the way, and Samuel is just following his lead. Samuel has a very good idea what he is worth, and if he doesn't get it from the Pats, he'll force a trade.

I agree. If things don't move towards a new contract with the Pats in the next few weeks, I think the Pats will deal him. However, NE has shown that they'll wait for the best possible deal and won't just deal a valuable asset for less than market value just to eliminate a headache. I'd say that the starting bid for Asante is at least a first round pick, if not more.

 

[JAA]

Shocking that the Patriots aren't willing to pay what he has earned, comparatively to other CBs.

 

[JAA]

You can blame the Pats for this. 2 years ago when they "negotiated" with Seymour behind the scenes and gave him 1 million to play his contract, they (the Pats) got the ball rolling with player hold-out ability.

I find it laughable that teams get upset when a player wants the same money he can get elsewhere.

Capitalism, youre worth what someone is willing to pay for you. See Nate Clements.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

Gotta love all the in here.

Someone, be it Chicago, Philly, or Indy (teams with secondary needs and low draft choices) would give up a first for Samuel. As for the contract, it's basically already written when Clements signed his deal.

 

[massraider]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

If Branch had not made a peep, and been happy to play his contract out, the Pats never would've traded him. He was their number 1 guy, and a good teammate, by all accounts. And with his contract and the FA tag, they had him for at least two more years.He made noise, demanded out, and got out. That the Pats got a good deal for him matters little."The Patriots don't play that" routine is over. Branch showed the way, and Samuel is just following his lead. Samuel has a very good idea what he is worth, and if he doesn't get it from the Pats, he'll force a trade.

I agree. If things don't move towards a new contract with the Pats in the next few weeks, I think the Pats will deal him. However, NE has shown that they'll wait for the best possible deal and won't just deal a valuable asset for less than market value just to eliminate a headache. I'd say that the starting bid for Asante is at least a first round pick, if not more.

Not overpaying Deion last year was a smart move, even if they could have used him.But your #1 CB? Pay him.

 

[bigreese82]

Maybe my Titans will step to the plate and drop this Turner talk

 

[Sabertooth]

As much as I hate to say it, this is a smart move by Samuel.

 

[Workhorse]

As much as I hate to say it, this is a smart move by Samuel.

Absolutely. His value will never be higher than it is right now. Remember, heading into the 2006 season, Samuel was seen as a #2 corner at best and ideally a nickel back on a team with decent corners. He had a tremendous season in his walk year and really boosted his value. Then comes the offseason where CB is a scarcity, prompting teams to overpay for talent. Kind of a perfect storm for Samuel.As a Pats fan, I'm wary of paying him #1 CB money in a long-term deal. I'm still not sold on him as a "shutdown" corner type. The Patriots have shown a remarkable ability to "coach up" two positions: CB and OL. My guess is if anyone offers a mid-high 1st round pick, they'll make the deal.

 

[Boston]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Samuel says.

This is simply not true.Branch proved this last year. The Pats would have preferred if he had played his contract out. He kicked and screamed and got what he wanted. And we were told last year that Branch was going to have to play for the $1 mill, and if they felt like franchising him, they would, and tough noogies for Deion.Deion got his long term deal, and didn't have to wait, and didn't miss a game.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Branch got what he wanted (and he did) when the Pats got a #1 draft pick. That's when it happened and it wasn't going to happen until than. He could have complained all he wanted but until someone stepped up with a good offer he wasn't going anywhere. The fact is the Pats got a #1 pick for a WR who still hasn't had a 1,000 yard season and that's a deal I'm sure they'd do again. If a deal comes up with Samuel that makes sense I have no doubt they'll pull the trigger there to but they won't be getting 50 cents on the dollar and won't make a deal just to stop some pissing and moaning.

If Branch had not made a peep, and been happy to play his contract out, the Pats never would've traded him. He was their number 1 guy, and a good teammate, by all accounts. And with his contract and the FA tag, they had him for at least two more years.He made noise, demanded out, and got out. That the Pats got a good deal for him matters little."The Patriots don't play that" routine is over. Branch showed the way, and Samuel is just following his lead. Samuel has a very good idea what he is worth, and if he doesn't get it from the Pats, he'll force a trade.

Again, I disagree. You believe he was traded because he made noise. I believe he was traded because there was a legit disagreement over his worth and the Pats made a smart business decision. The Pats were not going to deal him simply because he was complaining as you state. They dealt him because a trade offer came up that they felt made them a better team. If they had simply traded him for a third rounder than you're right, they would have buckled. If they had simply given him the deal he was looking for once he started yapping than they also would have buckled. Yet, in the end they made a deal that netted them a #1 as well as giving them cap space to extend a player like Koppen.It's pure business on both sides and it's just how it goes in the NFL. Yet, to think the Pats made a deal because of media chatter just isn't right. They made a deal based on business...they felt Branch wasn't worth what he was looking for and they felt a #1 draft pick was fair compensation. A deal was not made because of pissing and moaning. If you want to stay the ball got rolling due to a contract impasse than I agree but it's not because of pissing and moaning...it's business.As far as Samuel goes I have no doubt the Pats would deal him if they feel an offer they recieve makes them better. Yet, he is not going to get dealt just because he's talking to the media. He'll get dealt if the Pats think it's the smart move for the franchise.

 

[twistd]

Shocking that the Patriots aren't willing to pay what he has earned, comparatively to other CBs.

The problem is that the Patriots are reasonable when it comes to contracts. A lot of these free agent contracts have been asinine. Joey Porter getting $32 million for five years and $20 million guaranteed. Joey Porter is 30. Leonard Davis signs for 7 years $50 million, with $18.75 million guaranteed. This would be the same Leonard Davis who was a bust with the Cardinals. That is stupid money. Clements got 8 years for $80 million, but only $20 million is guaranteed. Clements is 27 now. Chances are good he won't complete the deal. So it is hard to really evaluate what the real terms of the deal are. Clements is a much better player than either Porter or Davis, at a much tougher position to fill. But if the Patriots sign Samuel to a deal like that it really hamstrings their ability to sign other players down the road.