The Patriots, with an 11-5 record, officially miss the playoffs

[crownsy]

I think this will be a large offseason for the Pats. Hopefully they can franchise and trade Matt Cassell for a first.

I hear you, but with Brady questionable for next season, chances are the Pats franchise and keep Cassell.  The problem with the franchise tag for a QB is that it will kill a lot of the salary cap flexibility the Pats have in the offseason...

I still like franchising him because if Brady is not healthy then we keep Cassell. If Brady is healthy by the start of the season they can get a lot for Matt at a time when teams will be scrambling for a QB

you will absolutely not get alot for a franchised matt cassell. This thinking frustrates me more than anything. think through it as an NFL team.

Why on earth would an NFL team trade us a"alot" for a guy who is signed to them for ONE SEASON ONLY( you can't renegotiate a franchised players deal in season) for 14 million who has every  chance and right to bolt at the end of the year for more money?

would you trade alot to rent a player for a year and pay his top 5 deal against your cap with a good chance of losing him if he plays well the next year?

The pats would of course get something, i'd guess a 4th or 5th draft pick. mabey a third if they a GM drunk....or if its the raiders.

I think you are misunderstanding what people are talking about, when they talk about franchising him and trading him.  Once a player is franchised, they can still sign a long term contract and traded.  They do not need to be signed to the 1 year deal. 

All the franchise tag means is that if the team and player cannot come up with a long term deal, then the player has the option of taking the 1 year deal, if it cannot be reached.  And of course it also means any team that signed him away without working out a trade would have to give up draft picks.

The only way Cassell plays on a 1 year deal next year is if he is franchised and decides to sign that one year deal with the Patriots.

absolutely not true. If he is franchised by the pats, he must sign the one year deal or not play (that was asnte's problem) he signs the one year deal. Then pats can than trade him, but he's under no obligation to then sign a long term contract with the next team he's on, only his one year contract must be served. You can assume as part of trade negotiations that he agrees to, but he is under no obligation to make the pats lives easier by taking a longer but cheaper per year deal (which is what he will get).

[yall hate]

I think this will be a large offseason for the Pats. Hopefully they can franchise and trade Matt Cassell for a first.

I hear you, but with Brady questionable for next season, chances are the Pats franchise and keep Cassell.  The problem with the franchise tag for a QB is that it will kill a lot of the salary cap flexibility the Pats have in the offseason...

I still like franchising him because if Brady is not healthy then we keep Cassell. If Brady is healthy by the start of the season they can get a lot for Matt at a time when teams will be scrambling for a QB

you will absolutely not get alot for a franchised matt cassell. This thinking frustrates me more than anything. think through it as an NFL team.

Why on earth would an NFL team trade us a"alot" for a guy who is signed to them for ONE SEASON ONLY( you can't renegotiate a franchised players deal in season) for 14 million who has every  chance and right to bolt at the end of the year for more money?

would you trade alot to rent a player for a year and pay his top 5 deal against your cap with a good chance of losing him if he plays well the next year?

The pats would of course get something, i'd guess a 4th or 5th draft pick. mabey a third if they a GM drunk....or if its the raiders.

I think you are misunderstanding what people are talking about, when they talk about franchising him and trading him.  Once a player is franchised, they can still sign a long term contract and traded.  They do not need to be signed to the 1 year deal. 

All the franchise tag means is that if the team and player cannot come up with a long term deal, then the player has the option of taking the 1 year deal, if it cannot be reached.  And of course it also means any team that signed him away without working out a trade would have to give up draft picks.

The only way Cassell plays on a 1 year deal next year is if he is franchised and decides to sign that one year deal with the Patriots.

absolutely not true. If he is franchised by the pats, he must sign the one year deal or not play (that was asnte's problem) he signs the one year deal. Then pats can than trade him, but he's under no obligation to then sign a long term contract with the next team he's on, only his one year contract must be served. You can assume as part of trade negotiations that he agrees to, but he is under no obligation to make the pats lives easier by taking a longer but cheaper per year deal (which is what he will get).

you are correct, but that isnt how it happens.  The teams generally negotiate the contract while also in the trade negotiations.  because ultimately, a franchised player will get a pretty hefty long term deal from the team, and that is going to be cassells goal. if they franchise him, whoever is a trade partner (assuming their is a trade partner) will work out a long term deal with him.

[Evantime34]

At linebacker I'd like to see them go after:
    1. Karlos Dansby
    2. James Farrior
    3. Channing Crowder
    4. Willie McGinnest (old fan favorite played good          football for the browns this season.)

At Defensive Back I think we should go after:
    1. Brian Dawkins
    2. Nnamdi Asomugha
    3. Chris Gamble
    4. Dunta Robinson
    5. Lawyer Milloy

Sign whoever you can and then fill the other spots through the draft. We have two second round picks and a first rounder which might grow with a healthy Brady and a traded Cassel.

[Chris]

I think this will be a large offseason for the Pats. Hopefully they can franchise and trade Matt Cassell for a first.

I hear you, but with Brady questionable for next season, chances are the Pats franchise and keep Cassell.  The problem with the franchise tag for a QB is that it will kill a lot of the salary cap flexibility the Pats have in the offseason...

I still like franchising him because if Brady is not healthy then we keep Cassell. If Brady is healthy by the start of the season they can get a lot for Matt at a time when teams will be scrambling for a QB

you will absolutely not get alot for a franchised matt cassell. This thinking frustrates me more than anything. think through it as an NFL team.

Why on earth would an NFL team trade us a"alot" for a guy who is signed to them for ONE SEASON ONLY( you can't renegotiate a franchised players deal in season) for 14 million who has every  chance and right to bolt at the end of the year for more money?

would you trade alot to rent a player for a year and pay his top 5 deal against your cap with a good chance of losing him if he plays well the next year?

The pats would of course get something, i'd guess a 4th or 5th draft pick. mabey a third if they a GM drunk....or if its the raiders.

I think you are misunderstanding what people are talking about, when they talk about franchising him and trading him.  Once a player is franchised, they can still sign a long term contract and traded.  They do not need to be signed to the 1 year deal. 

All the franchise tag means is that if the team and player cannot come up with a long term deal, then the player has the option of taking the 1 year deal, if it cannot be reached.  And of course it also means any team that signed him away without working out a trade would have to give up draft picks.

The only way Cassell plays on a 1 year deal next year is if he is franchised and decides to sign that one year deal with the Patriots.

absolutely not true. If he is franchised by the pats, he must sign the one year deal or not play (that was asnte's problem) he signs the one year deal. Then pats can than trade him, but he's under no obligation to then sign a long term contract with the next team he's on, only his one year contract must be served. You can assume as part of trade negotiations that he agrees to, but he is under no obligation to make the pats lives easier by taking a longer but cheaper per year deal (which is what he will get).

you are correct, but that isnt how it happens.  The teams generally negotiate the contract while also in the trade negotiations.  because ultimately, a franchised player will get a pretty hefty long term deal from the team, and that is going to be cassells goal. if they franchise him, whoever is a trade partner (assuming their is a trade partner) will work out a long term deal with him.

Right, and they will work out the longterm deal before the trade happens, removing the risk for the trading team.

[crownsy]

I think this will be a large offseason for the Pats. Hopefully they can franchise and trade Matt Cassell for a first.

I hear you, but with Brady questionable for next season, chances are the Pats franchise and keep Cassell.  The problem with the franchise tag for a QB is that it will kill a lot of the salary cap flexibility the Pats have in the offseason...

I still like franchising him because if Brady is not healthy then we keep Cassell. If Brady is healthy by the start of the season they can get a lot for Matt at a time when teams will be scrambling for a QB

you will absolutely not get alot for a franchised matt cassell. This thinking frustrates me more than anything. think through it as an NFL team.

Why on earth would an NFL team trade us a"alot" for a guy who is signed to them for ONE SEASON ONLY( you can't renegotiate a franchised players deal in season) for 14 million who has every  chance and right to bolt at the end of the year for more money?

would you trade alot to rent a player for a year and pay his top 5 deal against your cap with a good chance of losing him if he plays well the next year?

The pats would of course get something, i'd guess a 4th or 5th draft pick. mabey a third if they a GM drunk....or if its the raiders.

I think you are misunderstanding what people are talking about, when they talk about franchising him and trading him.  Once a player is franchised, they can still sign a long term contract and traded.  They do not need to be signed to the 1 year deal. 

All the franchise tag means is that if the team and player cannot come up with a long term deal, then the player has the option of taking the 1 year deal, if it cannot be reached.  And of course it also means any team that signed him away without working out a trade would have to give up draft picks.

The only way Cassell plays on a 1 year deal next year is if he is franchised and decides to sign that one year deal with the Patriots.

absolutely not true. If he is franchised by the pats, he must sign the one year deal or not play (that was asnte's problem) he signs the one year deal. Then pats can than trade him, but he's under no obligation to then sign a long term contract with the next team he's on, only his one year contract must be served. You can assume as part of trade negotiations that he agrees to, but he is under no obligation to make the pats lives easier by taking a longer but cheaper per year deal (which is what he will get).

you are correct, but that isnt how it happens.  The teams generally negotiate the contract while also in the trade negotiations.  because ultimately, a franchised player will get a pretty hefty long term deal from the team, and that is going to be cassells goal. if they franchise him, whoever is a trade partner (assuming their is a trade partner) will work out a long term deal with him.

No, thats not how it happens in this perfect scenario. Plenty of guys have been franchised, the above has been tried and they go "you know what? Im all set, x guaranteed and a shot at the FA market next year is just as good as less money non- guaranteed."

giving a player a franchise tag and assuming they will play ball can burn you, since your in essence giving them a no-trade clause.

[yall hate]

No, thats not how it happens in this perfect scenario. Plenty of guys have been franchised, the above has been tried and they go "you know what? Im all set, x guaranteed and a shot at the FA market next year is just as good as less money non- guaranteed."

giving a player a franchise tag and assuming they will play ball can burn you, since your in essence giving them a no-trade clause.

Very rarely, in fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single example of a player who was franchised who then refused a long term deal/trade to another team.  it doesnt happen.  Some players will take a franchise with their team rather then resigning, but they frequently will not be happy with that, as that is only one guaranteed year rather then the 20-30 million guaranteed associate with the big deals.  But I would love for you to provide an example to the contrary...because sure anything is possible, but if it never happens it is silly to talk about it like it will happen.

[yall hate]

At linebacker I'd like to see them go after:
    1. Karlos Dansby
    2. James Farrior
    3. Channing Crowder
    4. Willie McGinnest (old fan favorite played good          football for the browns this season.)

At Defensive Back I think we should go after:
    1. Brian Dawkins
    2. Nnamdi Asomugha
    3. Chris Gamble
    4. Dunta Robinson
    5. Lawyer Milloy

Sign whoever you can and then fill the other spots through the draft. We have two second round picks and a first rounder which might grow with a healthy Brady and a traded Cassel.

Asomugha likely isnt going anywhere...and if he were, it would likely be for a major contract and 2 first rounders...which isnt going to happen.  Lawyer Milloy? really? same with Willie...We need to increase team speed, not fill it with more older players. 

Of the linebackers you list, I cant imagine Farrior or Dansby will be allowed to leave (franchise tag/long term deals with current teams)  Asomugha and Gamble are likely in the same boat for Cb's.


Edit:

I also should add that if the pats franchise cassel, they must keep the projected 14 million cap space available while the tender is out there.  This will likely restrict any movement they do, unless they are able to figure out a trade quickly.

[crownsy]

No, thats not how it happens in this perfect scenario. Plenty of guys have been franchised, the above has been tried and they go "you know what? Im all set, x guaranteed and a shot at the FA market next year is just as good as less money non- guaranteed."

giving a player a franchise tag and assuming they will play ball can burn you, since your in essence giving them a no-trade clause.

Very rarely, in fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single example of a player who was franchised who then refused a long term deal/trade to another team.  it doesnt happen.  Some players will take a franchise with their team rather then resigning, but they frequently will not be happy with that, as that is only one guaranteed year rather then the 20-30 million guaranteed associate with the big deals.  But I would love for you to provide an example to the contrary...because sure anything is possible, but if it never happens it is silly to talk about it like it will happen.

its also silly to talk about an NFL team bettering a 14 million per offer to a 1st year QB in addition to giving up alot in a trade, which is what a team will have to do to sign matt if he's franchised.

its not going to happen. if they franchise and trade him, it will be for a 3rd round pick tops, as i stated.

[Cman]

We have two second round picks

I didn't realize this.  Who is the other 2nd round pick from?

[Donoghus]

Albeit, i'm disappointed about missing the playoffs but still impressed that they could still go 11-5 after losing the reigning NFL MVP (and alltime Top 10 QB) halfway into the first quarter of the first game of the season.  This team didnt splinter (unlike the Cowboys) in the face of adversity.  They stay together through all the injuries to starters and still managed to put up a respectable record.

That being said,IMO this draft is going to be HUGE for the future of the franchise. Just on the first day, they have their 1st rounder, two 2nd rounders, and 2 3rd rounders.  They have a real chance to get younger and better at various positions.  They're going to need it, especially on the defensive side of the ball.  The 49ers were able to regroup and reload after their first 2 SB titles and were able to replace some aging veterans with young impact talent.  This lead to their sustainability as an elite team into the late '80s and early '90s.  Got them 2 more SB titles in '88 and '89 and you even argue the '94 team was also a byproduct of it.  

I think the Patriots are at this crucial crossroads (much like the mid-80s 49ers) and I feel they certainly have the ammunition to pull it off if they scout it right.  

[Chris]

Albeit, i'm disappointed about missing the playoffs but still impressed that they could still go 11-5 after losing the reigning NFL MVP (and alltime Top 10 QB) halfway into the first quarter of the first game of the season.  This team didnt splinter (unlike the Cowboys) in the face of adversity.  They stay together through all the injuries to starters and still managed to put up a respectable record.

That being said,IMO this draft is going to be HUGE for the future of the franchise. Just on the first day, they have their 1st rounder, two 2nd rounders, and 2 3rd rounders.  They have a real chance to get younger and better at various positions.  They're going to need it, especially on the defensive side of the ball.  The 49ers were able to regroup and reload after their first 2 SB titles and were able to replace some aging veterans with young impact talent.  This lead to their sustainability as an elite team into the late '80s and early '90s.  Got them 2 more SB titles in '88 and '89 and you even argue the '94 team was also a byproduct of it.  

I think the Patriots are at this crucial crossroads (much like the mid-80s 49ers) and I feel they certainly have the ammunition to pull it off if they scout it right.  

I agree, they had some major development by their young guys this year, and need to supplement it with another quality draft to solidify the future of the franchise.

This is why the Cassell thing is so interesting.  If they are somehow able to get a pick or two for him, it could be huge.

Right now, they are in position to reload, and we can only hope that they take advantage of the extra month without football to throw themselves into scouting.

[yall hate]

No, thats not how it happens in this perfect scenario. Plenty of guys have been franchised, the above has been tried and they go "you know what? Im all set, x guaranteed and a shot at the FA market next year is just as good as less money non- guaranteed."

giving a player a franchise tag and assuming they will play ball can burn you, since your in essence giving them a no-trade clause.

Very rarely, in fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find a single example of a player who was franchised who then refused a long term deal/trade to another team.  it doesnt happen.  Some players will take a franchise with their team rather then resigning, but they frequently will not be happy with that, as that is only one guaranteed year rather then the 20-30 million guaranteed associate with the big deals.  But I would love for you to provide an example to the contrary...because sure anything is possible, but if it never happens it is silly to talk about it like it will happen.

its also silly to talk about an NFL team bettering a 14 million per offer to a 1st year QB in addition to giving up alot in a trade, which is what a team will have to do to sign matt if he's franchised.

its not going to happen. if they franchise and trade him, it will be for a 3rd round pick tops, as i stated.

I'll bet you 1,000 TP's that if franchised, he would be traded for more then a 3rd.  You want to know why I am so confident of that...They can get a 3rd rounder for him without franchising him(with the compensatory picks).  Thus, there would be NO reason to take the risk of franchising him, for only a third. 

And lastly, if he werent franchised, do you think that a team would respond by giving him a deal with something like 20-25 million guaranteed (similar to Matt Schaub's deal)?  if he is traded under the franchise tag, the new deal would replace the franchise tender, so it would look something like 5 years, XX million with XX guaranteed. The extended contract would not kick in after the franchise

[nickagneta]

Actually how the Franchise tag works is that the club tenders the player a contract as a Franchised Player with all the ramifications that that entails such as salary paid, guarantees involved and so on. The team then is given time to negotiate in good faith with the player to settle upon a longer term contract or the player can accept the tendered offer and be guaranteed the salary for one year regardless of whether the team cuts him or not.

Players who want to explore the free agent market usually despise this because they feel the club is impinging upon their rights to go out and sign a much longer term contract with major security whereever they might like to play. However, in many cases if a player wants to stay with his club it is perceived as just a fall back guarantee option until the inevitable longer term deal is completed.

It almost never happens that a player is offered the Franchise tender and then immediatelt accepts as the team, the player's agent and other teams can negotiate trades, trade compensation, longer term contracts and other contractual things.

So, it is possible for the Patriots to franchise Cassel and then negotiate with his agent until a deal could be reached that would satisfy both Matt's and the Patriots' needs. A 5 year $55 million contract that gives Matt a $15 million signing bonus, a very lucrative first year salary and then a structure that makes it palatable for them to trade Matt if Tom comes back healthy either next year or the year after is not only a possible scenario it is also the most likely considering the uncertainty of Brady's status.

Matt Cassel does not have to immediately accept the franchise tender. Sorry Crownsy but you are wrong there. Here is the NFLPA bylaws on the matter:

http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?fmid=181&lmid=231&pid=540&type=c

As much it is unusual for this scenario to occur it is also a very unusual circumstance we are dealing with. First Cassel loves the Pats and if brady isn't going to be available would love to stay. But he understands that he isn't Tom Brady and if he comes back Matt won't be needed. The Pats also understand that Cassel has grown and deserves his time to start for a team. If Tom's not available then they want Matt. This is not the usual contentious negotiating that usually goes on with these designations. There is a clear understanding between the parties of what's best for all involved.

I say the Pats will franchise him, negotiate in good faith with him for a longer term deal and if Tom is showing great progress by draft day will make the trade for a pick and if Brady isn't then cassel will sign.

[Donoghus]

Besides the importance of this draft and the possibility of really reloading and getting some much needed youth on this team, I'd love to see the Pats sign up Wilfork to an extension.  This guy is one of the top interior linemen in the league and crucial to this 3-4 defense.  He's still young and certainly worth it, IMO.

[crownsy]

Besides the importance of this draft and the possibility of really reloading and getting some much needed youth on this team, I'd love to see the Pats sign up Wilfork to an extension.  This guy is one of the top interior linemen in the league and crucial to this 3-4 defense.  He's still young and certainly worth it, IMO.

yea thats got to get done, he's way to valuable to let walk.