flutie2phelan

Oh, Mike, you threw in the towel too soon !
Although i think i fathom what dryheat and PatsNut are saying ... you had them on the ropes.
PFT does not speak authoritively. It honestly proclaims itself to be a Rumo(u)r Mill.
Reiss certainly makes hay of whatever grass the Pats send him.
But is this f/o not well-known for emitting disinformation? If Reiss says it, then that is what they told him.
But why assume that they told him the whole truth and nothing but?

You were right, that the claimed grievance is laughably venial.
As you first said, but then repudiated, the cause easily could lie elsewhere.

Where? Well, as PFT sensibly continues (in part):
We're also not prepared to rule out a possible allegation by the Patriots that Branch's agent Jason Chayut had "gauged the market" for Branch's services before advising Branch to go ahead with his holdout. Though, as we've explained in the past, it's prudent for an agent to develop a feel for what other teams will pay to their clients, a team's acquiescence to such a request constitutes tampering.

And the policy makes it clear that, if a contract dispute arises between a player and his current team after there has been discussion with another team regarding potential contract terms, tampering will be found even if there is no proof of a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the impermissible contact and the contract problems. "In other words," as the policy reads, "a club will not be able to defend a tampering charge in these circumstances by asserting that its private contact with a player (or the player's representative) did not involve any expression of interest in the player or was not related in any way to the player's subsequent contract problem with the club."

So if there's evidence that Branch's agent contacted the Jets during the offseason to find out, hypothetically, what the Jets would pay to a guy like Branch (wink, nod) and the Jets provided contract parameters and the contract dispute between Branch and the team arose and/or escalated thereafter, the league could find that the Jets engaged in tampering.

Those are two possible "elsewheres".

A third lies in that rumor ... which we have heard no more of ... that the Jets made an offer
to do Chayut a favor ... and that said offer had a "funky structure".

Seems very likely that there is SOMETHING more to the Patriots' complaint than merely ...
We Didn't Authorize You To Discuss Our Compensation.

__________________

rookBoston

The key factor in all this is the grievance filed by the agent against the Patriots, which alleged that they were dealing in bad faith. That claim was substantiated by the fact that the agent knew that the Jets were prepared to offer a 2nd round pick.

From the Pats perspective, these should be no basis for that claim, because the agent should not know what the trade compensation would be for the team. Just like the Pats have no interest in what Branch's new contract terms will be (other than informational), Branch's representatives have no interest in the compensation arranged between the teams in question.

If the Jets hadn't leaked the trade compensation, the grievance couldn't have been filed. And without the grievance to put futher separation between the player and the team, we might have had him back in the fold... or theoretically, anyway.

So, the Jets may have materially harmed the Patriots negotiating position by sharing that info. I buy it.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual

Mike the Brit

No, I declared victory and withdrew!

__________________
My prized possessions: Our family pictures; my dad and me getting doused by Bruschi in Super Bowl XXXIX [Shalize Manza Young Up Close with ... Bill Belichick]


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


They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Well, Pats fans should be invincible by now. [Fitzy, 16 November 2009]

Still here to learn

Mike the Brit

Let me have one last go at this.

The Patriots have filed a grievance against the Jets for tampering. We didn’t know, initially, what the allegation was but Reiss now tells us that it was because the Jets discussed the possible compensation that would come to the Pats in a trade for Deion Branch with Deion and his agent.

Remember that the Pats had given Branch permission to “seek a trade and negotiate a contract”.

Remember too that after the Pats rejected the Jets trade proposal Chayut filed two grievances on Branch’s behalf, one for not negotiating in good faith, one for having rejected a trade with reasonable compensation. The issue there was whether, in authorizing Branch/Chayut to seek a trade the Pats were committed to accepting a reasonable offer of compensation should Branch/Chayut come back with one. The Pats were denying (so far as I recall) that they had made any such commitment. It seemed to be common ground that any authorization was verbal. As far as I could make out, the lawyers think that, in the absence of a written agreement between the Pats and Branch/Chayut, what was said in the press release is potentially significant.

But now, apparently, the Pats are denying that in giving Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract they were authorizing him/Chayut to discuss possible compensation – to the extent that any team discussing compensation with Branch/Chayut should be counted as tampering.

Taking a step back, isn’t it obvious that that’s absurd? How can you seriously and in good faith let someone go and negotiate a trade without being able to talk to the possible trade partner about the compensation? Anyone who is thinking of signing a player has to face two costs: the monetary cost of paying for the player’s contract and the compensation cost in pick(s). And the one will affect the other. How could a front office make a decision about an offer of a contract if it didn’t have an idea of what it would cost them in terms of picks? If this is really the Pats’ position then they will make themselves look utterly ridiculous. The more so because what do they hope to gain from this tampering charge. If the Jets are reprimanded then they will surely get the sympathy of all neutrals. All the Pats get is bad blood.

So surely (or at least so I thought) there must be some other explanation. But the Pats don’t usually give Mike Reiss wrong information.

Of course, there are those who believe that the Pats are in the right, just as there are those who believe that the Pats’ wide receivers are the best ever. Some people can believe six impossible things before breakfast and who am I to mock their simple faith? As for me, it’s part of the pleasure of watching and rooting for this Pats’ team and organization that they have been both smart and classy. If this move really is as it seems then it looks as if in this case they’re being neither.

__________________
My prized possessions: Our family pictures; my dad and me getting doused by Bruschi in Super Bowl XXXIX [Shalize Manza Young Up Close with ... Bill Belichick]


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


They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Well, Pats fans should be invincible by now. [Fitzy, 16 November 2009]

Still here to learn

BlueTalon

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but there are a few corrections to be made here.

First, Hutch is one of the best interior O-linemen in the entire league, but he wasn't even the best O-lineman on the Seahawks. That honor belongs to Walter Jones. And he (Jones) was paid like it, too, which is what set the stage for the whole poison pill sticky wicket. And Transitioning Hutch was not an attempt to save some money, as some people think -- it was a means of allowing Hutch to find his own market value. The mistake was in assuming that Hutch and potential suiters would deal in good faith.

Second, Ruskell was not hired to replace Holmgren as GM. Holmgren had been fired as GM a few years prior by then president Bob Whitsett. Paul Allen had a hands-off policy toward the Seahawks, and let Whitsett run everything. Also, all Seahawks communication to Allen went through Whitsett, so Allen didn't hear about how dysfunctional the relationship was between the FO and the coaching staff... until Todd Leiweke was brought in as chief executive officer to take some of the load off of Whitsett. Then Allen started hearing some of the stuff he hadn't been hearing. After then end of last season, Holmgren had had enough and was thinking of quitting. Allen decided there was a problem that needed fixing, and the problem wasn't Holmgren, and he canned Whitsett.

The Ruskell hiring came after a lengthy search by a committee of Allen's top personnel guys. Pioli might have been interviewed, but I don't know where you get that he was Allen's first choice.


Please note, I just added this for the sake of accuracy. I don't expect any of you to be familiar with the inner workings of the Seahawks, any more than I am of the Patriots (I'm not).

kolbitr

Alice references aside, it is not simple faith to have concluded from the evidence thus far presented and arrayed that we have a limited set of data, almost entirely tinged with the ambiguity of the press release and the clear bias of the agent at-work. We do not really know the Patriots' side of these manifold accusations and arguments intricately. Thus, I feel confident in stating that it remains awkward to ascribe motives to their actions.

I would also add, strongly, that although it is certainly possible for the management of this team to act in a mean-spirited or petty manner, it is likely that they are doing so purposefully, i.e. not from mere vindictiveness but from a sense of tactics. Let's not forget that the Jets are on the schedule this week. And let's see how things develop afterward.