WR Branch's Holdout May Extend Into Regular Season (1 Viewer)

[H.K.]

Who are some other examples of players who held out into the season, missed several games, then came back in time to get credit for the season? I know Galloway was one, missing the first 8 games in 1999. McCardell missed the first 6 games before he was traded to San Diego in 2004. Anyone else? Now, how did the strategy work for them? That is, did they get the big money contracts they were seeking? (I don't know the answer.)

There are very few players who hold out for any length of time, so its a small sample size. Historically, the odds say he'll be in sooner than later.

 

[Boston]

I could not disagree with that last statement more. Branch is a key component for the Pats and his absence is a definite negative. No doubt, especially with how their WR unit is set up. Yet, I would not even put him in the list of top 10 most important Patriots (I have Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Vrabel, Colvin, Bruschi, Harrison, Brady, Light and Watson ahead of him). The reason being is in the Pats scheme WR is not as important as it is with other teams. That's why they can win a title with Brown/Patten and nothing else or win three titles without having one WR go over 1,000 yards. That's not a knock on Branch but it's how they play football under BB. Branch is a valuable player for the Pats but unless BB plans on implementing a new style of football you are overestimating his worth to the Pats.

However, this is a new year, and in the past with Patten, Givens, Brown, B.Johnson, they had some depth....this season they are razor thin at WR.

I agree with this. By no means am I trying to knock Branch. Without him the Pats WR unit could really be questionable. I'm just trying to show that this is a sticky situation. I can fully understand why the player and team see their value being different. There's a very legit case to be made on both sides. My beef with Branch is he keeps comparing himself to players who received their big payday as unrestricted free agents. Yet, he still has a year left on his deal. He wants it both ways which he's just not in a position to do and I think he's really playing with fire if he digs in his heels and sits out 10 games. That move could easily backfire on him.

 

[CrossEyed]

This whole situation reminds me very much of the Hines Ward holdout last year. I suspect they'll get something done before the season starts.

 

[Pat Patriot]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

 

[H.K.]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

That's a large issue with Branch. "Either sign me now or let me walk. If you do either, fine. But I am not coming to camp unless you agree that you will not tag me." Pats won't commit to not tagging him, so he is staying away.

 

[H.K.]

This whole situation reminds me very much of the Hines Ward holdout last year. I suspect they'll get something done before the season starts.

Yep. Right now its a game of chicken. Neither side wants to cave publicly, but behind the scenes they'll probably work a similar arrangement where both sides can save face.

 

[Boston]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

That's a large issue with Branch. "Either sign me now or let me walk. If you do either, fine. But I am not coming to camp unless you agree that you will not tag me." Pats won't commit to not tagging him, so he is staying away.

There's no way the Pats can do that. They can not allow Branch to call the shots while he's under contract. It sets a horrible precedent that will come back to haunt them when they have to deal with players like Warren and Wilfork. You can get away with doing something different with a player like Seymour (or Brady) because he's a franchise player. Outside of that anything you do to get a short term fix will end up being a long term headache.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

if they franchise him in 2007 they have to pay him top 5 money for his position, which would i'm guessing involve a substantial raise... wouldn't give him security he wants, but a couple years of that would be next best thing...

 

[H.K.]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

That's a large issue with Branch. "Either sign me now or let me walk. If you do either, fine. But I am not coming to camp unless you agree that you will not tag me." Pats won't commit to not tagging him, so he is staying away.

There's no way the Pats can do that. They can not allow Branch to call the shots while he's under contract. It sets a horrible precedent that will come back to haunt them when they have to deal with players like Warren and Wilfork. You can get away with doing something different with a player like Seymour (or Brady) because he's a franchise player. Outside of that anything you do to get a short term fix will end up being a long term headache.

Agreed, which is why the Patriots are such a successful franchise, their management gets lot of value out of its players based on field performance vs. what they pay the guy....but what if Branch shows up to camp and hurts his knee like Javon Walker? Two sides to every coin.

 

[Boston]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

if they franchise him in 2007 they have to pay him top 5 money for his position, which would i'm guessing involve a substantial raise... wouldn't give him security he wants, but a couple years of that would be next best thing...

I could easily see the Pats going this route. It gives them time to develop Jax while they plan for Branch's departure. They have plenty of cap space so they could easily take a one year hit here and get their WR unit squared away for life post-Branch or they could swing a deal next offseason where they get a return on his services. On the flipside if Branch is unhappy now I'm sure he won't be thrilled about this happening.

 

[H.K.]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

if they franchise him in 2007 they have to pay him top 5 money for his position, which would i'm guessing involve a substantial raise... wouldn't give him security he wants, but a couple years of that would be next best thing...

I could easily see the Pats going this route. It gives them time to develop Jax while they plan for Branch's departure. They have plenty of cap space so they could easily take a one year hit here and get their WR unit squared away for life post-Branch or they could swing a deal next offseason where they get a return on his services. On the flipside if Branch is unhappy now I'm sure he won't be thrilled about this happening.

Yep, put yourself in Banch's shoes, being tagged is a worst case scenario for him.

 

[massraider]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

if they franchise him in 2007 they have to pay him top 5 money for his position, which would i'm guessing involve a substantial raise... wouldn't give him security he wants, but a couple years of that would be next best thing...

I wonder how far apart the guaranteed money the Pats would be offering, and 1 year under the franchise tender, would be.My guess is not that far. It's not an ideal situation for Branch, but one year under the franchise tag is not some kind of punishment either.If the Pats aren't going to offer him #1 money, one season at top 5 salary might be darn close the SB he'd get from the Pats. After one year, he could get that big SB from someone else.

 

[Tau837]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

if they franchise him in 2007 they have to pay him top 5 money for his position, which would i'm guessing involve a substantial raise... wouldn't give him security he wants, but a couple years of that would be next best thing...

I wonder how far apart the guaranteed money the Pats would be offering, and 1 year under the franchise tender, would be.My guess is not that far. It's not an ideal situation for Branch, but one year under the franchise tag is not some kind of punishment either.If the Pats aren't going to offer him #1 money, one season at top 5 salary might be darn close the SB he'd get from the Pats. After one year, he could get that big SB from someone else.

One season at top 5 salary for Branch would be a gift. He's not worth it, and I don't really believe the Pats would be willing to pay him that much. They went 14-2 in 2004 with Branch missing several games and catching 35 passes. He just is not vital to their success.Now I'm sure someone is about to reply, but they had Givens & Patten that year. Big deal. Givens and Patten are just like Branch in that they are not special receivers and are replaceable. They essentially replaced Branch that year with Patten and didn't miss a beat. David Patten.The combination of Chad Jackson, Caldwell, Brown, and Watson this year can be just as effective as the receiving corps was for the Pats in 2004. This is why the Pats won't give in IMO.As to the notion that Branch will hold out for 10 games, come in, and get franchised, that makes no sense to me. They will have just lived without him for the majority of this season, and obviously don't view him as a top 5 WR, but they're going to turn around and pay him top 5 money next season? And keep him around unhappy?

 

[H.K.]

If Branch's strategy is to waltz in come week 10 to be eligible for FA, this is a very flawed strategy. Even if he did this, the Pats could still Franchise him. The Pats are not going to let him walk away from this.

if they franchise him in 2007 they have to pay him top 5 money for his position, which would i'm guessing involve a substantial raise... wouldn't give him security he wants, but a couple years of that would be next best thing...

I wonder how far apart the guaranteed money the Pats would be offering, and 1 year under the franchise tender, would be.My guess is not that far. It's not an ideal situation for Branch, but one year under the franchise tag is not some kind of punishment either.If the Pats aren't going to offer him #1 money, one season at top 5 salary might be darn close the SB he'd get from the Pats. After one year, he could get that big SB from someone else.

One season at top 5 salary for Branch would be a gift. He's not worth it, and I don't really believe the Pats would be willing to pay him that much. They went 14-2 in 2004 with Branch missing several games and catching 35 passes. He just is not vital to their success.Now I'm sure someone is about to reply, but they had Givens & Patten that year. Big deal. Givens and Patten are just like Branch in that they are not special receivers and are replaceable. They essentially replaced Branch that year with Patten and didn't miss a beat. David Patten.The combination of Chad Jackson, Caldwell, Brown, and Watson this year can be just as effective as the receiving corps was for the Pats in 2004. This is why the Pats won't give in IMO.As to the notion that Branch will hold out for 10 games, come in, and get franchised, that makes no sense to me. They will have just lived without him for the majority of this season, and obviously don't view him as a top 5 WR, but they're going to turn around and pay him top 5 money next season? And keep him around unhappy?

I agree with your last paragraph, but egos are involved here now. Maybe the Pats can get by with their current receivers, but the AFC has caught up to them. They have finally started to feel the sting of FA and have lost some valuable pieces to their past success. They'll be in a dog fight to win their division, and are not a lock to make the playoffs. Indy, Pitt, Denver, Balt, Cincy, Miami, & Jax will be tough foes in the conference.

 

[David Yudkin]

As to the notion that Branch will hold out for 10 games, come in, and get franchised, that makes no sense to me. They will have just lived without him for the majority of this season, and obviously don't view him as a top 5 WR, but they're going to turn around and pay him top 5 money next season? And keep him around unhappy?

The Pats are so far under the cap right now that they could franchise him out of spite and not play him. I'm not sure if they changed the rules after the T.O. mess, so maybe they play him a couple plays a game (as you can't tell the coach how to use his players).I've been following this pretty closely, and Branch and the team are so far apart that I'me not sure meeting in the middle will be all that easy.Branch's argument seems to hinge on what he MIGHT be able to do as the clear #1 on another team and that it's essentially not his fault that the Pats spread the ball around so much. The Pats feel that SINCE they spread the ball around so much they should not have to pay him as a top shelf WR1. Branch looks at what Givens got as a contract as what is beneath him and what Wayne has as a starting point. (He also seems to think that he deserves more than Wayne, as some sources are saying he was more on average than what Wayne got). He also has been pointing to the $11.5 million signing bonus Randle El got from Washington.The Pats seem to be offering him a bit more than Givens got from Tennessee, but certainly not what Wayne got (or more). The last formal offer that I saw had Branch averaging a deent amount per year over the length of the contract, but the majority of the money was wrapped up in the last two years when the Pats could easily cut him if they choice or try to get him to restructure. I also believe the signing bonus was close to half what he wanted.Add it all up and from what I've seen, there are a lot of reasons why Branch could sit in idle for a few months. The Pats still are roughly $15 million under the cap last I saw, have Brady lamenting about having no one to throw to and Branch being his #1 guy, and a whole lot of question marks at WR without Branch in the lineup.What needs to happen is the Pats need to open up the check book and kick in some more money in a more player friendly deal (ie not all rolled into the last year of the contract) with a decent signing bonus. They certainly can afford it in real money or cap dollars. Branch also needs to wake up and understand that he's not a true uber elite receiver. As it's been said many, many times, he struggles with double teams and IMO is not a Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, et al. He's very good, but he's not elite.

 

[massraider]

As to the notion that Branch will hold out for 10 games, come in, and get franchised, that makes no sense to me. They will have just lived without him for the majority of this season, and obviously don't view him as a top 5 WR, but they're going to turn around and pay him top 5 money next season? And keep him around unhappy?

The Pats are so far under the cap right now that they could franchise him out of spite and not play him. I'm not sure if they changed the rules after the T.O. mess, so maybe they play him a couple plays a game (as you can't tell the coach how to use his players).I've been following this pretty closely, and Branch and the team are so far apart that I'me not sure meeting in the middle will be all that easy.Branch's argument seems to hinge on what he MIGHT be able to do as the clear #1 on another team and that it's essentially not his fault that the Pats spread the ball around so much. The Pats feel that SINCE they spread the ball around so much they should not have to pay him as a top shelf WR1. Branch looks at what Givens got as a contract as what is beneath him and what Wayne has as a starting point. (He also seems to think that he deserves more than Wayne, as some sources are saying he was more on average than what Wayne got). He also has been pointing to the $11.5 million signing bonus Randle El got from Washington.The Pats seem to be offering him a bit more than Givens got from Tennessee, but certainly not what Wayne got (or more). The last formal offer that I saw had Branch averaging a deent amount per year over the length of the contract, but the majority of the money was wrapped up in the last two years when the Pats could easily cut him if they choice or try to get him to restructure. I also believe the signing bonus was close to half what he wanted.Add it all up and from what I've seen, there are a lot of reasons why Branch could sit in idle for a few months. The Pats still are roughly $15 million under the cap last I saw, have Brady lamenting about having no one to throw to and Branch being his #1 guy, and a whole lot of question marks at WR without Branch in the lineup.What needs to happen is the Pats need to open up the check book and kick in some more money in a more player friendly deal (ie not all rolled into the last year of the contract) with a decent signing bonus. They certainly can afford it in real money or cap dollars. Branch also needs to wake up and understand that he's not a true uber elite receiver. As it's been said many, many times, he struggles with double teams and IMO is not a Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, et al. He's very good, but he's not elite.

Maybe he's not, but it stands to reason that he'll get more on the open market. The Pats are a system offense, and don't feel they need to pay a #1 WR, fair enough. That doesn't mean they are in the right by lowballing him. Branch knows that the second contract is the only big one most guys get, he should take less because the Pats are such a swell organization? Of course not. But the Pats can play hardball here, force him to play this season on his rook deal, then franchise him for one season. Which is within their rights.And Branch can as well. He can sit out 10 games, avoiding injury, and taking away Brady's #1 target. Which is within his rights as a player. But I have feeling that Branch's actions will be seen as selfish, but the Pats actions will just be the act of a fiscally sound organization.As to Branch hurting himself by holding out, or "playing with fire", I don't see that. If he comes back in week 9 or 10, and plays out his deal, then hits the open market, he'll get his money.EDIT: These comments weren't directed at you, David, more just in 'general' thoughts.

 

[Marc Levin]

Branch meanwhile only had 132 passes thrown his way. That's fewer targets per game than guys like Jerry Porter and Donte Stallworth. He put up very similar numbers to Reggie Wayne last year with about the same number of targets and wants a similar contract. I think he has a valid argument.

Has Branch ever had a season like the one Wayne did in '04?

Has Wayne ever had a post-season like Branch in '05?

Branch in '05 postseason (following the '04 season):3 games16 catches264 yards1 touchdownSuper Bowl XXXVIII MVPWayne in '05 postseason (following the '04 season):2 games13 catches256 yards2 touchdownsSo, one less game, only 3 less catches, 8 less yards and 1 MORE touchdown. Branch's MVP award gives him the edge, but Wayne has been no slouch in the postseason either. In fact, in 7 postseason games, Wayne's stat line is 38-542-4.In 8 postseason games, Branch's stat line is 41-629-2. Quite comparable, I would say.

Good example that you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer...

did you see HK's comeback? Read that and tell me who got "Owned" Branch >>>>>>>>>> Wayne in the post season

I guess you missed the part where Wayne has averaged slightly more catches, receiving yards, and TDs than Branch in their postseason careers. You have a strange definition of >>>>>>>>>>.

The '04 example was shoddy and unresearched.Branch's '04 run kicked the crap out of Wayne's '04 run.H.K.'s comeback was dead-on.

 

[Tau837]

Branch meanwhile only had 132 passes thrown his way. That's fewer targets per game than guys like Jerry Porter and Donte Stallworth. He put up very similar numbers to Reggie Wayne last year with about the same number of targets and wants a similar contract. I think he has a valid argument.

Has Branch ever had a season like the one Wayne did in '04?

Has Wayne ever had a post-season like Branch in '05?

Branch in '05 postseason (following the '04 season):3 games16 catches264 yards1 touchdownSuper Bowl XXXVIII MVPWayne in '05 postseason (following the '04 season):2 games13 catches256 yards2 touchdownsSo, one less game, only 3 less catches, 8 less yards and 1 MORE touchdown. Branch's MVP award gives him the edge, but Wayne has been no slouch in the postseason either. In fact, in 7 postseason games, Wayne's stat line is 38-542-4.In 8 postseason games, Branch's stat line is 41-629-2. Quite comparable, I would say.

Good example that you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer...

did you see HK's comeback? Read that and tell me who got "Owned" Branch >>>>>>>>>> Wayne in the post season

I guess you missed the part where Wayne has averaged slightly more catches, receiving yards, and TDs than Branch in their postseason careers. You have a strange definition of >>>>>>>>>>.

The '04 example was shoddy and unresearched.Branch's '04 run kicked the crap out of Wayne's '04 run.H.K.'s comeback was dead-on.

Fine. You can take Branch's side in this and we can agree to disagree. We'll see if he ever gets paid like he says he is worth.

 

[Big Score]

Who are some other examples of players who held out into the season, missed several games, then came back in time to get credit for the season? I know Galloway was one, missing the first 8 games in 1999. McCardell missed the first 6 games before he was traded to San Diego in 2004. Anyone else? Now, how did the strategy work for them? That is, did they get the big money contracts they were seeking? (I don't know the answer.)

Galloway got major, major after his holdout.McKardell got more from San Diego than what he would've gotten had he stayed in Tampa, but he did not get all that he was asking for.So the answer to your question is both these players got more after their holdout......and one of them hit the Jackpot

 

[H.K.]

As to the notion that Branch will hold out for 10 games, come in, and get franchised, that makes no sense to me. They will have just lived without him for the majority of this season, and obviously don't view him as a top 5 WR, but they're going to turn around and pay him top 5 money next season? And keep him around unhappy?

The Pats are so far under the cap right now that they could franchise him out of spite and not play him. I'm not sure if they changed the rules after the T.O. mess, so maybe they play him a couple plays a game (as you can't tell the coach how to use his players).I've been following this pretty closely, and Branch and the team are so far apart that I'me not sure meeting in the middle will be all that easy.Branch's argument seems to hinge on what he MIGHT be able to do as the clear #1 on another team and that it's essentially not his fault that the Pats spread the ball around so much. The Pats feel that SINCE they spread the ball around so much they should not have to pay him as a top shelf WR1. Branch looks at what Givens got as a contract as what is beneath him and what Wayne has as a starting point. (He also seems to think that he deserves more than Wayne, as some sources are saying he was more on average than what Wayne got). He also has been pointing to the $11.5 million signing bonus Randle El got from Washington.The Pats seem to be offering him a bit more than Givens got from Tennessee, but certainly not what Wayne got (or more). The last formal offer that I saw had Branch averaging a deent amount per year over the length of the contract, but the majority of the money was wrapped up in the last two years when the Pats could easily cut him if they choice or try to get him to restructure. I also believe the signing bonus was close to half what he wanted.Add it all up and from what I've seen, there are a lot of reasons why Branch could sit in idle for a few months. The Pats still are roughly $15 million under the cap last I saw, have Brady lamenting about having no one to throw to and Branch being his #1 guy, and a whole lot of question marks at WR without Branch in the lineup.What needs to happen is the Pats need to open up the check book and kick in some more money in a more player friendly deal (ie not all rolled into the last year of the contract) with a decent signing bonus. They certainly can afford it in real money or cap dollars. Branch also needs to wake up and understand that he's not a true uber elite receiver. As it's been said many, many times, he struggles with double teams and IMO is not a Randy Moss, Chad Johnson, et al. He's very good, but he's not elite.

Maybe he's not, but it stands to reason that he'll get more on the open market. The Pats are a system offense, and don't feel they need to pay a #1 WR, fair enough. That doesn't mean they are in the right by lowballing him. Branch knows that the second contract is the only big one most guys get, he should take less because the Pats are such a swell organization? Of course not. But the Pats can play hardball here, force him to play this season on his rook deal, then franchise him for one season. Which is within their rights.And Branch can as well. He can sit out 10 games, avoiding injury, and taking away Brady's #1 target. Which is within his rights as a player. But I have feeling that Branch's actions will be seen as selfish, but the Pats actions will just be the act of a fiscally sound organization.As to Branch hurting himself by holding out, or "playing with fire", I don't see that. If he comes back in week 9 or 10, and plays out his deal, then hits the open market, he'll get his money.EDIT: These comments weren't directed at you, David, more just in 'general' thoughts.

Two excellent posts on the matter. My most likely scenario: The parties privately agree to pay Branch less than Wayne but more than Givens, and nice guaranteed money. The deal will not be inked until after Branch returns to camp. Patriots save face, remain competitive for the '06 season, and Branch gets paid.

 

[jgb95]

is it possible for the PATS to deactivate him for the year if he sits out the first 10 weeks?

I imagine the UNION would jump all over the teams ### for that.

But of course it's ok for him to sit out!!!!!

 

[Bob_Magaw]

as far as galloway & mccardell, good research...

though if you think about how old mccardell was, there was no way he was going to get big money he was looking for...

branch is of course much younger & could rightfully expect a big contract (how big an open question)

NE got to the pinnacle by getting some players to extend home town discounts or play for less than they could have gotten elsewhere for a chance to win the super bowl... not sure if the luster is coming off, but givens left, branch might be, seymour pushed for a deal commensurate with his talent & standing & got it...

i wonder if this works both ways... as BB & pioli developed their system, the cap was much lower than now... now that they have more cap space to work with, i wonder if they can be flexible with their strategy & pay a little more than they want to for branch, since they can clearly afford it... if not it seems like a one way street where players help organization but organization isn't willing to help the players... that kind of perception could affect negotiations with other players down the road...

maybe they won't be so generous with the home town discounts if they don't think the organization is willing to reciprocate... this dynamic may be fueling the holdout... branch may be feeling disrespected if the team can afford to pay him more but refuses anyway.

 

[H.K.]

as far as galloway & mccardell, good research...though if you think about how old mccardell was, there was no way he was going to get big money he was looking for...branch is of course much younger & could rightfully expect a big contract (how big an open question)NE got to the pinnacle by getting some players to extend home town discounts or play for less than they could have gotten elsewhere for a chance to win the super bowl... not sure if the luster is coming off, but givens left, branch might be, seymour pushed for a deal commensurate with his talent & standing & got it...i wonder if this works both ways... as BB & pioli developed their system, the cap was much lower than now... now that they have more cap space to work with, i wonder if they can be flexible with their strategy & pay a little more than they want to for branch, since they can clearly afford it... if not it seems like a one way street where players help organization but organization isn't willing to help the players... that kind of perception could affect negotiations with other players down the road...maybe they won't be so generous with the home town discounts if they don't think the organization is willing to reciprocate... this dynamic may be fueling the holdout... branch may be feeling disrespected if the team can afford to pay him more but refuses anyway.

Could you imagine if Viniatieri beats them with a last second FG in the playoffs? Public perception may change rapidly...

 

[massraider]

maybe they won't be so generous with the home town discounts if they don't think the organization is willing to reciprocate... this dynamic may be fueling the holdout... branch may be feeling disrespected if the team can afford to pay him more but refuses anyway.

Being fiscally responsible means making some tough decisions. The Branch situation is a direct result of this policy.If I was advising the Pats, I wouldn't let them pay Branch #1 money, either. I think they are making the right decision, based on their system.If I was advising Branch, I sure wouldn't advise him to take some three year extension, with all the money wrapped up in the final two years. That's for dang sure.Branch is getting brutalized. The Pats fans are all over him. It'd be nice if every player was willing to play for 60 grand, and a pat on the head from Belichick, but just because a player isn't willing to, doesn't make him a selfish jerk.

 

[AB in DC]

If I were advsising the Pats, I'd add a couple incentives to Branch's 2006 contract just to get him into camp, then let him walk. Similar to what the Redskins did with Lavar last year to defuse that situation.

 

[massraider]

If I were advsising the Pats, I'd add a couple incentives to Branch's 2006 contract just to get him into camp, then let him walk. Similar to what the Redskins did with Lavar last year to defuse that situation.

Most incentives are based on stats, and PT. Between Branch's history of boo-boos, and the Pats throwing to everyone except Vince Wilfork, why would Branch agree to anything like that?

 

[H.K.]

If I were advsising the Pats, I'd add a couple incentives to Branch's 2006 contract just to get him into camp, then let him walk. Similar to what the Redskins did with Lavar last year to defuse that situation.

Most incentives are based on stats, and PT. Between Branch's history of boo-boos, and the Pats throwing to everyone except Vince Wilfork, why would Branch agree to anything like that?

If part of the deal is that they agree not to tag him, he gets to walk and nab a pay day elsewhere. He'll be incented to play and put up numbers to up his market value.

 

[TwinTurbo]

maybe they won't be so generous with the home town discounts if they don't think the organization is willing to reciprocate... this dynamic may be fueling the holdout... branch may be feeling disrespected if the team can afford to pay him more but refuses anyway.

Being fiscally responsible means making some tough decisions. The Branch situation is a direct result of this policy.If I was advising the Pats, I wouldn't let them pay Branch #1 money, either. I think they are making the right decision, based on their system.If I was advising Branch, I sure wouldn't advise him to take some three year extension, with all the money wrapped up in the final two years. That's for dang sure.Branch is getting brutalized. The Pats fans are all over him. It'd be nice if every player was willing to play for 60 grand, and a pat on the head from Belichick, but just because a player isn't willing to, doesn't make him a selfish jerk.

That's my take on it as well. I still don't understand why they couldn't find a way to keep Vinatieri. That guy deserved to get paid. So good luck with Martin Grammatica. I guarantee that tool will never kick a Superbowl winning field goal, let alone any field goal in the big game. Karma is a ##### and it could come back to bite the cheap front office of the Pats. You can only play the "let's all take a pay cut for the team" game for so long.

 

[massraider]

If I were advsising the Pats, I'd add a couple incentives to Branch's 2006 contract just to get him into camp, then let him walk. Similar to what the Redskins did with Lavar last year to defuse that situation.

Most incentives are based on stats, and PT. Between Branch's history of boo-boos, and the Pats throwing to everyone except Vince Wilfork, why would Branch agree to anything like that?

If part of the deal is that they agree not to tag him, he gets to walk and nab a pay day elsewhere. He'll be incented to play and put up numbers to up his market value.

It might take more than that. I agree that would be a nice enticement, but getting tagged, and making 6 mill for one season, is not the punishment some are making it out to be. 6.5 mill in base salary? Few are making that money in base. He'll get that, hen walk after one year, THEN get his big deal.There are worse things for Branch to go through. In fact, I'd rather skip the 10 games, lessening the chance of injury, then get franchised. At least if he gets injured as a franchise player, he gets his salary for the year. 6.5 mill>whatever he's scheduled to make this year.

 

[H.K.]

If I were advsising the Pats, I'd add a couple incentives to Branch's 2006 contract just to get him into camp, then let him walk. Similar to what the Redskins did with Lavar last year to defuse that situation.

Most incentives are based on stats, and PT. Between Branch's history of boo-boos, and the Pats throwing to everyone except Vince Wilfork, why would Branch agree to anything like that?

If part of the deal is that they agree not to tag him, he gets to walk and nab a pay day elsewhere. He'll be incented to play and put up numbers to up his market value.

It might take more than that. I agree that would be a nice enticement, but getting tagged, and making 6 mill for one season, is not the punishment some are making it out to be. 6.5 mill in base salary? Few are making that money in base. He'll get that, hen walk after one year, THEN get his big deal.There are worse things for Branch to go through. In fact, I'd rather skip the 10 games, lessening the chance of injury, then get franchised. At least if he gets injured as a franchise player, he gets his salary for the year. 6.5 mill>whatever he's scheduled to make this year.

That's two full seasons from now, he could shred his knee in Week 11 after his holdout this season and be worthless. NFL players have a short shelf life and his time to get a better deal is the present.

 

[massraider]

Well, if he gets his knee shredded in week 11, that agreement by the Pats to not franchise him is worthelss, isn't it?

I agree, now is the time to get his deal. His next deal, the all-important 2nd deal, is the one that he needs to cash in on. This is not the one to be signing a team-friendly, back-loaded deal.

I also don't think it's a slam dunk that the Pats franchise him. If he sits out 10 games, and the Pats franchise him, isn't that in contrast to their team-first approach? And do the Pats want this guy around for another year, making more waves, and getting his 6.5 mill, THEN going and getting his big deal?

I think the franchise tag talk is just fans not thinking things through. So I don't see it being two years from now, i see it being 6 regular seson games, and whatever playoff games, away.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

maybe they won't be so generous with the home town discounts if they don't think the organization is willing to reciprocate... this dynamic may be fueling the holdout... branch may be feeling disrespected if the team can afford to pay him more but refuses anyway.

Being fiscally responsible means making some tough decisions. The Branch situation is a direct result of this policy.If I was advising the Pats, I wouldn't let them pay Branch #1 money, either. I think they are making the right decision, based on their system.If I was advising Branch, I sure wouldn't advise him to take some three year extension, with all the money wrapped up in the final two years. That's for dang sure.Branch is getting brutalized. The Pats fans are all over him. It'd be nice if every player was willing to play for 60 grand, and a pat on the head from Belichick, but just because a player isn't willing to, doesn't make him a selfish jerk.

That's my take on it as well. I still don't understand why they couldn't find a way to keep Vinatieri. That guy deserved to get paid. So good luck with Martin Grammatica. I guarantee that tool will never kick a Superbowl winning field goal, let alone any field goal in the big game. Karma is a ##### and it could come back to bite the cheap front office of the Pats. You can only play the "let's all take a pay cut for the team" game for so long.

Vinatieri leaving eventually was an inevitability. We've paid to keep Brady and Seymour, and everyone else can take what we are offering or play somewhere else (Milloy, Law, Vinatieri, McGinnest, etc.). In Bill we trust.

 

[Marc Levin]

Fine. You can take Branch's side in this and we can agree to disagree. We'll see if he ever gets paid like he says he is worth.

Whatever.Disagreeing on one point is not taking the other side's whole argument - hook, line and sinker.He won't get paid what he says he's worth - and he'll get paid a lot more than the Pats are offering. That's how this business runs.