Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk

  1. 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:
    [QUOTE]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.
    Posted by joe81b[/QUOTE]

         Joe:

         Who can say whether the Pats are "low-balling" him? But, you're right about Vince needing to perform well this season.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj'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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk :      Joe:      Who can say whether the Pats are "low-balling" him? But, you're right about Vince needing to perform well this season. Suppose he has a bad attitude in 2009, plays poorly...and then theres' a strike in 2010. His market value would be seriously impaired.       With a strike looming in 2010, it would seem to behoove Vince to get a deal done now...even if it is at a bit lower than market value figure. 
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    The "lockout" by the owners will be before the 2011 season, if there is indeed a lockout.  The 2010 season will be played.  The only question is whether or not it is uncapped.  I believe the Pats are counting on 2010 both being uncapped, and having the drastic FA changes in place.  Since the top teams cannot sign FA's until they lose one, all of our "potential" FA losses will allow the Pats to acquire an FA on a one for one basis.  With the exception of a few of our guys in their last year, we can probably upgrade most of the losses.

    There is little chance Wilfork will sign his franchise tag tender in an uncapped 2010 if it comes to that.  In fact, I doubt any of the top tagged players will sign their tenders in an uncapped 2010.  This is what would go through my mind if I were a top player tagged in an uncapped 2010:

    1. I would wager that 2010 will be the only uncapped year.  It will not stand in a new CBA, regardless of what the players' union has said.

    2. There will be a good chance that some sort of grandfather clause will be enacted to accommodate teams that signed big deals in 2010.

    3. A portion of the teams will easily dish out the big bucks for the top players.  

    4. The franchise tender amount calculation will be undervalued in the first year of an uncapped NFL.

    5. I will miss out on ridiculous money if I cannot freely shop myself in an uncapped 2010.  The opportunity to make this sort of money will only happen in 2010.

    Therefore, IMO Wilfork and all of the other top tagged players will not sign their franchise tenders in an uncapped 2010.  Expect a lot of holdouts in the league.  Of course, it could be that the Pats intend to sign Wilfork for the money he wants, but only after the uncapped aspect of 2010 becomes official.  The Pats can't tell him this, or even say it publicly.  Saying so would indicate that the owners aren't interested in a new CBA extension this year.


     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats Should NOT Agree to Waive Franchise Tag Option on Wilfolk : The "lockout" by the owners will be before the 2011 season, if there is indeed a lockout.  The 2010 season will be played.  The only question is whether or not it is uncapped.  I believe the Pats are counting on 2010 both being uncapped, and having the drastic FA changes in place.  Since the top teams cannot sign FA's until they lose one, all of our "potential" FA losses will allow the Pats to acquire an FA on a one for one basis.  With the exception of a few of our guys in their last year, we can probably upgrade most of the losses. There is little chance Wilfork will sign his franchise tag tender in an uncapped 2010 if it comes to that.  In fact, I doubt any of the top tagged players will sign their tenders in an uncapped 2010.  This is what would go through my mind if I were a top player tagged in an uncapped 2010: 1. I would wager that 2010 will be the only uncapped year.  It will not stand in a new CBA, regardless of what the players' union has said. 2. There will be a good chance that some sort of grandfather clause will be enacted to accommodate teams that signed big deals in 2010. 3. A portion of the teams will easily dish out the big bucks for the top players.   4. The franchise tender amount calculation will be undervalued in the first year of an uncapped NFL. 5. I will miss out on ridiculous money if I cannot freely shop myself in an uncapped 2010.  The opportunity to make this sort of money will only happen in 2010. Therefore, IMO Wilfork and all of the other top tagged players will not sign their franchise tenders in an uncapped 2010.  Expect a lot of holdouts in the league.  Of course, it could be that the Pats intend to sign Wilfork for the money he wants, but only after the uncapped aspect of 2010 becomes official.  The Pats can't tell him this, or even say it publicly.  Saying so would indicate that the owners aren't interested in a new CBA extension this year.
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    My mistake. You are right about the lockout not occurring, if at all...until 2011: http://www.examiner.com/x-680-New-York-Giants-Examiner~y2009m7d16-NFL-Players-warned-to-prepare-for-lockout
     

Share