sarge

Of course they will franchise him.

But not so that they can pay him. So that they can get something for him.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt we will get a second for him. Come the offseason, more teams may want to compete and that may go up to a first.

If the Pats don't franchise, they get nothing!

lobster

By week 10 the Pat's will have more room on the roster. However by not reporting today Branch will be ineligible for termination pay, which is guaranteed to every player on the 53-man roster, or injured lists, at the time of 1st regular season game. Termination pay essentially guarantee's a players salary even if they are cut the day after the first regular season game.

Therefore Branch now gets 1/16 of his salary for every game he is on the 53-man roster. If he reports for only 6 games that would be about $375K, which is substantially less than the fines he owes. Branch is going to be the laughing stock of the NFL if he loses his second grievance.

MrBigglesWorth

absoultely not, it's franchise only. they wouldn't risk him just leaving for not as much compensation. franchising virtually ensures no one will pay a big contract plus two #1 picks.

look how seattle played that card with steve hutchinson(and i know minnesota did that poison pill, but had they frachised him they would still have him or have much more compensation.

fgssand

What do you know that we don't? Very good chance? Please pass that blunt my way.

PatsWorldChamps

this would have been avoided if the pats hadnt planned on franchising him. he will be franchised

__________________
"If you didn't know better, you'd think the Jets sent Bill Belichick north
to destroy the Patriots from within. (When) they could have had
impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson or the second-best tackle in
the draft in Kenyatta Walker, they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard
Seymour, (who is) too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end." - Xerox Borges, April 2001

arrellbee

No. Their salary for the year is only guaranteed if they are 'veterans' and they are on the roster as of the first game of the season (no salaries are guaranteed if a player is signed after the first game).

(Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 'veteran' designation in this context is defined as a player having accrued enough seasons to qualify as an unrestricted free agent once his contract is up - which is 4 accrued seasons required.)

zippo59

The Pats wouldn't take the tag off the table not because they necessarily wanted to use it but because they wanted the option of using it. Even if they weren't planning on using it if they took it off the table then every player who didn't want to franchise would threaten to hold out unless they promised not to. Then they would be in trouble. Also the tag gives you valueable leverage during negotiations. The Pats understandably didn't want to lose that edge.

__________________
"What Tom Brady just did gives me goose bumps."-John Madden after final drive in SB 36


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Unofficial Kevin Faulk supporter.