Cassel to be franchised - Page 4

Bengalsrocket · 01-05-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bored of education

No way someone gives up a currnt top 10 pick and a fuuture 1st and or 3rd to get Cassell. Why not keep that top 10 pick draft Stafford/Bradford and pick up O line with the next picks or something. Just does not make sense IMO. I think Matty Castle is solid but come on, no way he is worth more than Jared Allen value wise.

Well no one is going to fight the franchise tag, they would work out a deal to trade for Matt Cassle. It's like how Jared Allen got franchise tagged and then was traded, the vikings didn't offer a counter contract against the franchise tag.

PACKmanN · 01-05-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bored of education

I am still wondering what team is willing to give up a 1st this year and some other pick to get Matty Castle. Should be interesting.

the same teams that were willing to do the same for Anderson, none.

CC.SD · 01-05-2009, 06:58 PM

If no one was interested in Drew Brees after 04 or Derek Anderson after 07 there is no way Matt Cassell garners a first rounder.

BandwagonPunditry · 01-05-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrk

You're right, sitting in the same system for 4 years really helped him too. Cassel isn't going to make an immediate impact on any team. I'd personally draft a top prospect with a high pick. I'd look at him if I didn't have chance at Stafford or others.

Indeed, which is pretty much what I said in the beginning. ;)

Quote:

The thing that would concern me most about Cassell is taking him away from a system he's comfortable in and especially from Josh McDaniels. His new OC would be a huge factor for me.

He's certainly an intriguing option. A draft pick would have to sit and adjust too but would of course have the age advantage, if not experience. The new system he gets placed into and his ability to adjust to it will be the biggest keys to his future.

Gay Ork Wang · 01-05-2009, 08:03 PM

lol that is some funny ****

gpngc · 01-05-2009, 08:18 PM

The Pats can still trade him for whatever they want when he's franchised. It doesn't have to be a 1st and 3rd.

This seems like a 2nd and conditional 2010 3rd that could escalate to a 1st to the Vikings to me.

Bucs_Rule · 01-05-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

The Pats can still trade him for whatever they want when he's franchised. It doesn't have to be a 1st and 3rd.

This seems like a 2nd and conditional 2010 3rd that could escalate to a 1st to the Vikings to me.

Teams will want to negotiate a long-term deal first.

OzTitan · 01-05-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

Look it up, i'm not 100% positive, but unless he is offered the "exclusive rights" Franchise tag, he is free to sign with any team he wants. The team can either match the offer, or the offering team forfeits two first round picks.

Yeah as per my edit the non-exclusive tag does have the two 1sts thing on it.

But I think the exclusive tag is used the most, isn't it? I'm not even sure what the point of a non-exclusive tag is. Just seems like the lazy GM's way of putting a franchised player on the trade market to me.

Then you have the transition tag, which only seems to build further confusion. I can't even seem to differentiate a non-exclusive franchise tag and a transition tag.

Bucs_Rule · 01-05-2009, 08:52 PM

Transition tag you get less in return.

Quote:

Well no one is going to fight the franchise tag, they would work out a deal to trade for Matt Cassle. It's like how Jared Allen got franchise tagged and then was traded, the vikings didn't offer a counter contract against the franchise tag.

Especially for someone that has made 7th round money.

BandwagonPunditry · 01-06-2009, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

neither of those are my quote.

My bad. Edited.

MetSox17 · 01-06-2009, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzTitan

Yeah as per my edit the non-exclusive tag does have the two 1sts thing on it.

But I think the exclusive tag is used the most, isn't it? I'm not even sure what the point of a non-exclusive tag is. Just seems like the lazy GM's way of putting a franchised player on the trade market to me.

Then you have the transition tag, which only seems to build further confusion. I can't even seem to differentiate a non-exclusive franchise tag and a transition tag.

If you put the exclusive-franchise tag on a player, he is not able to negotiate with other teams. The money is the same, pretty much. I can see how it's pretty pointless to use one or the other.

If you put the regular franchise tag on a player, he's able to negotiate with other teams, (and they forfeit two first rounders should they refuse to match), but there's very few players that are worth a team giving up two first rounders for. In the case of Nnamdi Asomugha last year, the Raiders didn't want to risk a team willing give up two firsts, and then have to match the monster contract to the player.

If you need to franchise DeMarcus Ware, use the exclusive rights. If you're gonna tag Stacy Andrews, use the non-exclusive, and hope someone is dumb enough to sign him to an offer sheet.

BlindSite · 01-06-2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

If you put the exclusive-franchise tag on a player, he is not able to negotiate with other teams. The money is the same, pretty much. I can see how it's pretty pointless to use one or the other.

If you put the regular franchise tag on a player, he's able to negotiate with other teams, (and they forfeit two first rounders should they refuse to match), but there's very few players that are worth a team giving up two first rounders for. In the case of Nnamdi Asomugha last year, the Raiders didn't want to risk a team willing give up two firsts, and then have to match the monster contract to the player.

If you need to franchise DeMarcus Ware, use the exclusive rights. If you're gonna tag Stacy Andrews, use the non-exclusive, and hope someone is dumb enough to sign him to an offer sheet.

I think that's what will be seen in Carolina (not trying to derail the thread) but if Pep gets a contract Gross will get tagged hoping to lure someone crazy for a left tackle so we can get his replacement. Or we exclusive rights Pep after signing Gross.

The thing that should worry a few GMs though is lets say Ware is exclusive rights tagged, what happens when the salary cap closes? in 2010. I know in Cassel and Ware's case the 6 years won't be up, but for a lot of teams it will be. I wonder how this will factor in to the upcoming deals.

Dirk360 · 01-08-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodachu

I hate Matt Cassel so much. He is so overrated. I wouldn't touch this guy, I don't believe in him at all. And the media treats him like a super star or someting, he isn't! They first complained (mainly Trey Wingo) that he didn't make the pro bowl when he wasn't even the biggest "snub" at his own position on his own team, that was Rivers. He is coached by the best coach in the NFL (Yes, I threw up in my mouth when I said that). He was coached by the best coach in the college game. How would he do without that and whoever the Lions bring in with sky high expectations for Cassell. I don't believe in him one bit, and I wouldn't have paid him a dime and let him go elsewhere.

Does that mean that you think Brady sucks as well?

AntoinCD · 01-08-2009, 12:54 PM

Cassels trade value will all depend on how many QBs declare for the draft. With the success of Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco this year teams are going to be more likely to draft a prospect rather than give up a lot for Cassel. My guess is if Stafford is the only big name QB in the draft(unlikely) Cassel could get a mid to late first. If say Bradford and Sanchez both come out it'll be a 2nd at best

Dirk360 · 01-08-2009, 01:18 PM

I really dislike Matt Cassell. Why couldn't he have just played terrible football? I still think the Patriots are very dependant on Brady. I mean, they had a really good record but they didn't make the playoffs (maybe unfair but its the rules) for the first time in 5 years. The year Brady goes out and the team doesn't make the playoffs? That is a bit too coincidental to me. With Brady, I say they win 13 games and are the 1 or 2 seed in the conference.

That defense has been avg for the past 2 years. Its just that last year people were going nuts over the offense that nobody even paid much attention to the defense. Most times the Patriots would Get out to a quick 14 to nothing lead and teams would abandon their gameplans and start to pass on almost every down. This allowed their average defense to pin their ears back and rack up the sacks. One game that stands out to me was the Redskins game last year.

BradysKnee · 01-08-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirk360

I really dislike Matt Cassell. Why couldn't he have just played terrible football? \

Yes, he disappointed everyone when the Pats didn't go 7-9. lol

Cassell is a testament to the coaching and drafting skills of the patriots.

Ultimately, this event will make the patriots a better team, forcing them to get better in other areas.

Cassell will get paid, whether by the patriots or someone else. I don't think he's near the quality of brady, but will probably end up making close to as much cash as he does.

MetSox17 · 01-08-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradysKnee

Yes, he disappointed everyone when the Pats didn't go 7-9. lol

Cassell is a testament to the coaching and drafting skills of the patriots.

Ultimately, this event will make the patriots a better team, forcing them to get better in other areas.

Cassell will get paid, whether by the patriots or someone else. I don't think he's near the quality of brady, but will probably end up making close to as much cash as he does.

I think some people are under-valuing Matt Cassell here. Yes, i agree that the Patriots have great coaching, probably the best in the league overall, but ultimately, it was Cassell making the right reads, and Cassell making the right throws. No, he didn't show that he's worth to be a top ten paid quarterback in the league (like he might end up after this off-season), but that's the salary structure that the league has set itself up for. No one should look at his contract and use that as a barometer for his skill as a quarterback. It doesn't always tell the story. He's a solid quarterback, and i think he'll have a Jake Delhomme type of impact on a team.

BradysKnee · 01-08-2009, 04:46 PM

Don't get me wrong, Cassel is a very good QB, I just don't consider him elite ala Brady, Manning(P).

CC.SD · 01-08-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradysKnee

Don't get me wrong, Cassel is a very good QB, I just don't consider him elite ala Brady, Manning(P).

I have to admit your name made me laugh. I'm a bad person.

BradysKnee · 01-08-2009, 04:53 PM

Yes you are. :P

MetSox17 · 01-08-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradysKnee

Don't get me wrong, Cassel is a very good QB, I just don't consider him elite ala Brady, Manning(P).

I don't think anyone on here has ever mentioned that he was anywhere near the level of Peyton "regular season" Manning or Tom Brady. The Patriots franchised him to protect themselves against Brady not rehabbing on time, or other complications that could arise. Besides, someone might try and trade for him, which again, puts all the chips on New England's side of the table.

CC.SD · 01-08-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetSox17

I don't think anyone on here has ever mentioned that he was anywhere near the level of Peyton "regular season" Manning or Tom Brady. The Patriots franchised him to protect themselves against Brady not rehabbing on time, or other complications that could arise. Besides, someone might try and trade for him, which again, puts all the chips on New England's side of the table.

Pats would be smart to trade Cassell to the highest bidder; he might be a capable QB and even a good one, but they only win a Super Bowl with Tommy B. If they're not gonna win a Super Bowl, why not maximize the value of a guy who is not a long term Patriot anyway?

MetSox17 · 01-08-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC.SD

Pats would be smart to trade Cassell to the highest bidder; he might be a capable QB and even a good one, but they only win a Super Bowl with Tommy B. If they're not gonna win a Super Bowl, why not maximize the value of a guy who is not a long term Patriot anyway?

I agree completely, and thought this would be the course of action a while back as well, but they're not entirely sure Brady will be able to go 100% next season. Worst case scenario, they pay Cassell his franchise money, use him for the season, and then re-franchise him next off-season to trade him. Of course, by doing this you're hoping he has a year similar to this past one, and should he do so, i think he could establish very good value for another team. It's a double edged sword, obviously, cause he could play like trash and you're stuck getting nothing out of him.

At the end of the day though, i think the Patriots protect themselves first, then try to look for value. If Brady's recovery is a concern, i have no doubt they hold on to him.

BradysKnee · 01-08-2009, 06:16 PM

I think they have some degree of confidence in KO, if Brady's gonna miss a week or 3 next year I still think they trade Cassel, and hope to pick up a few wins with OConnell.

Bucs_Rule · 01-08-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradysKnee

I think they have some degree of confidence in KO, if Brady's gonna miss a week or 3 next year I still think they trade Cassel, and hope to pick up a few wins with OConnell.

Before or at the Draft is when NE will get the most value for Cassel. At that point the window for when Brady will be able to return will be pretty wide. If the most likely spot is 2 weeks into the season it could easily be more than a month later or earlier. If that is the case I expect them to hold on to him.

The Patroits realize that the window of opportunity to win the SuperBowl won't last forever. They will be cautious to make sure that they have either Brady or Cassel starting at the beginning of next season. They wouldn't want a repeat of this season, where the team looks strong enough where they could run the tables but they were put in a hole at the beginning that the team didn't overcome.

The supporting cast was the best for NE last year but it will be 5 years since the team has won the Super Bowl. That is a long time in Pro Sports. The supporting cast won't stay this good for too long.