BB/Pioli - Contract Negotiations

[Water Boy]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=154531

According to Felger:

But what was wrong with doing something last year, or even two years ago? It’s been obvious for a long time that Branch can play. He won the Super Bowl MVP award after his third year. Everyone knew when his five-year deal ended. He would have been far more affordable in the summer of 2005 than he’s proven to be in the summer of 2006.

But the Pats weren’t about to reach across the negotiating table, especially when Branch was playing for pennies under his rookie contract and the Pats had all the control. Same thing happened with David Givens, who was a perfectly fine (and potentially affordable) No. 2 receiver. But instead of extending themselves a little bit last year, they wound up chasing Givens after it was too late this spring. Givens is now in Tennessee.

Is Felger correct in stating that the Patriots made no attempts to sign Givens and Branch to contract extensions prior to the final years of their contracts? If it is true, I'd say he has a legitimate point. Although there is no guarantee that Givens and Branch would have accepted fair market contracts if they had been offered earlier, IMO it would have been in the team's interest to at least try. Do BB/Pioli have some sort of policy where players must playout their rookie contract (except for HOFs like Big Sey and Brady)? Is this why there have been no reported attempts to resign Graham?

 

[smg93]

I think with Givens it was true. With Deion, obviously not because they offered him an extenstion earlier in the year. They extended Brady as well before his contract had run out.

 

[patsfan13]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=154531

According to Felger:

But what was wrong with doing something last year, or even two years ago? It’s been obvious for a long time that Branch can play. He won the Super Bowl MVP award after his third year. Everyone knew when his five-year deal ended. He would have been far more affordable in the summer of 2005 than he’s proven to be in the summer of 2006.

But the Pats weren’t about to reach across the negotiating table, especially when Branch was playing for pennies under his rookie contract and the Pats had all the control. Same thing happened with David Givens, who was a perfectly fine (and potentially affordable) No. 2 receiver. But instead of extending themselves a little bit last year, they wound up chasing Givens after it was too late this spring. Givens is now in Tennessee.

Is Felger correct in stating that the Patriots made no attempts to sign Givens and Branch to contract extensions prior to the final years of their contracts? If it is true, I'd say he has a legitimate point. Although there is no guarantee that Givens and Branch would have accepted fair market contracts if they had been offered earlier, IMO it would have been in the team's interest to at least try. Do BB/Pioli have some sort of policy where players must playout their rookie contract (except for HOFs like Big Sey and Brady)? Is this why there have been no reported attempts to resign Graham?

From what I've seen the Pats will redo a deal early if the player is the best at what they do and it is a position of high vallue (Brady and Seymour).

Look at the Patten situation, he looked good here not so good in Wash. givens has been injured, but we'll see how well he performs in TN. IMO Brady does a lot to make his receivers look good. On another thread there was a list of WR's who are arguably better than Branch, it was fairly extensive.

Deion isn't an elite player at his position. I think the offers Reiss put in his blog yesterday seemed to be very fair.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Also it seems likely that the Patriots dont view WR as a highly pais position for their players.

 

[PatsDeb]

Don't you think BB and SP have taken a big gamble at doing things this way though? I am sure with all the cap $$ floating around someone out there is going to meet Deion's price, then the Pats will either have to match it, or they will lose him. If the Pats reject the deal because it doesn't meet their "terms", then it will harden Branch even more.

Brady must be having fits. I remember the 60 Minutes interview with Brady where he had Branch come out on the field with him and without saying a word to eachother, Branch would run down the field and Brady would throw the ball to a spot. where Deion would catch it. That comes from playing together for a long time, and both players being somewhat cerebral (Even that loser Peyton Manning has said that is the key to the success of the Colts passing game - longevity of passer & catcher). It will be hard to replace that for Brady, especially with Givens gone in the same year.

I guess the way Branch conducted himself (holding out and refusing to negotiate) instead of reporting to camp and continuing to negotiate kind of tied their hands, but I don't have a good feeling about how this is going to end. I hope they know what they are doing, but it seems that they have given up on Branch and are preparing to move forward without him. This isn't the same as cutting Lawyer Milloy though. We don't have any one to replace Branch, unless Chad Jackson suddenly recovers and becomes a rookie phenom.

 

[Miguel]

I do not think that it is true. I distinctly remember reading a report in 2005 that Givens was looking for Hines Ward money.

It could be that if the Pats had offered Givens in 2005 what they offered at the last minute in 2006 that Givens would be a Patriot today but that's no guarantee and is 20-20 hindsight.

 

[patsfan13]

IMo this will be a win/win situation either Deion get his deal and we get fair value in return or he may sign the deal that has been offered.

There is a saying lawyers have: Don't ask a question unless yo know the answer. I'll bet the Pats have a pretty good idea of the answer here. I don't think it is an accident this gambit was made AFTER the Liele deal was done taking Atl out of the market.

 

[PatsDeb]

There is a saying lawyers have: Don't ask a question unless yo know the answer. I'll bet the Pats have a pretty good idea of the answer here. I don't think it is an accident this gambit was made AFTER the Liele deal was done taking Atl out of the market.

There is that saying, but you'd be surprised how many times you think you know the answer, but it comes out totally different (speaking from experience, unfortunately). I hope what you said is right. I hate crises at the beginning of the season, and we always seem to have one.

 

[tdw777]

......It could be that if the Pats had offered Givens in 2005 what they offered at the last minute in 2006 that Givens would be a Patriot today but that's no guarantee and is 20-20 hindsight.

Miguel...you are a lot more knowledgable about those type of things that I am...but, weren't there "unknowns"...CBA, unkown CAP limit for 2006 for the Pats to have made the offer they did in 2006 in 2005?

 

[marty]

A major consideration left out of Felger's article - just a small detail called the CBA! HELLO!!!
Seems to me a lot of teams, not just the Pats, were waiting to see what happened before committing to players who's contract were soon up, never mind those who still had a year or more to play.

 

[BradyisGod]

You know my impression is that it's REALLY easy to look at all of these things as isolated incidents. Which every writer and everyone else gets to do. The thing that seems to be forgotten is that all of this takes time and effort to do any negotiation, and that comes at the expense of something else.

There is only so much resource out there. So if they were working on an extension for Branch last year, perhaps a deal with Seymour doesn't get done. Who knows, but my point is, is that you can't look at these events as individual instances. You must look at them as a whole.

And, to the media...YOU CAN'T EXTEND EVERYONE! Hell, Maroney looks pretty good in preseason, maybe we should tear up his contract!

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

2005, wasn't that the year NE's salary cap was incredibly tight, affecting the teams ability to hire street free agents as the season progressed? I also recall reading that Branch was offered an extension in the 2005 off-season, and Chayut turned it down. The CBA point is also a good one. Felger seems to be progressing nicely in his bid to be the next Kevin Mannix.

 

[ATippett56]

I do not think that it is true. I distinctly remember reading a report in 2005 that Givens was looking for Hines Ward money.

It could be that if the Pats had offered Givens in 2005 what they offered at the last minute in 2006 that Givens would be a Patriot today but that's no guarantee and is 20-20 hindsight.

However, David Givens has never put up "Hines Ward numbers".

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I do not think that it is true. I distinctly remember reading a report in 2005 that Givens was looking for Hines Ward money.

It could be that if the Pats had offered Givens in 2005 what they offered at the last minute in 2006 that Givens would be a Patriot today but that's no guarantee and is 20-20 hindsight.

The comical thing is it was Felger reporting as early as 2004 that Givens had delusions of financial grandeur and would likely be difficult to keep as a result. And that you could never keep them both. Just as he reported first that Branch was looking for $12M+ in bonus money as a minimum which was going to be a huge problem. And I guess he didn't really read the Borges pieces a few weeks back either where Chayut admitted that the Patriots approached Branch right after the Superbowl in 2005, 2 years early, but naturally made what Chayut characterized as an insulting offer.

The Mike Felger who used to be the Patriots beat reporter and the radio host/TV host/columnist who now pontificates under that name have developed selective memory to enable itself to develop contrarian opinions to drive up it's ratings. Yesterday he was spewing how injury discounts for early extensions of impending FA's really don't exist or amount to a hill of beans. Mike Florio corrected him, but while acknowledging Florio probably knew more than he did about specifics he still doesn't believe such discounts exist. I love the let's not let facts get in the way of my anticipated storyline approach he can now take as a mediot. Renders his rantings worthless.

He insisted the Pats bent over for Seymour and he got a huge bonus in March....when a caller tried to point out to him that Seymour was still performing this season under his rookie deal which Chayut would have to call a 4 year $32M deal as opposed to a 3 year $30M extension, and had yet to see any of the bonus money (which his guest Clayton basically confirmed the day before when he placed the Pat's cap at $12.2M) which is being paid out incrementally, he said the caller was wrong and cut off the call.

He claims he wanted them to be proactive without overpaying. That's easy to say sitting behind a microphone. Felger the reporter used to applaud this organization for it's tough no nonsense stances. But he is now Felger the talk show host mediot who wanted the Sox to pay a 43 year old pitcher $5M a month to pitch after the break because d%#*!@t it's not his money and he wants to follow a winner with great storylines. He appears to be content to have the Pat's morph into the Redskins, although I'm sure he'd be the first to point fingers if it led to the same results.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The fact is that everything the Pats do is extremely pro-active.

They tried to tie up Givens early. Way early. He was a 7th round pick that wanted to base his salary on Hines Ward.

They offered Brady a couple extensions before he even became a big time Q.B. He waited for his value with the team to go up even further. He played for cheap money, and honored his contract, unlike Branch.

Branch was given at least two offers, one of which was a choice between a 3 or 5 year deal.

Light was wrapped up early, as was Hochstein.

They tried to head off the Ty Law situation by offering him an early offer, which he found insulting.

They made offers to the kicker during the whole franchising event, and this last offseason as well.

They made an offer to Andruzzi. They made an offer to Woody (a nice one).

They always make offers to players ahead of time and give the player what the Pats are willing to pay for the player's services. Time and time again.

Anybody that wants to gripe about the Pats Front Office just doesn't get it. People like Branch are paid what they are worth to the Pats, and if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere and underperform in a system that requires talent and not just coaching and scheme.

And, yeah, what Mo said about Felger.

 

[Water Boy]

The comical thing is it was Felger reporting as early as 2004 that Givens had delusions of financial grandeur and would likely be difficult to keep as a result. And that you could never keep them both. Just as he reported first that Branch was looking for $12M+ in bonus money as a minimum which was going to be a huge problem. And I guess he didn't really read the Borges pieces a few weeks back either where Chayut admitted that the Patriots approached Branch right after the Superbowl in 2005, 2 years early, but naturally made what Chayut characterized as an insulting offer.

Thanks for that insight Mo. It would be nice if Felger did his homework before he wrote such things.

 

[Pats726]

The comical thing is it was Felger reporting as early as 2004 that Givens had delusions of financial grandeur and would likely be difficult to keep as a result. And that you could never keep them both. Just as he reported first that Branch was looking for $12M+ in bonus money as a minimum which was going to be a huge problem. And I guess he didn't really read the Borges pieces a few weeks back either where Chayut admitted that the Patriots approached Branch right after the Superbowl in 2005, 2 years early, but naturally made what Chayut characterized as an insulting offer.

The Mike Felger who used to be the Patriots beat reporter and the radio host/TV host/columnist who now pontificates under that name have developed selective memory to enable itself to develop contrarian opinions to drive up it's ratings. Yesterday he was spewing how injury discounts for early extensions of impending FA's really don't exist or amount to a hill of beans. Mike Florio corrected him, but while acknowledging Florio probably knew more than he did about specifics he still doesn't believe such discounts exist. I love the let's not let facts get in the way of my anticipated storyline approach he can now take as a mediot. Renders his rantings worthless.

He insisted the Pats bent over for Seymour and he got a huge bonus in March....when a caller tried to point out to him that Seymour was still performing this season under his rookie deal which Chayut would have to call a 4 year $32M deal as opposed to a 3 year $30M extension, and had yet to see any of the bonus money (which his guest Clayton basically confirmed the day before when he placed the Pat's cap at $12.2M) which is being paid out incrementally, he said the caller was wrong and cut off the call.

He claims he wanted them to be proactive without overpaying. That's easy to say sitting behind a microphone. Felger the reporter used to applaud this organization for it's tough no nonsense stances. But he is now Felger the talk show host mediot who wanted the Sox to pay a 43 year old pitcher $5M a month to pitch after the break because d%#*!@t it's not his money and he wants to follow a winner with great storylines. He appears to be content to have the Pat's morph into the Redskins, although I'm sure he'd be the first to point fingers if it led to the same results.

Yes..he is an idiot and in the "lightning round" later in the program, some caller pointed out the inconsistencies and his only response was that the caller was right. OK say it louder...mediot!! Totally agree..I hardly listen to him anymore.

 

[Miguel]

However, David Givens has never put up "Hines Ward numbers".

which is probably why those negotiations did not end in an extension.

My point was to refute the notion that the Pats were not proactive with Givens. I distinctly remember that they were.

 

[Miguel]

The comical thing is it was Felger reporting as early as 2004 that Givens had delusions of financial grandeur and would likely be difficult to keep as a result.

I thought that it was Felger but was not sure.

 

[ATippett56]

My point was to refute the notion that the Pats were not proactive with Givens. I distinctly remember that they were.

I agree the Patriots were proactive in contract negotiations with David Givens however, if I remember correctly, the basis of the aforementioned negotiations was the contract offered to T.J. Houshmandzadeh by the Cincinnati Bengals.

Unfortunately, Daniel Schneider's ludicrous contract offer to Antwaan Randle El has skewed the wide receiver market, in my honest opinion. (Ditto, the Tennessee Titans contract offer to David Givens this past off-season.)

The question remains whether the New England Patriots organization is willing to accept, at worst, a second round draft pick for Deion Branch if a bidder is actually found?