If they really did value him at numbers like the Jets and Seahawks were offering then you'll have to admit that it was a pretty crappy negotiation strategy, given where it has gotten the Pats to.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Branch to Jets if grievance won next week (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gbill2004
- Start date
bostonfred
Footballguy
If you're going to use the funny math argument tha this agent is using, then at least be honest about what Branch CAN get. Branch CANNOT get a deal of 6 years, 39 million dollars starting in 2006 unless he gets cut or traded. I think we can agree he's not getting cut. And it doesn't look good for him to get traded. So you can talk all you want about how he COULD have gotten a great deal if he'd been traded, but the reality is it's virtually impossible for him to get traded now.
And that's exactly why he's fighting tooth and nail to get traded. If he somehow wins this grievance, he makes 39 million over the next six years. If he doesn't, his best case is more like 32 million over the next six years. That's a big swing, and worth fighting for.
Now let's focus on what happens if he doesn't get traded. And let's be honest - he's probably not getting traded.
I hear you saying he won't "fold up tent and cave in" for less than he got from NYJ and SEA. But those deals are off the table if a trade doesn't get done. He has two chances to make money, barring a trade. Here's how they stack up:
Hold out and wait for free agency next year
- Lose out on 1 million this year, which is a lot of money considering he's been underpaid until now.
- Risk injury by playing six weeks without a contract, and without being in football shape
- Risk not getting as much in free agency as he was offered this year
- Unlikely to get much more than he was offered this year
- Saves face by not having his bluff called
- Alienates his teammates on the only team he's ever played for
Sign with New England
- up front signing bonus money in 2006 - no other team is able to offer that
- security of having a contract this year with lots of guaranteed money
- gets his million for this year (New England would certainly have to drop the fines)
- ges six million a year and a great signing bonus (New England's rumored to be offering roughly 4 years, 24 million right now with 12 million signing bonus)
- gets to play this year
- gets back with a top QB and his other teammates
You can inject all the emotion into this you want, but from a business standpoint, I see no reason for an extended holdout. There's so little upside to holding out, and so much downside.
Obviously, Branch and co. would like to get traded. They'd also like to be able to use the 6 years, 39 million with 13 signing bonus as a negotiating point. But when push comes to shove, he'd be flat out stupid not to deal with New England. He may hold out briefly to get the best deal possible, and there may be a lot of tough talk from his agent, but I'd be shocked to see him hold out to week 10.
But once again, David, if you're interested, I'll offer you an even better bet than I offered earlier. I'll lay you $100 to your $50 (or give you 2:1 on your money for anything up to 100:50) that he doesn't hold out until week ten. I'm that confident here. Let me know if you're interested.
Edit to add that this offer expires September 6th at 2:00 AM EST.
Last edited by a moderator:
JetsJetsJets
Footballguy
Comments on the radio in NY today - can't remember if it was ESPN Radio or WFAN....
NE said find a trade and see if you are worth what you think. We don't think you are.
Branch finds two teams that will pay him what he feels he is worth.
NE says ooopps we never thought you would get that, so.... now we want compensation back that will be too highly valued to have either of those two teams pull the trigger.
Branch cries foul.
Comment was - if NE really let him look for a trade and wasn't trying to teahc him a lesson, NE should let an arbitrator decide what fair value is.
NE said find a trade and see if you are worth what you think. We don't think you are.
Branch finds two teams that will pay him what he feels he is worth.
NE says ooopps we never thought you would get that, so.... now we want compensation back that will be too highly valued to have either of those two teams pull the trigger.
Branch cries foul.
Comment was - if NE really let him look for a trade and wasn't trying to teahc him a lesson, NE should let an arbitrator decide what fair value is.
New York sports talk radio just kills me sometimes.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I completely agree, but the argument you'll get from the folks who think he's going to hold out is that the Patriots would never dare to waste the franchise tag on a player who, in their opinion, would likely hold out again. I just can't see a player acting so far against his own best interest that he'd hold out twice. The only way I can see a guy doing that is if he had a power agent behind him and was getting caught up in a battle between that agent and NFL teams where the agent was trying to establish long term credibility for his other clients when they hold out. And Branch is his agent's only star client, so that's not very likely.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I see that you put all the positives for signing with NE, but you missed out on the negatives. Do you not see any negatives?
Wreckincrew
Footballguy
If he sits 'till week 10, plays 6 games, is transitioned in 2007, signs the tender right before week 1, can he sit out until week 10 again?
bostonfred
Footballguy
From a business standpoint, not really. The only negative I can see is that he loses face by coming back after talking tough. I don't think he misses out on any money, assuming the rumors are true that the Pats are currently offering 4 years 24 million with 12 million guaranteed. That's more guaranteed money, and more money in the first few years of the deal, and more money in 2006, and more money by 2010, than even the best deal he's been offered. Go ahead and share though, if you think there are some negatives.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Yes. However, this would be career suicide for a guy who's highly sought after as a free agent partly for the winning attitude he'd bring to his team, and he'd be taking a huge risk by playing not one but two short years for $8 million, and risking injury in two holdout-shortened years, instead of taking $12 million in signing bonus effective immediately. But yes, he'd be allowed to make such a terrible business decision.
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
From a fantasy football standpoint, Deion Branch is pretty useless this year.
SO WHAT if he ends up in New York. That offense sucks. He'll get double teamed and put up worse numbers than last year.
If he remains in New England, he'll be bitter - if he shows up at all prior to Week 10. ...and I'm sure after showing up, he'll come up with the dreaded hammy pull.
I'm steering clear....
SO WHAT if he ends up in New York. That offense sucks. He'll get double teamed and put up worse numbers than last year.
If he remains in New England, he'll be bitter - if he shows up at all prior to Week 10. ...and I'm sure after showing up, he'll come up with the dreaded hammy pull.
I'm steering clear....
bostonfred
Footballguy
Nothing? You made it sounds like you saw some negatives here. Can anyone explain why, if he can't force a trade, he wouldn't make a serious attempt to negotiate with New England to end his holdout and play this year?
I think there are a couple of points missing to your great analysis that you don't address.First, there is the possiblity that the arbitrator will impose a solution on the two parties, but that this solution does not require the Patriots to trade Branch, but instead, sets his contract and/or prevent the Pats from using the franchise tag on him next year. The Patriots might then prefer to trade Branch. If the Pats let it go to arbitration they take the risk that even though they win, the arbitrator imposes a set of choices on them that they really don't like. I have to believe that there is no possibility of a continued stalemate between Branch and the Patriots even after the ruling.
Still, a deal could be struck prior to the arbitration, but I wonder if Branch has any wish to play for the Pats anymore. We have no idea which words were said or what the situation is between Branch and the team. The longer these things stretch out, the more acrimonious they become, and the lower the chances that a player returns to his team.
And that's the last thing that you didn't mention in your possible outcomes for Branch. He could get traded a few weeks into this season. Imo, that's a more likely outcome than him holding out for 10 weeks. In that case, his fine might be waived, but even if they weren't I suspect he'd be able to sign a substantially similar contract in week 3 as the week before the opener - prorated for games not played. I'm not even sure at what date his contract becomes much less than a prorated version of the 6-year $39 million deal. I guess we have to do the math to see how those totals compare with what he could get from the Pats, Just eyeballing it though, I think getting traded a few weeks in works out pretty well for Branch.
Four years $24 million with $12 million guaranteed... versus the Jets and $23 million with $13 guaranteed guaranteed over the next three years. Even if the Pats contract isn't backloaded at all, and is level, it's only $18 million over three years, as compared to $23 million. If you add the later years in, that gap grows by two more millions. It all seems to come down to the Patriots holding the line on the 5-year deal they signed, because no matter how the Patriots offer it, they consistently offer Branch about one good year of earning less than the Seattle or NYJ do.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I had a long response to that post ZDog, and somehow I killed it. I don't know if I accidentally refreshed, or hit the ESC key, or what, but I'm tired, and I'm not going to type it out again.
Long story short, I don't think Branch will win in arbitration, and the outcomes you're describing are unprecedented. I don't think Branch's relationship with the Patriots is acrimonious, since Brady said he's spoken with Branch recently and he was optimistic that Branch would return. And I don't think the Patriots would be able to get as much in a trade for Branch 2+ weeks into the season as they would now, so I would be surprised to see them trade him partway into the season when they still have the franchise tag at their disposal.
As for the Jets' deal, I'll take back the part about the money that New York offered being more in the first three years, although we don't know what kind of money they're offering in year four of the deal. But through the first four years of the Patriots' deal, Branch would get 25 million by 2010 by signing immediately. On the other hand, if he holds out and gets that same contract, he'll get 23 million plus his year four salary by 2010. We really don't know how much year four of that contract includes, since it may be a year four roster bonus that gets the money into the "first three years". At a minimum, though, 24/4 with 12m guaranteed is at least competitive with the Jets' offer, even before the two sides negotiate, and it still means more guaranteed money on a per year basis, and more money in 2006.
Long story short, I don't think Branch will win in arbitration, and the outcomes you're describing are unprecedented. I don't think Branch's relationship with the Patriots is acrimonious, since Brady said he's spoken with Branch recently and he was optimistic that Branch would return. And I don't think the Patriots would be able to get as much in a trade for Branch 2+ weeks into the season as they would now, so I would be surprised to see them trade him partway into the season when they still have the franchise tag at their disposal.
As for the Jets' deal, I'll take back the part about the money that New York offered being more in the first three years, although we don't know what kind of money they're offering in year four of the deal. But through the first four years of the Patriots' deal, Branch would get 25 million by 2010 by signing immediately. On the other hand, if he holds out and gets that same contract, he'll get 23 million plus his year four salary by 2010. We really don't know how much year four of that contract includes, since it may be a year four roster bonus that gets the money into the "first three years". At a minimum, though, 24/4 with 12m guaranteed is at least competitive with the Jets' offer, even before the two sides negotiate, and it still means more guaranteed money on a per year basis, and more money in 2006.
The arbitrator has no authority to do this.
Definitely. It could be like the Keenan McCardell situation a few years ago, when he was traded around week six or so.
His fines will be waived if he signs an extension with the Patriots, but probably not if he's traded. (See Ashley Lelie.)
Last edited by a moderator:
smackdown101
Footballguy
So enough about whether or not Branch wins his grievance. It sounds if everyone but Branch is sure he will lose. What happens when he does lose? Are the Patriots going to play him or is he T.O. Jr.; riding pine till they can find a trade for him?
The Patriots can't play him until he reports. When and if he reports, I'd say the Patriots would play him immediately.
I really wish we knew more of the contract details. The Jets' contract had a purported "funky structure", and I haven't seen a year-by-year breakdown of the Patriots' offer either.
In any case, the ESPN guys were predicting a 10-week holdout, which neither of us thinks is likely.
I also think I find arbitration to be a far more risky process with many unlikely outcomes possible. I remember lots of arbitration decisions that were unexpected, like when the Jets followed the advice of the NFL Management council on not matching the voidable years clause of Chad Morton's contract with the Redskins, and then lost Morton after an arbitrator ruled against them and despite their offer to match the voidable years clause once the arbitrator ruled that it was requried in order to match. This effectively forced a trade of Morton for a 5th round pick, since Morton was a restricted FA.
On the flipside, an arbitrator was much harder on TO than most expected, and let Philly send him home. This offseason, the Titans were denied the right to send Steve McNair home and had to allow him to work out at the team's facility.
And of course, the original Owens trade to Philly wasn't worked out until an arbitrator was actually hearing the case. That arbitrator never ruled, but my point is the same: a lot of strange things can happen in arbitration, and the last guy I remember actually sitting out a contract for the long term and not get traded was Barry Sanders.
In any case, the ESPN guys were predicting a 10-week holdout, which neither of us thinks is likely.
I also think I find arbitration to be a far more risky process with many unlikely outcomes possible. I remember lots of arbitration decisions that were unexpected, like when the Jets followed the advice of the NFL Management council on not matching the voidable years clause of Chad Morton's contract with the Redskins, and then lost Morton after an arbitrator ruled against them and despite their offer to match the voidable years clause once the arbitrator ruled that it was requried in order to match. This effectively forced a trade of Morton for a 5th round pick, since Morton was a restricted FA.
On the flipside, an arbitrator was much harder on TO than most expected, and let Philly send him home. This offseason, the Titans were denied the right to send Steve McNair home and had to allow him to work out at the team's facility.
And of course, the original Owens trade to Philly wasn't worked out until an arbitrator was actually hearing the case. That arbitrator never ruled, but my point is the same: a lot of strange things can happen in arbitration, and the last guy I remember actually sitting out a contract for the long term and not get traded was Barry Sanders.
massraider
Footballguy
I'd like to see the details of the contract the Pats offered especially, because people keep dividing the total value by the # of years, and using that to explain why the Pats deal was so fair. I think it's fairly obvious that their offers were significantly less than the Jets and Hawks. And if they were close, and Branch didn't sign it, but found a similar deal acceptable elsewhere, one can only reach one conclusion: Branch doesn't want to be in New England anymore. I think most people agree that Branch would prefer to get his deal from New England. The obvious conclusion is that Branch didn't get a close offer from the Pats.The 10 week holdout is always unlikely, and I'd always bet against it, but once it gets to actual regular season games, I think it gets a lot more likely. Once the player has established he's willing to sit out regular season games, he may as well go the distance. Very few players actually show the backbone to sit out regular season games.
Gandalf
Footballguy
It sounds like there's no end in sight.http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/...rticleid=156056
No end in sight to Branch-Pats stalemate
By Michael Felger
Boston Herald Patriots Beat Columnist
Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - Updated: 04:20 PM EST
The Deion Branch legal situation continues to spin, and none of it points to the holdout receiver rejoining the Patriots any time soon.
According to one of Branch’s attorneys, Jeffrey Kessler, the NFL has filed a motion today to combine Branch’s two grievances into a single grievance to be heard at one sitting. If the NFL wins the motion, which should be decided on Wednesday, that combined grievance will be heard a week from Thursday and Friday, Sept. 14 and 15.
Furthermore, Kessler revealed today that if Branch loses both grievances, he will then seek damages against the Patriots for extra compensation this year. Kessler said Branch will seek to be paid the difference between what the Pats are scheduled to pay him this season (just over $1 million, minus fines) and the first-year money being offered by Seattle and the New York Jets, deals that guarantee Branch $13 million in bonuses.
If the NFL is not granted their motion to combine grievances, the first grievance will proceed and is tentatively scheduled for this Saturday. If the Branch side looses the first grievance, they will then proceed with the second.
The second grievance, whether it’s part of the first or is separate, will be heard by Professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Burbank was the arbiter who was set to rule on Terrell Owens’ grievance against San Francisco in 2004 (in Owens’ favor), when a settlement was reached between the 49ers, Eagles and Ravens sending Owens to Philadelphia. Branch’s first grievance is set to be heard by Joh Feerick of Fordham Law.
Branch was given permission to seek a trade and negotiate a new deal last week. He did, reaching six-year, $39 million deals with the Jets and Seahawks. Both teams then offered the Pats at least a second round pick, but the Pats declined the offers. Branch’s first grievance claims the Pats didn’t live up to their promise to trade him if they received an acceptable offer.
His second grievance would claim the Pats have negotiated in bad faith through his holdout.
Kessler said he doesn’t know if the Pats have continued to negotiate on compensation with the Jets and Seahawks. He said Branch has no intention to return to the Pats until the dispute is settled.
Workhorse
Footballguy
It keeps getting more and more bizarre. This is insane.
bostonfred
Footballguy
This has nothing to do with the Patriots' offer being more or less than the offer from the Jets and Seahawks. Even if the Patriots were offering more than the Jets offer right now - let's say they took the Jets offer, and added $100,000 a year to each and every year of the deal - Branch would not want to sign it if it meant he was still getting $1 million for 2006. This whole fight has nothing to do with whether the Pats deal is fair. I don't see (m)any people arguing about whether the Pats deal is fair. The real issue Branch has isn't the size of the contract, but the 2006 season. That's why the Patriots allowed him to shop himself for a trade - because his team said, if you won't give us an extension tha takes 2006 off the books, maybe someone else will. And that's why he's filing grievances trying to get that trade. And that's why, even if his grievances fail, ESPN reported that he's likely to file a third grievance stating that the Patriots owe him compensation in 2006 for failing to trade him.
(By the way, I think it's stupid to tip your hand on that one now. It gives the arbitrators an out, so they can sitll side with the player, without having to give an unexpected ruling on one of the first two grievances. But that's another topic)
I also disagree that, once he misses a game, he "may as well" hold out for ten. That's a pretty big leap. Can you explain why, from a business perspective, that makes any sense at all for Branch to do?
bostonfred
Footballguy
Like I've been saying, the whole purpose of asking for a trade, and going to arbitration, is to get money for 2006. This is just another gambit to get money in 2006. I actually think it's a good move, I just think it was a bad idea to announce this before the first two grievances have been heard.
Workhorse
Footballguy
I think the really insane part is how they would ask for the difference between what his contract currently dictates and the offers he received from other teams. As opposed to comparing apples to apples and asking for the difference between the Pats offer and the Jets/Hawks offer. Is that a sign that Branch never intended to sign with the Pats in the first place? Seems to me that might be a way for the Pats to claim that Branch and his agent weren't negotiating in good faith either...
bostonfred
Footballguy
The addition of this second motion by the NFL is bad. That pushes out the decision until after week 2, and the addition of a third grievance that can't be heard until the first two are decided is even worse. This may extend the holdout until close to the end of September, unless the two sides come to an agreement sooner. It's also possible that the two sides will come to an agreement sooner because of this. This third grievance - which Branch may win, and which will certainly push negotiations out until after it's been heard - may cause the Pats to crack a little in their stance. There's no reason for Branch to negotiate a deal that assumes his $1 million contract in 2006 is still in place, when he can file a grievance that may get him more in 2006. But if the Patriots feel he can win this deal, there may be a good reason for them to negotiate a deal that gets him more than 1 million in 2006.
zamboni
Footballguy
From a pure fantasy standpoint, it's obviously not good for Branch this year whether he stays or goes.
If he leaves for the Jets or whomever, he'll already have missed games without any practice time to acclimate himself with the offense.
Staying in NE is clearly better for his prospects, but again, the practice time missed is important. And more importantly, aggravating Belicheck is not usually a smart move.
If he leaves for the Jets or whomever, he'll already have missed games without any practice time to acclimate himself with the offense.
Staying in NE is clearly better for his prospects, but again, the practice time missed is important. And more importantly, aggravating Belicheck is not usually a smart move.
bostonfred
Footballguy
No, this has nothing to do with whether Branch intended to sign with the Pats in the first place. This has everything to do with that $1 million in 2006. Branch's whole point in holding out is that he is underpaid right now. The Patriots refused to negotiate for 2006, so they let him seek trade offers with other teams. Other teams agreed to drop 2006 and negotiate a new deal from scratch. Branch's argument in this third grievance is that the Patriots should also have to drop 2006 and negotiate a new deal from scratch. The reason for this is that the Patriots refuse to pay him his 2006 value, as has been set by other teams, and refuse to trade him to a team that will. While an arbitrator may not force the Patriots to pay the same first year salary that another team would, they may find in favor of Branch that the Patriots are preventing him from getting just compensation for his work, and force the Patriots to pay some higher sum of money. I don't know enough about the rules in this situation to say whether he has a real chance of winning, but I think this is a stronger case than the previous two grievances, one that gets directly to the point of what Branch wants, and most importantly, a clear sign that Branch has never been trying to get off the team, so much as get the money for 2006.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Well it makes some sense if he realizes he needs to play this year and wants to get all the arbitration stuff out of the way/settle with the Pats as quickly as possible. At the end of the day, he may need actual salary this year, realizes he'll end up being a Pat, and just want the entire thing completed so he doesnt ruin the entire season. At this point this is all posturing with Kessler basically telling the Pats, pay Branch something "reasonable" this year and this will all go away. I wouldn't be surprised if both sides realize this entire situation has escalated too far and this is Branch's way of signalling he's taking a step off the cliff. It's entirely possible that these two sides aren't talking at all, and this is Branch's way of saying, come to us with a "reasonable offer" and we'll talk.
Workhorse
Footballguy
Looks like the Patriots are trying to change the arbitrator on this one:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...r_jurisdiction/
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...r_jurisdiction/
Boston
Footballguy
I think there's a too much small detail deciphering of this situation right now. The Branch camp's strategy is pretty easy to see from a big picture. Branch wants big money right now or at the very least next offseason. That is the only thing he cares about. As to which team gives it to him it's a moot point because he doesn't care as long as it's the money he desires. The Pats currently have his rights for this year and in all liklihood next year. They also won't meet his demands (and he now knows other teams will). There's not much Branch can do about this either. Therefore Branch is going to become as much of a nuisance as possible be it through holding out, through the legal sytem or with media members like Ron Borges who dislike the Pats and will become a mouthpiece for the Branch camp. The hope being that the Pats tire of the distraction and have more incentive to deal him or potentially agree to not franchise him after this season. By saying they are going to appeal if they lose they're basically telling the Pats they will be a mosquito that won't go away. Looking at past Patriot history under BB/Pioli they could care less about this tactic and it won't phase them. Another small hope for Branch is that in a legal system that's pretty unpredictable something odd can come out of leftfield that breaks in his favor. That's probably not going to happen but far crazier things have happened when lawyers get involved.
massraider
Footballguy
Sure. First of all, it's not that I think that holding out for 1 is the same as 10, not at all. My point was more that my belief is that most holdouts never get that far, and once a player has sat out regular season games, it's much more likely that he's willing to go the distance. Once he filed that greviance, my opinion about whether or not Branch would pull a Galloway changed. Dramatically.If I'm Branch's agent, I want to either get the contact I want, or get the Pats to not franchise my client. At this point, any compromise, or lack of resolve on Branch's part, will only convince the Pats that he's going to eventually get with the program. I would want the Pats to have 10 full weeks of media scrutiny. Maybe the Pats lose a game or two they should have won, turning the screws even more. My client's bargaining position doesn't strengthen in any way if he comes in early; in fact, he increases the chance of injury! Why do I want my client to risk injury in a game, for $66,000? No way. And if, after 10 weeks of holding out, and Belichick answering question about Deion, then Branch returns for the final 6 games. Then, if the Pats still want to franchise him, no problem. But that's a long way away, and a team can get sick of a distraction. It's my opinion that if Branch reports after he loses the arbitration, and quietly goes about his business, he's guaranteeing the Pats franchise him, then try and force another below-market deal down his throat. Holding out for 10 weeks is his best bet to get traded out of town.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
OK, so the only way you can see him holding out for ten weeks is if he loses all his grievances and cannot get a contract extension signed. I can agree with that. The next part, though, is the part where it makes sense for Branch not to sign a contract extension. That's where this whole thing falls apart. As I've said before, from Branch's perspective, if he can't get traded and loses his grievances, he would be stupid to pass up on the deals the Patriots have offered.
massraider
Footballguy
He'd be taking a risk. There's a difference. If he can't get traded, and loses this grievance, but doesn't like the deal, I think he'll risk the final 6 games, and make the Pats franchise him. Once that happens, I'd probably look to do the deal. But I think I'd at least make them franchise me.
Boston
Footballguy
The problem with Branch's strategy is the Pats could absolutely care less about media scrutiny. It's a very big strength of the franchise (and something that irks some people). Ty Law basically called out BB's family and it had zero effect. The Lawyer Milloy situation was very nasty and the Bledsoe/Brady, AV and Willie situations were not pleasant but it had no effect on what the Pats do. The decision the Pats make on Branch will come down to only one thing as every decision in this franchise does. How does it make the team better? Unless the legal system says otherwise there's nothing that will change the Pats philosophy. All history indicates they won't backdown regardless of what Branch does. By the way...I do think Branch has really dug his heels in so this has a chance to actually turn into a 10 week/2 year debacle. My guess is it won't but anything's possible at this point. Deep down I still believe Branch will get dealt due to either Seattle or the Jets offering up more than a #2. If not it has a chance to be a soap opera but the problem for Branch is that it won't faze the Pats one bit.
bostonfred
Footballguy
And risk injury by playing the last six weeks? And risk that the market for his services drops off? And give up 1 of the 2.93 million from his rookie contract? And miss out on not just that one million, but any additonal signing bonus money in 2006? The list of reasons to sign a contract this year are much longer than the list of reasons to "at least make them franchise me".
Sammy3469
Footballguy
It depends how the Pats deal/s are structured...if all the guaranteed money is in 2 years (i.e. the salary the Pats are offering this year, which we know is a million, and the money next are relatively small), he could concievebly be making more by holding out, being franchised, and then signing 2 years from now for guaranteed $$$. All that is conditional on him actually playing and being a top-tier WR, which is one of the reasons I think he has to come in at some point before week 10.
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
The Patriots are believed to have offered deals of 3 years, 18 million with a bonus that pays him 4 million in 2006, and 5 years, 31 million with 11 million guaranteed. They are also believed to be willing to offer four years, 24 million with 12 million guaranteed right now. Some of that 12 million would hit in 2006, and the rest in 2007.
bostonfred
Footballguy
By the way, a something that may rule in Branch's favor in arbitration: the "Patriots clause" that limits rookie contracts to four years for second round picks, instead of the five year contract Branch signed, was added to the CBA after Branch's contract. However, he did receive consideration for signing that five year contract; he accepted an additional 100,000 in signing bonus money in return for signing a five year deal vs. a similar four year deal signed by Randel El, who was drafted three spots ahead of him.
massraider
Footballguy
What additional signing bonus money? That may be more reasons why signing with the Pats makes sense, but I wish you'd stop listing market drop-off as one of them. You said in an earlier post that he runs the risk of not getting the same offers that he got this past week. I would like to know under which conditions you see offers in April '07 being less than offers in September '06.You aren't supposed to get good contact offers in September. That's when teams have their rosters filled, and aren't looking to add big money free agents. But Branch went out and got two big offers, in a week! It may be possible that the "market drops off", but it's much more likely that if Branch was a free agent next April, the offers would be larger than the ones he just got. And yeah, financially, I'm happy to give up 1 million. because then I either get my big deal in FA, or the Pats pay me franchise money for one year (after I hold out for another summer). And THEN I go get my big deal. That one year of franchise money, plus the guaranteed money from my long term contract, more than makes up for the loss on 2006.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
That was my point above, the franchise tag that the Pats could use basically "guarantees" Branch's value for next year (along with the Hawks/Jets offers around that figure). Any Pats contract extension has to match that amount in guaranteed $$, otherwise Branch is better off simply showing up at some point this year, going the franchise route next, and then getting his real guaranteed $$$ in 2 years. (that's one of the reasons the Pats initial offers were so bad since they didn't even come close to those going the franchise tag route).
1. There is a strong likelihood that Branch would not actually play in the last six weeks, and certainly a high probability that he would play not to get hurt. 2. I see no reason to believe the market would drop off - if anything, it would be hotter, since more teams would be able to bid for his services in April than today.3. He would not have to give up $1 million from his rookie contract - at most, he woudl ahve to give back 1/5 of the signing bonus, and even that would have to go before an arbitrator.4. The signing bonus money being offered in 2006 is dwarfed by the money he'll get in 2007 as a franchise player or if traded to another team.Sorry BF, but I think you are vastly underestimating the potential outcomes for Branch, and overestimating his risk.
bostonfred
Footballguy
The Patriots are the only team that can give him money THIS YEAR. Right now, he's made <$2 million as an NFL player. The Patriots have offered him deals that will give him a $4-5 million signing bonus today, even though those same deals are technically extensions starting in 2007.
You may have missed it, but this year is unique in that the salary cap jumped by 7.5 million as a provision of the CBA extension. A lot of teams have since tied that money up in long term contracts that have overpaid for players like David Givens, Antwaan Randel El, and Nate Burleson. Next year, the salary cap jumps again, but you may not see the frenzied buyers' market that you saw this year. The other reason the market for Branch may drop off is that Branch risks injury by playing without an extension. Branch has missed 11 games in his four year career, and has only completed 16 games once. If he gets a more serious injury this year, offers could drop off significantly.
That doesn't mean Branch won't be able to get a comparable deal next year. It's just a risk. If you're Branch, and have less than 2 million in career earnings, it's hard to risk the bird in the hand of 25 million by 2010 for the two in the bush of a bigger deal next year.
Getting 7 million for the franchise tag, but losing 1 million by holding out, would net him 6 million by 2007. There is no deal that I am aware of where Branch would make less than 6 million per year, plus he'd get 1 million for this year. So the franchise tag does not net him any additional money. The only way it nets him more money is if he gets a bigger deal next year than the Patriots are offering this year. And despite your protestations to the contrary, that's not a certainty, especially if he's coming off back to back holdout seasons.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
BF –
Like you, I typed up a lengthy response last night that simply evaporated when I tried to post it and I was in no mood to spend 45 more minutes retyping it. Long story shorter, the crux of the entire issue is 2006.
Basically, if the Pats don’t budge on paying Branch more than $1 million for this upcoming season Branch won’t play. That’s it in a nutshell. All the stuff they are offering for 2007 and beyond won’t matter. When you factor in his 2006 salary, the average per year for any of the rumored Pats deals would be $1.5 to $1.75 million per year less than the Jets or Seahawks offers.
The problem for Branch is that he is looking at the offers as a free agent in a free market when in reality he is under contract and not a free agent. The Pats really are not under any obligation to do anything for Branch (more $$$, trade him, renegotiate, promise not to franchise him, etc.).
Should Branch hold out the first 10 games, I suspect he will come back and pull a Terry Glenn and conveniently will get a pulled hamstring or hangnail and insist that he’s not able to play. As far as I know, as long as he reported he could do this and the Pats would both have to pay him and credit him for a year of service.
IMO, Branch now has a barometer for what his value is even in a CLOSED market. If he DID hit free agency next year, I think he would be the #1 WR on the market (if not he’d be right up there). Now that he knows that, I don’t think he will crawl back with his tail between his legs and accept much less than the Jets or Seahawks offered him.
All these grievances will likely get Branch nothing, but it will certainly raise the eyebrows of current and future Patriots. While most of them have kept quiet, I am sure that they see that they could be next in line for frosty negotiations with management (as evidenced by Graham saying he’ll give them one chance to make a legit offer and then he’s gone.)
I don’t see Branch budging at this point. The way this would get resolved is if the Pats tear up his 2006 contract and start fresh. But that would also mean giving him Reggie Wayne money, which I don’t think they feel he’s worth. And that gets us right back to where we are—nowhere.
The longer this goes on, the more of a P.R. nightmare it becomes for New England, the more it becomes a distraction to the team, and the less likely the Pats are set up to go the distance this season. Last I saw, the Pats were still like $13 million under the cap, so they can’t even say they are strapped for cap room to make a deal happen. All this will have a negative impact on future negotiations with current players and potential free agents. And their reputation was not great even before this (Keyshawn’s comments about playing for 5 bucks is a great example).
True, the team has 3 rings and still has a solid team, but at some point they will not be able to continue with the venom and hostility that some of their players have toward the management. Other free agents will stay clear of Foxboro and will sign elsewhere. It may not happen overnight, but in the long run I suspect that the Pats will start having trouble keeping their own players and attracting new ones. They can only get so far with restocking by draft picks alone.
Could this issue get resolved? Yep. But it will take the Patriots tearing up Branch’s contract to get a new deal done.
Like you, I typed up a lengthy response last night that simply evaporated when I tried to post it and I was in no mood to spend 45 more minutes retyping it. Long story shorter, the crux of the entire issue is 2006.
Basically, if the Pats don’t budge on paying Branch more than $1 million for this upcoming season Branch won’t play. That’s it in a nutshell. All the stuff they are offering for 2007 and beyond won’t matter. When you factor in his 2006 salary, the average per year for any of the rumored Pats deals would be $1.5 to $1.75 million per year less than the Jets or Seahawks offers.
The problem for Branch is that he is looking at the offers as a free agent in a free market when in reality he is under contract and not a free agent. The Pats really are not under any obligation to do anything for Branch (more $$$, trade him, renegotiate, promise not to franchise him, etc.).
Should Branch hold out the first 10 games, I suspect he will come back and pull a Terry Glenn and conveniently will get a pulled hamstring or hangnail and insist that he’s not able to play. As far as I know, as long as he reported he could do this and the Pats would both have to pay him and credit him for a year of service.
IMO, Branch now has a barometer for what his value is even in a CLOSED market. If he DID hit free agency next year, I think he would be the #1 WR on the market (if not he’d be right up there). Now that he knows that, I don’t think he will crawl back with his tail between his legs and accept much less than the Jets or Seahawks offered him.
All these grievances will likely get Branch nothing, but it will certainly raise the eyebrows of current and future Patriots. While most of them have kept quiet, I am sure that they see that they could be next in line for frosty negotiations with management (as evidenced by Graham saying he’ll give them one chance to make a legit offer and then he’s gone.)
I don’t see Branch budging at this point. The way this would get resolved is if the Pats tear up his 2006 contract and start fresh. But that would also mean giving him Reggie Wayne money, which I don’t think they feel he’s worth. And that gets us right back to where we are—nowhere.
The longer this goes on, the more of a P.R. nightmare it becomes for New England, the more it becomes a distraction to the team, and the less likely the Pats are set up to go the distance this season. Last I saw, the Pats were still like $13 million under the cap, so they can’t even say they are strapped for cap room to make a deal happen. All this will have a negative impact on future negotiations with current players and potential free agents. And their reputation was not great even before this (Keyshawn’s comments about playing for 5 bucks is a great example).
True, the team has 3 rings and still has a solid team, but at some point they will not be able to continue with the venom and hostility that some of their players have toward the management. Other free agents will stay clear of Foxboro and will sign elsewhere. It may not happen overnight, but in the long run I suspect that the Pats will start having trouble keeping their own players and attracting new ones. They can only get so far with restocking by draft picks alone.
Could this issue get resolved? Yep. But it will take the Patriots tearing up Branch’s contract to get a new deal done.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Ask an NFL player what happens when you "play not to get hurt". It doesn't work. He has to play or he'll lose the year of service time; during that time, he risks injury. There's really no argument here. And considering his injury history, it's a bigger deal for Branch than a lot of other players.
I addressed this above. Note that if the Patriots franchise him in 2007, the market is not hotter. And if Branch responds by holding out in back to back years, the market drops off severely.
Branch stands to lose approximately one million of his original $2.93 million contract between salary, fines and signing bonus.
If Branch plays at 1 million and signis a deal that gives him 4 years, 24 million with 12 million guaranteed, he'll make 13 million by the end of 2007. That's more than the amount that he'd get by being franchised.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I understand this. Everyone understands this. However, once the grievances have been heard, it doesn't matter how Branch was looking at it before. From a business standpoint, that ship has sailed. At that point, Branch will have to evaluate his options based on 2007 forward, which means that this whole thing about dividing offers from the Patriots by 7 years instead of 6 doesn't work anymore.
So Branch is going to hold out, then come back and convincingly argue that he's injured, seeing Patriots team doctors, and then get a huge deal in 2007? Do you see why that's almost as much of a risk to his 2007 value as playing and risking injury?
I agree with this. The Patriots will have to offer something close to what the Jets or Seahawks offered. But as of right now, the deals aren't that far apart:4 years, 24 million with 12 guaranteed 5 years, 31 million with 11 guaranteed6 years, 39 million with 13 guaranteedIf the two sides were still far apart on this, I'd feel a lot differently. But they're not. The only reason this deal isn't done right now is that Branch is still (correctly) fighting to get more money during the 2006 season.
I agree with all of this. And that's not the only knock on the "Patriots' system". The CBA has since been revised to disallow the type of contract Branch got in the first place - a latter half first round pick can now be signed for a maximum of five years, and a second rounder can be signed to a maximum of four. And the Patriots aren't evaluating talent as well as they did in 2001, when all those cheap free agents came in and did a great job off the bat. But getting back to this deal: I'm not evaluating this from a Patriots' perspective. I'm evaluating it from Branch's perspective. And from Branch's perspective, I think he will be signing back with the Patriots.
Similar threads
