Didn't Resolve a Thing

[upstater1]

Well, what would you have done in their stead?

I agree with Scott. Although I think there may have been a positive outcome if Branch didn't get his desired contract or if someone ponied up a #1, it wasnn't worth the risk. Right now, I feel safe in saying Branch will never play for the Patriots again.

If the Patriots had done a Seinfeld (i.e. simply nothing) they'd have a better chance of Branch playing for them this year.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I agree with Scott. Although I think there may have been a positive outcome if Branch didn't get his desired contract or if someone ponied up a #1, it wasnn't worth the risk. Right now, I feel safe in saying Branch will never play for the Patriots again.

If the Patriots had done a Seinfeld (i.e. simply nothing) they'd have a better chance of Branch playing for them this year.

Now, let's see. Chayut, in his capacity as Branch's agent, has done nothing. As in, NOTHING. Zero. Zip. Nada. Etc., etc.

To move these "negotiations" further along, you now suggest the Pats do "nothing"? Hmmm, that's solid logic if I've ever seen it!

Of course, Seinfeld stunk. The Patriots do not. That's a big difference.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Well I certainly would not have aired the teams dirty laundry for all to see. Even if they wanted to trade Branch, they could have done that behind closed doors. I said all along that this tactic wouldn't help things, and I'm baffled as to why it was even used, it makes no sense. Now we are stuck with a malcontent, who though is a good asset (trade wise), we won't trade him. The only way to resolve this now, as far as him not being a distraction, is to do what the Eagles did with T.O., which will get us nothing in return.


Everyone is lauding the FO for getting draft picks for Cobbs & Gorin, what do we have to show for Branch ? He certainly won't be on the Pats roster this year, so next year he walks. I would have gladly taken Mcarens and a #2 from the Jets. At least we'd have a WR that will play for us and a HIGH #2 pick to play with (if that package was offered, if not, I understand not doing the trade). Now we have nothing.

Pray tell, exactly what dirty laundry are you referring to? The fact that Branch is "disgruntled"? The fact he has a much higher opinion of his worth than is merited? The fact that he and his "agent" won't even engage in negotiations?

If push comes to shove, the Patriots will get something for him, believe me. The NFLPA is a ornery, powerful clique, it is true, but the sanctity of the signed contract trumps all that.

And even if they didn't (!), there are some things in life that just aren't worth it. It's not enough to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. You also have to know when to cut your loses.

I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. Just hold on, ahve a little faith, and it'll work out. Maybe not like we all expect it to, but it'll work out.

 

[upstater1]

Now, let's see. Chayut, in his capacity as Branch's agent, has done nothing. As in, NOTHING. Zero. Zip. Nada. Etc., etc.

To move these "negotiations" further along, you now suggest the Pats do "nothing"? Hmmm, that's solid logic if I've ever seen it!

Of course, Seinfeld stunk. The Patriots do not. That's a big difference.

Seinfeld stunk? Yeah they stunk it up so bad that hey were one of the top 5 shows on TV for over a decade. They were a dynasty!!!

Doing nothing would have been much better than what ultimately transpired, dontcha think? Now we have Branch utterly convinced the Patriots are dealing in bad faith. Before, he was only guessing, and there was a chance he'd show up and play. Now, it ain't going to happen. Maybe you prefer it this way. I don't.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Seinfeld stunk? Yeah they stunk it up so bad that hey were one of the top 5 shows on TV for over a decade. They were a dynasty!!!

Doing nothing would have been much better than what ultimately transpired, dontcha think? Now we have Branch utterly convinced the Patriots are dealing in bad faith. Before, he was only guessing, and there was a chance he'd show up and play. Now, it ain't going to happen. Maybe you prefer it this way. I don't.

Bad faith???? Boy, you've got balls, if nothing else. If you can show me just one, just one, counter-offer by Chayut, I'll stand corrected! That will be proof-positive, in my eyes, that the Pats were dealing in "bad faith".

A "chance" he'd show up and play? Where'd you get that?

Very entertaining posts you're putting up here.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Pray tell, exactly what dirty laundry are you referring to? The fact that Branch is "disgruntled"? The fact he has a much higher opinion of his worth than is merited? The fact that he and his "agent" won't even engage in negotiations?

If push comes to shove, the Patriots will get something for him, believe me. The NFLPA is a ornery, powerful clique, it is true, but the sanctity of the signed contract trumps all that.

And even if they didn't (!), there are some things in life that just aren't worth it. It's not enough to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. You also have to know when to cut your loses.

I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. Just hold on, ahve a little faith, and it'll work out. Maybe not like we all expect it to, but it'll work out.

The dirty laundry is, our own inabilty to get things done. It should have never come to this, I've said it 100 times, it was like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, dare Branch to cross the line you've drawn in the sand, he does it, and now what ? It was a complete and utter joke, and people here were celebrating it like it was the most brilliant thing since the atom was split. IT ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING !! Unfortunately , I knew it would end like this.

There was no need to go to the press and tell them that they've given Branch one week to find a new team. It could have been done behind closed doors. If Chayut & Branch blabbed that to the press, they would have sabotaged themselves.

 

[shmessy]

Oh maaaaaannnn, I am so totally shmessed up! I'm half expecting an announcement of a trade this week.

Don't sweat it, Box. You'll have it by the time Jerry Lewis sings "You'll Never Walk Alone" Monday night.

 

[shakadave]

As irritated as I am, I'm starting to feel sorry for him more than angry with him. I never realized that he's a total f*cking idiot but now I realize it and can't feel anything but sorry for him.

A wise wide receiver is a rare and wonderful thing. That's why Troy Brown is so great. And did I mention how rare it is? The world is full of dumbass WRs. The average WR operates mentally at the level of "Me like money. Me want MORE money." I had always hoped Deion was one of the wise ones. He'll really have to pull this one out of the fire to save his rep. in my book.

 

[upstater1]

Bad faith???? Boy, you've got balls, if nothing else. If you can show me just one, just one, counter-offer by Chayut, I'll stand corrected! That will be proof-positive, in my eyes, that the Pats were dealing in "bad faith".

A "chance" he'd show up and play? Where'd you get that?

Very entertaining posts you're putting up here.

Can you read? I said Branch thinks the patriots are dealing in bad faith. I didn't say I thought that. Jeez. Who am I arguing with here. This is pretty simple. What the heck do you think the grievance is about? Did you even know about it? Right in the grievance they are accusing the Patriots of dealing in bad faith. Did they have a grievance a week ago? Heck no!!

Wake up.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Can you read? I said Branch thinks the patriots are dealing in bad faith. I didn't say I thought that. Jeez. Who am I arguing with here. This is pretty simple. What the heck do you think the grievance is about? Did you even know about it? Right in the grievance they are accusing the Patriots of dealing in bad faith. Did they have a grievance a week ago? Heck no!!

Wake up.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to reporter Helen Thomas during a presser on the Iraq war:

"Thank you, Helen, for the Hezbollah point of view."

Apparently I don't know. Why don't you tell us what you think the greivance process here is about.

As I understand it, there's a guy who's represented by an agent who's reported experience in these matters is exclusively handling rookie contracts. He apparently botched Branch's a few years ago, and now wants the Pats, and by extension, the league, to cover up his ineptitude.

He's doing this by having his contractually obligated client breach his contract, engage in a contract "negotiation" ploy of not responding to, or countering, any offers from the team, and when presented with an opportunity to shop his client (under contract now, remember) with the proviso that the Pats agree only if compensation from an offering team to the Pats meets their approval.

When it doesn't, he goes crying to the NFLPA, seeking said greivance on the basis that (1) the Pats are negotiating in "bad faith", and (2) they, they, are in breach on contract!

Astounding!

And in fact you and Scott99 argue that the Pats shouldn't have done anything, that there was a "chance" (!) that Branch might return, even though there wasn't, isn't, and is never going to be, a scintilla of evidence of that. Indeed, if there were, the "agent" in question (who must surely be bucking for decertification) would have responded somehow, anyhow, during the course of these "negotiations".

I'll wake up the instant you do.

 

[shmessy]

Box O rocks originally posted:
"Oh maaaaaannnn, I am so totally shmessed up! I'm half expecting an announcement of a trade this week."

Don't sweat it, Box. You'll have it by the time Jerry Lewis sings "You'll Never Walk Alone" Monday night.

Well, I was right. Just didn't know it would occur before Jerry even took the stage Sunday evening!

 

[upstater1]

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to reporter Helen Thomas during a presser on the Iraq war:

"Thank you, Helen, for the Hezbollah point of view."

Apparently I don't know. Why don't you tell us what you think the greivance process here is about.

As I understand it, there's a guy who's represented by an agent who's reported experience in these matters is exclusively handling rookie contracts. He apparently botched Branch's a few years ago, and now wants the Pats, and by extension, the league, to cover up his ineptitude.

He's doing this by having his contractually obligated client breach his contract, engage in a contract "negotiation" ploy of not responding to, or countering, any offers from the team, and when presented with an opportunity to shop his client (under contract now, remember) with the proviso that the Pats agree only if compensation from an offering team to the Pats meets their approval.

When it doesn't, he goes crying to the NFLPA, seeking said greivance on the basis that (1) the Pats are negotiating in "bad faith", and (2) they, they, are in breach on contract!

Astounding!

And in fact you and Scott99 argue that the Pats shouldn't have done anything, that there was a "chance" (!) that Branch might return, even though there wasn't, isn't, and is never going to be, a scintilla of evidence of that. Indeed, if there were, the "agent" in question (who must surely be bucking for decertification) would have responded somehow, anyhow, during the course of these "negotiations".

I'll wake up the instant you do.

Tell me something I don't know.

I said Branch accused the patriots of dealing in "bad faith."

I didn't say the Patriots are dealing in "bad faith"?

Why can't you understand the difference?

The main reason I agree with Scott is because last week, no one knew what Branch's value was. This week we know, and it's a lot more than the Patriots are offering. They lost the gamble, it blew up in their face, everyone think they're cheating a player. OK, I'm fine with that, its'r eally no big deal. But the fact is, THEY WERE BETTER OFF before they tried this stupid ploy, and no one can say otherwise.

Take a poll and see.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Tell me something I don't know.

I said Branch accused the patriots of dealing in "bad faith."

I didn't say the Patriots are dealing in "bad faith"?

Why can't you understand the difference?

The main reason I agree with Scott is because last week, no one knew what Branch's value was. This week we know, and it's a lot more than the Patriots are offering. They lost the gamble, it blew up in their face, everyone think they're cheating a player. OK, I'm fine with that, its'r eally no big deal. But the fact is, THEY WERE BETTER OFF before they tried this stupid ploy, and no one can say otherwise.

Take a poll and see.

How liberal of you. We govern our actions on a poll! The longer this takes, and the more legal it becomes, the richer is the Pats reward.

 

[shakadave]

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to reporter Helen Thomas during a presser on the Iraq war:

"Thank you, Helen, for the Hezbollah point of view."

Apparently I don't know. Why don't you tell us what you think the greivance process here is about.

As I understand it, there's a guy who's represented by an agent who's reported experience in these matters is exclusively handling rookie contracts. He apparently botched Branch's a few years ago, and now wants the Pats, and by extension, the league, to cover up his ineptitude.

He's doing this by having his contractually obligated client breach his contract, engage in a contract "negotiation" ploy of not responding to, or countering, any offers from the team, and when presented with an opportunity to shop his client (under contract now, remember) with the proviso that the Pats agree only if compensation from an offering team to the Pats meets their approval.

When it doesn't, he goes crying to the NFLPA, seeking said greivance on the basis that (1) the Pats are negotiating in "bad faith", and (2) they, they, are in breach on contract!

Astounding!

And in fact you and Scott99 argue that the Pats shouldn't have done anything, that there was a "chance" (!) that Branch might return, even though there wasn't, isn't, and is never going to be, a scintilla of evidence of that. Indeed, if there were, the "agent" in question (who must surely be bucking for decertification) would have responded somehow, anyhow, during the course of these "negotiations".

I'll wake up the instant you do.

Right on, Fervor!

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

I hate to say I told you so, but last week when this ridiculous statement came out saying Branch can seek a trade, I told you guys I thought it was the dumbest move ever, and wouldn't resolve anything. I said it was like drawing a line in the sand in front of Branch, daring him to step over it, he steps over it, and now what ? Draw another line ? I knew nothing would come of this. Not saying I'm a genius, but it just seemed so dumb at the time, and it looks even dumber now. Everybody thought this decree by the Pats would make the situation come to an end, I never understood the excitement over the original statement allowing Branch to seek a trade, and I still don't.

This has to be one of the worst attempts to get a holdout to come to a resolution ever. Just dumb.

Pure genius.

 

[jimmyjames]

Tell me something I don't know.

I said Branch accused the patriots of dealing in "bad faith."

I didn't say the Patriots are dealing in "bad faith"?

Why can't you understand the difference?

The main reason I agree with Scott is because last week, no one knew what Branch's value was. This week we know, and it's a lot more than the Patriots are offering. They lost the gamble, it blew up in their face, everyone think they're cheating a player. OK, I'm fine with that, its'r eally no big deal. But the fact is, THEY WERE BETTER OFF before they tried this stupid ploy, and no one can say otherwise.

Take a poll and see.

I don't understand how they were better off having not heard from their player or his representative with a counter offer since May. And the offer from the SeaHawks and Jets was not so much greater than what the Pats offered initially and certainly not out of the realm of possibilty of what the two sides may have come to terms on had Chayut and Branch continued to negotiate with the FO like any rational party does in negotiating a contract.
It was by no means the 8-9 million dollars a year Deion thought he was worth a couple months ago.

I would also venture to guess that had Branch and Chuyut not instantly run to the union to file a grievance it is pretty likeley the Pats would have used the offers from Seattle and New York as jumping off points to restart negotiations.

 

[BradyBetterThanZorn?]

I just don't see how doing nothing would have gotten the Pats anywhere? Branch made ZERO effort to resolve the dispute. If the Pats did nothing then we'd be in the exact same spot with him sitting out and saying the Pats were bargaining in bad faith. Let him sit!

The Pats will definitely get something for him no matter how this works out. He'll either return in week 10 (basically playing for free) and then be franchised next year or he will be dealt (during the season or before the draft) for picks or players. I fail to see how the NFLPA can say that the Pats violated a contract when Branch is not honouring his WRITTEN contract. He can sit out all he wants but don't cry to me when the Pats let you rot on the sidelines holding your rights in the meantime.

 

[brady2brown]

I hate to say I told you so, but last week when this ridiculous statement came out saying Branch can seek a trade, I told you guys I thought it was the dumbest move ever, and wouldn't resolve anything. I said it was like drawing a line in the sand in front of Branch, daring him to step over it, he steps over it, and now what ? Draw another line ? I knew nothing would come of this. Not saying I'm a genius, but it just seemed so dumb at the time, and it looks even dumber now. Everybody thought this decree by the Pats would make the situation come to an end, I never understood the excitement over the original statement allowing Branch to seek a trade, and I still don't.

This has to be one of the worst attempts to get a holdout to come to a resolution ever. Just dumb.

Why not wait until it's over before telling us how smart you are. It isn't over yet, you know.

Anyway, I don't see how the Pats are that much worse off than before. Branch wasn't going to play until week 10. He still isn't.

The only mistake they made (IMO) is not taking Seattle's best offer. I still think they are better off getting rid of him. Under the new rules they cannot keep him away from Gillette when he reports and he will surely disrupt chemistry during the stretch run and playoffs.

Get rid of him. Let him "win." Because to hold on to him is to lose ourselves.

 

[shmessy]

Why not wait until it's over before telling us how smart you are. It isn't over yet, you know.

Anyway, I don't see how the Pats are that much worse off than before. Branch wasn't going to play until week 10. He still isn't.

The only mistake they made (IMO) is not taking Seattle's best offer. I still think they are better off getting rid of him. Under the new rules they cannot keep him away from Gillette when he reports and he will surely disrupt chemistry during the stretch run and playoffs.

Get rid of him. Let him "win." Because to hold on to him is to lose ourselves.

Wrong.

The Patriots should hold on to him for this year - - at this point he either returns now or returns in week 10 and plays for free in 2006. In 2007 they can franchise him and then peddle him to the other 31 before the draft. I read here that the WR FA crop next year is exceptionally thin and DB will be an even bigger commodity then.

By dealing him for draft picks now, we would have to wait til next spring to cash in. By holding him to his contract, we'd still get the draft pick(s) in the same 2007 draft, but lose nothing (and maybe squeeze a few games in 2006 out of the Twig).

Any theoretical "disruptions" he might cause (and, as a person, he's not that kind of guy) would just take money out of his pocket when he sees his value go down in the other 31 teams' eyes. He's a good kid with a bad agent - - he wouldn't pull a T.O.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The only mistake they made (IMO) is not taking Seattle's best offer. I still think they are better off getting rid of him. Under the new rules they cannot keep him away from Gillette when he reports and he will surely disrupt chemistry during the stretch run and playoffs.

Get rid of him. Let him "win." Because to hold on to him is to lose ourselves.

I disagree. First, the Patriots are a better team with him this year. Hey, every little bit counts. We are thin at WR it appears too. I am perfectly willing to go the season without him, however, no sense in just writing it off either. I look at the statement by Team Brach saying to the effect, 'Deion won't return until this matter is resolved". To me that is them saying Branch will return at some point (barring a trade). The Patriots not ridding themselves of him makes me think they are not neccesarily ready to write him off either. I do agree that that possibility grows smaller each day. Second, to the point that Deion would be a disruption. I know this situation has soured many on him (me included). I just can't believe he would show up and pull a TO. He just doesn't seem to have it in him like TO did and does. Now if his agent accompanies him to practice and such, anything can happen. But seriously, DB would show up and pull a stunt? Maybe I am being naive but I just can't believe he would bring business with him on to the field. It also would negatively impact his contract leverage for the coming year. It just wouldn't make sense. Plus once he reports, the team could just tell him to hit the bricks for the rest of the season if he does pull a TO. Lastly, the guy is worth more than a 2nd round pick. The guy is great cap value at 1.05 million for this year. Why throw the cap value and pick value away just to give Team Branch what they want? DB stays and either reports to PLAY or sits at home and sees his value lessened. Then he gets franchised next year and we still end up with a good pick before this April's draft.