Pats tell Deion Branch to s*ck it. - Page 4

rkmsuf · 09-01-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

I don't think the third option is a bonified lock. The Patriots aren't going to be in a power position next offseason. If they franchise him, he's going to be paid amongst the top three or four WR in the game. That entire salary will count against NE's cap until he signs or is traded.

If he accepts it, it could end up costing NE a lot more in the long run. (I read something where Walter Jones repeatedly signing one year franchise tenders was worth more than if the Seahawks had just given hi a long term deal the first year)

I'm not so sure he'd get the franchise tag. I'd bet more on the transitional tag.

Problem for Branch if he decides to sit out until week 11 is that the Pats will have a huge fine they have every right to demand. That opens up all kinds of tag possiblities.

I think his fine by week 10 is around 1.5 million.

rkmsuf · 09-01-2006, 02:45 PM

LOL, the Branch camp is filing a grievance now.

This is one of the most ridiculous things in the history of football considering the deals offered by the Pats and the market.

SirFozzie · 09-01-2006, 02:49 PM

ESPN Insider was saying all the other teams wanted to offer for Branch was 2nd or third round picks, and that it wasn't expected to work

TroyF · 09-01-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

LOL, the Branch camp is filing a grievance now.

This is one of the most ridiculous things in the history of football considering the deals offered by the Pats and the market.

???

I don't understand this. Do you have first hand knowledge of how much of the other contracts is gaurenteed money vs. fluff money?

Didn't Branch want "Reggie Wayne" money. Reggie got 6 years, 40 million, right? Isn't that right in line with what Seattle offered? NE told him he wasn't worth it, then offered him the chance to find someone who would. He did and now you are going to say it's just a few million so he shouldn't care?

If the extra 7 or 8 million on the contract was just minor, why did NE & you ever complain about it and try to say repeatedly he wasn't worth it? If it was so minor, they'd pay him. If the team doesn't count it as minor, you can't expect him to.

AlexB · 09-01-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

At this point, he may as well get some good insurance, and then show up for week 1. If he can't get a deal done. Go out there and get 1300 yards and 85 catches. Of course, then he probably gets franchised next offseason, and the cycle starts over again.

Maybe he should call Javon Walker about that idea?

stevew · 09-01-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Maybe he should call Javon Walker about that idea?

Walker still got paid, even with a bum ACL. Granted a lot of his money is not guaranteed until after this season, but there's a pretty good chance he will make it.

TroyF · 09-01-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

Walker still got paid, even with a bum ACL. Granted a lot of his money is not guaranteed until after this season, but there's a pretty good chance he will make it.

Yeah, he's only getting paid big money if he's healthy this year. Without that injury and another solid year, he'd have had a huge deal signed.

stevew · 09-01-2006, 03:08 PM

That's why you take out the insurance policy before reporting.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-01-2006, 03:13 PM

I agree. This is not Branch throwing something in NE's face or the Pats "getting what they deserve." Look, the parties were deadlocked. The Pats thought two things. One, let us see what Branch can get from other teams. If it's not too bad, we'll match it. If it's high, we will try to move him. Otherwise, he plays 6 games and he's gone (with no compensation because I don't think they will franchise him next year at what the cost will be -- they may threaten it but I don't think they will do it). And it makes sense that if other teams think he is #1, then they might pay for it in draft picks. If not, then keep him and give him the dollars. This whole idea was to get things moving and it certainly has. I still predict Branch will remain a Patriot with a new deal.

And also, all that is key is the offers were less than Reggie Wayne money, which they probably are. Thus, in doing this, they will have obviously set the ceiling for Branch. And thus better focus the negotations.

Maple Leafs · 09-01-2006, 03:28 PM

I love the concept of telling players to seek out their own trade.

Player: "I'm an elite talent."
Team: "Fine, go find a trade. We want a first round pick."
Player: "I can't find any teams that will give up a first round pick for me."
Team: [whistles innocently]
Player: "Oh."

TroyF · 09-01-2006, 03:29 PM

And also, all that is key is the offers were less than Reggie Wayne money, which they probably are. Thus, in doing this, they will have obviously set the ceiling for Branch. And thus better focus the negotations.

Depending on the amount of gaurenteed money, the Seattle deal being reported nearly matches the Wayne contract.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-01-2006, 03:43 PM

IF that is true, then the Pats are left with their decision. I think at this point you have to match the offer (or come close to offset their rights under the current contract and franchising ability) or trade him away (provided the trade offer is decent and I think a 2nd is almost there. Anything other than that, and they will look bad and I will be disappointed. All along I said he wasn't worth the money and thus the Pats were doing ok by me. But if he is worth it (i.e. someone will pay it), then they have to put up or shut up.

SirFozzie · 09-01-2006, 04:06 PM

From ESPN (not the whole article, and it's a free one)

Basically, the best offer they got was for a 2nd rounder, and they wanted a first rounder and a middle rounder at the very least (were asking for two first rounders), and negotiations never got far with either team.

The greivance is apparently that the Pats told Branch if they got fair value they would trade him, and Branch thinks a 2nd round pick should be fair value (kinda depresses the argument that he should get what he's asking for isn't it?)

The two deals with Seahawks and Jets were 6 year, 39 million deals with Branch getting $23 million over the first three years.

Full story: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2568851

Personally, I am on the Pats side. They promised to trade him if they got an offer they thought was fair, and didn't get it, ergo they won't trade him.

TroyF · 09-01-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

From ESPN (not the whole article, and it's a free one)

Basically, the best offer they got was for a 2nd rounder, and they wanted a first rounder and a middle rounder at the very least (were asking for two first rounders), and negotiations never got far with either team.

The greivance is apparently that the Pats told Branch if they got fair value they would trade him, and Branch thinks a 2nd round pick should be fair value (kinda depresses the argument that he should get what he's asking for isn't it?)

The two deals with Seahawks and Jets were 6 year, 39 million deals with Branch getting $23 million over the first three years.

Full story: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2568851

Personally, I am on the Pats side. They promised to trade him if they got an offer they thought was fair, and didn't get it, ergo they won't trade him.

I'm on both sides. I disagree with the Patriots, but they don't have to trade him or pay him. I have no issues with Branch believing he's good enough to be a #1 and forcing the action. I have zero problems with Branch holding out until the final six and then forcing the Pats hands.

The only thing that could swing this is if the Patriots told Branch what they felt was fair at the start and then backed off. I don't think they are that idiotic. The events of the last 48 hours makes me think the complete opposite of QS. I don't think Branch reports until week 11 now. My guess is he never plays another down for the Patriots.

Audible · 09-01-2006, 04:45 PM

If a were Branch I'd sit out the whole year. They wanted two first rounders for me but aren't willing to pony up? Like someone once said, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

SirFozzie · 09-01-2006, 04:52 PM

if he sits out the year, he doesn't get to be a FA next year.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Pats find a loophole that does just that, make him sit out the whole year and lose the year towards FA. Probably the suspended list.

path12 · 09-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Pats find a loophole that does just that, make him sit out the whole year and lose the year towards FA. Probably the suspended list.

Good luck getting free agents in the future if they play that card.

stevew · 09-01-2006, 05:00 PM

I'd strongly doubt the union would have allowed a rule to be put into place as to where a player was able to be suspended for not reporting. That would eliminate any holdout leverage at all. Cause the new CBA supposedly took away a lot of the things teams were able to do to players. Once he reports in week 11, he just has to follow their rules, and he'll get out.

Swaggs · 09-01-2006, 05:06 PM

If the Pats treat Branch like this, they aren't going to be getting any hometown discounts when resigning their own players and open-market FAs aren't going to take them seriously unless they overpay.

I don't get valuing him enough to make him worth two 1st rounders, but not paying him Reggie Wayne (elite #2 WR) money.

Audible · 09-01-2006, 05:07 PM

Pats are hardcore communists!

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-01-2006, 05:17 PM

So, reading the ESPN article, this is what I gleaned:

"It is thought that, at some point in the offseason, the Patriots offered two extension proposals: a three-year deal worth $18.75 million with $8 million of that guaranteed, and a five-year extension at $31 million, with $11 million in bonuses."

"Branch had earlier reached agreements with the Seahawks and Jets on what ESPN.com has learned was a six-year, $39 million contract. The contract included a combined $13 million in guaranteed signing and option bonuses. Under the contract, Branch would have earned nearly $23 million in the first three years of the deal."

To me it appears the Pats offers were pretty close, and the 3-year deal was perhaps even better, since Branch would be lining up for another bonus in 3 years. I'm totally confused now. Is his agent a moron or am I missing something? To me it looks like the Pats have been very fair here.

The grievance thing is purely a PR stunt. However, it does appear things just got a lot more contentoius here, rather than the opposite effect.

TroyF · 09-01-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

So, reading the ESPN article, this is what I gleaned:

"It is thought that, at some point in the offseason, the Patriots offered two extension proposals: a three-year deal worth $18.75 million with $8 million of that guaranteed, and a five-year extension at $31 million, with $11 million in bonuses."

"Branch had earlier reached agreements with the Seahawks and Jets on what ESPN.com has learned was a six-year, $39 million contract. The contract included a combined $13 million in guaranteed signing and option bonuses. Under the contract, Branch would have earned nearly $23 million in the first three years of the deal."

To me it appears the Pats offers were pretty close, and the 3-year deal was perhaps even better, since Branch would be lining up for another bonus in 3 years. I'm totally confused now. Is his agent a moron or am I missing something? To me it looks like the Pats have been very fair here.

The grievance thing is purely a PR stunt. However, it does appear things just got a lot more contentoius here, rather than the opposite effect.

First off, the "it's been reported" stuff is all leaks. None of us know the actual contracts or the language in each. It looks to me like the Seattle deal is pretty damned sweet for him. If that 31 million, 5 year deal by the Patriots contains a lot of back bonuses, it could easily come out to far less than 23 million in three years.

But why debate this part of the thing? Branch said he wanted Reggie Wayne money. The Patriots said "you aren't worth it." Branch showed he can get it. Now it's in the Patriots court to either pay the hell up or be without their best WR this year.

As for the repeated comments "The Patriots are so smart, they'll suspend him and make sure he doesn't get his year counted for tenure," the Patriots won't be able to do that. Again, Branch would have to pull a T.O. He'd have to get into fist fights with teammates, get written up repeatedly, lash out at the Patriots in the press. . .

It aint happening The Patriots have their choice now. It's pretty obvious. Personally, I think if they really wanted to keep Branch, they screwed the pooch hard this week. I was in the QS camp before this week started. Branch would complain, bitch, moan and then at the end of the day, he'd walk in and play from week one.

Now I think Branch is beyond pissed and will look to find anyway out of NE he can, this year or next. If no trade occurs and he plays for the Patriots this year, I think it comes in the final six. NE was always going to be stubborn in their refusal to pay Branch. Now they've pissed Branch off enough that he's going to dig his heels in.

Both sides end up losers for at least 11 weeks now. We'll see what happens after that.

HomerSimpson · 09-01-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Problem for Branch if he decides to sit out until week 11 is that the Pats will have a huge fine they have every right to demand. That opens up all kinds of tag possiblities.

I think his fine by week 10 is around 1.5 million.

Does this include all the money he would of lost by not playing this year?

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-01-2006, 10:38 PM

It's separate. You don't get paid if you holdout. So, by not playing, he loses probably about 700k of his million salary for the year, and gets fined 1.5 million. This means his holdout costs him about 2.2 million. This incidentally is the difference in signing bonus in the Seattle/Jets deals and the 5-year deal offered by the Pats (if those reports are accurate). I fully believe the Pats will stick it to him, if an eventual deal is not worked out and then trade him after designating him as a franchise player.

Galaxy · 09-01-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

It's separate. You don't get paid if you holdout. So, by not playing, he loses probably about 700k of his million salary for the year, and gets fined 1.5 million. This means his holdout costs him about 2.2 million. This incidentally is the difference in signing bonus in the Seattle/Jets deals and the 5-year deal offered by the Pats (if those reports are accurate). I fully believe the Pats will stick it to him, if an eventual deal is not worked out and then trade him after designating him as a franchise player.

Two things:

If the Patroits franchise him, they have to pay him the salary of the average of the 5-highest paid receivers of this season. And they are stuck with it, if Branch accepts. Also, not one is going to give up two first round picks for him. So the franchise tag would no be an "upper" hand for the Patroits. It would put them in a corner.

One thing about contracts you have to remember is the value of the dollar at the time you receive it. By this, $5 million now would be worth more than $5 million in five years. A signing bonus is paid right when you sign that contract.

kcchief19 · 09-01-2006, 11:20 PM

I think the Pats have screwed themselves. Their original argument was the Branch wasn't worth the money he was seeking. Now that Branch can get the money he was apparently seeking, the Patriots want compensation equivalent to the value of the contract Branch can get from another team but they don't think he's worth. That just makes the Patriots look petty.

Normally, I want think both sides should live up to their contractual obligations, but that rule is somewhat suspended in the NFL to the lack of guaranteed contracts. At this point, it's in Branch's self-interest to minimize the threat of injury to get his payday. That's the fault of a system that isn't broken but has a few kinks in it.

I just don't see how logically the Pats can argue that Branch isn't worth No. 1 receiver money, but then demand No. 1 receiver compensation in trade. It makes sense from a business standpoint, but so does Branch's stance. He's called the bluff.

It'll be interesting to see where the grievance goes. I also am very intrigued to see where this team goes from here. We're seeing a lot of turmoil and turnover with a team that hasn't had a lot of either in the last few years. The Patriots system has been pitch perfect for six years now -- it looks like we're seeing some cracks.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-02-2006, 02:01 AM

Not quite KCC. The reverse can also be argued. Since Branch received a #1 money contract, aren't they entitled to proper compensation for a #1 receiver? Similarly, Branch contends he's a #1 receiver, but files a grievance because the Pats should have accepted a 2nd rounder for him, rather than requiring a 1st. Basically, I think all parties are going to lose in this one.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-02-2006, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If the Patroits franchise him, they have to pay him the salary of the average of the 5-highest paid receivers of this season. And they are stuck with it, if Branch accepts. Also, not one is going to give up two first round picks for him. So the franchise tag would no be an "upper" hand for the Patroits. It would put them in a corner.

Nah, he is a marketable asset and can always be moved (for at least a minimum 2nd rounder next season). So, even if they franchise him and he accepts, they can always dump him for the best offer. They wouldn't be in a corner at all.

HomerSimpson · 09-02-2006, 02:38 AM

Hey Chief, I think Branch is actually proving that he is NOT worth the Big money because he can not find a single team in the NFL that would be willing to give up a 1st round pick for him.

If no team in the NFL is willing to give up a 1st round pick for him, why should the Patriots be required to meet his salary demands?

Tigercat · 09-02-2006, 02:50 AM

Good to Elite players can't usually get big time future draft compensation. Everyone knows there is precedent for this. You will see teams ask for high draft picks in return for big time backs, for example, and get no bites.

Hell, is Branch 4x better than Stallworth and Walker? Cause all they were worth is a 4th round pick.

If the Pats said they would be reasonable in what they ask for in a trade, asking for a first(or more) for a vet asking for or needing a new contract right away isn't fair based on precedent, and it isn't in good faith with what they promised.

HomerSimpson · 09-02-2006, 04:09 AM

Wasn't Ricky Williams traded from the Saints to the Dolphins for two 1st round picks in the last year of his contract?

Tigercat · 09-02-2006, 04:34 AM

Ricky still had at least 4 years left, on a cheap contract(remember his agents agreeing to a contract that was too heavily incentive based?), and wasn't traded because he wanted more money. Ricky was traded because the Saints wanted to go with the other first round RB they had, the one that wasn't flaky, and they had other areas of need that could be addressed.

Ricky was traded for a first and a third, a third which could escalate to a first if Ricky rushed for 1500 yards.(which he did)

watravaler · 09-02-2006, 12:26 PM

Just move him already BB. Get something for him while you can, and stop screwing around. A 2nd + 4th is damn good compensation for a guy who is probably a product of the system.

TroyF · 09-02-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson

Hey Chief, I think Branch is actually proving that he is NOT worth the Big money because he can not find a single team in the NFL that would be willing to give up a 1st round pick for him.

If no team in the NFL is willing to give up a 1st round pick for him, why should the Patriots be required to meet his salary demands?

Nah, that's a simple question of how much power the Pats now have in this. Every team has to know the Patriots don't want to deal with this situation all year. They are lowballing them. Do you think the Seahawks, who will likely be picking toward the end of round 1 would really be that concerned with a #1 pick?

According to all reports I've read, the Patriots aren't asking for 1 pick, they are asking for two #1 selections. Very few NFL players are going to be traded for two #1's.

Look, I think the Patriots flat out butchered this. If they keep their mouths shut, don't just break off negotiations and offer to let Branch seek out a trade, none of this happens. I think Branch would have walked in within the first couple weeks of the season and this wouldn't have been a big story.

Instead, they did what they did and then Branch got damned near the exact contract the Patriots said he wasn't worth. The Patriots arrogance really bit them in the ass here. Again, say what you want about him being a product of the system, a #2 WR, a pathetic WR. . . he's by FAR and away the best WR on the Patriots. Nobody even comes close. He's the #1 WR in NE. The Patriots actions the last week almost assure they won't have their #1 playing for them this season. It's now a bunch of #3's and Ben Watson.

Brady doesn't have to prove anything to anybody anymore. But if he has a quality year with that group of wideouts, I think we just need to make an exception and cast his plaque now.

molson · 09-02-2006, 06:40 PM

Pats move ahead, trade for Doug Gabriel.

At the end of the day, as a Pats fan, I'm glad they're not giving Branch the big money. WR just isn't a key position on a Belichick team, or a Tom Brady offense.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-02-2006, 10:28 PM

Espn also stated today that Seahawks STILL have interest in Branch. If they jump, that means Pats get Gabriel and a late first or maybe 2 and 3. I think I like it since the Branch relationship is now in tatters.

Does anybody out there know much about him. He was pencilled in as starter over Porter and Curry?? Is that just because of Curry injury and Porter trade requests?

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-03-2006, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

It's separate. You don't get paid if you holdout. So, by not playing, he loses probably about 700k of his million salary for the year, and gets fined 1.5 million. This means his holdout costs him about 2.2 million. This incidentally is the difference in signing bonus in the Seattle/Jets deals and the 5-year deal offered by the Pats (if those reports are accurate). I fully believe the Pats will stick it to him, if an eventual deal is not worked out and then trade him after designating him as a franchise player.

I must correct myself. The fines end at the end of training camp. Then they just hold back paychecks. This means his total loss probably is closer to the 1.5 million, not 2.2.

KevinNU7 · 09-03-2006, 10:22 AM

Let's say in theory Branch rides the pine until 6 games left in teh regular season.

Does anyone actually think that the Patriots will actually play? I know they will let him dress and he will ride the pine but I don't see him getting any PT. Then he can enter the F/A market next season after not playing for an entire year.

That should make it difficult for him to get a good contract next season.

TroyF · 09-03-2006, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Let's say in theory Branch rides the pine until 6 games left in teh regular season.

Does anyone actually think that the Patriots will actually play? I know they will let him dress and he will ride the pine but I don't see him getting any PT. Then he can enter the F/A market next season after not playing for an entire year.

That should make it difficult for him to get a good contract next season.

Nah, he'll have a market. He's still a young, proven WR and a lot of teams need help there. He'll still get his contract. If anything, with more teams out there, he may even get more money.

As for Gabriel, he's a steal. I'm not sure what Oakland is thinking. One of the worst trades I've seen in a long while. He's still raw though. He's probably where Branch was at the beginning of the season two years ago. Still, he's under contract cheaply for two years. Typical Raider moronic move. He probably made fun of an Al Davis jump suit.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-04-2006, 03:38 AM

Interesting take on the Branch situation now that it is where it is. This from an email to the Boston Herald:

"Given that the best “official” offer for Deion Branch is a 2nd rounder in the 2007 draft, why shouldn’t the Patriots just let him sit for the first 10 games? In either scenario, he’s not on the field for the Patriots. And it’s not like we won’t be able to get a 2nd rounder for him during the off-season. It’s a really (lousy) WR FA group, and there is NO DIFFERENCE between getting a 2nd round pick in the 2007 draft NOW and getting a 2nd round pick in the 2007 draft next March.

“Actually, there is - it’s preferable to wait. That way the Patriots have a better sense of draft position, there are more teams vying for his services and maybe it provides time for cooler heads to prevail and for Deion to reconsider.

“In any case, given the compensation being offered for Branch as of now, and given the fact that that’s not likely to be any better than it will be 7 months from now, the only reason we might prefer doing the deal for 2006 is to rid ourselves of the headache/distraction. Otherwise, if he’s so dug in, he can STAY dug in and sit.”

Chubby · 09-04-2006, 08:18 AM

Why would a team offer a pick next march? He'll be a FA and be gone for nothing. Pats fans grasping at straws are funny.

TroyF · 09-04-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why would a team offer a pick next march? He'll be a FA and be gone for nothing. Pats fans grasping at straws are funny.

Exactly. They'll have to franchise or transition him, and I'm not convinced the Patriots will do either one.

BishopMVP · 09-04-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

Exactly. They'll have to franchise or transition him, and I'm not convinced the Patriots will do either one.

About midway through training camp, Branch/his agent said he'd come in to play this season under his normal contract if the Patriots agreed not to franchise him after this year. The Patriots management refused to do so. Barring injury, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't franchise him, at the least to get something back in a trade.

TroyF · 09-04-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

About midway through training camp, Branch/his agent said he'd come in to play this season under his normal contract if the Patriots agreed not to franchise him after this year. The Patriots management refused to do so. Barring injury, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't franchise him, at the least to get something back in a trade.

There are a ton of other factors they have to consider before they do it. That includes how aggressive they plan on being in FA next year. (I know they haven't been the past few years, but anything can happen in a year) It also depends on what the salary for that position is.

Say all of you that assume Branch sitting out will hurt his value and make it less likely he gets a big contract are right. What if Branch looks at the market for five days, realizes he's screwed and signs the deal. The Patriots now have themselves a guy who is paid as one of the highest paid WR in the game and any team trading for him will have that cap number over their heads.

This game of chicken has just started. The Patriots hold some, but not all of the cards here. For either side to start spouting off now as being in a power position is foolish.

The only thing we know now is this:

1) The Patriots made the situation worse, not better, when they allowed Branch to seek out a contract and a trade with another team. Instead of having him in camp about now, they are going to likely not see him until week 11.

2) The Patriots are planning for life without Branch. The trade for Gabriel speaks volumes.

3) The ball is now fully in Branch's in terms of playing this year. He called the Pats bluff, now the Pats are going to find out if he was bluffing or if he wasn't.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-05-2006, 02:38 AM

Can't agree. There is no doubt they will franchise him now. It gets them a draft pick on a trade. It's a no lose situation. Even if he signs the tender and its guaranteed, they still ship him out. The franchise agreement will not be an impediment because any team trading him will sign him to the deal they prefer, and he would want it because it would give him signing bonus money. If they ship him out quickly after they franchise him, it won't even prevent them from signing other free agents with the same money.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-05-2006, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why would a team offer a pick next march? He'll be a FA and be gone for nothing. Pats fans grasping at straws are funny.

You're funny for not understanding how the franchise tag works in the NFL. John Abraham anyone?

Tigercat · 09-05-2006, 03:05 AM

That only works well when you have the leverage of at least POSSIBLY keeping the player at the franchise salary or if its a very high marque player that is in high demand.

Branch, after a season off the field, will not be a well thought of enough player. No team will deal with the Pats unless they accepted what teams are willing to pay now or even less. Other teams will play hard ball dareing the Pats to keep Branch and pay the top 5 WR salary, which they won't. Eventually the Pats would have to cave and get LESS for him than they could now.

So, no, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Pats to wait till after the season. Its never a good idea to lose that much leverage.

Vinatieri for Prez · 09-05-2006, 03:53 AM

Still disagree. So what if they still only get a 2nd rounder for Branch. As stated above, a 2nd rounder now is the same as getting a 2nd rounder next March.

And I totally disagree his value will go down. Even playing only 6 games, I actually expect his value to go up next year. There will be way more teams (with more cap space) in the running at that time.

Not to mention later this season when teams start losing WRs to injury, Branch becomes VERY valuable at that stage. A perfect example was Keenan McArdell going to San Diego last year. Finally, there is also the reason of setting a hardball precedent for future potential holdouts. If you deal Branch now for low value your giving him exactly what he wants (and would further encourage future holdouts).

Still completely agree with the Pats strategy. Until another team ponies up with good picks, let's keep him. I mean seriously, a second rounder to a division rival -- no thanks.

Tigercat · 09-05-2006, 05:03 AM

You are right, its a good strategy if it nets even a 2nd rounder. I don't understand how his trade value could possibly go up, add that with more leverage, and as an outsider looking in I can't imagine the Pats getting the same or more for him in the offseason though. We shall see.

TroyF · 09-05-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Can't agree. There is no doubt they will franchise him now. It gets them a draft pick on a trade. It's a no lose situation. Even if he signs the tender and its guaranteed, they still ship him out. The franchise agreement will not be an impediment because any team trading him will sign him to the deal they prefer, and he would want it because it would give him signing bonus money. If they ship him out quickly after they franchise him, it won't even prevent them from signing other free agents with the same money.

Again, you overstate how powerful the Patriots are in this. if Branch were to sign the franchise tender, it would damned well impact the team that trades for him. They can sign him to an EXTENSION, but the one year cost would still be at one of the top 3 to 5 highest paid players for next season. The key word there is Branch SIGNS the tender. That puts him under contract for next year. The renegotiation would be for future years in the deal.

And keep in mind, I said that was under the scenario that Branch was having difficulty negotiating with teams. Lets say he's not getting what he wants from other teams. If the Pats have that franchise tag on, he's could sign it quickly and the Patriots would be screwed.

You continue to overstate how much NE is in control of this situation. From the start of this thread you have. You, like NE, said Branch was nothing more than a 2 and didn't deserve and couldn't get Reggie Wayne money. Oops. He did. Now you think the Patriots hold all the cards in the deck. They don't.

They hold SOME cards. And Branch holds some cards. And now it's a game of poker to see how those cards are played.

So far NE has did a piss poor job of playing theirs. Despite their recent successes, I'm not convinced they'll play this out right. Their best move is to probably just get rid of their headache right now. Ship him to Seattle, out of the conference, for a second round pick and move on. Situation over.

While I don't think Branch has a chance in hell of winning his greivences, that's into play as well. If Branch hits the lottery and wins one of those, NE has even bigger problems to deal with.

09-01-2006, 02:45 PM	#152
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	LOL, the Branch camp is filing a grievance now. This is one of the most ridiculous things in the history of football considering the deals offered by the Pats and the market. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

09-01-2006, 02:49 PM	#153
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	ESPN Insider was saying all the other teams wanted to offer for Branch was 2nd or third round picks, and that it wasn't expected to work __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

09-01-2006, 03:13 PM	#159
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	I agree. This is not Branch throwing something in NE's face or the Pats "getting what they deserve." Look, the parties were deadlocked. The Pats thought two things. One, let us see what Branch can get from other teams. If it's not too bad, we'll match it. If it's high, we will try to move him. Otherwise, he plays 6 games and he's gone (with no compensation because I don't think they will franchise him next year at what the cost will be -- they may threaten it but I don't think they will do it). And it makes sense that if other teams think he is #1, then they might pay for it in draft picks. If not, then keep him and give him the dollars. This whole idea was to get things moving and it certainly has. I still predict Branch will remain a Patriot with a new deal. And also, all that is key is the offers were less than Reggie Wayne money, which they probably are. Thus, in doing this, they will have obviously set the ceiling for Branch. And thus better focus the negotations. Last edited by Vinatieri for Prez : 09-01-2006 at 03:15 PM.

09-01-2006, 03:28 PM	#160
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	I love the concept of telling players to seek out their own trade. Player: "I'm an elite talent." Team: "Fine, go find a trade. We want a first round pick." Player: "I can't find any teams that will give up a first round pick for me." Team: [whistles innocently] Player: "Oh." __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

09-01-2006, 04:06 PM	#163
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	From ESPN (not the whole article, and it's a free one) Basically, the best offer they got was for a 2nd rounder, and they wanted a first rounder and a middle rounder at the very least (were asking for two first rounders), and negotiations never got far with either team. The greivance is apparently that the Pats told Branch if they got fair value they would trade him, and Branch thinks a 2nd round pick should be fair value (kinda depresses the argument that he should get what he's asking for isn't it?) The two deals with Seahawks and Jets were 6 year, 39 million deals with Branch getting $23 million over the first three years. Full story: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2568851 Personally, I am on the Pats side. They promised to trade him if they got an offer they thought was fair, and didn't get it, ergo they won't trade him. __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

09-01-2006, 03:08 PM	#158
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	That's why you take out the insurance policy before reporting.

09-01-2006, 03:29 PM	#161
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	And also, all that is key is the offers were less than Reggie Wayne money, which they probably are. Thus, in doing this, they will have obviously set the ceiling for Branch. And thus better focus the negotations. Depending on the amount of gaurenteed money, the Seattle deal being reported nearly matches the Wayne contract.

09-01-2006, 03:43 PM	#162
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	IF that is true, then the Pats are left with their decision. I think at this point you have to match the offer (or come close to offset their rights under the current contract and franchising ability) or trade him away (provided the trade offer is decent and I think a 2nd is almost there. Anything other than that, and they will look bad and I will be disappointed. All along I said he wasn't worth the money and thus the Pats were doing ok by me. But if he is worth it (i.e. someone will pay it), then they have to put up or shut up.

09-01-2006, 04:45 PM	#165
Audible n00b Join Date: Aug 2006	If a were Branch I'd sit out the whole year. They wanted two first rounders for me but aren't willing to pony up? Like someone once said, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

09-01-2006, 04:52 PM	#166
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	if he sits out the year, he doesn't get to be a FA next year. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Pats find a loophole that does just that, make him sit out the whole year and lose the year towards FA. Probably the suspended list. __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

09-01-2006, 05:00 PM	#168
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	I'd strongly doubt the union would have allowed a rule to be put into place as to where a player was able to be suspended for not reporting. That would eliminate any holdout leverage at all. Cause the new CBA supposedly took away a lot of the things teams were able to do to players. Once he reports in week 11, he just has to follow their rules, and he'll get out. Last edited by stevew : 09-01-2006 at 05:01 PM.

09-01-2006, 05:06 PM	#169
Swaggs Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	If the Pats treat Branch like this, they aren't going to be getting any hometown discounts when resigning their own players and open-market FAs aren't going to take them seriously unless they overpay. I don't get valuing him enough to make him worth two 1st rounders, but not paying him Reggie Wayne (elite #2 WR) money. __________________ DOWN WITH HATTRICK!!! The RWBL Are you reading In The Bleachers?

09-01-2006, 05:07 PM	#170
Audible n00b Join Date: Aug 2006	Pats are hardcore communists!

09-01-2006, 05:17 PM	#171
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	So, reading the ESPN article, this is what I gleaned: "It is thought that, at some point in the offseason, the Patriots offered two extension proposals: a three-year deal worth $18.75 million with $8 million of that guaranteed, and a five-year extension at $31 million, with $11 million in bonuses." "Branch had earlier reached agreements with the Seahawks and Jets on what ESPN.com has learned was a six-year, $39 million contract. The contract included a combined $13 million in guaranteed signing and option bonuses. Under the contract, Branch would have earned nearly $23 million in the first three years of the deal." To me it appears the Pats offers were pretty close, and the 3-year deal was perhaps even better, since Branch would be lining up for another bonus in 3 years. I'm totally confused now. Is his agent a moron or am I missing something? To me it looks like the Pats have been very fair here. The grievance thing is purely a PR stunt. However, it does appear things just got a lot more contentoius here, rather than the opposite effect.

09-01-2006, 10:38 PM	#174
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	It's separate. You don't get paid if you holdout. So, by not playing, he loses probably about 700k of his million salary for the year, and gets fined 1.5 million. This means his holdout costs him about 2.2 million. This incidentally is the difference in signing bonus in the Seattle/Jets deals and the 5-year deal offered by the Pats (if those reports are accurate). I fully believe the Pats will stick it to him, if an eventual deal is not worked out and then trade him after designating him as a franchise player.

09-01-2006, 11:20 PM	#176
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	I think the Pats have screwed themselves. Their original argument was the Branch wasn't worth the money he was seeking. Now that Branch can get the money he was apparently seeking, the Patriots want compensation equivalent to the value of the contract Branch can get from another team but they don't think he's worth. That just makes the Patriots look petty. Normally, I want think both sides should live up to their contractual obligations, but that rule is somewhat suspended in the NFL to the lack of guaranteed contracts. At this point, it's in Branch's self-interest to minimize the threat of injury to get his payday. That's the fault of a system that isn't broken but has a few kinks in it. I just don't see how logically the Pats can argue that Branch isn't worth No. 1 receiver money, but then demand No. 1 receiver compensation in trade. It makes sense from a business standpoint, but so does Branch's stance. He's called the bluff. It'll be interesting to see where the grievance goes. I also am very intrigued to see where this team goes from here. We're seeing a lot of turmoil and turnover with a team that hasn't had a lot of either in the last few years. The Patriots system has been pitch perfect for six years now -- it looks like we're seeing some cracks. Last edited by kcchief19 : 09-01-2006 at 11:24 PM.

09-02-2006, 02:01 AM	#177
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	Not quite KCC. The reverse can also be argued. Since Branch received a #1 money contract, aren't they entitled to proper compensation for a #1 receiver? Similarly, Branch contends he's a #1 receiver, but files a grievance because the Pats should have accepted a 2nd rounder for him, rather than requiring a 1st. Basically, I think all parties are going to lose in this one.

09-02-2006, 02:38 AM	#179
HomerSimpson Mascot Join Date: Jul 2006	Hey Chief, I think Branch is actually proving that he is NOT worth the Big money because he can not find a single team in the NFL that would be willing to give up a 1st round pick for him. If no team in the NFL is willing to give up a 1st round pick for him, why should the Patriots be required to meet his salary demands?

09-02-2006, 02:50 AM	#180
Tigercat College Starter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Federal Way, WA	Good to Elite players can't usually get big time future draft compensation. Everyone knows there is precedent for this. You will see teams ask for high draft picks in return for big time backs, for example, and get no bites. Hell, is Branch 4x better than Stallworth and Walker? Cause all they were worth is a 4th round pick. If the Pats said they would be reasonable in what they ask for in a trade, asking for a first(or more) for a vet asking for or needing a new contract right away isn't fair based on precedent, and it isn't in good faith with what they promised. Last edited by Tigercat : 09-02-2006 at 02:51 AM.

09-02-2006, 04:09 AM	#181
HomerSimpson Mascot Join Date: Jul 2006	Wasn't Ricky Williams traded from the Saints to the Dolphins for two 1st round picks in the last year of his contract?

09-02-2006, 04:34 AM	#182
Tigercat College Starter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Federal Way, WA	Ricky still had at least 4 years left, on a cheap contract(remember his agents agreeing to a contract that was too heavily incentive based?), and wasn't traded because he wanted more money. Ricky was traded because the Saints wanted to go with the other first round RB they had, the one that wasn't flaky, and they had other areas of need that could be addressed. Ricky was traded for a first and a third, a third which could escalate to a first if Ricky rushed for 1500 yards.(which he did) Last edited by Tigercat : 09-02-2006 at 04:36 AM.

09-02-2006, 12:26 PM	#183
watravaler High School JV Join Date: Jun 2005	Just move him already BB. Get something for him while you can, and stop screwing around. A 2nd + 4th is damn good compensation for a guy who is probably a product of the system.

09-02-2006, 06:40 PM	#185
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	Pats move ahead, trade for Doug Gabriel. At the end of the day, as a Pats fan, I'm glad they're not giving Branch the big money. WR just isn't a key position on a Belichick team, or a Tom Brady offense.

09-02-2006, 10:28 PM	#186
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	Espn also stated today that Seahawks STILL have interest in Branch. If they jump, that means Pats get Gabriel and a late first or maybe 2 and 3. I think I like it since the Branch relationship is now in tatters. Does anybody out there know much about him. He was pencilled in as starter over Porter and Curry?? Is that just because of Curry injury and Porter trade requests?

09-03-2006, 10:22 AM	#188
KevinNU7 College Starter Join Date: May 2003 Location: Beantown	Let's say in theory Branch rides the pine until 6 games left in teh regular season. Does anyone actually think that the Patriots will actually play? I know they will let him dress and he will ride the pine but I don't see him getting any PT. Then he can enter the F/A market next season after not playing for an entire year. That should make it difficult for him to get a good contract next season. __________________ Boston Bashers - III.14 - (8347)

09-04-2006, 03:38 AM	#190
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	Interesting take on the Branch situation now that it is where it is. This from an email to the Boston Herald: "Given that the best “official” offer for Deion Branch is a 2nd rounder in the 2007 draft, why shouldn’t the Patriots just let him sit for the first 10 games? In either scenario, he’s not on the field for the Patriots. And it’s not like we won’t be able to get a 2nd rounder for him during the off-season. It’s a really (lousy) WR FA group, and there is NO DIFFERENCE between getting a 2nd round pick in the 2007 draft NOW and getting a 2nd round pick in the 2007 draft next March. “Actually, there is - it’s preferable to wait. That way the Patriots have a better sense of draft position, there are more teams vying for his services and maybe it provides time for cooler heads to prevail and for Deion to reconsider. “In any case, given the compensation being offered for Branch as of now, and given the fact that that’s not likely to be any better than it will be 7 months from now, the only reason we might prefer doing the deal for 2006 is to rid ourselves of the headache/distraction. Otherwise, if he’s so dug in, he can STAY dug in and sit.”

09-04-2006, 08:18 AM	#191
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	*Re: Pats tell Deion Branch to sck it.** Why would a team offer a pick next march? He'll be a FA and be gone for nothing. Pats fans grasping at straws are funny.

09-05-2006, 02:38 AM	#195
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	Can't agree. There is no doubt they will franchise him now. It gets them a draft pick on a trade. It's a no lose situation. Even if he signs the tender and its guaranteed, they still ship him out. The franchise agreement will not be an impediment because any team trading him will sign him to the deal they prefer, and he would want it because it would give him signing bonus money. If they ship him out quickly after they franchise him, it won't even prevent them from signing other free agents with the same money.

09-05-2006, 03:05 AM	#197
Tigercat College Starter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Federal Way, WA	That only works well when you have the leverage of at least POSSIBLY keeping the player at the franchise salary or if its a very high marque player that is in high demand. Branch, after a season off the field, will not be a well thought of enough player. No team will deal with the Pats unless they accepted what teams are willing to pay now or even less. Other teams will play hard ball dareing the Pats to keep Branch and pay the top 5 WR salary, which they won't. Eventually the Pats would have to cave and get LESS for him than they could now. So, no, it wouldn't be a good idea for the Pats to wait till after the season. Its never a good idea to lose that much leverage.

09-05-2006, 03:53 AM	#198
Vinatieri for Prez College Starter Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle	Still disagree. So what if they still only get a 2nd rounder for Branch. As stated above, a 2nd rounder now is the same as getting a 2nd rounder next March. And I totally disagree his value will go down. Even playing only 6 games, I actually expect his value to go up next year. There will be way more teams (with more cap space) in the running at that time. Not to mention later this season when teams start losing WRs to injury, Branch becomes VERY valuable at that stage. A perfect example was Keenan McArdell going to San Diego last year. Finally, there is also the reason of setting a hardball precedent for future potential holdouts. If you deal Branch now for low value your giving him exactly what he wants (and would further encourage future holdouts). Still completely agree with the Pats strategy. Until another team ponies up with good picks, let's keep him. I mean seriously, a second rounder to a division rival -- no thanks.

09-05-2006, 05:03 AM	#199
Tigercat College Starter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Federal Way, WA	You are right, its a good strategy if it nets even a 2nd rounder. I don't understand how his trade value could possibly go up, add that with more leverage, and as an outsider looking in I can't imagine the Pats getting the same or more for him in the offseason though. We shall see.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)