Branch's contract

[Miguel]

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/?p=2926&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

My calculations
2006 - Cash intake of $9.1 million - Pats' last reported offer -5.045 million
2007 - Cash intake of $9.38 million - Pats last offer- $5.5 million
2008 - Cash intake of $4.16 million - Pats offer - $4.4 million
2009 - Cash intake of $4.94 million - Pats offer - $4.85 million
2010 - Cash intake of $5.47 million
2011 - Cash intake of $5.95 million

Cap Hits
2006 3,500,000
2007 5,980,000
2008 6,760,000
2009 7,540,000
2010 8,070,000
2011 7,150,000

 

[Oswlek]

That is a lot more than I thought it would be. I would gladly piss all of you off for an extra $8,000,000 over the next two years.

 

[Miguel]

I got his salary numbers from

http://www.nflpa.org/Resources/ActivePlayerSearch.aspx?id=33063

 

[JoeSixPat]

I know based on initial reports I was looking at this as a guranteed 3 years $23 million contract.

But looking at the cap hits and actual salaries for the duration of the contract, assuming Branch is playing somewhat productively, it seems to me he can play out the term of the contract - especially given the rising cap.

(Miguel - your thoughts on that?)

Seems to me that as far as a cap managment philosophy goes, the Patriots have made it clear the the rest of the NFL that players (well, WRs at least) that are looking for the biggest cash payout should avoid the Patriots (this is what Chayut knew and why he was intent on forcing his client out of town)

Perhaps they'd pay top dollar for some special players (see Derrick Mason) but not for a 1a player like Branch.

Instead they prefer players hungry for more than money - they want players who crave a Super Bowl Ring.

But, by the same token I'd be willing to bet that its understood that the quality "middle class" players - stand to make more than they might on other teams that have spent the majority of their cap on just a few players.

As such, the Patriots continue to place themselves in a situtaion where in the long term they have the quality depth to consistently weather injuries, and compete and win Super Bowls.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

We knew Allen had some spare change laying around, good for Deion - buh bye.

 

[hwc]

Keep in mind that the only guaranteed money in the Seattle deal is the $7 million signing bonus and the $2.1 first year salary: $9.1 million. The second year option bonus is NOT guaranteed.

As reported, the three-year version of the Pats offer had $8 million in guaranteed bonuses: the $4 million signing bonus and the $4 million GUARANTEED option bonus plus, of course, the $1.05 million first year salary: total $9.05 million.

I think there's a good chance that the Seahawks will cut the player after this year unless the player can equal or exceed last year's fluke production.

If the player has a 40 catch season, the team is not going to fork over 9 million in new money to trigger year 2.

 

[Miguel]

I think there's a good chance that the Seahawks will cut the player after this year unless the player can equal or exceed last year's fluke production.

If the player has a 40 catch season, the team is not going to fork over 9 million in new money to trigger year 2.[/QUOTE]

FWIW - The option bonus could be implicitly guaranteed even if it is not explicitly guaranteed. That is, if the Seahawks do not pick up the $6 million option bonus they may have to guarantee $6 million in future salaries.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Keep in mind that the only guaranteed money in the Seattle deal is the $7 million signing bonus and the $2.1 first year salary: $9.1 million. The second year option bonus is NOT guaranteed.

As reported, the three-year version of the Pats offer had $8 million in guaranteed bonuses: the $4 million signing bonus and the $4 million GUARANTEED option bonus plus, of course, the $1.05 million first year salary: total $9.05 million.

I think there's a good chance that the Seahawks will cut the player after this year unless the player can equal or exceed last year's fluke production.

If the player has a 40 catch season, the team is not going to fork over 9 million in new money to trigger year 2.

And that's before we even compare the 5 year $31-33M extension the Pat's also offered which was said to contain $11M in bonus money though we never got the minute detail on that one because the 3 year deal played better.

So much for he got Reggie Wayne money. Reggie got a five-year, $39.5 million contract, including a $12.5 million signing bonus on 3/2/2006. Wayne will receive base salaries of $2.6 million (2006), $3.0 million (2007), $3.5 million (2008), $4.94 million (2009), 5.47 million (2010), and $5.95 million (2011). He's due roster bonuses of $380,000 in 2007 and $660,000 in 2008.

So essentially Reggie IS getting $21.6M for the first three years implicitly guaranteed by the $15.1M take in year one, while Deion may get MAY get $22.6M if he's there 3 years but his implicit guarantee is only $9.1M. Wayne's dead cap if cut in 2007 is $10M, while Deion's dead cap would be $5.6 and a net cap savings.

 

[hwc]

FWIW - The option bonus could be implicitly guaranteed even if it is not explicitly guaranteed. That is, if the Seahawks do not pick up the $6 million option bonus they may have to guarantee $6 million in future salaries.

Could be. But the article you referenced specifically stated that the year 2 option bonus is NOT guaranteed.

On the other hand, published acounts of the Patriots offer to the player specifically stated that the Year 2 option bonus was guaranteed.

 

[RayClay]

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/?p=2926&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

My calculations
2006 - Cash intake of $9.1 million - Pats' last reported offer -5.045 million
2007 - Cash intake of $9.38 million - Pats last offer- $5.5 million
2008 - Cash intake of $4.16 million - Pats offer - $4.4 million
2009 - Cash intake of $4.94 million - Pats offer - $4.85 million
2010 - Cash intake of $5.47 million
2011 - Cash intake of $5.95 million

Cap Hits
2006 3,500,000
2007 5,980,000
2008 6,760,000
2009 7,540,000
2010 8,070,000
2011 7,150,000

That's wrong, Miguel. His salary for 2006 was 1.045 million. That's what's misleading. We had him under contract, Seattle didn't.

Spreading that 4mil around I get 6.25 mil, (rounded) per year for three years if your numbers are correct.

I'm not very good with numbers, but I'm fairly sure we didn't agree to tear up the 2006 contract.

If we didn't have him under contract, Seattle wouldn't have to give us a #1 pick.

 

[fgssand]

I know based on initial reports I was looking at this as a guranteed 3 years $23 million contract.

But looking at the cap hits and actual salaries for the duration of the contract, assuming Branch is playing somewhat productively, it seems to me he can play out the term of the contract - especially given the rising cap.

(Miguel - your thoughts on that?)

Seems to me that as far as a cap managment philosophy goes, the Patriots have made it clear the the rest of the NFL that players (well, WRs at least) that are looking for the biggest cash payout should avoid the Patriots (this is what Chayut knew and why he was intent on forcing his client out of town)

Perhaps they'd pay top dollar for some special players (see Derrick Mason) but not for a 1a player like Branch.

Instead they prefer players hungry for more than money - they want players who crave a Super Bowl Ring.

But, by the same token I'd be willing to bet that its understood that the quality "middle class" players - stand to make more than they might on other teams that have spent the majority of their cap on just a few players.

As such, the Patriots continue to place themselves in a situtaion where in the long term they have the quality depth to consistently weather injuries, and compete and win Super Bowls.

There is so much that is 100% dead on with this post Joe. You have identified the difference between Seattle's desperate, win it at all costs this year philosophy versus the Patriots win all the Superbowls most of the time reality.

Interesting that the media never mentions the "share the wealth" status enjoyed by the middle tier.
Media never mentions the players that we DO resign (other than Seymour & Brady).
You are very much correct in pointing out that we seek and sign hungry players aching for a ring.

The jealous nature of 31 other teams, the zealous nature of a media desperate for controversy with this team and all the rest of Patriot haters will once again be totally dumbfounded, shocked and amazed when we ring up another one.

 

[RI Pats Fan]

That's wrong, Miguel. His salary for 2006 was 1.045 million. That's what's misleading. We had him under contract, Seattle didn't.

Spreading that 4mil around I get 6.25 mil, (rounded) per year for three years if your numbers are correct.

I'm not very good with numbers, but I'm fairly sure we didn't agree to tear up the 2006 contract.

If we didn't have him under contract, Seattle wouldn't have to give us a #1 pick.

Yes, it WAS. Minus the fines, NOW it's going to be around 8 million dollars.

Hey. I hear Branch had a golden elevator installed in his house to take him from the first floor to the 5th
Enjoy. ;-)

 

[Miguel]

Could be. But the article you referenced specifically stated that the year 2 option bonus is NOT guaranteed.

On the other hand, published acounts of the Patriots offer to the player specifically stated that the Year 2 option bonus was guaranteed.

In the Mike Reiss reports that I have read, he never reported that the Year 2 option bonus was guaranteed.


Example
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/08/05/no_reception_and_no_return/

 

[mgteich]

That seems the likely structure.

What seems to be lost in all this discussion is that this 1a receiver was offered over $9M to play this year by the pats and seattle. If he hadn't put up such a stink, he would have been paid $1M.

If the player has a 40 catch season, the team is not going to fork over 9 million in new money to trigger year 2.

FWIW - The option bonus could be implicitly guaranteed even if it is not explicitly guaranteed. That is, if the Seahawks do not pick up the $6 million option bonus they may have to guarantee $6 million in future salaries.[/QUOTE]

 

[Miguel]

That's wrong, Miguel. His salary for 2006 was 1.045 million. That's what's misleading.
We had him under contract, Seattle didn't.

Spreading that 4mil around I get 6.25 mil, (rounded) per year for three years if your numbers are correct.

I'm not very good with numbers, but I'm fairly sure we didn't agree to tear up the 2006 contract.

The Patriots' offer included a $4 million signing bonus in 2006.

If we didn't have him under contract, Seattle wouldn't have to give us a #1 pick.

I never said that Branch was not under contract and for the record I never thought that, either.

 

[Miguel]

So much for he got Reggie Wayne money. Reggie got a five-year, $39.5 million contract, including a $12.5 million signing bonus on 3/2/2006. Wayne will receive base salaries of $2.6 million (2006), $3.0 million (2007), $3.5 million (2008), $4.94 million (2009), 5.47 million (2010), and $5.95 million (2011). He's due roster bonuses of $380,000 in 2007 and $660,000 in 2008.

The last time I checked the years 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011 covered 6 years. Wayne's deal is a six-year $39 million contract. Branch's deal is a six-year $39 million contract.

Using your numbers

12,500,000
2,600,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,940,000
5,470,000
5,950,000
380,000
660,000

totals up to $39 million.

 

[Miguel]

That seems the likely structure.

What seems to be lost in all this discussion is that this 1a receiver was offered over $9M to play this year by the pats and seattle.

After putting a fluke year of production

 

[Miguel]

I know based on initial reports I was looking at this as a guranteed 3 years $23 million contract.

But looking at the cap hits and actual salaries for the duration of the contract, assuming Branch is playing somewhat productively, it seems to me he can play out the term of the contract - especially given the rising cap.

(Miguel - your thoughts on that?)

FWIW - I happen to agree with you.

 

[Miguel]

But, by the same token I'd be willing to bet that its understood that the quality "middle class" players - stand to make more than they might on other teams that have spent the majority of their cap on just a few players.

That statement was true in the past. I am not so sure that the Patriots' middle class is paid better than other team's middle-class anymore after the $17 million increase in the cap.

 

[RayClay]

The Patriots' offer included a $4 million signing bonus in 2006.



I never said that Branch was not under contract and for the record I never thought that, either.

Precisely my point. The signing bonus was part of his new contract. He'd already signed this one.

Just pointing out the unfairness of comparing other teams offers, (they'd tear up the contract), to ours.

Those teams aren't going to tear up the last year of all contracts favorable to them.

Signing bonus is for new contract, after old contract has expired.

I know it's a technicality and maybe he gets the money now, but it's necessary to show the inferior bargaining position we were in if we treat him as if he was a free agent.