Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I got him at a pretty decent value in both my redraft leagues and right now I'm counting on him making an impact for me by week 3 or 4. I hope.
Shick's absolutely correct. This isn't about 'right' or 'wrong' on either side, it's about which side is going to get more or less what they 'want'.Did the Patriots low-ball Branch? I think the answer is a resounding 'yes'. And quite honestly, there's nothing strategically wrong with low-balling a player provided the market value for that player remains an unknown quantity. Where the Patriots really dropped the ball was enabling Branch to establish a market value now. The only logical reason the Patriots would permit Branch to seek out and define his market value now would be if they believed beyond a shadow of doubt that Branch's market value would fall somewhere very close to what they had offered. In my view, the decision to permit Branch to establish that market now came from a place of organizational arrogance and ego. It was a strategic error, and it's one that will cost them in some form or fashion.Shick! said:You're being pretty myopic here. Branch has every right to sit out and only show up for the final six games. That's the system that the owners agreed to.An argument can be made both ways, and each side has a valid point to make.franks&beans said:Branch is under contract and should be on the field. The issue that owners can cut anyone and get out of the contract is not the owner’s problem, the players are the ones that agreed to it. This happens far too often and the player wants it both ways. I have no issue with Branch sitting out if that is what he thinks he needs to do. I also have no issue with the Patriots not moving him and letting him sit.
I agree, I think Branch and his agent have a somewhat valid complaint but it wouldn't hold up in a ruling. I also don't believe the Pats are so far in the wrong where an abritrator would force them to take what the Jets or Seahawks offered. This isn't like the TO situation 3 years ago where the trade to the Ravens was worked out and consumated after his agent just missed a filing deadline. No deal actually got done, and unless the Pats specified what "fair compensation" was to Branch and his agent, I don't see how Branch can argue bad faith.I still think the Pats muffed this though. Branch now has an idea of what he is really worth, and it was quite a bit more than what the Pats offered him. (19MM total over 4yrs vs a 6yr contract where he would get 23MM in the 1st 3 seasons)The Patriots offered him a 3 year deal at 6 million per. The Patriots also offered him a five year deal at 6.2 million per. The Jets offered him a 6 year deal at 6.5 million per. The signing bonuses were comparable across the three deals. If I understand you correctly, I think you're saying that Branch would rather take the six year deal with 23 million in the first three years, vs. 16 in the next three years. And you're right, that may be the bone of contention for a team like the Patriots, who may feel that they want to spread the money out more. If that's what makes the deal more attractive to Branch, then I can understand why he'd want the deal. Although, reading the Jets' GM's comments, I don't know how seriously you can take their contract offer, since it doesn't sound like he ever felt they were in the running. I will say this - I don't know if much or anything will get done before the 9/9 date for the arbitration hearings. And that may mean a short holdout is inevitable. I'll be interested to hear if the two sides are at least talking contract this week, or if they hang back to see how this grievance works out. FWIW, I would be absolutely shocked if the outcome of that hearing is that the Patriots are forced to trade Branch for a second round pick. Absolutely shocked.Buckna said:We're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think Branch and his agent are looking at more than a 3-4 yr window when it comes to money. In 4 years, he'll be a 31yr old WR either looking to renegotiatie himself or being asked to restructure by his team (examples off the top of my head: Driver this yr, Horn last year, Kennison asking to restructure eariler this yr.) It's very rare for a player to play out the full length of his contract these days. You as Pats fan should appreciate even more the likely-hood that if Branch signed a 5yr extension with the Pats he would most definitely be asked to restructure at some point before the contract ends. The Pats do it with their players all the time.
Unless they actually intended to trade him for a first, or intended to match a reasonable offer, you're right. It's just a little early to say whether either is true, since Seattle is supposedly still calling them to talk trade and may be willing to give up a first, and the offer he got isn't that much different from the 5 year offer they gave him.Shick's absolutely correct. This isn't about 'right' or 'wrong' on either side, it's about which side is going to get more or less what they 'want'.Did the Patriots low-ball Branch? I think the answer is a resounding 'yes'. And quite honestly, there's nothing strategically wrong with low-balling a player provided the market value for that player remains an unknown quantity. Where the Patriots really dropped the ball was enabling Branch to establish a market value now. The only logical reason the Patriots would permit Branch to seek out and define his market value now would be if they believed beyond a shadow of doubt that Branch's market value would fall somewhere very close to what they had offered. In my view, the decision to permit Branch to establish that market now came from a place of organizational arrogance and ego. It was a strategic error, and it's one that will cost them in some form or fashion.Shick! said:You're being pretty myopic here. Branch has every right to sit out and only show up for the final six games. That's the system that the owners agreed to.An argument can be made both ways, and each side has a valid point to make.franks&beans said:Branch is under contract and should be on the field. The issue that owners can cut anyone and get out of the contract is not the owner’s problem, the players are the ones that agreed to it. This happens far too often and the player wants it both ways. I have no issue with Branch sitting out if that is what he thinks he needs to do. I also have no issue with the Patriots not moving him and letting him sit.
Unfortunately I think both sides are going to end up on the “less” side of this.Shick's absolutely correct. This isn't about 'right' or 'wrong' on either side, it's about which side is going to get more or less what they 'want'.
I don't understand why you continue to use made up numbers to make this point. The Jets never offered him three years at 23 million, so the only way Branch was going to get that kind of money for three years is if he sat out in year four in an attempt to get more for year four on. The Jets offered him a six year deal for 39 million with 13 million guaranteed. The Patriots offered him a 5 year deal at 31 million with 11 million guaranteed. That's not "quite a bit more", it's an extra year and an extra 400,000 per year. The Patriots never offered him 19 million over four years. The Patriots offered him 18 million over three years. If Branch sits out, he cannot get 23 million over three seasons starting in 2006. He cannot get 39 million over six seasons starting in 2006. This year is sunk for him - the most he can get, barring a trade, is 1 million, and he will make less if he holds out. If you want to compare apples with apples, and you wan to use the Jets' offer as a starting point, then the offer he got from the Jets would get him 40 million dollars in the next seven years. The most recent offer he got from the Patriots would give him 32 million over the next six years. Again, those two contracts aren't that far apart. The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded. Which brings us back to where we are today. Branch will not make more by holding out, and he takes on additional risk unnecessarily. The only way he makes more money - and it may be a lot more - is if he gets traded. Which is why they will certainly follow up with this grievance, because it's their only chance to get paid more than 1 million for whatever time he puts in in 2006. Unless the Patriots trade him between now and next Saturday, the grievance will lose, and then Branch will to choose between the value of playing for the Patriots and signing a contract that will likely be very close to what he was offered by the Jets, or risking everything, including injury, or a weaker market for his services, to sit out and hope he gets more next year. Since the contract he's currently demanding is arguably on the high end of his value - many people here believe he does not deserve Reggie Wayne money - and since a holdout could make his value drop further, he'd be crazy to hold out the whole season. From a pure dollars and cents perspective - and I understand that emotions are running high right now - the most likely scenario is that he's going to try to get traded, and if it doesn't work out, he's going to try to get the Patriots to give him a contract that's equivalent to the offers he received.I agree, I think Branch and his agent have a somewhat valid complaint but it wouldn't hold up in a ruling. I also don't believe the Pats are so far in the wrong where an abritrator would force them to take what the Jets or Seahawks offered. This isn't like the TO situation 3 years ago where the trade to the Ravens was worked out and consumated after his agent just missed a filing deadline. No deal actually got done, and unless the Pats specified what "fair compensation" was to Branch and his agent, I don't see how Branch can argue bad faith.I still think the Pats muffed this though. Branch now has an idea of what he is really worth, and it was quite a bit more than what the Pats offered him. (19MM total over 4yrs vs a 6yr contract where he would get 23MM in the 1st 3 seasons)The Patriots offered him a 3 year deal at 6 million per. The Patriots also offered him a five year deal at 6.2 million per. The Jets offered him a 6 year deal at 6.5 million per. The signing bonuses were comparable across the three deals. If I understand you correctly, I think you're saying that Branch would rather take the six year deal with 23 million in the first three years, vs. 16 in the next three years. And you're right, that may be the bone of contention for a team like the Patriots, who may feel that they want to spread the money out more. If that's what makes the deal more attractive to Branch, then I can understand why he'd want the deal. Although, reading the Jets' GM's comments, I don't know how seriously you can take their contract offer, since it doesn't sound like he ever felt they were in the running. I will say this - I don't know if much or anything will get done before the 9/9 date for the arbitration hearings. And that may mean a short holdout is inevitable. I'll be interested to hear if the two sides are at least talking contract this week, or if they hang back to see how this grievance works out. FWIW, I would be absolutely shocked if the outcome of that hearing is that the Patriots are forced to trade Branch for a second round pick. Absolutely shocked.Buckna said:We're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think Branch and his agent are looking at more than a 3-4 yr window when it comes to money. In 4 years, he'll be a 31yr old WR either looking to renegotiatie himself or being asked to restructure by his team (examples off the top of my head: Driver this yr, Horn last year, Kennison asking to restructure eariler this yr.) It's very rare for a player to play out the full length of his contract these days. You as Pats fan should appreciate even more the likely-hood that if Branch signed a 5yr extension with the Pats he would most definitely be asked to restructure at some point before the contract ends. The Pats do it with their players all the time.
I think Branch is doomed in the grievance.The Patriots have every right to say, "No, we're not trading Branch at all. Period. He's not on the trading block. He's unavailable. Don't call us."They therefore have the right to take the more moderate position of, "We'll trade him for two firsts, but nothing less." (Not that this is the Patriots' actual stance.)Branch's argument will be that when the Patriots allowed him to negotiate a trade with other teams, they implicitly agreed to accept any reasonable trade offers. (The consideration for this agreement is Branch's effort in those negotiations.) But so far, the only offer reported was a second-rounder. I don't think it's unreasonable at all for the Patriots to refuse to trade Branch for a second-rounder. They are entitled to place a greater value on him than that. (And what the Patriots say they are demanding isn't all that relevant. All parties ask for more than they expect to get as part of the negotiation process. What matters are any offers made to the Patriots that are actually and finally rejected.)I agree, I think Branch and his agent have a somewhat valid complaint but it wouldn't hold up in a ruling. I also don't believe the Pats are so far in the wrong where an abritrator would force them to take what the Jets or Seahawks offered. This isn't like the TO situation 3 years ago where the trade to the Ravens was worked out and consumated after his agent just missed a filing deadline. No deal actually got done, and unless the Pats specified what "fair compensation" was to Branch and his agent, I don't see how Branch can argue bad faith.
I think if that would have been their stance all along you would be right. But as soon as they gave him permission to negotiate and seek a trade they changed the rules.I think Branch is doomed in the grievance.The Patriots have every right to say, "No, we're not trading Branch at all. Period. He's not on the trading block. He's unavailable. Don't call us."They therefore have the right to take the more moderate position of, "We'll trade him for two firsts, but nothing less." (Not that this is the Patriots' actual stance.)Branch's argument will be that when the Patriots allowed him to negotiate a trade with other teams, they implicitly agreed to accept any reasonable trade offers. (The consideration for this agreement is Branch's effort in those negotiations.) But so far, the only offer reported was a second-rounder. I don't think it's unreasonable at all for the Patriots to refuse to trade Branch for a second-rounder. They are entitled to place a greater value on him than that.I agree, I think Branch and his agent have a somewhat valid complaint but it wouldn't hold up in a ruling. I also don't believe the Pats are so far in the wrong where an abritrator would force them to take what the Jets or Seahawks offered. This isn't like the TO situation 3 years ago where the trade to the Ravens was worked out and consumated after his agent just missed a filing deadline. No deal actually got done, and unless the Pats specified what "fair compensation" was to Branch and his agent, I don't see how Branch can argue bad faith.
BF, that's correct. And the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that a trade or signing must be imminent ie, within the next 24-72 hours. The longer this thing drags on, the options available to the Patriots will get considerably less attractive. I just don't see any scenario that would make it worthwhile for the Patriots to see Branch sit for 10 weeks.Unless they actually intended to trade him for a first, or intended to match a reasonable offer, you're right. It's just a little early to say whether either is true, since Seattle is supposedly still calling them to talk trade and may be willing to give up a first, and the offer he got isn't that much different from the 5 year offer they gave him.Shick's absolutely correct. This isn't about 'right' or 'wrong' on either side, it's about which side is going to get more or less what they 'want'.Did the Patriots low-ball Branch? I think the answer is a resounding 'yes'. And quite honestly, there's nothing strategically wrong with low-balling a player provided the market value for that player remains an unknown quantity. Where the Patriots really dropped the ball was enabling Branch to establish a market value now. The only logical reason the Patriots would permit Branch to seek out and define his market value now would be if they believed beyond a shadow of doubt that Branch's market value would fall somewhere very close to what they had offered. In my view, the decision to permit Branch to establish that market now came from a place of organizational arrogance and ego. It was a strategic error, and it's one that will cost them in some form or fashion.Shick! said:You're being pretty myopic here. Branch has every right to sit out and only show up for the final six games. That's the system that the owners agreed to.An argument can be made both ways, and each side has a valid point to make.franks&beans said:Branch is under contract and should be on the field. The issue that owners can cut anyone and get out of the contract is not the owner’s problem, the players are the ones that agreed to it. This happens far too often and the player wants it both ways. I have no issue with Branch sitting out if that is what he thinks he needs to do. I also have no issue with the Patriots not moving him and letting him sit.
Patriots | Branch hearing to be held next weekSat, 2 Sep 2006 09:59:21 -0700John Tomase, of the Boston Herald, reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch's grievance hearing is expected to be held Saturday, Sept. 9, in either New York or Foxboro, according to one of Branch's representatives, Jeffrey Kessler.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football...9p-377868c.htmlYou're making a lot of assumptions about contract offers that we know little about.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/printedition...ny-sports-printThe Jets showed immediate interest, sources said, telling Branch's representatives early in the week that they'd be willing to satisfy his financial demands. The Seahawks jumped in late, but they also agreed to a contract with Branch - a six-year, $39 million package that included $12.5 million in bonuses
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/283630_hawk02.htmlBranch agreed to terms with the Jets on a contract worth $39 million over six years. The deal includes $13 million in guaranteed money. The Jets reached agreement on the deal late Monday after acting quickly once the Patriots gave Branch permission to seek a contract elsewhere.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=25688...lines&ft=ssRegarding Branch, the Seahawks and New York Jets reached agreement with his agent, Jason Chayut, on six-year contracts worth roughly $39 million, including $13 million in signing and option bonuses.
Hope that helps.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.
Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?bostonfred said:I'll offer the same bet I made yesterday. I'll bet up to $100 that Branch doesn't hold out until week 10. First come, first serve - you guys who think this is so likely to happen better take me up on it. This offer will expire at 2pm today.
It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
Good point. Are you interested in the bet then? I'll give you a one time extension of five extra minutes to decide.It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
I don't understand your logic. First of all, if I am a competing GM I would offer Branch close to what he is asking for whether I wanted him or not. This would cause this whole situation to backfire on New England. If I was a GM that didn't really want Branch (after offering him big money) I would simply say that New Englands price to move him is to high. But atleast Branch would know what he is worth and he would probably press New England to pay up.Secondly, I don't think New England wants to franchise him. I think he would make the average of the top 5 WR's in the league ( has to be in the neighborhood of 7M per), and as somebody previously said, New England does not want to pay big money at the WR position.New England is hoping Branch comes back empty handed, but unless all the other GM's are sleeping at the wheel, I don't think this would happen.This move is an attempt to put the pressure on Branch's agent. They are putting him in a position to a) prove there are other teams who will pony up big cash and b) be willing to make a deal. If he comes back emptyhanded he puts Branch's back to the wall. The reason being is the Pats can still franchise Branch and he'll be in the exact same position next offseason and if he sits out 10 games his value is not going to increase anymore than it is now. Does he really want to go down this path two years in a row? The Pats are not going to blink. Branch is not Brady or Seymour and if they do something foolish for short term gain it will backfire on them long term when guys like Wilfork and Warren are in the same position. If Branch's agent can find a team willing to step up than a deal is possible. If not, don't be surprised to see Branch with a new agent. This situation is not pretty and it's really not benefitting either party but the bottomline is Branch still has a year left on his current deal and a franchise tag hanging over his head for next season and due to that he doesn't have a ton of leverage.
This would be a good hedge since I've drafted him in a few leagues. What odds would you lay? (Not that I want to bet, but I'm interested in your assessment of the likelihood of a prolonged holdout.)Good point. Are you interested in the bet then? I'll give you a one time extension of five extra minutes to decide.It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
You are a Patriots fan, correct?JGood point. Are you interested in the bet then? I'll give you a one time extension of five extra minutes to decide.It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
Hard to say. I figure I should be getting odds, since Dodds immediately updated his projections to show six games played, and we've seen several (since-merged) thread titles claiming he's sitting out until week 10. I'd guess the odds of him sitting out for ten weeks are closer to one in five, tops. If I were a frequent prop bet gambler, I'd be willing to accept those kind of odds. But I'm not, so I'll offer you 5:3 on your bet. You put up 60, I'll put up 100. I am only extending this offer to you, Maurile, and only for another 9 minutes (2:20 Eastern). Interested?This would be a good hedge since I've drafted him in a few leagues. What odds would you lay? (Not that I want to bet, but I'm interested in your assessment of the likelihood of a prolonged holdout.)Good point. Are you interested in the bet then? I'll give you a one time extension of five extra minutes to decide.It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
Yes. If you think that's tainting my logic here, then I'd like to extend the same offer to you that I just did to Maurile. $100 to your $60 says that Branch does not hold out until week 10. You have seven minutes to decide (2:20 Eastern).You are a Patriots fan, correct?JGood point. Are you interested in the bet then? I'll give you a one time extension of five extra minutes to decide.It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
Of course. Who doesn't think this?The question is if he doesn't get traded and he doesn't get the Patriots to give him a contract equivalent to the offers he received.JFrom a pure dollars and cents perspective - and I understand that emotions are running high right now - the most likely scenario is that he's going to try to get traded, and if it doesn't work out, he's going to try to get the Patriots to give him a contract that's equivalent to the offers he received.
Those links were swell. The assumption I am mainly referring to is that the Pats and Jets offers were close, based on total numbers and years. You make mention of the fact that it seems like the Jets offer was front-loaded, and the pats offer was "more evenly distributed". My guess is that if the Pats offer was as close as you think it is, Branch would be talking to them about a contract, instead of filing papers with the NFL.Hope that helps.
I'm not going to bet on this with you because I don't feel like I have an informational advantage over you, but thanks for the answer. So a 20% chance that he sits out ten weeks -- how likely do you think it is that he'll sit out at least two weeks?Hard to say. I figure I should be getting odds, since Dodds immediately updated his projections to show six games played, and we've seen several (since-merged) thread titles claiming he's sitting out until week 10. I'd guess the odds of him sitting out for ten weeks are closer to one in five, tops. If I were a frequent prop bet gambler, I'd be willing to accept those kind of odds. But I'm not, so I'll offer you 5:3 on your bet. You put up 60, I'll put up 100. I am only extending this offer to you, Maurile, and only for another 9 minutes (2:20 Eastern). Interested?
Just wondering if we have any reference base for a player sitting out 10 weeks, and then returning the following season to give that same team good service? It's amazing how vibes change once the season begins and a key player isn't there to do battle week in and week out. In this circumstance, the longer this thing goes on, the more this gets magnified, not minimized. Furthermore, the franchise tag is only useful provided you believe the player will play for the short-term compensation. No sense tagging a player who has already proven his resolve, and drawn a line in the sand which clearly stated that he does not want to play under the franchise tag. If Branch sits 10 weeks this year, how can you be convinced he won't go golfing next year too? The only difference for Branch is that he lowers his golf handicap considerably and does it a much higher compensation rate next year. And while back-to-back holdouts will never transpire, if it did, he'd still be under-30, he'd still have his Super Bowl rings and MVP, and there will always be teams with a 'need'. Make no mistake about it, the Patriots must do something with Branch, and I highly doubt we'll ever see Branch franchise tagged in New England.I have seen a bunch of people say that the Pats have lowballed Branch. The Patriots dont HAVE to offer Branch a thing. He is under contract for this year for $1 million. The Patriots could do NOTHING and Branch is obligated to play for them this year. They could then Franchise him next year and actually Franchise him again the year after. If the Franchise tag is $7 million next year and $8 million the year after, that is 3 years of Branch for $16 million with NONE of it tied up in a guaranteed signing bonus.I think if Branch sits out ten weeks and comes back that Belichek will ABSOLUTELY play him. Branch is well-liked by his teammates. They understand it is business. There would be no resentment for him coming back. If he was in football shape he would help the Patriots win. Thats all Belichek cares about. They would be getting a very good receiver for the stretch run at about $300,000. A pretty good bargain.For those that say the Patriots wouldnt Franchise Branch I think you are nuts.The Pats schedule is very weak this year. I could see them going 7-3 or 8-2 in the first 10 games and then adding Branch to their team. Branch holding out could conceivably cost them HFA. That is the gamble.
Not tainting your logic. Trying to confirm some thoughts of my own. Thanks. And for the bet, I don't know what he'll do. If I were Branch, I'd try to get a better deal and then play for the contract I signed as the fall back position.It's all about how stubborn and entrenched in his position he is. All I go on is what I hear and read. He sounds like a guy that is willing to take a stand to prove his point. But who knows.At this point I know enough to think I'd knock him way down my list if I were drafting right now. Just too much uncertaintity. And the loss of not having him on my team isn't really any significant loss. JYes. If you think that's tainting my logic here, then I'd like to extend the same offer to you that I just did to Maurile. $100 to your $60 says that Branch does not hold out until week 10. You have seven minutes to decide (2:20 Eastern).You are a Patriots fan, correct?JGood point. Are you interested in the bet then? I'll give you a one time extension of five extra minutes to decide.It would be very stupid for him to hold out for ten weeks. The problem is that NFL WRs do very stupid things all the time. So the chance may well be greater than 50-50.Clock is ticking. Does anyone believe it's even 50/50 that Branch holds out for ten weeks? I'm not going to have to offer odds here, am I?
Significantly more likely, with the filing of these two grievances. They won't have an answer until after week one, and it's reasonable to think that both camps will wait until the grievances have been heard and resolved before they come back to the table. I would say the odds of him missing at least one week here are greater than 50/50. The only ways that doesn't happen are if the two sides come to an agreement before hearing the grievance, or if the Patriots complete a trade sooner rather than later. The odds of him missing two weeks are probably a little under 50/50.I'm not going to bet on this with you because I don't feel like I have an informational advantage over you, but thanks for the answer. So a 20% chance that he sits out ten weeks -- how likely do you think it is that he'll sit out at least two weeks?Hard to say. I figure I should be getting odds, since Dodds immediately updated his projections to show six games played, and we've seen several (since-merged) thread titles claiming he's sitting out until week 10. I'd guess the odds of him sitting out for ten weeks are closer to one in five, tops. If I were a frequent prop bet gambler, I'd be willing to accept those kind of odds. But I'm not, so I'll offer you 5:3 on your bet. You put up 60, I'll put up 100. I am only extending this offer to you, Maurile, and only for another 9 minutes (2:20 Eastern). Interested?
I thought you said the Jets were offering a 13 million dollar bonus?The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded.
And do you really think 32 million to 39 million is "not that far apart"?How many millions apart would they need to be for you to call it "far apart'?JRegarding Branch, the Seahawks and New York Jets reached agreement with his agent, Jason Chayut, on six-year contracts worth roughly $39 million, including $13 million in signing and option bonuses.
Hopefully this post will clear it up, as we seem to be getting lost in the numbers and arguing 2 different things. If I read you right, you are stating that their is no monetary incentive to holding out since the $ he will ultimately get is close to what he would get if he took his extension.I think there is a big incentive to hold out. He's established his true market value is quite a bit above what the Pats offered him and I believe that would piss him off. I think this further strengthens his resolve to do what ever it takes to either force a trade as soon as possible or get the Pats to up their offer (which seems unlikely at this point.) In order to force a trade, that would require him to start holding out.If I'm Branch, worst case, I sit out the whole year and sign my new contract. I likely lose nothing as you've already explained that scenario doesn't have a lot of monetary difference from taking my lowball offer from the Pats. Best case, I force a trade and get a much larger total contract as well as more money on the front end.(Although we all know the true worst case is I blow out my knee in wk 17 and end my career but that's a risk I would have to take.)I don't understand why you continue to use made up numbers to make this point. The Jets never offered him three years at 23 million, so the only way Branch was going to get that kind of money for three years is if he sat out in year four in an attempt to get more for year four on. The Jets offered him a six year deal for 39 million with 13 million guaranteed. The Patriots offered him a 5 year deal at 31 million with 11 million guaranteed. That's not "quite a bit more", it's an extra year and an extra 400,000 per year. The Patriots never offered him 19 million over four years. The Patriots offered him 18 million over three years. If Branch sits out, he cannot get 23 million over three seasons starting in 2006. He cannot get 39 million over six seasons starting in 2006. This year is sunk for him - the most he can get, barring a trade, is 1 million, and he will make less if he holds out. If you want to compare apples with apples, and you wan to use the Jets' offer as a starting point, then the offer he got from the Jets would get him 40 million dollars in the next seven years. The most recent offer he got from the Patriots would give him 32 million over the next six years. Again, those two contracts aren't that far apart. The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded.
This is also a possibility, although I'd be surprised at this point if he came back to play out his contract without any kind of extension or assurances about the franchise tag. I think they have to get a deal done, I just think both sides have a vested interest in getting that deal done earlier rather than later.Not tainting your logic. Trying to confirm some thoughts of my own. Thanks. And for the bet, I don't know what he'll do. If I were Branch, I'd try to get a better deal and then play for the contract I signed as the fall back position.
I haven't really heard a lot of quotes from Branch about this, so I can't say if he sounds like a guy that's willing to take a stance to prove his point. I've heard a lot of people in the media speculate about it. I know his agent filed a grievance to maximize his client's chances of getting the best possible deal (a trade that gets him 6 years 39 million effective immediately). But virtually everything we're hearing and reading about how contentious this is becoming has been speculationg from the media. In fact, we've also heard that Branch has considered firing his agent, so I'm not really convinced he's that resolute in this.It's all about how stubborn and entrenched in his position he is. All I go on is what I hear and read. He sounds like a guy that is willing to take a stand to prove his point. But who knows.
I can definitely agree with this. And on a fantasy football website, that's what it comes down to. He may have been a little overrated from a fantasy perspective coming into this season anyways, so it's probably good to knock him down. Two things I'd add, though - first, if he does come back to the Patriots early enough, it won't be like he's returning from injury. He'll probably contribute right away. I'm not so sure if he would contribute for another team right away, though, which is a good reason to knock him down your list. But second, if he does get signed, his trade value will suddenly spike. I think he's a good guy to draft late with the intention of trading him later, especially if you have a Pats homer in your league.At this point I know enough to think I'd knock him way down my list if I were drafting right now. Just too much uncertaintity. And the loss of not having him on my team isn't really any significant loss. J
I think the Patriots feel that setting the precedant of letting a player dictate terms to them is much more dammaging long term than actually losing the player.The Patriots always seem to be planning ahead with their draft picks and already have at least an extra 3rd round and multiple later draft picks for next year. I dont think the 2nd rounder next year that the Pats would get for Branch is as important to them as other teams.Until they can restock their receiver core with more picks like Chad Jackson (please get on the field soon), I think they will take Branch for 6 games plus the playoffs this year and if Branch still doesnt want to sign they would take him at the Franchise price. Their cap situation is very good and they can afford to Franchise Branch and overpay him for 1 year as long as they are not committing HUGE long term dollars to him.Would he hold out AGAIN next year? If he does, I can see them taking another 6 games plus the playoffs.They are not going to trade him for a 2nd rounder that isnt that important to them just to get rid of him.Just wondering if we have any reference base for a player sitting out 10 weeks, and then returning the following season to give that same team good service? It's amazing how vibes change once the season begins and a key player isn't there to do battle week in and week out. In this circumstance, the longer this thing goes on, the more this gets magnified, not minimized. Furthermore, the franchise tag is only useful provided you believe the player will play for the short-term compensation. No sense tagging a player who has already proven his resolve, and drawn a line in the sand which clearly stated that he does not want to play under the franchise tag. If Branch sits 10 weeks this year, how can you be convinced he won't go golfing next year too? The only difference for Branch is that he lowers his golf handicap considerably and does it a much higher compensation rate next year. And while back-to-back holdouts will never transpire, if it did, he'd still be under-30, he'd still have his Super Bowl rings and MVP, and there will always be teams with a 'need'. Make no mistake about it, the Patriots must do something with Branch, and I highly doubt we'll ever see Branch franchise tagged in New England.I have seen a bunch of people say that the Pats have lowballed Branch. The Patriots dont HAVE to offer Branch a thing. He is under contract for this year for $1 million. The Patriots could do NOTHING and Branch is obligated to play for them this year. They could then Franchise him next year and actually Franchise him again the year after. If the Franchise tag is $7 million next year and $8 million the year after, that is 3 years of Branch for $16 million with NONE of it tied up in a guaranteed signing bonus.I think if Branch sits out ten weeks and comes back that Belichek will ABSOLUTELY play him. Branch is well-liked by his teammates. They understand it is business. There would be no resentment for him coming back. If he was in football shape he would help the Patriots win. Thats all Belichek cares about. They would be getting a very good receiver for the stretch run at about $300,000. A pretty good bargain.For those that say the Patriots wouldnt Franchise Branch I think you are nuts.The Pats schedule is very weak this year. I could see them going 7-3 or 8-2 in the first 10 games and then adding Branch to their team. Branch holding out could conceivably cost them HFA. That is the gamble.
Branch playing out his contract this year and walking is the MOST unlikely scenario there is. If the Patriots had ANY intention of letting this happen, Branch would be with the team now and the Pats would have agreed to not Franchise him. By refusing to give up the Franchise tag, the Patriots essentially control Branch for 3 years and control the compensation that they would be due if they decided to trade him.I've had a gut feeling all along that somehow, this would get worked out, and Branch would end up either signing an extension or playing out the final year of his contract, and then walking.But after filing the two grievances, and with Seattle apparently still very interested, I'm starting to think he will ultimately end up a Seahawk.
The Jets are offering 13 million in guaranteed money. And 39 million is a heck of a lot more than 32 million. Both of those things can happen for Branch in one scenario - he gets traded this year. That's why Branch is filing grievances and why he's pissed that he's not getting traded. It's going to cost him millions of dollars that he could have had immediately if the Pats had just been willing to take a second rounder (or if the Jets had been willing to offer more than the Redskins' second rounder). Barring a trade, though, the best deal that Branch could reasonably expect from the Jets right now is to hold out, not get hurt, not get franchised, and for the Jets to still be willing to offer the same deal. In which case, he'll get <1 million this year, and he'll get 39 million over six starting next year. Which effectively makes this a seven year, forty million dollar deal. The Patriots have already offered 31 million over 5, starting in 2007. Six for 39 is not much more than 5 for 31 - it's about 400,000 more per year. That's what I mean by "not that far apart". One thing the Patriots' deal offers that the Jets' deal cannot (barring a trade) is singning bonus money in 2006. Hence the first part you quoted. I actually listed some of the other important differences, and why, in the absence of a trade, Branch would be wisest to sign back with the Patriots from a pure business perspective, assuming all offers are relatively static. Pros of holding out and putting all his eggs in the get-traded basket:- hard feelings if he comes back to the Patriots- the additional money he'd make if he got a tradePros of signing with the Patriots:- the security of having signing bonus money immediately - the ability to stay with Tom Brady and a potential championship team- the ability to be WR1 on his team in a system he knows- the risk of getting injured during his holdout year and missing out on a big contract- the ability to get his signing bonus money now instead of next yearI thought you said the Jets were offering a 13 million dollar bonus?The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded.And do you really think 32 million to 39 million is "not that far apart"?How many millions apart would they need to be for you to call it "far apart'?JRegarding Branch, the Seahawks and New York Jets reached agreement with his agent, Jason Chayut, on six-year contracts worth roughly $39 million, including $13 million in signing and option bonuses.
I know. I was thinking maybe the Pats would back down and agree not to tag him in order to get him to come back. Wishful homer thinking, I guess; the Pats have never really backed down when it comes to contractual disputes.Honestly? It would be very, very nice to have Branch around. He's obviously our best receiver, and by a good margin. But, I have to say, with Tom Brady still around, I'm just not that worried about the passing game, with or without Branch. Call me a homer all you want, but it's Brady who makes this offense tick, not Branch.Branch playing out his contract this year and walking is the MOST unlikely scenario there is. If the Patriots had ANY intention of letting this happen, Branch would be with the team now and the Pats would have agreed to not Franchise him. By refusing to give up the Franchise tag, the Patriots essentially control Branch for 3 years and control the compensation that they would be due if they decided to trade him.I've had a gut feeling all along that somehow, this would get worked out, and Branch would end up either signing an extension or playing out the final year of his contract, and then walking.But after filing the two grievances, and with Seattle apparently still very interested, I'm starting to think he will ultimately end up a Seahawk.
I believe the Jets and Seahawk offers are 6 years and 39 million. The Pats offer quoted was 5 years and 32 million. Since the 6th year is most likely a dummy year, per year they are not off that much. And in guaranteed money the difference is 13 million to 11 million. Based on the above numbers, they are not that far off.I thought you said the Jets were offering a 13 million dollar bonus?The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded.And do you really think 32 million to 39 million is "not that far apart"?How many millions apart would they need to be for you to call it "far apart'?Regarding Branch, the Seahawks and New York Jets reached agreement with his agent, Jason Chayut, on six-year contracts worth roughly $39 million, including $13 million in signing and option bonuses.
J
Someone said the Jets/Seahawks offer was more front-loaded, and the Pats was more evenly distributed. If that's the case, it's not a given that the 6th year of the Jets/Seahawks offer is a dummy year.I believe the Jets and Seahawk offers are 6 years and 39 million. The Pats offer quoted was 5 years and 32 million. Since the 6th year is most likely a dummy year, per year they are not off that much. And in guaranteed money the difference is 13 million to 11 million. Based on the above numbers, they are not that far off.
I'm frankly ok with Branch coming back week 11 if that is what it takes. The Playoffs are what matter and I am quite donfident that 1. The Pats make the playoffs with or without Branch2. Branch would be back in form by playoff time.I know. I was thinking maybe the Pats would back down and agree not to tag him in order to get him to come back. Wishful homer thinking, I guess; the Pats have never really backed down when it comes to contractual disputes.Honestly? It would be very, very nice to have Branch around. He's obviously our best receiver, and by a good margin. But, I have to say, with Tom Brady still around, I'm just not that worried about the passing game, with or without Branch. Call me a homer all you want, but it's Brady who makes this offense tick, not Branch.Branch playing out his contract this year and walking is the MOST unlikely scenario there is. If the Patriots had ANY intention of letting this happen, Branch would be with the team now and the Pats would have agreed to not Franchise him. By refusing to give up the Franchise tag, the Patriots essentially control Branch for 3 years and control the compensation that they would be due if they decided to trade him.I've had a gut feeling all along that somehow, this would get worked out, and Branch would end up either signing an extension or playing out the final year of his contract, and then walking.But after filing the two grievances, and with Seattle apparently still very interested, I'm starting to think he will ultimately end up a Seahawk.
I can see all that. Is it your understanding the Patriot offers are still on the table?JThe Jets are offering 13 million in guaranteed money. And 39 million is a heck of a lot more than 32 million. Both of those things can happen for Branch in one scenario - he gets traded this year. That's why Branch is filing grievances and why he's pissed that he's not getting traded. It's going to cost him millions of dollars that he could have had immediately if the Pats had just been willing to take a second rounder (or if the Jets had been willing to offer more than the Redskins' second rounder). Barring a trade, though, the best deal that Branch could reasonably expect from the Jets right now is to hold out, not get hurt, not get franchised, and for the Jets to still be willing to offer the same deal. In which case, he'll get <1 million this year, and he'll get 39 million over six starting next year. Which effectively makes this a seven year, forty million dollar deal. The Patriots have already offered 31 million over 5, starting in 2007. Six for 39 is not much more than 5 for 31 - it's about 400,000 more per year. That's what I mean by "not that far apart". One thing the Patriots' deal offers that the Jets' deal cannot (barring a trade) is singning bonus money in 2006. Hence the first part you quoted. I actually listed some of the other important differences, and why, in the absence of a trade, Branch would be wisest to sign back with the Patriots from a pure business perspective, assuming all offers are relatively static. Pros of holding out and putting all his eggs in the get-traded basket:- hard feelings if he comes back to the Patriots- the additional money he'd make if he got a tradePros of signing with the Patriots:- the security of having signing bonus money immediately - the ability to stay with Tom Brady and a potential championship team- the ability to be WR1 on his team in a system he knows- the risk of getting injured during his holdout year and missing out on a big contract- the ability to get his signing bonus money now instead of next yearI thought you said the Jets were offering a 13 million dollar bonus?The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded.And do you really think 32 million to 39 million is "not that far apart"?How many millions apart would they need to be for you to call it "far apart'?JRegarding Branch, the Seahawks and New York Jets reached agreement with his agent, Jason Chayut, on six-year contracts worth roughly $39 million, including $13 million in signing and option bonuses.
And much more likely that the 5th year in the Pats deal is.Someone said the Jets/Seahawks offer was more front-loaded, and the Pats was more evenly distributed. If that's the case, it's not a given that the 6th year of the Jets/Seahawks offer is a dummy year.I believe the Jets and Seahawk offers are 6 years and 39 million. The Pats offer quoted was 5 years and 32 million. Since the 6th year is most likely a dummy year, per year they are not off that much. And in guaranteed money the difference is 13 million to 11 million. Based on the above numbers, they are not that far off.
No disrespect to Brady, but let's see how well he ticks when 1st-string NFL defenses have a full week to gameplan for Ben Watson.I know. I was thinking maybe the Pats would back down and agree not to tag him in order to get him to come back. Wishful homer thinking, I guess; the Pats have never really backed down when it comes to contractual disputes.Honestly? It would be very, very nice to have Branch around. He's obviously our best receiver, and by a good margin. But, I have to say, with Tom Brady still around, I'm just not that worried about the passing game, with or without Branch. Call me a homer all you want, but it's Brady who makes this offense tick, not Branch.Branch playing out his contract this year and walking is the MOST unlikely scenario there is. If the Patriots had ANY intention of letting this happen, Branch would be with the team now and the Pats would have agreed to not Franchise him. By refusing to give up the Franchise tag, the Patriots essentially control Branch for 3 years and control the compensation that they would be due if they decided to trade him.I've had a gut feeling all along that somehow, this would get worked out, and Branch would end up either signing an extension or playing out the final year of his contract, and then walking.
But after filing the two grievances, and with Seattle apparently still very interested, I'm starting to think he will ultimately end up a Seahawk.
I don't think anyone outside of the Patriots' organization can say what is and is not on the table. I understand that Kraft spoke optimistically about Branch coming back on Wednesday, and that the Jets made their contract and trade offers on Monday, so it seems likely that they're still talking. I also understand that one of the contentious points of the relationship was that Chayut and Branch did not make a counteroffer to their original offers (or at least, the three year, 18 million dollar deal we've heard so much about that would end just as Branch turned 29 and would be able to get his big contract). Based on recent events, I think we've seen the market set, it wasn't that different from what the Patriots are offering unless a trade occurs. So I believe it's most likely that Chayut will make every last effort to get that trade - efforts which I believe will fail, and Maurile appears to agree. Once that's done, I believe that they'll come back to the table looking for 6 years, 39 million, and negotiations will commence. And based on Kraft's recent optimism, I think they will be fairly quick.I can see all that. Is it your understanding the Patriot offers are still on the table?J
The Pats offer is a 5 yr extension @ 31MM + the current year @1MM so really 6 yrs, 32MM. As bostonfred has pointed out, they get a little closer if Branch is forced to hold out this year and signs the exact same contract in '07.We are all making a lot of assumptions (myself included) when we don't know how these offered contracts/extensions are structured. My intuition tells me that the 23MM in the 1st 3 yrs quoted by the press for the offered 6yr contract by the Jets/Seahawks is significantly better than what Branch would make in his 1st 3yrs from the Pats (as well as the total $ amount being a lot more), hence him filing the grievance so quickly. If money was the only object, it's in his interest to force a trade. (Bostonfed has already pointed out some non-monetary influences he has to weigh against making more money.)I believe the Jets and Seahawk offers are 6 years and 39 million. The Pats offer quoted was 5 years and 32 million. Since the 6th year is most likely a dummy year, per year they are not off that much. And in guaranteed money the difference is 13 million to 11 million. Based on the above numbers, they are not that far off.I thought you said the Jets were offering a 13 million dollar bonus?The only other difference between the contracts is that the Jets' offer appeared to be more front loaded, while the Patriots' offer appears to have been more evenly distributed. However, the Patriots' offer has the benefit of including a signing bonus that Deion could receive in 2006, and he does not have to sit out to get that offer. The Jets' offer does not get him any money in 2006, unless he gets traded.And do you really think 32 million to 39 million is "not that far apart"?How many millions apart would they need to be for you to call it "far apart'?Regarding Branch, the Seahawks and New York Jets reached agreement with his agent, Jason Chayut, on six-year contracts worth roughly $39 million, including $13 million in signing and option bonuses.
J
Where this really limits the Patriots is in using their 5 wideout sets that Charlie Weiss liked so much. With Weiss gone last year they used this set less than previous years and with Branch gone will use it even less.I think the Pats still have good underneath guys in Troy Brown and Bam Childress (completely unproven but looks like a young Troy Brown). They have a very good receiving back in Kevin Faulk. I would expect them to use more screens with Maroney and Patrick Pass. And they have excellent TE's in Watson, Graham, Thomas and Mills.What they are missing are the deep guys to keep the underneath from getting too clogged. Over the last couple of years they had Bethel Johnson, Tim Dwight and Andre Davis to stretch the field. None of them great receivers but they played their roles well.Throwing the deep ball was not a strength of Brady early in his career but he really improved last year to the point that he throws one of the best deep balls in the league now. Who is going to be on the other end of those deep passes?Another question for you Patroit gurus: Let's hypothetically assume Branch is traded or holds out for the first 10 games.What's the offense look like then? Who gets the balls and how effective are they?J
I think it'll depend week to week, but I expect a big emphasis on the running game with Maroney and Dillon, and then more of what we've seen in the preseason - lots of short passes to Kevin Faulk, Troy Brown, and of course Ben Watson. Teams will put eight or nine in the box and dare Brady to beat them deep, because Brown can't get deep against man coverage. Watson, Caldwell and maybe Jackson or Childress will be their best bets to beat teams deep, which is a little scary for the Patriots. I like Brown as a possible deep sleeper in PPR redrafts. I like Childress as a guy to watch in dynasty leagues; if he contributes this year he may be a part of the offense in the long term. I don't know what, if anything, to expect from Jackson this year. I don't think you can bump Dillon up much, unless you can back him up; I think Maroney and Watson are the guys you want most in this offense right now. Maroney will get a lot of work for a backup and may challenge for the job early in the season.Another question for you Patroit gurus: Let's hypothetically assume Branch is traded or holds out for the first 10 games.What's the offense look like then? Who gets the balls and how effective are they?J
Why does it feel like there's a pretty important (5) missing here?(1) I really can't see the Pats dealing with a team in their own division (like the Sox sending Wells to the Yanks for a AA catcher). Advantage Seattle.
(2) Equal number picks (e.g., a first rounder and a thrid rounder) - the Jets picks are more valuable since they will likely end with a worse record than Seattle. Advantage Jets.
(3) Pats can stick it to Branch (to some extent) and NOT play him at all this year (assuming he sits until week 11). Then his value drops and teams have to take a bit of a chance on him in his FA year. No Advantage to anyone.
(4) Branch can sit till week 11 to get his FA credit. The Pats can then play him and get something out of him in 2006, knowing they will never be able to sign him as a FA. Small advantage Branch
The ONLY way I see NE coming out on top is a trade ASAP for something reasonable.
Brady will spread it around, like he always does. The offense will be based on the Dillon/Maroney combination at RB, and a reliance on Tom Brady's arm to stretch the field and keep defenses honest against the run.With or without Branch, this is going to be perhaps the most TE-reliant offense in the NFL. Watson, Graham, and David Thomas will be seeing the field a lot. Garrett Mills will also factor into the TE rotation. It's a 2 TE base offense, but I think you'll see plenty of 3 TE sets, and yes, even some 4 TE sets on occasion.At WR, it's looking like Brown and Caldwell will begin the season as the starters. I don't see Chad Jackson getting a ton of playing time early on, because he just hasn't been healthy enough to get many reps with the offense. If he can get back on the field, the quicker he can pick up the offense, the quicker he'll start getting more playing time over Brown and/or Caldwell. Jackson may even make a decent mid-season waiver wire pickup in re-draft leagues as a #3 fantasy WR.I still expect the Pats to pick up a veteran WR after cuts are made today.Bottom line - whether or not Deion Branch is on the field really will not affect the offensive philosophy of this team nearly as much as many people may think.Another question for you Patroit gurus: Let's hypothetically assume Branch is traded or holds out for the first 10 games.What's the offense look like then? Who gets the balls and how effective are they?J