Report: Samuel to hold out until Week 10

[McGraw38]

Where did it come from?

Where every wiki comes from, the fiery depths of hell:p

Wikipedia is user edited and maitained, so basically is useless as a refrence in anything important such as capitalism, seeing as how the article will likely reflect the user's bias.

[#27TheDominator]

Yes, there is everything wrong with that. Unions operate on charters and agreements. When the player's org allows its members to hold out on a franchise tag situation, they are telling the teams that said charters and agreements mean zippo. Thus, when the teams and players lose trust, you have scabs come in to play, as has happened before. I, for one, never want to see that happen again.

This is incorrect. IIRC, the franchise tag involves a tender that the player can sign or not. In this case it is the $7.9M or so that we are always discussing. Samuel has not signed his, so he is basically a FA and free to hold out. The NFLPA (a weak ass org) has no say in his holdout and certainly doesn't have to allow it. He's a FA. There may some kind of kickers where they can start to fine him etc, but I don't think those kick in until week 10 which is why he is talking about holding out until week 10. I also think the player needs to play those minimal games to qualify for the pension and for whatever "years played" amount to in the CBA. Sperm or somebody can surely explain it better.

[jimmypopples]

Where every wiki comes from, the fiery depths of hell:p

Wikipedia is user edited and maitained, so basically is useless as a refrence in anything important such as capitalism, seeing as how the article will likely reflect the user\'s bias.

It still has more correct information than yourself. You can learn, even from those (or those things) that aren\'t up to your standards. If you\'d rather, pick up a book and read about capitalism, it will still say the same thing.

[Gainzo]

Thats his decision to make.

I never said it wasn't.

Here are his options:

1). Sign the contract for 1 season at a guaranteed $7.7 million.

2). Sit out, unpaid, until week 10 and hope that BB puts you on the field.

[jimmypopples]

I never said it wasn\'t.

Here are his options:

1). Sign the contract for 1 season at a guaranteed $7.7 million.

2). Sit out, unpaid, until week 10 and hope that BB puts you on the field.

Yep, nothing wrong with that.

[McGraw38]

It still has more correct information than yourself. You can learn, even from those (or those things) that aren\'t up to your standards. If you\'d rather, pick up a book and read about capitalism, it will still say the same thing.

I don't believe insulting my intelligence is called for, simply because your idea conflicts with mine doesn't make yours the correct one. My point stands, no entertainer DESERVES(key word) Millions every year.

You wanna talk capitalism, go ahead, while your at it look up arrogant.

[Ryno the Jet]

Then pay them according to how much money they bring in. They are bringing in billions, they deserve to get their percentage. Its either that or 32 owners are going to be even bigger millionaires and billionaires.

I do not have a problem with that at all. But for players, as a group, to agree to a condition of Free Agency and then back out on this condition when it is applied is wrong.

[Gainzo]

Yep, nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I just feel it's a calculated risk by Samuel.

[jimmypopples]

I don\'t believe insulting my intelligence is called for, simply because your idea conflicts with mine doesn\'t make yours the correct one. My point stands, no entertainer DESERVES(key word) Millions every year.

You wanna talk capitalism, go ahead, while your at it look up arrogant.

I never said anything about your intelligence. I stated that this is what capitalism is, and if you don\'t like it, then obviously you are against capitalism

I have not stated any opinions. My opinion is that I hate capitalism, but that is what we have in this country, and that is how this NFL thing works. IF you don\'t like it, stop watching football, it would be one less person that is paying for the players.

[jimmypopples]

I do not have a problem with that at all. But for players, as a group, to agree to a condition of Free Agency and then back out on this condition when it is applied is wrong.

Who is backing out? This is perfectly legal in the scheme of the nfl.

[jimmypopples]

Nothing wrong with that at all. I just feel it\'s a calculated risk by Samuel.

I agree 100%

It is definitely a risk, but one that he is ALLOWED to take.

[McGraw38]

I never said anything about your intelligence. I stated that this is what capitalism is, and if you don\'t like it, then obviously you are against capitalism

I have not stated any opinions. My opinion is that I hate capitalism, but that is what we have in this country, and that is how this NFL thing works. IF you don\'t like it, stop watching football, it would be one less person that is paying for the players.

No, you just hate America:p

[ECURB]

Nothing wrong with that at all. I just feel it's a calculated risk by Samuel.

You think BB has the nuts to bench him when he needs him though?

I think Samuel has the leverage here...

[Ryno the Jet]

Who is backing out? This is perfectly legal in the scheme of the nfl.

I agree 100%

It is definitely a risk, but one that he is ALLOWED to take.

I guess I have the interpretation of the rule incorrect, but that certainly does not surprise me.

[jimmypopples]

No, you just hate America:p

America isn\'t that bad. Parts are great, parts aren\'t, but everything can always be improved.

Its the way it is, either change it or ignore it

[McGraw38]

America isn\'t that bad. Parts are great, parts aren\'t, but everything can always be improved.

Its the way it is, either change it or ignore it

There's something we can agree on, but political discussion is outlawed(rightfully so)

So I'll leave it at, agree.

[Gainzo]

You think BB has the nuts to bench him when he needs him though?

I think Samuel has the leverage here...

He did it to Terry Glenn back in 2001 and the Pats won the Super Bowl. I'll trust BB's judgment.

[Gainzo]

I'm watching NFL Live and Michael Smith is of the opinion that Asante will report to Camp.

[jimmypopples]

I\'m watching NFL Live and Michael Smith is of the opinion that Asante will report to Camp.

It wouldn\'t suprise me if he did. It wouldn\'t suprise me if he didn\'t either. Thats alot of money sitting there for the taking. It really depends on how much you value that security, I think thats really what the players are looking for, even though it is really faux security.

[Gainzo]

It wouldn\'t suprise me if he did. It wouldn\'t suprise me if he didn\'t either. Thats alot of money sitting there for the taking. It really depends on how much you value that security, I think thats really what the players are looking for, even though it is really faux security.

The question really is: Who is his agent?

[BP]

I'm watching NFL Live and Michael Smith is of the opinion that Asante will report to Camp.

Booooooo!

Asante sounds like Herman Edwards, he just can't make up his mind.

[Blackout]

lets hope he's true to his word (i doubt it)

[serphnx]

So when a player holds out after getting franchised, everyone gets onto some moral high ground, but when a team cuts an injured or old player that's okay? What happened to honoring the contract and all that?

People need to stop trying to compare it to their jobs. You aren't doing something a few people can do. You aren't being paid a fraction of what you bring in. You aren't forced to work for the employer. You can give a notice of resignation and then go work for someone else. In the NFL, a player can't just give a franchise a 30 day notice and then go sign with another team.

I personally hope he holds out because whatever weakens the Pats is good for us. If it was a Jets player I'd be screaming for his head (like JAbe) but that's because I'd be biased. If it's another team, it's a lot more complicated than people want to make it out as.

[Ghost]

I would absolutely love to kill the Pats week 1.

[johnny green balls]

So when a player holds out after getting franchised, everyone gets onto some moral high ground, but when a team cuts an injured or old player that's okay? What happened to honoring the contract and all that?

People need to stop trying to compare it to their jobs. You aren't doing something a few people can do. You aren't being paid a fraction of what you bring in. You aren't forced to work for the employer. You can give a notice of resignation and then go work for someone else. In the NFL, a player can't just give a franchise a 30 day notice and then go sign with another team.

I personally hope he holds out because whatever weakens the Pats is good for us. If it was a Jets player I'd be screaming for his head (like JAbe) but that's because I'd be biased. If it's another team, it's a lot more complicated than people want to make it out as.

being able to cut someone is an implicit part of every contract due to the collective bargaining agreement so a team cutting someone isn't "breaking the contract" it's taking an opt-out clause. to protect against this, players could negotiate a poison pill (ala steve hutchinson) or a no trade/no cut clause to modify the CBA. of course they will have to compromise and give something else up (i.e. lower salary) but nothing in life is free. few players want to give up $ for stability so that's their call. holding out, on the other hand, is punished by the CBA (excusing the team from honoring--i.e. paying--the contract) and is a recognized contract breach. therein lies the difference.

lastly, the first thing you learn in law school is that no female law students are hot, the second thing you learn is that breaking a contract is not immoral or a sin and that if a contract ceases to be beneficial, it is a reasonable business decision to break it but that you must of course compensate the non-breaching party for any loss and move on (often there are "liquidated damages" clauses which state "you break the contract, you pay me xnumber of dollars.") contracts don't equal servitude, they just define two (or more) parties' relationships. i tend to think it's honorable to keep up your end of the bargain, stuff like that but the law doesn't care. it's pretty hard/impossible to get punitive damages for contract breaches in the absence of bad faith (i.e. purposefully entering a contract than bailing just to screw someone). the law wants to encourage the breach of bad deals-- society doesn't derive a benefit when two parties continue to honor a contract that has become worthless.

[#27TheDominator]

being able to cut someone is an implicit part of every contract due to the collective bargaining agreement so a team cutting someone isn't "breaking the contract" it's taking an opt-out clause. to protect against this, players could negotiate a poison pill (ala steve hutchinson) or a no trade/no cut clause to modify the CBA. of course they will have to compromise and give something else up (i.e. lower salary) but nothing in life is free. few players want to give up $ for stability so that's their call. holding out, on the other hand, is punished by the CBA (excusing the team from honoring--i.e. paying--the contract) and is a recognized contract breach. therein lies the difference.

lastly, the first thing you learn in law school is that no female law students are hot, the second thing you learn is that breaking a contract is not immoral or a sin and that if a contract ceases to be beneficial, it is a reasonable business decision to break it but that you must of course compensate the non-breaching party for any loss and move on (often there are "liquidated damages" clauses which state "you break the contract, you pay me xnumber of dollars.") contracts don't equal servitude, they just define two (or more) parties' relationships. i tend to think it's honorable to keep up your end of the bargain, stuff like that but the law doesn't care. it's pretty hard/impossible to get punitive damages for contract breaches in the absence of bad faith (i.e. purposefully entering a contract than bailing just to screw someone). the law wants to encourage the breach of bad deals-- society doesn't derive a benefit when two parties continue to honor a contract that has become worthless.

Assante Samuel doesn't have a contract.

I think the NFLPA is pretty lame. If they weren't things would be MUCH different now, though the rising cap does point in their favor. I think it's a little naive to think that players would be able to "negotiate" guaranteed deals under the current climate. How much money would they have to give up for that stability? I understand your argument and it's valid up to a point, but the phrasing of money v. stability makes me think of players being after the dollar over stability and the fact is stability is never offered in football.

[johnny green balls]

Assante Samuel doesn't have a contract.

I think the NFLPA is pretty lame. If they weren't things would be MUCH different now, though the rising cap does point in their favor. I think it's a little naive to think that players would be able to "negotiate" guaranteed deals under the current climate. How much money would they have to give up for that stability? I understand your argument and it's valid up to a point, but the phrasing of money v. stability makes me think of players being after the dollar over stability and the fact is stability is never offered in football.

franchise tag = 1 year contract. again, being franchised is part of the CBA and therfore is an implicit potential consequence of any signed contract. it's a built-in term. it's like a built-in year-to-year option for the team. every player knows it exists and it could happen. i can understand the reasoning behind the franchise tag but it seems that you shouldn't be able to tag a guy two consecutive years.

[joewilly]

being able to cut someone is an implicit part of every contract due to the collective bargaining agreement so a team cutting someone isn't "breaking the contract" it's taking an opt-out clause. to protect against this, players could negotiate a poison pill (ala steve hutchinson) or a no trade/no cut clause to modify the CBA. of course they will have to compromise and give something else up (i.e. lower salary) but nothing in life is free. few players want to give up $ for stability so that's their call. holding out, on the other hand, is punished by the CBA (excusing the team from honoring--i.e. paying--the contract) and is a recognized contract breach. therein lies the difference.

lastly, the first thing you learn in law school is that no female law students are hot, the second thing you learn is that breaking a contract is not immoral or a sin and that if a contract ceases to be beneficial, it is a reasonable business decision to break it but that you must of course compensate the non-breaching party for any loss and move on (often there are "liquidated damages" clauses which state "you break the contract, you pay me xnumber of dollars.") contracts don't equal servitude, they just define two (or more) parties' relationships. i tend to think it's honorable to keep up your end of the bargain, stuff like that but the law doesn't care. it's pretty hard/impossible to get punitive damages for contract breaches in the absence of bad faith (i.e. purposefully entering a contract than bailing just to screw someone). the law wants to encourage the breach of bad deals-- society doesn't derive a benefit when two parties continue to honor a contract that has become worthless.

speaking of which, you gonna sign a pre nup prior to sept 8th I'm sure yer dad didn't but I guess it the norm these days eh?

[#27TheDominator]

franchise tag = 1 year contract. again, being franchised is part of the CBA and therfore is an implicit potential consequence of any signed contract. it's a built-in term. it's like a built-in year-to-year option for the team. every player knows it exists and it could happen. i can understand the reasoning behind the franchise tag but it seems that you shouldn't be able to tag a guy two consecutive years.

Actually, the franchise tags does not = 1 year contract. It equals a tender offer of a 1 year contract.

[124]

I was franchised by JN, which is why I'm holding out on Articles & Report Cards until I get my long-term deal.

[johnny green balls]

Actually, the franchise tags does not = 1 year contract. It equals a tender offer of a 1 year contract.

no. if it was a mere tender or offer samuel would be free to reject it and become a free agent.

[johnny green balls]

speaking of which, you gonna sign a pre nup prior to sept 8th I'm sure yer dad didn't but I guess it the norm these days eh?

no comment

[#27TheDominator]

I was franchised by JN, which is why I'm holding out on Articles & Report Cards until I get my long-term deal.

You can hold out on articles, but I hope you get the report card girl posted asap.

no. if it was a mere tender or offer samuel would be free to reject it and become a free agent.

No. It is a tender offer. You went to law school, so I'm sure you know a contract includes offer and acceptance. Samuel gets a franchise tender offer of a 1 year deal for $7.9M. He can take it or leave it, but if he doesn't start playing by week 10 he doesn't gain the extra year towards free agency. It's an offer. He hasn't signed. In fact, he is a free agent, free to negotiate with other teams, but none will pony up the 2 firsts to sign him.

Here is an article explaining the options as of April: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/04/samuel_options.html

BACK WHERE WE STARTED OPTION

Samuel signs the one-year, $7.79 million tender offer for franchise cornerbacks and plays for the Patriots.

The thinking: At the end of the day, it will be hard to pass up that money after Samuel made a total of about $2 million over his first four seasons.

It may be mainly semantics, but I believe there is still some importance in the fact that he isn't signing. While the difference is minor in the real world since they'll almost all end up signing the franchise tender I think it's still a significant distinction. Most players won't sign because they can skip mini-camp and get the same $$.

[johnny green balls]

No. It is a tender offer. You went to law school, so I'm sure you know a contract includes offer and acceptance. Samuel gets a franchise tender offer of a 1 year deal for $7.9M. He can take it or leave it, but if he doesn't start playing by week 10 he doesn't gain the extra year towards free agency. It's an offer. He hasn't signed. In fact, he is a free agent, free to negotiate with other teams, but none will pony up the 2 firsts to sign him.

Here is an article explaining the options as of April: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/04/samuel_options.html

this ain't a pure case of offer/acceptance. the fact that the pats still retain rights even if he does not accept and deserve compensation if someone else signs him shows, proves they still have a contractual right to him. the offer/acceptance occured when he signed his original contract that contained by default the provisions of the CBA. we're splitting hairs but if there was no contract, there could be no rights. it's under the CBA. that's the controlling document here. pats have rights to him for another year, if someone wants him, they have to pay the piper. if that ain't a contractual right, what is? the constitution certainly isn't giving the pats these rights-- it's the CBA, a contract, that is explicitly incorporated into all NFL contracts. everyone player in the universe knows this right is given to their team when they sign the original contract, in fact, they're agreeing to give the team this contractual right when they sign the dotted line.

[#27TheDominator]

this ain't a pure case of offer/acceptance. the fact that the pats still retain rights even if he does not accept and deserve compensation if someone else signs him shows, proves they still have a contractual right to him. the offer/acceptance occured when he signed his original contract that contained by default the provisions of the CBA. we're splitting hairs but if there was no contract, there could be no rights. it's under the CBA. that's the controlling document here. pats have rights to him for another year, if someone wants him, they have to pay the piper. if that ain't a contractual right, what is? the constitution certainly isn't giving the pats these rights-- it's the CBA, a contract, that is explicitly incorporated into all NFL contracts..

Fair enough. I couldn't agree more that we are splitting hairs, but it's certainly not as simple as franchise = 1 year contract. He's free to hold out. As for the CBA I won't start on that or the ****ing bull**** NFL monopoly.