Branch has restructured and Pats are working on Welker extension

[MoLewisrocks]

Per Borges via WEEI...but he's usually spot on on this stuff because of his agent contacts.

Branch dropped his 2011 salary dramatically with incentives that could still reach $4M.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Per Borges via WEEI...but he's usually spot on on this stuff because of his agent contacts.

Branch dropped his 2011 salary dramatically with incentives that could still reach $4M.

A Welker extension .... :rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker:.

I'll be walking on air today.

 

[Calciumee]

Good news Glad to see him doing something for the team!

And the extension for WW would be very good news

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Here is the article if you want to click on a Borgie piece... No details on what he reduced his 2011 base salary to (was scheduled for $5.95M) only that he can earn up to $4M in a heavily incentivized restructure. He doesn't lose any money from 2010. No details on what the Welker deal might entail, either, just that they're working on it.

Deion Branch, Patriots adjust final year of contract - BostonHerald.com

 

[emoney_33]

So what did Branch end up earning vs. what we offered back in 2006? Is it even comparable or did he end up earning a lot more in Seattle? Just curious.

 

[Patspsycho]

Here is the article if you want to click on a Borgie piece... No details on what he reduced his 2011 base salary to (was scheduled for $5.95M) only that he can earn up to $4M in a heavily incentivized restructure. He doesn't lose any money from 2010. No details on what the Welker deal might entail, either, just that they're working on it.

Deion Branch, Patriots adjust final year of contract - BostonHerald.com

Not going to click on a link to that scumbag. I'll take your word for it.

 

[borg]

With regards to Welker, Borges is just speculating about Welker's contract status...."Will be trying."...... Zero news value at this point.
Also no mention if Borges punched out any cripples this week.

 

[Urgent]

On PFW in Progress Tuesday, Fred Kirsch reported that Branch restructured to about $3mm per year, presumably before incentives.

 

[Goal_Line_Stand]

Not going to click on a link to that scumbag. I'll take your word for it.

What!? It's not like he beat a cripple or anything.... oh... wait....

Well look on the bright side. Maybe someone else wrote it!

 

[cmasspatsfan]

So what did Branch end up earning vs. what we offered back in 2006? Is it even comparable or did he end up earning a lot more in Seattle? Just curious.

Hes one guy that probably ended up making more but he has money now and probably wants to play with Tom and go for another ring.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So what did Branch end up earning vs. what we offered back in 2006? Is it even comparable or did he end up earning a lot more in Seattle? Just curious.

It's hard to say. The issue then was the 5th year (final rookie year) that we wanted to fold into the deal. I think in the end (as in 11th hour) we were close on total value but not on average and not on signing bonus. They gave him $13M up front and more in the first three - which was preceint since he had the first knee injury in year 2 and was not cut because they couldn't afford the cap hit in the first three... I think our offer was more backloaded and theirs was more front loaded. That they didn't ask him to restructure by year 3 was a little odd (and worked to his favor) but I think that was largely FO ego driven (Ruskell didn't want to admit the mistake).

 

[Brady2Welker]

I have no problem with him using incentives to get 5 mil if he can get around 800 yards for the season.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Per Gasper his 2011 salary is now $2.2M and his incentives have to do with Pro Bowl and playoff appearances and catches.

 

[RayClay]

In a perfect world, Branch would have a great year, then the Pats would try to screw him out of his incentives. It's only fair.

 

[CrazedChariot]

I can't believe anyone would have an issue with what Branch did. The Patriots abused their leverage by initially forcing him into a 5 year rookie deal (which is now illegal btw) What is a 21 year old rookie supposed to do? He had to sign it, even tho every other single 2nd rounder had a 4 year deal.

So what happens? He plays his butt off for four years and is a major factor in two super bowl titles. His fifth year rolls around and he finally has leverage on the patriots. Obviously he wants a new deal to secure his financial future. The Patriots don't think he is worth the money he is looking for and actually allow him to test the market with other teams.

The Patriots were wrong in this case. The underestimated the value of the market for Branch and Seattle offered him a deal that the Patriots were unwilling to match.

As for this nonsense about honoring your contract. The Patriots refuse to honor their contracts all the time. They constantly cut guys that are overpaid. How is this any different than a player holding out when they are underpaid. This is not slavery. Signing a contract simply means that team holds your rights. It does not in any way say you have to play. In fact the contract actually acknowledges that a player only has to show up for 6 games in order for to get credit for the year.

Anyone worth their salt wants fair value for themselves. Personally I have more respect for players that stand up for themselves and demand they are treated fairly. NFL teams use all available tools and leverage at their disposal in the contract negotiation process. The one tool the players have is to sit out. Branch did, and secured his financial future. I'm sure he wished he could have done it without leaving the Patriots, but that is their fault not his.

The same thing is happening with Mankins. This policy of forcing players to play out their rookie contracts is quite stupid imo. It stresses the relationship and if the player reaches free agency it can dramatically increase their contract price.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I can't believe anyone would have an issue with what Branch did. The Patriots abused their leverage by initially forcing him into a 5 year rookie deal (which is now illegal btw) What is a 21 year old rookie supposed to do? He had to sign it, even tho every other single 2nd rounder had a 4 year deal.

Isnt the 6 year rookie deal, ala Ben Watson illegal? I thouight 5 years was ok.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It's smart business at 31 to sign a value contract with incentives. Receivers tend to break down around 35, so he has a good 4-5 years to earn plenty of money.

It's much smarter than getting an extra few hundred thousand, get cut, vet minimum next year.....roller coaster so many players get on.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Isnt the 6 year rookie deal, ala Ben Watson illegal? I thouight 5 years was ok.

I believe it's now 6 years max for the top 15 in the first, 5 years for the remainder in the first, and 4 years max for everyone else. That may drop (6 gone altogether and maybe even 5 gone altogether) as part of any deal to limit total value of rookie contracts.

 

[SanAngeloState]

I can't believe anyone would have an issue with what Branch did. The Patriots abused their leverage by initially forcing him into a 5 year rookie deal (which is now illegal btw) What is a 21 year old rookie supposed to do? He had to sign it, even tho every other single 2nd rounder had a 4 year deal.

So what happens? He plays his butt off for four years and is a major factor in two super bowl titles. His fifth year rolls around and he finally has leverage on the patriots. Obviously he wants a new deal to secure his financial future. The Patriots don't think he is worth the money he is looking for and actually allow him to test the market with other teams.

The Patriots were wrong in this case. The underestimated the value of the market for Branch and Seattle offered him a deal that the Patriots were unwilling to match.

As for this nonsense about honoring your contract. The Patriots refuse to honor their contracts all the time. They constantly cut guys that are overpaid. How is this any different than a player holding out when they are underpaid. This is not slavery. Signing a contract simply means that team holds your rights. It does not in any way say you have to play. In fact the contract actually acknowledges that a player only has to show up for 6 games in order for to get credit for the year.

Anyone worth their salt wants fair value for themselves. Personally I have more respect for players that stand up for themselves and demand they are treated fairly. NFL teams use all available tools and leverage at their disposal in the contract negotiation process. The one tool the players have is to sit out. Branch did, and secured his financial future. I'm sure he wished he could have done it without leaving the Patriots, but that is their fault not his.

The same thing is happening with Mankins. This policy of forcing players to play out their rookie contracts is quite stupid imo. It stresses the relationship and if the player reaches free agency it can dramatically increase their contract price.

Cutting a player isn't "not honoring the contract". The contract specifically allows for players to be cut. It is structured so that IF a team wants to pay for the services they get them at X dollars per year. For this right they give signing bonuses. A player COULD negotiate anything they want including guaranteed money.

If they didn't honor the contract they could be sued for breach of contract.

The PLAYER gets signing bonuses, guaranteed money etc and salaries AND PROMISES to play at the rates for the years in question.

Branch broke the contract. Cutting a player isn't breaking a contract. It is envisioned and specifically allowed in the contract.

 

[Oswlek]

Cutting a player isn't "not honoring the contract". The contract specifically allows for players to be cut. It is structured so that IF a team wants to pay for the services they get them at X dollars per year. For this right they give signing bonuses. A player COULD negotiate anything they want including guaranteed money.

If they didn't honor the contract they could be sued for breach of contract.

The PLAYER gets signing bonuses, guaranteed money etc and salaries AND PROMISES to play at the rates for the years in question.

Branch broke the contract. Cutting a player isn't breaking a contract. It is envisioned and specifically allowed in the contract.

The contract also has stipulations for holdouts as well, so the argument goes both ways.