Squabble between Pats, Branch gets messier (1 Viewer)

[Jagerbomber]

Just when it appeared that the differences between the New England Patriots and holdout wide receiver Deion Branch couldn't get any messier, they did.

The Patriots and the NFL have filed a motion questioning whether arbitrator John Feerick of the Fordham Law School has jurisdiction over the first of two grievances filed on Branch's behalf by the NFL Players Association, and tentatively scheduled to be heard Saturday. In that grievance, Branch is contending that the Patriots reneged on a verbal promise to trade him if he reached a contract agreement with another team and that club made a "fair and reasonable" trade proposal to compensate New England.

The league and the Patriots feel that, under terms of the collective bargaining agreement, Feerick does not have purview over the grievance and that it should be heard by "special master" Stephen Burbank, who is kind of a super-arbitrator, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

There is a Wednesday evening conference call, which is expected to include representatives from the NFLPA and the league's Management Council, to attempt to resolve the issue of jurisdiction.

While the jurisdictional conflict doesn't necessarily ramp up the level of enmity between the two sides, it does complicate things. And it could possibly delay a resolution as well. If it is decided that Feerick should not hear the grievance scheduled for Saturday, a hearing likely would not be scheduled before next week, possibly as late as Sept. 14.

Such a ruling would also, essentially, combine both grievances into one. In the second grievance, Branch is contending that New England officials failed to bargain with him in good faith.

Sources close to the four-year veteran said this week that Branch hopes for an expeditious ruling in the cases because he is anxious to return to the field. They reiterated, however, that he does not plan to return to the Patriots anytime soon, and maintained that his plans are to sit out until the final six games of the year. Under the collective bargaining agreement, Branch could report for those six games and gain a year of credit toward the pension program.

Branch needs to accrue one more season in the pension plan to become eligible for unrestricted free agency next spring.

That the two sides are now reduced to battling over jurisdictional matters in the grievance proceedings seems further evidence that there will be no rapprochement that allows Branch to return to the Patriots for the early part of the season.

On Aug. 25, the Patriots granted Branch permission, through Sept. 1 at 4 p.m., to seek a potential trade to another team. The Seattle Seahawks and New York Jets reached contract agreements with Branch on a six-year, $39 million deal that included $13 million in combined bonuses and would have paid him about $23 million over the first three years. But neither team could satisfy the demands of the Patriots, who were seeking first- and middle-round choices and Branch remained under contract to New England.

Under terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the Patriots were able to fine Branch $14,000 per day during his absence from camp, and he has accumulated more than $500,000 in fines. With the start of the season, New England can no longer impose daily fines, but can withhold Branch's game checks, beginning this week. His base salary for 2006 was to have been $1.05 million.

Branch, 27, is coming off a career year in 2005, when he had 78 receptions for 998 yards and five touchdowns. For his career, Branch, a second-round pick in the 2002 draft, has 213 catches for 2,744 yards and 14 touchdowns. He has appeared in 53 games and logged 42 starts. He earned most valuable player honors in Super Bowl XXXIX when he tied a title game record with 11 receptions, netting 133 yards.

Senior writer Len Pasquarelli covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

Ok, at what point should I start thinking of dropping this fool?

 

[redman]

Basically, Branch is trying to poison his relationship with the Pats to the point where they feel like they have to trade him. Somehow, with Belichick and company I have my doubts as to whether that will work.

I also have yet to hear a legal argument from Branch's crew that is in any way compelling. A "verbal promise" to trade him if they get a "fair and reasonable" trade offer? That doesn't sound like a contractual commitment to me.

 

[Buckychudd]

But neither team could satisfy the demands of the Patriots, who were seeking first- and middle-round choices and Branch remained under contract to New England.

Is this true? I had heard an earlier report that they didn't even counter the offers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks for posting jager,

But I'm not sure what's "messier" about this. Don't all grievances pretty much get down to this once the legal guys start making arguments?

J

 

[mbuehner]

True. And I still think Branch is going to walk away from this a lot better off than people think. His bad faith argument is compelling.

 

[BusMan]

This way the Patriots handle business is only good if (and when) they win championships. If they stop winning, their m.o. is going to be a liability sooner rather than later.

 

[buck naked]

If Branch really was "anxious to return to the field", we would have honored his contract long ago.

 

[TitusIII]

Just trade him already. You are going to regret giving him a franchise salary deal if it comes to that.

 

[redman]

True. And I still think Branch is going to walk away from this a lot better off than people think. His bad faith argument is compelling.

Would you mind explaining that one to me?

 

[Ozymandias]

Thanks for posting jager,But I'm not sure what's "messier" about this. Don't all grievances pretty much get down to this once the legal guys start making arguments?J

You're right, in a way. But I think Pasquarelli's point is that it is now down to the usual bickering over jurisdictional issues, and the date for a possible resolution keeps getting put back. I doubt that Branch will see the field for a while, maybe not until game 11.

 

[redman]

Thanks for posting jager,But I'm not sure what's "messier" about this. Don't all grievances pretty much get down to this once the legal guys start making arguments?J

Well, it is messier in the sense that the arbitrator who they thought would resolve the matter is now himself being challenged, so yet another layer has been added to this onion.

 

[skillz]

In hindsight, the Pats made a mistake in being "nice" to Branch by allowing him to negotiate with other teams when he had no right to. Now Branch is claiming that the alleged "contract" between him and the Pats allows him to play for the Jets. I always thought that the Pats only gave Branch authority to work out a deal, and, at that point, the Pats would have a team that it could identify as a possible suitor for Branch; not that the Pats had to accept a "reasonable" offer.

My read on the article is that the Pats think the other arbitrator is more willing to give them a favorable decision so it doesn't hurt to file the motion in an attempt to have him hear the grievance. I agree that if the point of contention is whether the Pats breached the "contract" with Branch, then the matter involves a determination of whether that contract was breached not the CBA. Regardless, I don't see Branch winning the arbitration anyway--the dangerous precedent set by a decision in his favor would be that arbitrators would be able to dictate to teams when they should trade a player, and for what price (clearly a business decision for the team).

If Branch loses, the Pats can really stick it to him which is why I can't believe he is taking the approach he has. Even if Branch comes back later in the season to accrue a year of service towards free agency, the Pats can still just stick the franchise tag on him anyway. So they hold all the cards. Branch isn't going anywhere unless the Pats get the compensation they want in return. If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

 

[skillz]

Thanks for posting jager,But I'm not sure what's "messier" about this. Don't all grievances pretty much get down to this once the legal guys start making arguments?J

Well, it is messier in the sense that the arbitrator who they thought would resolve the matter is now himself being challenged, so yet another layer has been added to this onion.

The motion by the Pats is not going to delay the process. A determination will be made during the conference call over who the proper arbitrator is then the hearing will be held with that arbitrator. There won't be an additional hearing to address that issue.

 

[redman]

In hindsight, the Pats made a mistake in being "nice" to Branch by allowing him to negotiate with other teams when he had no right to. Now Branch is claiming that the alleged "contract" between him and the Pats allows him to play for the Jets. I always thought that the Pats only gave Branch authority to work out a deal, and, at that point, the Pats would have a team that it could identify as a possible suitor for Branch; not that the Pats had to accept a "reasonable" offer. My read on the article is that the Pats think the other arbitrator is more willing to give them a favorable decision so it doesn't hurt to file the motion in an attempt to have him hear the grievance. I agree that if the point of contention is whether the Pats breached the "contract" with Branch, then the matter involves a determination of whether that contract was breached not the CBA. Regardless, I don't see Branch winning the arbitration anyway--the dangerous precedent set by a decision in his favor would be that arbitrators would be able to dictate to teams when they should trade a player, and for what price (clearly a business decision for the team). If Branch loses, the Pats can really stick it to him which is why I can't believe he is taking the approach he has. Even if Branch comes back later in the season to accrue a year of service towards free agency, the Pats can still just stick the franchise tag on him anyway. So they hold all the cards. Branch isn't going anywhere unless the Pats get the compensation they want in return. If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

Said another way, the arrangment between the Pats and Branch to my mind always had the Pats (and no one else) determining whether or not a trade offer was "reasonable". That in no way bound the Pats to accept any particular offer. The thing that really kills' Branch's argument is that the Pats allowed him to talk to other teams in the first place. If the Pats had no intention of ever trading him, they wouldn't have done that as they certainly weren't obligated to allow that to happen with an existing contract with Branch.

 

[msommer]

... the Pats can still just stick the franchise tag on him anyway. ...

Might not be so bad to get the seven million guaranteed dollars a franchise tag will mean.Key word here is GUARANTEED

 

[ShadowMaster]

True. And I still think Branch is going to walk away from this a lot better off than people think. His bad faith argument is compelling.

Would you mind explaining that one to me?

Ditto..... Branch is going to get creamed in court on this one. He has a contract and he wants a new one. The team is not required to give him one. If anyone is going on bad faith, it is the player who is refusing to play for the deal he already signed.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

So, in short, where is this going? Is the likely scenerio that Branch sits until week eleven?

 

[JuniorNB]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

 

[ShadowMaster]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

BINGO

 

[redman]

So, in short, where is this going? Is the likely scenerio that Branch sits until week eleven?

That's the way that Branch is talking now. The Pats are required to take him back if he wishes to report (assuming he loses the arbitration which I think he will), so it's up to Branch as to when he reports back to the team.

 

[Franknbeans]

This way the Patriots handle business is only good if (and when) they win championships. If they stop winning, their m.o. is going to be a liability sooner rather than later.

It's funny you say this, I was reading an article on the interent yesterday saying that basically, the players are getting pretty fed up with the way the Patriots do business. Sorry, I don't have the link but if I do, I will be sure to edit this. There was even a quote from Daniel Graham saying something to the effect that he'll give the Patriots one shot to re-sign him after this season but after that, he's gone.

 

[GroveDiesel]

If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

I don't believe that teams can deactivate players like the Eagles and Bucs have done in the past under the new CBA. I think that they can suspend the player for a game for each infraction, but even then I think the guidelines are a little more strict than they have been in the past.

 

[redman]

If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

I don't believe that teams can deactivate players like the Eagles and Bucs have done in the past under the new CBA. I think that they can suspend the player for a game for each infraction, but even then I think the guidelines are a little more strict than they have been in the past.

Exactly. They can suspend the player game by game, but I think there's a 3 game maximum on that IIRC.

 

[parrot]

It's funny you say this, I was reading an article on the interent yesterday saying that basically, the players are getting pretty fed up with the way the Patriots do business.

Of course they are - they don't want to see teams trying to use their money intelligently or planning for the long-term fiscal health of the franchise - they want everyone paid as much as possible, TODAY!

 

[bostonfred]

This way the Patriots handle business is only good if (and when) they win championships. If they stop winning, their m.o. is going to be a liability sooner rather than later.

It's funny you say this, I was reading an article on the interent yesterday saying that basically, the players are getting pretty fed up with the way the Patriots do business. Sorry, I don't have the link but if I do, I will be sure to edit this. There was even a quote from Daniel Graham saying something to the effect that he'll give the Patriots one shot to re-sign him after this season but after that, he's gone.

Graham may have become fed up when the Patriots drafted two tight ends this year despite glaring needs at other positions.

 

[skillz]

If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

I don't believe that teams can deactivate players like the Eagles and Bucs have done in the past under the new CBA. I think that they can suspend the player for a game for each infraction, but even then I think the guidelines are a little more strict than they have been in the past.

I know the issue was addressed in the recent negotiations but can't recall what was agreed to. I was just thinking that the Pats could dress the other WRs on the roster, and pay Branch his game check while he watches from the press box. If Branch files a grievance, I don't know what his remedy is since he would be getting service credit and paid for the game; he just isn't playing. From the Patriots' perspective he missed a lot of time, training camp, and the other WRs on the roster may be the better options for them at that point in the season. As I stated previously, I don't see how the union, or a particular player can dictate to a team how to run its business (i.e., trading a player to a particular team, or starting/activating a particular player).

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Why does a guy whose "career year" consisted of 78/998/5 think he needs to be compensated with the top wideouts in football? I know there is a lot more to it than stats and the Pats spread the ball around but he needs to face the facts; his best year would be considered a "down" year for any of the top receivers in the game and he has exactly been an ironman in his career. I know he's very talented and reliable but he's not irreplaceable.

 

[Alonso de Cordoba]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

 

[Alonso de Cordoba]

Why does a guy whose "career year" consisted of 78/998/5 think he needs to be compensated with the top wideouts in football?

Because that's where two other teams have set his market value.

 

[Moniker]

If Branch loses, the Pats can really stick it to him which is why I can't believe he is taking the approach he has. Even if Branch comes back later in the season to accrue a year of service towards free agency, the Pats can still just stick the franchise tag on him anyway. So they hold all the cards. Branch isn't going anywhere unless the Pats get the compensation they want in return. If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

I keep reading Pats fans say this and you are all wrong. If Branch loses, he is in the exact same position that he was before this all started, only the Pats stand to really "lose" in this situation. Do you realize that the Pats look like a bunch of idiots to everyone who isn't a Pats fan? Branch's agent is a genius. Worst case, for Branch, is he sits out for 10 weeks and gets franchised... bringing in about 7 million dollars next year. The Pats hold no cards at all.Because it hurt TO so much??

 

[parrot]

Why does a guy whose "career year" consisted of 78/998/5 think he needs to be compensated with the top wideouts in football?

And seeing as how he does see himself that way, how does he make the case that a second or third round pick represents fair compensation to the Patriots? I think his position is pretty untenable as far as the bad faith angle is concerned.

 

[skillz]

It's funny you say this, I was reading an article on the interent yesterday saying that basically, the players are getting pretty fed up with the way the Patriots do business.

Of course they are - they don't want to see teams trying to use their money intelligently or planning for the long-term fiscal health of the franchise - they want everyone paid as much as possible, TODAY!

The same thing is said about the Philadelphia Eagles. Ironically, the Eagles (with the exception of the TO debacle last year) and Patriots have been the most consistent winning NFL franchises in the past 5-6 years in a salary cap era that doesn't particulary see such consistent success over such an extended period of time without a "rebuilding" (i.e. cap purge) year.

 

[Bad_Mo]

True. And I still think Branch is going to walk away from this a lot better off than people think. His bad faith argument is compelling.

Compelling is one thing. Having it hold water is someting totally different.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

How much does a player stand to lose if they don't fill all of the seats? Exactly how much money do the players have invested in the franchise? That's business. He who has the controlling share of the company calls the shots. Why should the inmates run the assylum? They are extremely well paid individuals who are in a business that they went into knowing it carries a certain amount of risk. Where is their incentive to perform if they have a long term guaranteed contract? I know a ton of players would have the drive to perform but there would be a lot of people who would work for a contract and then drop the effort. I get paid less per year than these guys make in a game check and I'm supposed to feel sorry for their problems? The CEO of my company is fairly wealthy as well and I don't expect to be able to make demands of him and am certainly expected to honor my obligations. These guys are spoiled brats who are handed the world and want more. Boo hoo, the owners are wealthy. That's life.

 

[Ibis81]

If Branch loses, the Pats can really stick it to him which is why I can't believe he is taking the approach he has. Even if Branch comes back later in the season to accrue a year of service towards free agency, the Pats can still just stick the franchise tag on him anyway. So they hold all the cards. Branch isn't going anywhere unless the Pats get the compensation they want in return. If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

I keep reading Pats fans say this and you are all wrong. If Branch loses, he is in the exact same position that he was before this all started, only the Pats stand to really "lose" in this situation. Do you realize that the Pats look like a bunch of idiots to everyone who isn't a Pats fan? Branch's agent is a genius. Worst case, for Branch, is he sits out for 10 weeks and gets franchised... bringing in about 7 million dollars next year. The Pats hold no cards at all.Because it hurt TO so much??

No. Worstcase is that he sits 10 weeks. Loses some serious dough and then does not get franchised. At that point he goes to the market and the market decides he is not really worth top flight WR money.Personally I dont believe the offers from Seattle and NY were in good faith either. The Jets in particular were just trying to stoke the fire. If Branch were a true FA those offers would not have been made.

 

[Jagerbomber]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

I do agree that fans can be myopic about this kind of situation and are too quick to trash players for trying to improve their situation. Same thing I saw when Javon Walker was trying to re-negotiate his contract with the Packers. And of course "T.O." is sort of a dirty name now so that's the first thing that gets thrown out thereAs long as the Patriots continue winning, well, why change a winning formula? We'll see when/if they start losing how many fans will immediately take the management's side .

 

[greenroom]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

Well you see that is the problem he will not be able to try his luck on the open market next year if the Pats Tag him. Had the Pats agreed not to Tag him he would of played under his current contract, but the Pats would not and would not give him the extension that everyone agrees that he should get.I would not be so quick to say Branch is not going to win this. The team gave him the option to see if HE can find a team to give him his contract and if he could they would trade him. Well he found a team and I have a feeling that the Pats had no intention on trading him. That is why they set the bar so high. If Branch can show that the Pats are getting Market value for the him, I would think that could be a way for him to win the case.

 

[skillz]

If Branch loses, the Pats can really stick it to him which is why I can't believe he is taking the approach he has. Even if Branch comes back later in the season to accrue a year of service towards free agency, the Pats can still just stick the franchise tag on him anyway. So they hold all the cards. Branch isn't going anywhere unless the Pats get the compensation they want in return. If Branch plays the TO game upon his return, then I see the Pats deactivating him for the remainder of the games after he returns--if they are playing without him for over half the season, then I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do the same if he is going to try to be a disruption to the team. Plus, if he plays the TO game he is only hurting himself since doing so will only poison his value to other teams.

I keep reading Pats fans say this and you are all wrong. If Branch loses, he is in the exact same position that he was before this all started, only the Pats stand to really "lose" in this situation. Do you realize that the Pats look like a bunch of idiots to everyone who isn't a Pats fan? Branch's agent is a genius. Worst case, for Branch, is he sits out for 10 weeks and gets franchised... bringing in about 7 million dollars next year. The Pats hold no cards at all.Because it hurt TO so much??

I am not a Patriots fan and Branch and his agent still look like idiots to me. The big difference with TO and the money he was able to get after the Eagles cut him is that he would be a difference maker wherever he went, so a team is much more willing to put up with his antics since he is a game breaker on the field; Branch is not a difference makers on the field (even though he somehow thinks he is) and his career numbers v. TO bear that out. If he pulled the same antics as TO, I think other teams would be less tolerant, but that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.I am curious. Does anyone know the compensation that the Patriots would receive if Branch was given the transition tag? Maybe that is a better route for them to go if this thing perpetuates. In my opinion, whatever the Patriots will receive that Branch's floor in value right now and the Patriots would be foolish if they didn't ask the Jets, or another team for more than that during trade negotiations.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

Here's another thought. How about he does all you say and blows out his knee while playing on a below market contract (which the Patriots can void anytime they feel like it)? How's that free agent payday going to be then?A football player's window is small, and I don't blame guys for trying to get paid what they are worth according to the market.

 

[Ibis81]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

Well you see that is the problem he will not be able to try his luck on the open market next year if the Pats Tag him. Had the Pats agreed not to Tag him he would of played under his current contract, but the Pats would not and would not give him the extension that everyone agrees that he should get.I would not be so quick to say Branch is not going to win this. The team gave him the option to see if HE can find a team to give him his contract and if he could they would trade him. Well he found a team and I have a feeling that the Pats had no intention on trading him. That is why they set the bar so high. If Branch can show that the Pats are getting Market value for the him, I would think that could be a way for him to win the case.

Arbitration is not going to rule on whether a contract that a player has signed is the best offer they could possibly get. All they will rule on is whether or not the contract is in force, which it is from any angle I can think of. The Pats letting Branch test the market was a fools errand on Branches part. There was no way a team could afford to pay him and the Pats.The miscalculation ont he Pats part I believe is that they underestimated other teams willingness to fuel the fire.

 

[greenroom]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

How much does a player stand to lose if they don't fill all of the seats? Exactly how much money do the players have invested in the franchise? That's business. He who has the controlling share of the company calls the shots. Why should the inmates run the assylum? They are extremely well paid individuals who are in a business that they went into knowing it carries a certain amount of risk. Where is their incentive to perform if they have a long term guaranteed contract? I know a ton of players would have the drive to perform but there would be a lot of people who would work for a contract and then drop the effort. I get paid less per year than these guys make in a game check and I'm supposed to feel sorry for their problems? The CEO of my company is fairly wealthy as well and I don't expect to be able to make demands of him and am certainly expected to honor my obligations. These guys are spoiled brats who are handed the world and want more. Boo hoo, the owners are wealthy. That's life.

Well from a players side he is his own CEO. Players have to make sure that they can make as much money as they can before they are removed from the game. So yes it is in the players best interest to try to get the best possible deal. As far as you not making demands from your CEO and that you honor your obligations. If you have ever changed jobs due to a raise in pay then you would not be honoring your obligations to your old CEO. So don't try to act like that you do not try to get the best deal for you and your family. As we all do

 

[JuniorNB]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

Here's another thought. How about he does all you say and blows out his knee while playing on a below market contract (which the Patriots can void anytime they feel like it)? How's that free agent payday going to be then?A football player's window is small, and I don't blame guys for trying to get paid what they are worth according to the market.

Then he should have signed a shorter contract. I know that contracts aren't garaunteed, but if your plan is to have a couple of above average years (and make no mistake about it, that's all that Branch has ever had) and then hold out and cry for more money, why didn't he sign a shorter term contract?

 

[Ibis81]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

My point of view on this has nothing to do with different standards. The reason I get annoyed with players is that they do not understand how the system is organized and then formulate a strategy to maximize their return within the constructs of the market. Instead they all seem hell bent on trying to change the rules of the market. That simply does not work in business. I believe that the players confuse their place in the market.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

I also have yet to hear a legal argument from Branch's crew that is in any way compelling. A "verbal promise" to trade him if they get a "fair and reasonable" trade offer? That doesn't sound like a contractual commitment to me.

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration.Sounds like a contract to me.

 

[redman]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

It's called a Collective Bargaining Agreement, meaning that the owners and the players agreed upon a system by which contracts and salary (as opposed to signing bonuses) are not guaranteed and may be terminated at any time at the team's election. There is no "higher standard", there is only the CBA. If you think the CBA stinks, so be it, but the players agreed to it. That being said, I'm very pragmatic when it comes to these situations. If the player is good enough and an important enough player on his team, then his threat to hold out will result in some sort of compromise from the team. If he's not important enough, then he has no bargaining power and he's stuck with the status quo. That's not the way the real world operates, but then we've never really confused the NFL with the real world.

What's amusing to me is that Branch, if he'd had the power of choice over who to pick this fight with, couldn't have chosen a worse organization or management team to try to fight this battle with. The Patriots are extremely disciplined when it comes to not overpaying players and managing their cap, and as a team they've repeatedly demonstrated the ability to replace players in their lineup, even star players like Lawyer Milloy, and keep right on going.

Branch has next to no bargaining power here, and he's coming across looking like an overreaching fool.

 

[mbuehner]

True. And I still think Branch is going to walk away from this a lot better off than people think. His bad faith argument is compelling.

Would you mind explaining that one to me?

Here's the thing- contract law is not nearly as cut and dried as some people think. The fact that the Patriots told Branch he could seek a trade, but didnt tell him their requirements for the trade were far in excess of what any team would ever pay is equivalent to negotiating in bad faith. Now from a purely theoretical point of view, the Patriots could argue that they can require anything they want for a given player- 50 first round draft picks and a Kazillion dollars, but as a matter of law its way more complex than this. In contract law, behaving in good faith is an indespensible requirement. Courts are required to look, not just at the legal rights of the participants, but the motives behind their actions. If one or both parties is found to be abusing the others or the system maliciously, they may forfit their rights to their otherwise legal remedies.

The argument is that the Patriots intentionally sent Branch on a wild goose chase. If this is accepted to be true by the arbiter (or court), the Patriots could forfit their contractual rights with Branch.

 

[redman]

I also have yet to hear a legal argument from Branch's crew that is in any way compelling. A "verbal promise" to trade him if they get a "fair and reasonable" trade offer? That doesn't sound like a contractual commitment to me.

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration.Sounds like a contract to me.

It's too theoretical, and besides, I see no consideration going from Branch to the Pats. It looks like they allowed him to explore possibilities with them, but committed to nothing.

 

[Ibis81]

True. And I still think Branch is going to walk away from this a lot better off than people think. His bad faith argument is compelling.

Would you mind explaining that one to me?

Here's the thing- contract law is not nearly as cut and dried as some people think. The fact that the Patriots told Branch he could seek a trade, but didnt tell him their requirements for the trade were far in excess of what any team would ever pay is equivalent to negotiating in bad faith. Now from a purely theoretical point of view, the Patriots could argue that they can require anything they want for a given player- 50 first round draft picks and a Kazillion dollars, but as a matter of law its way more complex than this. In contract law, behaving in good faith is an indespensible requirement. Courts are required to look, not just at the legal rights of the participants, but the motives behind their actions. If one or both parties is found to be abusing the others or the system maliciously, they may forfit their rights to their otherwise legal remedies.

The argument is that the Patriots intentionally sent Branch on a wild goose chase. If this is accepted to be true by the arbiter (or court), the Patriots could forfit their contractual rights with Branch.

The counter to that argument is that the best estimate of what reasonable compensation means is the franchise player tag. Reasonable does not have to be defined as what is likely to be offered. It can also be defined as what value could be expected under similar circumstances.If reasonable has to be what is likely to be offered, the franchise tagging process is not reasonable.

 

[roadkill1292]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

I'll never understand why fans hold players to a standard that their multi-millionaire owners escape. If the owners won't guarantee contracts with players, there is no ethical higher ground in the expectation that players honor their entire contracts with owners.

Here's why. The owners buy a year-to-year option for the player's services. They pay for that option with a signing bonus, which is non-refundable in case of underperformance or injury. Branch's contract for this season is already bought and paid for. For every case like this, there is probably a corresponding case of a team not getting its money's worth from its signing bonus (Charles Rogers?).

 

[skillz]

Here's a thought, how about Branch honors the contract he agreed to, gives 100%, helps New England win another championship, and tries his luck on the open market next year?

Here's another thought. How about he does all you say and blows out his knee while playing on a below market contract (which the Patriots can void anytime they feel like it)? How's that free agent payday going to be then?A football player's window is small, and I don't blame guys for trying to get paid what they are worth according to the market.

Then the NFL players should have told their union (who they pay dues to) this past year to negotiate them a CBA with guaranteed contracts like the other sports unions have done. If the union would do that for the NFL players, none of these holdouts would be an issue--how many hold outs do you see in baseball, basketball, or hockey? Zilch. Unfortunately for the NFL players, the rules in place right now are one-sided in many respects in the team's favor, but that does not give a player the right to choose to not follow the rules that were agreed to in bargaining, or make up his own after-the-fact. The NFL players should focus their energies on getting the union to negotiate a "more level" playing field, and, at the very least, be more cautious about the contracts they sign. Yes, there is an injury risk if they do not sign a "below market" contract and try to squeeze in another good year to drive their market value up further, but that is a calculated risk that they must take under the current system. Whatever choice they make, they should stick with it and not cry about being underpaid when their market value goes up a few years later. Don't sign the contract, or sign a shorter term deal if you think that your value will go up beyond the contract being offered. That is why I had no problems with Leinart holding out after he was drafted--last thing he wanted to do is get stuck with a contract that paid him #2 QB money, that is why he pushed for escalators in his contract, so he could be paid like a #1 QB in the future if he took over the job from Warner, and not get himself in a holdout situation in the future.