Borges on Branch (for those of you who can't bear to read Borges any more)

[Mike the Brit]

I can understand anyone not wanting to read Borges, but this article is based on an interview with Branch and it does contain some interesting information:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/09/12/out_pattern/

Considering the circumstances and the biases of the person who is writing the piece, Deion comes off as a lot less bitter than you might expect.

There seem to be two main aspects to Branch's side of the story. First, the emphasis is on the guaranteed money -- the article states that the Seahawks offer was hugely different from the Pats'. Second, Branch very much resents the fifth year of his rookie deal. He claims that he was set to sign a four-year deal but was forced into a five-year deal because of his play in rookie camp. He says that he was the one taking the decisions, not Chayut. Oh, and the basis for the "not negotiating in good faith" grievance was that the Pats apparently urged Branch to fire Chayut.

Finally (this is especially for I-May-Or-May-Not-Be-Ron-Borges-But-I'll-Try-To-Be-Just-As-Irritating) did anyone else who read the article spot the Borges trademark elementary grammar mistake?

 

[upstater1]

I think the 5th year deal is what caused all the mayhem.

I don't see a big deal of difference between the Patriots $11 million signing bonus and the Seahawks $13 million.

Also, in the 6th year, Deion counts as $8 million against the cap in Seattle. If he's cut after the 5th, the Patriots second offer is comparable (about $32-33 million to Seattle's $33 million excluding year 6). Actually, now that I look at the numbers, I realize that the Patriots were incredibly generous with their offers.

 

[redsoxfan]

I don't see a big deal of difference between the Patriots $11 million signing bonus and the Seahawks $13 million.

I think there actually was a pretty big difference in the way the money was paid.

The Patriots wanted Branch to play out the last year of his contract and then the guaranteed money was in the form of one or two roster bonuses. This means he had to wait to get the money.

The Seahawks gave him the full 13 million up front.

The details on some of this are probably off, but it's all about when he gets the money and how much injury risk he has to assume by waiting.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I think there actually was a pretty big difference in the way the money was paid.

The Patriots wanted Branch to play out the last year of his contract and then the guaranteed money was in the form of one or two roster bonuses. This means he had to wait to get the money.

The Seahawks gave him the full 13 million up front.

The details on some of this are probably off, but it's all about when he gets the money and how much injury risk he has to assume by waiting.

Yes, my first reaction would be that the Pats could have brought money forward without compromising their principles, given their cap position, if that was really the sticking point. Of course, we don't know the details and Branch/Chayut hardly helped the negotiations with the hold-out.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think the 5th year deal is what caused all the mayhem.

I don't see a big deal of difference between the Patriots $11 million signing bonus and the Seahawks $13 million.

Also, in the 6th year, Deion counts as $8 million against the cap in Seattle. If he's cut after the 5th, the Patriots second offer is comparable (about $32-33 million to Seattle's $33 million excluding year 6). Actually, now that I look at the numbers, I realize that the Patriots were incredibly generous with their offers.

It was always about the 5th year, the one Hutchinson showed up for in Seattle after 3 pro bowl nods but Deion began to chafe about the moment the media handed him the keys to Brady's third Escalade. Sadly also lost in the shuffle is the fact that the Patriots approached him right after that SB and tried to do an incremental contract just as they did with the kid QB after the first SB. Only Deion (I won't blame Chayut any more) was insulted by that offer, the details of which his agent chose not to leak to Borges beyond characterizing it as insulting.

Sometimes life is tough. Had we not taken Deion with the 65th pick in the 2002 draft he could have gone on to the Bucs or the Skins or the Rams in the third where we didn't pick and signed a 4 year deal and been a FA in 2006 OR SOONER after proving he could perform with any number of injured or aging or flash in the pan or flat out JAG QB's....

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think there actually was a pretty big difference in the way the money was paid.

The Patriots wanted Branch to play out the last year of his contract and then the guaranteed money was in the form of one or two roster bonuses. This means he had to wait to get the money.

The Seahawks gave him the full 13 million up front.

The details on some of this are probably off, but it's all about when he gets the money and how much injury risk he has to assume by waiting.

According to the information Miguel posted yesterday no they did not. He gets $7M up front and is due a $6M option bonus in 2007. The Pats were offering him a two tiered bonus as they did with Brady and Seymour with half paid this season before the extension actually kicked in. In Reggie Wayne's deal he got his $12.5M signing bonus up front in March. On top of a couple of million in salary.

 

[SamBam39]

Sorry, if Borges wrote it, I'd have to be a complete idiot to waste my time reading it. I'm not in the dark as to where he's coming from.

 

[RayClay]

Since he broke his contract and screwed his team and team mates knowing they've already lost their other receiver........

I'm glad he's not bitter

 

[ChockBlkr]

So for deion it wasn't about money at all, it was about guaranteed money. Ah, now I see...wait, doesn't that make it all about the money? Is guaranteed money different, like monopoly money or something? I don't buy this guy for one minute as a "character" type guy. Especially after he says that when he found out the news he felt a lot of happiness and "a little" sadness. Was that sadness for the team and the fans that he left shorthanded? Doubt it.

 

[BelichickFan]

I understand Branch's point although I have no sympathy for it. I think the big problem is that Givens was a 7th round pick in the same draft and he got his big longterm deal a year earlier than Branch - nice reward for being drafted 5 rounds higher, huh

Again, though, I have so sympathy for it. In exchange, Branch got the insurance of a $1M signing bonus. What if they'd both bombed ? Branch walks away with a cool $1M whereas Givens walks away with almost nothing. It's the way it's been set up and if the twig doesn't like it, too bad. A $1M signing bonus may seem silly to him now but I bet a guy like Bethel is happy to have a second round, 5 year deal signing bonus vs. a seventh round, 4 year signing bonus.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I was wathcing Patriots Today, and what Branch was saying after he got his SB39 MVP award.. I love Mr Kraft and his family, I love Mr Belichick and his family, I love Scot Pioli and his family.. I love the Patriots, and will be a patriot for long time.. He screwed us, and felt he had us under the barrell,which he did, but the Pats did not think it would go this far... Fault on both sides, move on... on to the border war..

 

[dryheat44]

Here's the problem with the whole four year/five year thing:

1) If the original offer on the table was a four year deal, why didn't Chayut have Branch sign it? They could have avoided this whole mess.

2) Who put the gun to Branch's head and made him sign a five year deal? Guss Scott came in and negotiated a one-year deal. How'd that work out for him?

I just don't buy this "was a four, but unfairly turned into a five" b.s. That's a Poston excuse. You signed the contract, you agreed to its terms, and you reneged on it because it was no longer beneficial to you.

 

[Mike the Brit]

(2) Who put the gun to Branch's head and made him sign a five year deal? Guss Scott came in and negotiated a one-year deal. How'd that work out for him?

I just don't buy this "was a four, but unfairly turned into a five" b.s. That's a Poston excuse. You signed the contract, you agreed to its terms, and you reneged on it because it was no longer beneficial to you.

Right -- and then there's the "I was promised a four-year deal but when they saw how great I was in camp they turned it into a five-year deal". How long did the other rookies that year sign for? Surely, it wasn't just Deion.

 

[hwc]

From the players comments, specifically about when they changed the fines from $5 k per day to $14 k per day (in the new CBA), it is clear that the player never had any intention of negotiating a new deal with the Pats or honoring the final year of his contract.

He had already made up his mind to shoot his way out of town before the Pats ever made their offer. That's why there was no counter offer.

It doesn't matter what the Pats offered.

BTW, I firmly believe that was also the case with the kicker who left in free agency.

 

[dryheat44]

From the players comments, specifically about when they changed the fines from $5 k per day to $14 k per day (in the new CBA), it is clear that the player never had any intention of negotiating a new deal with the Pats or honoring the final year of his contract.

He had already made up his mind to shoot his way out of town before the Pats ever made their offer. That's why there was no counter offer.

It doesn't matter what the Pats offered.

BTW, I firmly believe that was also the case with the kicker who left in free agency.

I think the Pats would have kept Branch if they matched the Jets/Seahawks offer. I don't think they would have kept Vinatieri if they beat the Colts offer by a healthy margin.

 

[hwc]

I think the Pats would have kept Branch if they matched the Jets/Seahawks offer.

I don't. If they had matched the offer, the player would have just shopped that offer around the league.

The player had already made up his mind to hold out and force his way to free agency back in April. It didn't matter what the Pats offered.

 

[mikey]

From the players comments, specifically about when they changed the fines from $5 k per day to $14 k per day (in the new CBA), it is clear that the player never had any intention of negotiating a new deal with the Pats or honoring the final year of his contract.

He had already made up his mind to shoot his way out of town before the Pats ever made their offer. That's why there was no counter offer.

It doesn't matter what the Pats offered.

BTW, I firmly believe that was also the case with the kicker who left in free agency.

I thought the bigger question is why is there so much hostility between the organization and Branch/Vianatieri/McGinnest/Givens ??

These are all home-grown players who were key contributors to our Super Bowl championships?

Why so much hatred and animosity??

Are there other disgruntled players who waiting their time to get on the first bus out of town??

Sure, I know we don't care. But you still have to wonder. I don't see such hostility of former players toward the Steelers, for instance.

.

 

[upstater1]

I think there actually was a pretty big difference in the way the money was paid.

The Patriots wanted Branch to play out the last year of his contract and then the guaranteed money was in the form of one or two roster bonuses. This means he had to wait to get the money.

The Seahawks gave him the full 13 million up front.

The details on some of this are probably off, but it's all about when he gets the money and how much injury risk he has to assume by waiting.

Did you read the article?

The Seahawks are not giving him $13 million up front.

Second, the Patriots were giving half the signing bonus up front (i.e. immediately).

 

[upstater1]

I thought the bigger question is why is there so much hostility between the organization and Branch/Vianatieri/McGinnest/Givens ??

These are all home-grown players who were key contributors to our Super Bowl championships?

Why so much hatred and animosity??

Are there other disgruntled players who waiting their time to get on the first bus out of town??

Sure, I know we don't care. But you still have to wonder. I don't see such hostility of former players toward the Steelers, for instance.

.

What are you talking about? McGinest didn't have any hostility toward the Patriots. He groused after they didn't offer him what the Browns did. Is that' what you're talking about? If you are, then why are you asking the question because the answer is obvious to everyone: the Patriots didn't offer Willie as much money as the Browns.

Can you be clearer on what you mean by hostility?

 

[RayClay]

I was wathcing Patriots Today, and what Branch was saying after he got his SB39 MVP award.. I love Mr Kraft and his family, I love Mr Belichick and his family, I love Scot Pioli and his family.. I love the Patriots, and will be a patriot for long time.. He screwed us, and felt he had us under the barrell,which he did, but the Pats did not think it would go this far... Fault on both sides, move on... on to the border war..

Actually he never had us over a barrel. We could have continued fining him, used him in weeks 10-16, then traded him. Even franchised him then traded him.

I'm sure this was a political decision to let him seek a trade now.

We got a #1 and avoided having to stick it to him which was our right, but would have been a bad scene with the players and public relations.

Plus we eliminated an immediate distraction, saved money and got a #1.