Branch is bluffing

[BelichickFan]

The grievance alleges that the Patriots said (assumingly) shop for a trade, if you find one with adequate compensation we will trade you off.

Quit making assumptions. We have all seen the statement. This is it :

""The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until September 1, 2006."

It says NOTHING about actually trading him. Simply that he can seek a trade.

 

[BelichickFan]

assuming Branch is happy with only the money. IF the monies are even (as it sounds they are) I think he prefers being with Mangini in NY. And if he does and believes the hearing will go that route, why not ride it out and win all the way around?

Because a Seattle trade is "money n the bank", not dependent on some whack job hearing that'll probably lose.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Quit making assumptions. We have all seen the statement. This is it :

""The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until September 1, 2006."

It says NOTHING about actually trading him. Simply that he can seek a trade.

That was the press release statement, not necessarily the statement given to Chayuts office, thus the reason for my making assumptions. And even so, the argument could easily be made that by informing a player he can seek a trade means that should fair compensation come from the other team then a deal will be done. That is what acting in good faith means. The Patriots will not be able to argue they don't have to trade him because they never said they would, they implied they would by giving permission to seek one out. Bargaining in good faith.

As to Branch only wanting the money in the bank and not pursuing a mediation he can't win, who is to say what else may come up? Trust me, Chayut and his company have attorneys they have huddled with every since the trade offer came up, this may seem like it's all for show and manipulation, but Deion and Chayut have yet to blink. No reason they would now.

 

[upstater1]

That was the press release statement, not necessarily the statement given to Chayuts office, thus the reason for my making assumptions. And even so, the argument could easily be made that by informing a player he can seek a trade means that should fair compensation come from the other team then a deal will be done. That is what acting in good faith means. The Patriots will not be able to argue they don't have to trade him beacuse they never said they would, they implied they would by giving permission to seek one out. Bargaining in good faith.

As to branch only wanting the money in the bank and not pursuing a mediation he can't win, who is to say what else may come up? Trust me, Chayut and his company have attorneys they have huddled with every since the trade offer came up, this may seem like it's all for show and manipulation, but Deion and Chayut have yet. to blink No reason he would now.

Kessler cited the press release as the evidence they had. Come on, let's not confuse things people. Why are you mucking things up? Kessler is the one who said the press release shows that the Patriots agreed to trade him for a reasonable offer. The press release doesn't say anything of the kind.

Let's get all on the same page about the factys that have so far been established, because if we don't we'll be arguing irrelevant stuff in circles.

 

[upstater1]

And even so, the argument could easily be made that by informing a player he can seek a trade means that should fair compensation come from the other team then a deal will be done. That is what acting in good faith means. The Patriots will not be able to argue they don't have to trade him because they never said they would, they implied they would by giving permission to seek one out. Bargaining in good faith.

This is incorrect. You can easily say I will trade you if the price is a premium pick. I used the EBAY metaphor earlier. I have an expensive guitar. I sometimes float it on EBAY to see if a real collector will grab it at a premium price. I've noticed in the past that people who are more desperate for money will offer the same model # up for $1,000 less. Why am I offering it? Because I'm not desperate and if someone wants it for my price, they can have it, but I'm not about to let it go at the general market rate.

The Patriots statement in no way implies that they would let him go for a 2nd round draft choice. You're simply wrong there.

And lastly, why does it matter if they're blinking or not. The Patriots own the hammer, and that's the franchise tag. Do you think he'll be blinking a year and a half from now when he's still an unhappy Patriot?

 

[PF1996]

Don't understand the basis of this grievance. The Pats hold DB's rights...therefore THEY are the ones who determine what's "fair compensation", not DB or DB's agent or the Jets/Hawks. Granting permission to seek a trade doesn't mean that the Patriots were obligated to accept any deal that the agent was able to work out with other teams. I'm personally sick of Deion. I hope they can dump his butt on Seattle for a n.1.

 

[patsox23]

the argument could easily be made that by informing a player he can seek a trade means that should fair compensation come from the other team then a deal will be done. That is what acting in good faith means.

Nope. No, sorry, it isn't. You take a HUUUUGE leap there with "informing a player he can seek a trade MEANS that should fair compensation come from the other team" OOPS. RIGHT THERE.

Who defines what "fair compensation" is? Do Chayut and Branch get to decide ON BEHALF of the Patriots? Do they get to sort of..."guesstimate" it based on the fact that the dolphins traded a 2nd for Culpepper?

You're skating over incredibly important legal details that make not just a big difference, but ALL THE DIFFERENCE, in legal matters. Branch and his lame-o agent have no ground to stand on. Their grievances are ridiculous and very unlikely to prevail. (I hope.)

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Kessler cited the press release as the evidence they had. Come on, let's not confuse things people. Why are you mucking things up? Kessler is the one who said the press release shows that the Patriots agreed to trade him for a reasonable offer. The press release doesn't say anything of the kind.

Let's get all on the same page about the factys that have so far been established, because if we don't we'll be arguing irrelevant stuff in circles.

Nobody is mucking anything up, just tossing out my opinions. You;re not obliged to subscribe to them.

The point is that by giving his agent premission to seek a trade that IMPLIES a willingness to do a trade if fairly compensated. THAT is what acting in good faith means and in some instances it is legally enforcable. Chayuts team has to prove they had every reason to believe that a fair trade would be honored, that the league standards are that when given permission to seek a trade it is defined as a teams willingness to trade the player if fairly compensated, and that the trade that was offered to the Patriots was fair compensation.

If I am the arbitrator I would ask the Patriots why they gave permission to seek a trade. If they replied they were only trying to ascertain Branchs value or to get him to realize nobody wants to pay more than them, than that holds no water because they specifically tell the agent the reasoning for the offer. The team has to prove that the agent had no reaon to believe a trade would actually go down because the motivations were for other purpose. If they cannot, and if it is decided that Chayut and Branch had every reason to believe a trade would occur if fair to all parties invloved, the Pats lose. Thats where defining what is "fair compensation" comes into play.


But as I stated earlier, I think they intended to trade him all along, just not by their initiation with other teams so as not to come off desperate and in a lesser bargaining position.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

This is incorrect. You can easily say I will trade you if the price is a premium pick. I used the EBAY metaphor earlier. I have an expensive guitar. I sometimes float it on EBAY to see if a real collector will grab it at a premium price. I've noticed in the past that people who are more desperate for money will offer the same model # up for $1,000 less. Why am I offering it? Because I'm not desperate and if someone wants it for my price, they can have it, but I'm not about to let it go at the general market rate.

The Patriots statement in no way implies that they would let him go for a 2nd round draft choice. You're simply wrong there.

And lastly, why does it matter if they're blinking or not. The Patriots own the hammer, and that's the franchise tag. Do you think he'll be blinking a year and a half from now when he's still an unhappy Patriot?

WTH are you talking about? I am wrong in what? I made no statement that would imply being either right or wrong, just opinion and speculation. I never stated that the Patriots implied they would release him for a 2nd, only that by giving permission to seek a trade they were possibly entering into a good faith agreement to make a trade if the compensation was FAIR. And that the term fair would need to be defined.

As to your ebay guitar analogy, it is not of the same spectrum as this situation. You're proposing you have no obligation to sell your guitar at less than a premium, so neither do the Patriots. But what if by league standards Branch's premium price is decided to be truly just a 2nd pick?

 

[patsox23]

The point is that by giving his agent premission to seek a trade that IMPLIES a willingness to do a trade if fairly compensated.

Right. IF FAIRLY COMPENSATED is where your argument, and Chayut's, get into trouble. "Fairly compensated" is an incredibly vague and multivalent thing, depending on the party. I keep hearing the phrases "fair compensation" and "fairly compensated" being tossed around the Branch camp. This is, most would agree, an incredibly vague and multivalent thing, depending on the judging party. And it brings me to a point that seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle:

WHY ON EARTH would the Patriots ever, ever, ever, EVER consider a 2nd rounder "fair compensation" for Deion? Because that's where we drafted him? That's ludicrous. Deion has surpassed his draft status, which is part of why the Patriots were willing to RE-DO HIS CONTRACT A YEAR EARLY, offering him, on average, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 mill per season. (A nice neighborhood, indeed.)

It doesn't hold water AT ALL that Jason Chayut thought that a mere 2nd rounder constituted "fair compensation" for a totally healthy Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch, particularly when they're asking for CLEAR #1 money, demanding that he be paid like one of the league's top wideouts.

They have no shot at winning arbitration unless they have BB on tape promising to deal Branch for a 2nd rounder, which - think about it - he would never EVER do. It's not even a logical assumption for Chayut to have made. And if I can come up with this, just typing up off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts, there's little chance that this rather obvious little theory I'm peddling is mine alone. Belichick's way smarter than I. (And don't even get him started on Jason Chayut.)

Pats start the season Saturday, and they go 2-0.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Nope. No, sorry, it isn't. You take a HUUUUGE leap there with "informing a player he can seek a trade MEANS that should fair compensation come from the other team" OOPS. RIGHT THERE.

Who defines what "fair compensation" is? Do Chayut and Branch get to decide ON BEHALF of the Patriots? Do they get to sort of..."guesstimate" it based on the fact that the dolphins traded a 2nd for Culpepper?

You're skating over incredibly important legal details that make not just a big difference, but ALL THE DIFFERENCE, in legal matters. Branch and his lame-o agent have no ground to stand on. Their grievances are ridiculous and very unlikely to prevail. (I hope.)

actually, I didn't say that it was factual that "informing a player he can seek a trade MEANS that should fair compensation come from the other team", I said the argument could be made that it implies as much. Do you people read these things?

As to skating over legal details it is prettty hard to put them together nicely when I only have media resources for what the details are. Could blow up in Chayuts and Branchs face, could blow up in the Patriots face. I just happen to believe the Patriots are going to eat this one. Not that it makes me happy, it makes me anything buit. Just the way I feel.

Time will tell. Until then, I think I am done with being misquoted in this thread.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Right. IF FAIRLY COMPENSATED is where your argument, and Chayut's, get into trouble. "Fairly compensated" is an incredibly vague and multivalent thing, depending on the party. One thing that gets lost in the shuffle here is this: WHY ON EARTH would the Patriots ever, ever, ever, EVER consider a 2nd rounder "fair compensation" for Deion? Because that's where we drafted him?! That's ludicrous. Deion has surpassed his draft status, which is part of why the Patriots were willing to RE-DO HIS CONTRACT A YEAR EARLY, offering him about 6 mill per season.

It doesn't hold water AT ALL that Chayut thought that a mere 2nd rounder constituted "fair compensation" for a totally healthy Deion Branch, particularly when they're asking for CLEAR #1 money, demanding that he be paid like a stud #1 WR.

They have no shot at winning arbitration unless they have BB on tape promising to deal Branch for a 2nd rounder, which he would never EVER do. No way.

I agree with you, I think Branch has more value than a number 2 pick. I do not necessarily believe that because I feel that way that the arbitrater or league standards will. And thats I what I fear, that it will be defined that fair compensation IS a 2nd and the game ends.

 

[MagicMarker]

Good thread.

Two quick points. I'm not an attorney, but it seems a stretch for one party to force the other party to perform something it considers part of the contract (the trade), when that party is in breach of the contract. Branch is holding out.....How can he ask the Patriots to enforce anything.

Second, the comment was made earlier that holdouts are anticipated by the CBA because the "return in week 10" rule is specifically in the CBA. Not so. A "holdout" could be unsigned free agent, who is under no obligation to appear before week 10. Branch is under contract. Clearly the CBA does not condone hold outs by signed players because it substantially raised the fines allowed for holding out.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

And even so, the argument could easily be made that by informing a player he can seek a trade means that should fair compensation come from the other team then a deal will be done. That is what acting in good faith means. The Patriots will not be able to argue they don't have to trade him because they never said they would, they implied they would by giving permission to seek one out. Bargaining in good faith.

Whoa! That is a a giant assumption. Informing a player he can seek a trade legally binds the Patriots to whatever someone else decides is fair? Saying the phrase 'seek a trade' tears up his contractual obligation to the Patriots and binds the Patriots to sign on the dotted line? No, that is not a giant assumption. It is a galactic assumption. I'll repeat it again. This does not win on its merits. This wins only on some parallel universe hearing that takes liberties with reality.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

actually, I didn't say that it was factual that "informing a player he can seek a trade MEANS that should fair compensation come from the other team", I said the argument could be made that it implies as much. Do you people read these things?

As to skating over legal details it is prettty hard to put them together nicely when I only have media resources for what the details are. Could blow up in Chayuts and Branchs face, could blow up in the Patriots face. I just happen to believe the Patriots are going to eat this one. Not that it makes me happy, it makes me anything buit. Just the way I feel.

Time will tell. Until then, I think I am done with being misquoted in this thread.

This article puts a little legal stamp on it. They talked to 3 legal experts and here are their opinions (many already expressed by us in an public education but dropped out in 10th grade way ):

`The Pats win this going away," said Boston-based sports attorney Harry Manion, via e-mail from Europe. ``[Branch] will say they entered an oral contract to accept fair and reasonable compensation. There are a multitude of legal and [collective bargaining agreement] reasons why this is a dead solid loser."

Manion's opinion was shared yesterday by Roger I. Abrams, a Richardson Professor of Law at Northeastern University's School of Law, and Paul Haagen, a professor of law at the Duke University Law School.

``It's going to be a tough road for him through arbitration," said Abrams, who also has served as a baseball arbiter at times over the last 20 years. ``As I understand it, his complaint is that the Patriots weren't treating him fairly after they made this offer that he could shop himself to other teams. That could be true, but it's hard to see where he has a contract right that has been violated. If anyone, he is the one violating his obligation to fulfill his contract."

Added Haagen: ``Without knowing a little more about the actual terms of that agreement to permit him to go out and seek other offers, and whether it was in any way bound by anything, I would think the Patriots have very broad authority to determine what is an appropriate offer. My inclination is that the Patriots are certainly well within their rights. I would think they would win."

 

[FilPats]

Quit making assumptions. We have all seen the statement. This is it :

""The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until September 1, 2006."

It says NOTHING about actually trading him. Simply that he can seek a trade.

You're right. What the Pats FO meant was that Branch and/or his agent could start the preliminary process of negotiating the parameters of the possible trade, but Branch/Chayut should still go back to the Pats if they get an acceptable offer (financial package for Branch) so that Pats could decide if the compensation to them (Pats) is acceptable. A reasonable compensation to a team trading a player is very subjective, so it is absurd for Branch to claim that 2 nd round pick is sufficient or reasonable to the Pats. The Pats could always refer to precedent that a 1st round pick (or two picks) is sufficient.

 

[Pats726]

Agan, the Branch/Chuyut camp is in desperate ways. Filing a greivance for some dumb things..silly and desperate. But what the Patriots are doing is this..it is NOT just a trade for Branch..it is a trade for Branch when he is under contract to them and wants out. The Patriots want Branch here this year and Branch is refusing his services. The Patriots have planned for that and Deion wants out. Who is going to compensate the Patriots for this breech of contract?? (DEion holding out??) Part of what they want from a team is basically a penalty for that as it should be. .and Branch and his agent should understand that...and I am sure they do..but nonetheless grasping at straws..I don't know what other legal avenues they have, but I bet they will pull them all out. Bottom line..he doesn't get paid if this isn't settled. Let him rot on the beanch if he reports Game 10. If he is disruptive?? Suspend him. I think they want him out and away and will do it if there is just compensation..not just for the player, but the fact that it is being done while he is under a breech of contract.

 

[BelichickFan]

That was the press release statement, not necessarily the statement given to Chayuts office, thus the reason for my making assumptions.

The press release was the supposed "agreement". I read that in Curran's NBCSports.com article.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

Perhaps a group of Patriots fans should get together and sue Branch/Chayut for Breach of oral contract. Deon promised us "he would honor his contract", yet is he causing horrendous dissapointment and suffering among loyal Patriots fans.

I would think such a lawsuit would have a better chance of being successful than Branch's silly greivance.

 

[stinkypete]

The Boston Herald had an interesting article today:

"Branch’s side plans to highlight a number of players traded in the past year for second-round picks or lower, such as Dolphins quarterback Daunte Culpepper (second), Broncos receiver Javon Walker (second) and Eagles wideout Donte’ Stallworth (conditional third or fourth, plus backup linebacker Mark Simoneau). Players Association attorney Richard Berthelsen also noted that Branch was selected at the end of the second round with the 65th overall pick in 2002.
The goal, Kessler said, is to force the Patriots to accept the second-round pick and send Branch to the Jets."

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=155742

Until I read that, I thought that Branch did not have a valid grievance, but now I think that at least he can make a good case.

So, what I think is going on right now is that the Jets and Branch are really moving to prevent a trade to the Seahawks (which BB would probably prefer), and meanwhile BB is making things difficult in the hope of getting the Jets to sweeten the pot. I'm thinking Branch will go to the Jets and we'll get their better second or a second and something else.

Branch's position here is invalid for 2 reasons.

(1) Walker and Culpepper were both coming off season ending knee inuries and there's no gaurentee of either returning to his 2004 form.

(2) Walker and Culpepper were traded right before/during the draft, when a 2nd rounder is worth a 2nd rounder. Pwcoach has it right in another thread: a 2nd round pick traded in Setpember does not carry the same value as a 2nd round pick traded in April. The convention is that when trading for future picks, teams always go a round higher than they would when trading for current picks. By asking for a 1st round pick for Branch now, we are effectively asking for 2nd round Value.