What's new
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!

The Deion Branch Situation (1 Viewer)

He'll be traded when one top WR goes down. Perhaps to Seattle for a #1 if DJax can't make it.

 
11th hour signing after the Pats throw a face-saving (but pretty much insignificant) bone to Branch this weekend.

:fingerscrossed:

 
His season is toast. He is getting horredous advise. He will sit out and come back with his current contract.

The Pats are not budging.

 
Arbitrator John Feerick of Fordham Law School has dismissed a grievance filed by the NFL Players Association on behalf of Patriots hold-out wide receiver Deion Branch, NFLPA sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen on Thursday.Feerick did not give a reason why, but said he would not grant relief to either party. He had tentatively been scheduled to hear the grievance Saturday.In the grievance, Branch contended the Patriots reneged on a verbal promise to trade him if he reached a contract agreement with another team, and that team made a fair trade proposal to the Patriots.On Aug. 25, the Patriots granted Branch permission, through Sept. 4, to seek a trade. The Seattle Seahawks and New York Jets reached deals with Branch, but neither team could satisfy the demands of the Patriots, and Branch remained under contract to New England.After the grievance was filed on behalf of Branch, the Patriots filed a motion questioning whether Feerick had jurisdiction over that grievance.Sources told Mortensen that a conference call was held Wednesday night between the sides and there was a discussion regarding the Patriots' claim that Feerick did not have jurisdiction, but Feerick did not address that issue in his decision on Thursday.Branch has also filed a second grievance, contending the Patriots have not bargained with him in good faith. That grievance will go forward, with a hearing set next Thursday and Friday before special master Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
 
There seems to be some confusion on whether or not the first grievance was DISMISSED (per Mort on ESPN) or POSTPONED (per Borges on Boston.com)...

 
It appears to me that this is a test case of the new CBA, with New England's ownership wanting to impose the maximal fines and still hold Branch to his old contract. Branch's legal team seems to be testing the resolve of managment and the limits of the new CBA as well - I expect this to be a prolonged situation with no resolution for months. Those $14,000.00 max. a day holdout fines are a new lever that the owners got inserted into the CBA, and ownership/management is going to use that lever when they deem it necessary. After the start of regular season, they can withhold the weekly checks, so this will get very expensive very fast for Branch. But he appears entrenched in his position regardless of the short-term monetary costs, looking for the big signing bonus at the end of the rainbow.

In other words, I wouldn't expend a draft pick on Branch if I were drafting today. He's off my WR board.

 
His season is toast. He is getting horredous advise. He will sit out and come back with his current contract.The Pats are not budging.
2 teams offered what he wants, sounds like his advise is spot on to me. The pats are lowballing, so sit out.
 
I am thinking it will end with a Waco-like siege in Gillette Stadium, where Branch and his agent hold the Patriot faithful hostage until the ATF comes in guns blazing. Sadly, when the ATF agents rush the stadium, Branch's agent takes a non-lethal rubber bullet to the forehead and when negotiations resume he allows Branch to sign a $100 per year 8 year deal.

 
He'll return in week 10 and play the remainder of the season.
I'll bet you $100 he doesn't hold out until week 10. You have one hour to accept.
Well, I can't read his mind. But that's my best guess.
It seems like it's a lot of people's best guess. I've posted my reasoning for why that's the least likely option, and I get a lot of people disagreeing vehemently with me. And yet nobody will take me up on the bet. I'm completely serious about the bet, by the way. If you'd like to make it less than 100, I'd be happy to do that, too. I'll even give you 3:2 odds. This offer expires 30 minutes from now.
 
(KFFL) ESPNews reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch has had his grievance against the team revoked.

Does this mean it has been turned down, or Branch himself has decided not to go thru with it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He'll return in week 10 and play the remainder of the season.
I'll bet you $100 he doesn't hold out until week 10. You have one hour to accept.
Well, I can't read his mind. But that's my best guess.
It seems like it's a lot of people's best guess. I've posted my reasoning for why that's the least likely option, and I get a lot of people disagreeing vehemently with me. And yet nobody will take me up on the bet. I'm completely serious about the bet, by the way. If you'd like to make it less than 100, I'd be happy to do that, too. I'll even give you 3:2 odds. This offer expires 30 minutes from now.
Come on LHUCKS don't take that. Take the bet!!!! We need more bets like these at FBG's spice it up a little bit when someone runs there mouth.
 
(KFFL) ESPNews reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch has had his grievance against the team revoked.

Does this mean it has been turned down, or Branch himself has decided not to go thru with it?
I don't think it means anything, as ESPN apparently has since revised what it reported. For more info, see the other Branch thread.
 
(KFFL) ESPNews reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch has had his grievance against the team revoked.

Does this mean it has been turned down, or Branch himself has decided not to go thru with it?
I don't think it means anything, as ESPN apparently has since revised what it reported. For more info, see the other Branch thread.
Thanks! Perhaps the threads need to be condensed.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top