Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Briggs and Samuel Fail To Reach Agreement (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter LHUCKS
- Start date
Boston
Footballguy
The big question I have is what can a holdout really accomplish (outside of a trade obviously). The rules state that the Pats and Bears can't negotiate until after the season so it's not like a holdout will force their hand. It is what it is at this point. If they holdout until week 10 they lose a decent amount of money as well as potentially having a lost year on the field which won't help them in the offseason. Whether you agree or disagree with the franchise tag it does appear both these guys don't have much leverage. Their best bet is to have a big time year and hit free agency hard next year. If they were to get franchised again they would make 20% more so both guys are looking at a two year payout in the area of 16-18 mil which is pretty substantial.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
As brief as NFL careers tend to be
it would be foolhardy for either one
of these players to sit out the season.
They will never recoup the lost money
from the 2007 season.
it would be foolhardy for either one
of these players to sit out the season.
They will never recoup the lost money
from the 2007 season.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
smcindoe
Footballguy
You need to hear this from a friend: you have no shot.
coolnerd
Footballguy
married less chance of holdout.
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
IMO If Briggs plays you can thank Urlacher, not Rosenhaus. The guy is doing everything he can to get Briggs in. I don't know if money is all it is about right now for Briggs either. Something tell me its more about getting respect from the organization. At least he is getting it from the people he plays with.Personally, I agree with Joe and think Briggs wil sit out most of training camp but will be back by preseason week 3 (which is a shift in what I did think). Oh-No was supposedly playing well in Briggs spot in the meantime, so the depth should be good at LB.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I also don't see what a holdout really gets these players at this point. All they could do is try to force a trade, but they can't get more money or a new contract.
I supposed the rules allow them to skip all of training camp and that would get them out of long drawn out practices, but I don't see the point in skipping any actual games.
I supposed the rules allow them to skip all of training camp and that would get them out of long drawn out practices, but I don't see the point in skipping any actual games.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Really? So you think that both teams would not see a production dropoff at those positions if those guys aren't playing? 10 games is a lot of games. If the Patriots are getting burned in the secondary for 10 games you don't think that they're going to re-think their position? Or if the Bears are getting chewed up by TEs over the middle and RBs are running wild to that side for 10 games, you don't think the Bears would re-think their position? If nothing else, the team would certainly be less likely to franchise a player again if they got hurt badly for 10 games and the guy is threatening to hold out yet again. And you have to remember that while $4M is a lot of money that these guys would be passing up, if they can get a contract next year with $10-15M more in guarantees than they would have from their current teams, then they come out ahead in the long run. It's a gamble, but one that these guys may be willing to make.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Whether Samuel holds out or not it is now impossible for him to make any more money this year from the Pats. He can only be signed for the 1-year, $7.8 million franchise tender. They can no longer negotiate a contract.And I'm not sure if he missed 10 games and then get benched by the Pats (a possibility) that that helps his chances of getting a huge contract next year.It would cost Samuel $4.875M to miss 10 games. Like all players, he's one play away from potentially never playing again. If he signs the tender he's guaranteed $7.8 million. If he suits up in Week 11 he gets only $3 million for this season assuming the team really wants to play him. And he could STILL be franchised again next year if the team really wanted to make his life difficult.As others have mentioned, Samuel made a few hundred thousand dollars last year. The $7.8 million would be more than he's made in his entire career up until now.I personally don't see how it's in his best interest to sit out 10 games, but I guess that's his call . . .
Boston
Footballguy
I don't think there's a single person who thinks the Pats and Bears aren't better with these players. That's very obvious. Yet, much more damage will come long term if these teams overpay for them. That's where franchises really get into trouble. One area the Pats have been pretty much flawless on is deciding which of their players to pay the good money to. They have lost a decent amount of players over the last four years but it's really tough to look at those players and say the Pats made a mistake not giving them what they got elsewhere (I'd say AV is the only one and with the addition of a young Gostkowski that move didn't hurt them and will probably be a plus long term). If the Pats screwed up anywhere it's not locking Samuel up a year ago when they probably could have got him for a fraction of what he's now looking for. To Samuel's credit his 2006 season greatly increased his worth and if he were on the open market he'd be able to cash in in a big way. Unfortunately for him that's not the situation he's currently in.At the end of the day these type of situations come with success. The Pats have been very good over the past six years which means they have had some real good players who have the potential to make some big money. That just comes with the turf. You can't keep everyone in a salary cap league. While I want Samuel back ASAP I'd much rather the Pats stick to their guns and not overpay him to avoid a short term headache. It's using that type of philosophy that has enabled the Pats to stay in the upper-echelon of NFL teams while still having a healthy salary cap that has allowed them to sign free agents like Thomas, trade for players like Welker while still locking up many of the key pieces of their team like Brady, Seymour and the entire O line. Hopefully Samuel comes back to camp because the Pats are definetly better in 07 with him. Yet, if getting him back to camp means they have to give him more than they feel he's worth than they'll have to move on and figure out how to survive 07 without him. Sometimes that attitude can be painful but that's how smart business is conducted.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I'm not sure if you realize that the negotiating period has ended. Samuel and the Pats can no longer sign a contract other than the 1-year, $7.8 million franchise tender. So the Pats CAN'T offer him more money at this point.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I absolutely agree that it's in NE's best long term interests not to overpay for Samuel just as it was in Buffalo's best long term interests not to overpay for Clements. They'd be foolish not to stick to their guns.But it's also probably in Samuel's best long term interests not to allow NE to continue to franchise him without giving him a nice longterm deal. Samuel knows that if he goes out there and plays the entire season at a high level, New England doesn't have a large incentive to not use the franchise tag on him again. Not only that, but it provides 10 more games that he could get hurt in. If he tears his ACL in Week 2 and is out for the season, then the Patriots simply let him become an UFA at the end of the year and Samuel probably has to sign a small short term deal somewhere else in the offseason with minimal guaranteed money. Really it all just boils down to just how valuable Samuels really is. If he's as valuable as he thinks he is, the Patriots lose out. If he isn't, then the Patriots will move on and be fine. Really the pressure IS on Samuels. If the Patriots end up having made the wrong decision by NOT signing him to a longterm deal, then they'll go out next offseason and fill that void with cheap veteran talent or through the draft. Samuels has a lot more to lose right now than the Patriots regardless of the decision he makes.So far the Patriots have been great at finding the balance between paying players and winning championships. Ultimately they have to hope that they aren't heading the direction of the similarly minded Eagles who have managed to have consistently good teams but haven't had quite enough to win a championship. The Pats already have their championships in the bag, but I don't think they're playing just to be good.Honestly, IMO, the Patriots already know that losing Samuels won't be a huge loss. Sure they're a better team with him than without him right now, but give them an offseason to go after somebody and I don't think they'll have a problem replacing him. As a Bills fan I wish that I were wrong, but the Patriots are one of the best teams in the league at grading talent and fitting them to their scheme. And if they think that Wes Welker is worth as much to them as they gave him, and that Adalius Thomas is very valuable but that Samuel is not, then they're probably right.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
That's precisely why I think that Samuel would be smart to hold out. Since the deal didn't get done this year, then it's a pretty good indication that the Patriots will never give out that kind of money in a longterm deal to Samuel. And since the franchise tag changes to top 5 money OVERALL the third time the tag is used, the only two options the Patriots are really going to have are to either tag him for one more year then release him, or release him after this season. It's probably in Samuel's best longterm interests to do what he can to force the Patriots to release him after this year rather than franchise him again.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
If the Pats franchise Samuel back to back but don't play him (and he refused to play 10 games each year), what sort of market do you think there's be for a player that skipped two years and hadn't in played in 32 months that at that point would be almost 29? He's also have been out MILLIONS to get to that point.To be clear, I highly doubt that that would happen, but I suppose it's an extreme option.
coolnerd
Footballguy
IMO, the time for these guys to holdout would in 2008, if the Pats or Bears frachise them again. At this point, neither guy has made "I will never work again" money. Not taking 63% of the money this year, represents losing the 63% of 7 million plus forever. The new team is not going bump the offer because Briggs or Samuel held out for ten games. At least get one year of really serious money under your belt, and plan for the holdout. The risks they are taking are injury which has been discussed and market. As for market, what if the guaranteed money is not what they or the agent think it is? I think the risk is greater for Briggs becasue OLB is considered a more replaceable position than CB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Wood
Zoo York
$$$$ is a huge motivator. It's tough to walk away from millions of dollars and, by league mandate, the teams can't negotiate with them now even if they wanted to. By holding out, all Briggs and Samuel do is take money out of their bank accounts, plain and simple. And in the process they alienate fans, ownership and most importantly, their teammates.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
To play devil's advocate:
A) The franchise tender screws the most valuable free agent from getting his market value
B) By holding out you're telling the team you're not going to reward them with your in-demand services by playing for less than market value
C) By holding out you're taking on less risk of injury...and waiting for the day you will get paid your market value
D) Pension is a big deal, and you can still get a year to qualify towards the pension if you come back in week 11(or10 can't recall)- The Galloway rule.
Yes, I know that the collective bargaining agreement basically allows for the franchise and that players inherently agreed to the franchise tag process when the players union agreed to it, but that doesn't mean there are zero advantages to holding out.
A) The franchise tender screws the most valuable free agent from getting his market value
B) By holding out you're telling the team you're not going to reward them with your in-demand services by playing for less than market value
C) By holding out you're taking on less risk of injury...and waiting for the day you will get paid your market value
D) Pension is a big deal, and you can still get a year to qualify towards the pension if you come back in week 11(or10 can't recall)- The Galloway rule.
Yes, I know that the collective bargaining agreement basically allows for the franchise and that players inherently agreed to the franchise tag process when the players union agreed to it, but that doesn't mean there are zero advantages to holding out.
Last edited by a moderator:
The only way I see either player holding out thru games is if they believe they can force a trade to another team.
Someone more familiar with the CBA, are these two players or their agents even allowed to talk to other teams or is that considered tampering if they don't have permission?
Someone more familiar with the CBA, are these two players or their agents even allowed to talk to other teams or is that considered tampering if they don't have permission?
Boston
Footballguy
I knew that...I should have stated that in the past tense. That fact is why I posted in the other thread that Samuel really can't accomplish too much by holding out unless it somehow forces a trade which is highly unlikely. As far as holding out I think it's a real big gamble on his part. Samuel has only had one big year so he's not a commodity like Champ Bailey who's done it over a long period of time. Also, he'll lose in the ballpark of 4-5 million dollars so even if he gets a big payday in 08 a decent portion of that will simply be making back money he lost in 07. As for getting franchised again I don't see that being a bad thing. He gets a 20% bump so he's looking at getting paid in the ballpark of 17-18 mil over two years with the ability to still hit free agency at the age of 28. Obviously injuries are a big concern and that is a very legit fear. Yet, I think he has far more to lose if he sits out 10 games and either performs badly or sits on the bench for the rest of the season. That will not put him in a good situation to cash in.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
He's a free agent and can sign with any team he likes...as long as that team is willing to give up two #1's should the Pats/Bears choose not to match.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I'm not sure about that. IIRC, the Pats slapped an exclusive franchise tag on Asante, meaning that no other team could even negotiate with him.
Boston
Footballguy
This article indicates seems to indicate otherwise:http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/...mat=&page=1David Yudkin said:
Also, I remember there were rumors the Jets were talking with him but were unwilling to give up two #1's. I under the impression he could sign elsewhere...is there a way to get the official word on this?
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
Here's another article referencing the two #1's:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2768800
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2768800
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I've seen it listed both ways from several sources, so at this point I don't know what to believe.
Boston
Footballguy
In many ways it's a moot point because no one's going to give up two #1's (and a huge contract) to obtain him.
If it's not exclusive, he can still talk to teams and get them to try and negotiate for a trade if they want him bad enough. No team might be willing to part with 2 #1's, but someone might be willing to take on his new salary in addition to trading a 1st or 2nd round pick. If Seattle was willing to give up a 1st + a new contract for Branch, I would think Samuel could possibly command the same.
