Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

         I couldn't disagree more with the idea put forth today by Mike Reiss...that the Pats could "solve" the Wilfolk contract squabble by guaranteeing Vince that they would not use the franchise tag on him in 2010.

         While that would be great for Vince, it would be detrimental to the Patriots. Were Wilfolk an unrestricted free agent next year, odds are he would end up signing a big money deal with the NY Jets, Miami Dolphins, Denver Broncos, or Kansas City Chiefs. In return, the Patriots would receive a low 3rd round draft choice in 2010...perhaps the 97th overall selection. How is that a good thing for the Patriots?

         Instead, the Pats should continue to negotiate a reasonable extension. In the meantime, let Vince stew, whine, hold out...whatever he wants to do. It makes no sense financially for Vince to hold out. He will only be hurting himself.

         How many people working today are completely happy with their contract status? Everybody wants to make more money. We all have to negotiate the best deal we can get. Though it would be nice to see Vince's contract extended, and for him to become a happy camper...whats' good for the team has to come first.    

         Thoughts? 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    I agree with you texas-wilfork is to valuable to just let him go.if they are banking on brace to be the next best thing,there crazy.i hope he does,but you cant bank on a player that hasnt played one snap in the NFL. the season that is.if for what ever reason they cant get a deal done,or they dont intend on it,or use the franchise tag,then they need to trade him now,and get the best deal they can.there are a few teams that just lost there starting DT,s,or are in need of a good one.sure i hate to see him leave,but why get next to nothing next year,when you can get a real good deal now?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fuzzy1. Show fuzzy1's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    Right on, Tex.   I also didn't see Mike mention anything about the Pats sacrificing at least a first round draft pick in a franchise and trade scenario either.  Wilforks greatness is working against him here, he's too expensive to sign, too good to let go, and the Pats would be throwing draft picks away by agreeing to the no franchise tag. 

    I can understand why they didn't sign the big guy earlier, because with some of these big guys, weight and health could become an issue.  Although I have to say, he looks like an absolute beast this year, better than I've ever seen him, and I can't imagine the Pats passing up on him long term.  I had been thinking of signing Seymour over Wilfork, but watching the games its clear that Wilfork is the guy commanding the double teams this year. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME. Show NEGAME's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    Totally agree TP.  He may be upset, but at least he showed up! and if the Media would stop rubbing salt in the wound by asking him EVERY day how it is going maybe he wouldn't be so annoyed.  The Patriots have a lot of contracts to be negotiated, but I'm truly surprised they havn't taken care of Wilfork. Wonder why??
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from antleite. Show antleite's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    Winning will cure all problems, hopefully . . . If they havent begun to finalize the extension now I dont think it will get done till later down the road or if at all. But I agree we cant give in to the demands from the Wilfork camp regarding the franchise tag. It would be un-patriot-like to give away our options for the team.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kittycat6969. Show kittycat6969's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    Many of us remember how well it turned out when we agreed not to re-franchise Asante Samuel.  I usually love Mike's article, but why would we want to give away a valuable option like the one we have on Vince? 

    -Mike




    In Response to Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
         I couldn't disagree more with the idea put forth today by Mike Reiss...that the Pats could "solve" the Wilfolk contract squabble by guaranteeing Vince that they would not use the franchise tag on him in 2010.      While that would be great for Vince, it would be detrimental to the Patriots. Were Wilfolk an unrestricted free agent next year, odds are he would end up signing a big money deal with the NY Jets, Miami Dolphins, Denver Broncos, or Kansas City Chiefs. In return, the Patriots would receive a low 3rd round draft choice in 2010...perhaps the 97th overall selection. How is that a good thing for the Patriots?      Instead, the Pats should continue to negotiate a reasonable extension. In the meantime, let Vince stew, whine, hold out...whatever he wants to do. It makes no sense financially for Vince to hold out. He will only be hurting himself.      How many people working today are completely happy with their contract status? Everybody wants to make more money. We all have to negotiate the best deal we can get. Though it would be nice to see Vince's contract extended, and for him to become a happy camper...whats' good for the team has to come first.          Thoughts? 
    Posted by TexasPat3

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    Right on, Tex.   I also didn't see Mike mention anything about the Pats sacrificing at least a first round draft pick in a franchise and trade scenario either.  Wilforks greatness is working against him here, he's too expensive to sign, too good to let go, and the Pats would be throwing draft picks away by agreeing to the no franchise tag.  I can understand why they didn't sign the big guy earlier, because with some of these big guys, weight and health could become an issue.  Although I have to say, he looks like an absolute beast this year, better than I've ever seen him, and I can't imagine the Pats passing up on him long term.  I had been thinking of signing Seymour over Wilfork, but watching the games its clear that Wilfork is the guy commanding the double teams this year. 
    Posted by fuzzy1


         Fuzzy:

         Signing an extension now would be as beneficial to Vince, as it seemingly would be to the Pats. At the NT position, you're one chop-block away/one lineman accidently falling on the back of the legs away from a season ending knee injury...and...when you're talking about a 320 pound man, the weakened knee could spell the end of a career. Even though Vince could make more money if he waits...its' not worth the risk to him. So...if the Pats are offering, say...a $1mil. raise this year...and a 3 year, $20mil. extension...with $11mil. guaranteed...take the money and run, big guy. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk :      Fuzzy:      Signing an extension now would be as beneficial to Vince, as it seemingly would be to the Pats. At the NT position, you're one chop-block away/one lineman accidently falling on the back of the legs away from a season ending knee injury...and...when you're talking about a 320 pound man, the weakened knee could spell the end of a career. Even though Vince could make more money if he waits...its' not worth the risk to him. So...if the Pats are offering, say...a $1mil. raise this year...and a 3 year, $20mil. extension...with $11mil. guaranteed...take the money and run, big guy. 
    Posted by TexasPat3

    Vince is almost as good as Haynesworth, therefore, 20 mil ain't gonna cut it Tex.
    He wants Haynesworth range money. Though that wont happen he is looking for more $ than 20 mil. he's as good as gone without the tag IMO.    
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fuzzy1. Show fuzzy1's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk :      Fuzzy:      Signing an extension now would be as beneficial to Vince, as it seemingly would be to the Pats. At the NT position, you're one chop-block away/one lineman accidently falling on the back of the legs away from a season ending knee injury...and...when you're talking about a 320 pound man, the weakened knee could spell the end of a career. Even though Vince could make more money if he waits...its' not worth the risk to him. So...if the Pats are offering, say...a $1mil. raise this year...and a 3 year, $20mil. extension...with $11mil. guaranteed...take the money and run, big guy. 
    Posted by TexasPat3


    I agree to trying to sign him now, but I can't think of any franchise player ever taking a small potato three year extension of 20 million.  Given the way he looks so far this year, I think he'd get at least 5 years 40 million on the open market, with most of that guarenteed.  To your point of injury, I'd say thats more of an incentive to fight for a much longer (and larger) contract with a healthy guarenteed amount.

    Then again, the team won two of three SB's without Wilfork.. maybe they really don't have plans to keep him (you can't pay everyone franchise money unless you're the Yankees, right?)
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    Jbolt you dont know what you are talking about. Vince came right out after the Haynsworth deal and told the world that he does not want nor does he expect that kind of money. You would like to see that happen so thats why you say sh*t like that but we all see right through so its not really worth it.


    I agree with you Tex that agreeing to not tag him is insane. I could see this if we had already taged him once and he didnt want to be taged again like with Asante but we have not taged him yet so there is no good reason for us to agree to not tag him. He is under contract plain and simple and he seems to understand that, he has not even saqid the word holdout so i dont know why anyone thinks he will holdout. He was at camp on time so clearly he plains on honoring his contract. So let him honor his contract and then if we have to tag him tag him. Then try and work out a long term deal.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
         I couldn't disagree more with the idea put forth today by Mike Reiss...that the Pats could "solve" the Wilfolk contract squabble by guaranteeing Vince that they would not use the franchise tag on him in 2010.      While that would be great for Vince, it would be detrimental to the Patriots. Were Wilfolk an unrestricted free agent next year, odds are he would end up signing a big money deal with the NY Jets, Miami Dolphins, Denver Broncos, or Kansas City Chiefs. In return, the Patriots would receive a low 3rd round draft choice in 2010...perhaps the 97th overall selection. How is that a good thing for the Patriots?      Instead, the Pats should continue to negotiate a reasonable extension. In the meantime, let Vince stew, whine, hold out...whatever he wants to do. It makes no sense financially for Vince to hold out. He will only be hurting himself.      How many people working today are completely happy with their contract status? Everybody wants to make more money. We all have to negotiate the best deal we can get. Though it would be nice to see Vince's contract extended, and for him to become a happy camper...whats' good for the team has to come first.          Thoughts? 
    Posted by TexasPat3


    The proposal made by Reiss won't even come to fruition. IMHO, the Patriots are not serious about signing Wilfork at this time because: 1) Wilfork is still under contract for one year (Wilfork is not stupid enough to sit out this year); and 2) If the Patriots want to keep Wilfork next year - then the Patriots will place the Franchise Tag on him, 3) the Patriots have Brace - who basically has a 1 year "tryout" with the Patriots - If he does well enough to satisfy BB - then Wilfork becomes expendable.

    The Patriots will leave as many options as possible because they have quite a few free agent signings coming up after this year...

    Would I like to see Wilfork hang around? yes. But to be honest ....I'd rather keep Wilfork vs. Seymour. Trust me, Seymour is NOT the same player - and his bum knee can get worse at any time.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    True but I would also rather resign Logan Mankins over Wilfork. Call me crazy but locking down the best LG in the NFL seems a bit more importent then locking down the best NT in the NFL. I would love to have them both but i will go O line over D line anyday cause the Oline moves the chains. I would also really like to make sure we resign Kevin Faulk and The Ghost.  
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk : Vince is almost as good as Haynesworth, therefore, 20 mil ain't gonna cut it Tex. He wants Haynesworth range money. Though that wont happen he is looking for more $ than 20 mil. he's as good as gone without the tag IMO.    
    Posted by jbolted


         Bolt:

         Although Haynesworth and Wilfolk are DTs, they play in different schemes, and have different responsibilities. No way Vince is the desruptive force that Haynesworth is. Furthermore, Wilfolk has said on multiple occasions that he is not seeking "Haynesworth money". Even if he is...just because Danny Snyder is is silly enough to grossly overpay for players, that doesn't mean the Pats should.

         But...I understand your giddiness that the Pats may be losing a good player. After all, when it comes to the Pats, your Bolts have lots of catching up to do...LOL!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    Yea the Bolts sweat the Pats so much that their fans sit around just waiting for us you lose players. You can wish it all you want Bolt but in the end the Pats will most likely resign Wilfork so dont get your hopes up.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
         I couldn't disagree more with the idea put forth today by Mike Reiss...that the Pats could "solve" the Wilfolk contract squabble by guaranteeing Vince that they would not use the franchise tag on him in 2010.Posted by TexasPat3


    I have to agree with this one Tex, the only way I could see them doing this, as may have been the case with Asante, is they may want to allocate that franchise tag on somebody else..?  That being said we spent a first round pick on Vince, he has developed into the best nose tackle in the league, so getting back anything less than a #1 pick to let him go would be crazy.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

         Asante Samuel aside, the Pats usually make the right personnel decisions: http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/sp_fbn_jim_donaldson_25_08-25-09_LNFGK0M_v2.353c8db.html
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    In Response to Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk : The proposal made by Reiss won't even come to fruition. IMHO, the Patriots are not serious about signing Wilfork at this time because: 1) Wilfork is still under contract for one year (Wilfork is not stupid enough to sit out this year); and 2) If the Patriots want to keep Wilfork next year - then the Patriots will place the Franchise Tag on him, 3) the Patriots have Brace - who basically has a 1 year "tryout" with the Patriots - If he does well enough to satisfy BB - then Wilfork becomes expendable. The Patriots will leave as many options as possible because they have quite a few free agent signings coming up after this year... Would I like to see Wilfork hang around? yes. But to be honest ....I'd rather keep Wilfork vs. Seymour. Trust me, Seymour is NOT the same player - and his bum knee can get worse at any time.
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii


    I fully agree. The writing is on the wall to franchise Wilfork next year and he just started to figure it out so now he is speaking up again in the media. With Wright as a back up i think it is clear we drafted Ron Brace with an agenda. we will see if he can play at 70-80% the level of Vince and if he can Vince is gone. Too many good players to sign even as good a player as Vince is, I agree also that Mankins is a priority. However i think Seymour was our best defensive player last year getting to the QB and still getting doubled when Vince is not on the field. Im not saying Seymour will get a big contract but I do think he is still a dominant defensive linemen.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    I like Wilfork and hope the Pats keep him, but this discussion is wildly premature.

    Unless he's willing to sit out and risk what he's already got, Wilfork has no leverage in these negotiations.

    None.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    I think Seymore is still a very importent part of this defense.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
         I couldn't disagree more with the idea put forth today by Mike Reiss...that the Pats could "solve" the Wilfolk contract squabble by guaranteeing Vince that they would not use the franchise tag on him in 2010.      While that would be great for Vince, it would be detrimental to the Patriots. Were Wilfolk an unrestricted free agent next year, odds are he would end up signing a big money deal with the NY Jets, Miami Dolphins, Denver Broncos, or Kansas City Chiefs. In return, the Patriots would receive a low 3rd round draft choice in 2010...perhaps the 97th overall selection. How is that a good thing for the Patriots?      Instead, the Pats should continue to negotiate a reasonable extension. In the meantime, let Vince stew, whine, hold out...whatever he wants to do. It makes no sense financially for Vince to hold out. He will only be hurting himself.      How many people working today are completely happy with their contract status? Everybody wants to make more money. We all have to negotiate the best deal we can get. Though it would be nice to see Vince's contract extended, and for him to become a happy camper...whats' good for the team has to come first.          Thoughts? 
    Posted by TexasPat3
    hey texas-here is what jim donaldson is saying.

    http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/sp_fbn_jim_donaldson_25_08-25-09_LNFGK0M_v2.353c8db.html
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    Jbolt you dont know what you are talking about. Vince came right out after the Haynsworth deal and told the world that he does not want nor does he expect that kind of money. You would like to see that happen so thats why you say sh*t like that but we all see right through so its not really worth it. I agree with you Tex that agreeing to not tag him is insane. I could see this if we had already taged him once and he didnt want to be taged again like with Asante but we have not taged him yet so there is no good reason for us to agree to not tag him. He is under contract plain and simple and he seems to understand that, he has not even saqid the word holdout so i dont know why anyone thinks he will holdout. He was at camp on time so clearly he plains on honoring his contract. So let him honor his contract and then if we have to tag him tag him. Then try and work out a long term deal.
    Posted by MVPkilla

    Yah Ok, he doesnt want more then 20 million because you & he said so. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    If the CBA is not extended this season, and 2010 is uncapped, all bets are off.  If you think players hate the franchise tag now, wait until the first year of an uncapped NFL.  Some owners will be fiscally responsible, but a portion of them are going to be paying crazy money to obtain the "missing piece".  Any decent player franchised in 2010 will feel like they are missing out on mega deals.  If the uncapped NFL ever sees a 2nd year of life, the franchise tenders will have adjusted to the higher amounts.  Those tagged in the first year are going to be missing out on a lot of $$$, even though the tag is hardly a poor-man's deal.  Those tagged will also likely feel like they need to get their deals now, while there is no cap in place.  They may feel like the cap will return the following year (or a lockout).  

    How does this relate to Wilfork?  If 2010 is uncapped I expect few tagged players to sign their tenders.  You will see many more holdouts.  Technically, you aren't holding out if you have not signed the tender though.  So I think that if we don't extend Wilfork this year, he is gone.  The tag will not keep him here.  He will have played out his contract, but that doesn't mean he has to sign his tender.  If the CBA is worked out this year, then I take back my words.  The Pats are behaving exactly as you would expect from a team that expects 2010 to be uncapped.  I think they are counting on it (not just from a salary perspective, but also with the new FA rules in mind).  Kraft actually said months ago that it would be advantageous to them if the uncapped rules were in effect.  

    Wilfork is one of only a few players in their final year of their rookie 6-YR contracts.  Heck, they are not even allowed anymore.  The Pats need to do something, even if it is just upping his salary this year.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk:
    In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk :      Bolt:      Although Haynesworth and Wilfolk are DTs, they play in different schemes, and have different responsibilities. No way Vince is the desruptive force that Haynesworth is. Furthermore, Wilfolk has said on multiple occasions that he is not seeking "Haynesworth money". Even if he is...just because Danny Snyder is is silly enough to grossly overpay for players, that doesn't mean the Pats should.      But...I understand your giddiness that the Pats may be losing a good player. After all, when it comes to the Pats, your Bolts have lots of catching up to do...LOL!!
    Posted by TexasPat3


    Tex:
    Scheme for a DT is taking on the center and a guard. The only variance is whether its the left or right guard. His job is to be a mastodon on the field. Its usually the guy of brut force. Scheme does not affect a DT that much.

     For your fries
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    You are correct. Even if they can't get something worked out you know Wilfolk wants to play hard and well this year for a big contract. Holding out hurts him probably even more than the Pats. I don't think the Pats let him walk out and get nothing. They will franchise him even if they don't intend to sign him in hopes of getting a decent draft pick. Well I should say they definately want to sign him but they can't afford the moon either. 


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from joe81b. Show joe81b's posts

    Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

    I feel like the Pats are in control of this situation.  Wilfork has to perform this year due to it being a contract year and he wants a competitive market.  NE can lowball any offers and if he accepts, then great.  If not, the franchise tag is pretty cheap for a NT of his caliber, I believe around 6 mill.  We would then have the option of keeping him again in another contract year, trading him, or offer him another team friendly contract.  Right now we are also seeing the possibility of switching to a 4-3 or Brace could maybe take over, lessening Wilfork's advantage in negotiations.  Don't offer him the huge contract, let things play out.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share