Exploring consequences - New York Jets

[AzPatsFan]

Now that Chayat has filed a Grievance, I think the NYJ front office is in a frenzy.

The NY Jets thought that they could stir the pot and make life miserable for the Patriots. They never considered the erratic behavior of Chayat. I think they thought we''ll make a high offer; the Pats won't agree to compensation, but in the end they will have to equal our offer to Branch or he will be bitter and maybe ineffective with the Patriots. :bricks:

They never thought that they might well be penalized with the loss of at least one and a good chance two #1 draft pick. The assumed any action by the Patriots to invoke arbitration could be halted by Branch and his agent. Now they have requested it and provided the opening for the Patriots to jump to a devastating victory,by merely agreeing to an arbitrator.

It would doom the NYJ rebuilding program. :bricks: Sooner or later Mangini and Tannenbau would be fired. :bricks: If not for the direct stupidity of losing t #1 picks then eventually for the poor non-winning teams fielded without the use of those picks.:bricks:

The Patriots would be strengthened immeasurably to add two top ten picks in addition to their normal (over) allotment of picks.

They offered Branch a salary equal to what the Patriots offered or near enough. But more importantly they both offered a salary package equal to a "franchised player" not just just as if one team did, and the other did not. Then there could be a dispute about the players value. Now there cannot really be one, since both made the "franchise player" offer or its equivalent.

So they BOTH agreed that he is worth a "franchised players" compensation. If I am an arbitrator, I look for guidance in the rules for compensation for "franchised " players. Fortunately there is a bargained and agreed value for a franchised player. It says compensation is 2 first round draft picks. There is even a precedent and example in which Joey Galloway,also a holdout and a WR, was traded for 2 #1 picks after a holdout deep into the season.

If I were the Patriots that is what I want, no more no less. That is what the CBA prescribes and precedent sets as guidance to an arbitrator.

Now the Jets FO thought they could mess with BB head, except it is backfiring and blowing up in their faces. The Jets may well end up in 2007 with a top ten pick and its possible the same could occur in 2008.

 

[mgcolby]

Now that Chayat has filed a Grievance, I think the NYJ front office is in a frenzy.

The NY Jets thought that they could stir the pot and make life miserable for the Patriots. They never considered the erratic behavior of Chayat. I think they thought we''ll make a high offer; the Pats won't agree to compensation, but in the end they will have to equal our offer to Branch or he will be bitter and maybe ineffective with the Patriots. :bricks:

They never thought that they might well be penalized with the loss of at least one and a good chance two #1 draft pick. The assumed any action by the Patriots to invoke arbitration could be halted by Branch and his agent. Now they have requested it and provided the opening for the Patriots to jump to a devastating victory,by merely agreeing to an arbitrator.

It would doom the NYJ rebuilding program. :bricks: Sooner or later Mangini and Tannenbau would be fired. :bricks: If not for the direct stupidity of losing t #1 picks then eventually for the poor non-winning teams fielded without the use of those picks.

The Patriots would be strengthened immeasurably to add two top ten picks in addition to their normal (over) allotment of picks.

They offered Branch a salary equal to what the Patriots offered or near enough. But more importantly they both offered a salary package equal to a "franchised player" not just just as if one team did, and the other did not. Then there could be a dispute about the players value. Now there cannot really be one, since both made the "franchise player" offer or its equivalent.

So they BOTH agreed that he is worth a "franchised players" compensation. If I am an arbitrator, I look for guidance in the rules for compensation for "franchised " players. Fortunately there is a bargained and agreed value for a franchised player. It says compensation is 2 first round draft picks. There is even a precedent and example in which Joey Galloway,also a holdout and a WR, was traded for 2 #1 picks after a holdout deep into the season.

If I were the Patriots that is what I want, no more no less. That is what the CBA prescribes and precedent sets as guidance to an arbitrator.

Now the Jets FO thought they could mess with BB head, except it is backfiring and blowing up in their faces. The Jets may well end up in 2007 with a top ten pick and its possible the same could occur in 2008.

The Pats gave him permission to seek a trade I don't see how a team could be penalized for negotiating with him. That makes no sense.

 

[jct]

Now that Chayat has filed a Grievance, I think the NYJ front office is in a frenzy.

The NY Jets thought that they could stir the pot and make life miserable for the Patriots. They never considered the erratic behavior of Chayat. I think they thought we''ll make a high offer; the Pats won't agree to compensation, but in the end they will have to equal our offer to Branch or he will be bitter and maybe ineffective with the Patriots. :bricks:

They never thought that they might well be penalized with the loss of at least one and a good chance two #1 draft pick. The assumed any action by the Patriots to invoke arbitration could be halted by Branch and his agent. Now they have requested it and provided the opening for the Patriots to jump to a devastating victory,by merely agreeing to an arbitrator.

It would doom the NYJ rebuilding program. :bricks: Sooner or later Mangini and Tannenbau would be fired. :bricks: If not for the direct stupidity of losing t #1 picks then eventually for the poor non-winning teams fielded without the use of those picks.:bricks:

The Patriots would be strengthened immeasurably to add two top ten picks in addition to their normal (over) allotment of picks.

They offered Branch a salary equal to what the Patriots offered or near enough. But more importantly they both offered a salary package equal to a "franchised player" not just just as if one team did, and the other did not. Then there could be a dispute about the players value. Now there cannot really be one, since both made the "franchise player" offer or its equivalent.

So they BOTH agreed that he is worth a "franchised players" compensation. If I am an arbitrator, I look for guidance in the rules for compensation for "franchised " players. Fortunately there is a bargained and agreed value for a franchised player. It says compensation is 2 first round draft picks. There is even a precedent and example in which Joey Galloway,also a holdout and a WR, was traded for 2 #1 picks after a holdout deep into the season.

If I were the Patriots that is what I want, no more no less. That is what the CBA prescribes and precedent sets as guidance to an arbitrator.

Now the Jets FO thought they could mess with BB head, except it is backfiring and blowing up in their faces. The Jets may well end up in 2007 with a top ten pick and its possible the same could occur in 2008.

WOW!! That is a dream scenario...
Love it if it comes down like that!!

 

[Ring 6]

The Jets cant be forced to trade for him for more than they offered.
How could someone tell them they are forced to trade for the guy but arent allowed to decide how much they give?


As I typed that, it occurs that it would be ludicrous, and really illegal to mandate the Jets must trade for Branch and tell them how much they give up for him. Which of course would mean the same thing in telling the Pats what they would have to accept.

 

[patchick]

I have to agree with the responses here...I see nothing at all that suggests the Jets have entered into any obligations. In fact, they could probably withdraw their offer right now.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Jets cant be forced to trade for him for more than they offered.
How could someone tell them they are forced to trade for the guy but arent allowed to decide how much they give?


As I typed that, it occurs that it would be ludicrous, and really illegal to mandate the Jets must trade for Branch and tell them how much they give up for him. Which of course would mean the same thing in telling the Pats what they would have to accept.

Which is exactly why Branch will lose.

Quick somebody fax Az's rant to Pioli as our brilliantly simplistic defense against Branch having anything to grieve.

The only difference between the Pat's and the NFLPA is that one thinks the NFL is all about the players and FA while the other thinks it's all about football and winning championships.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: Exploring consequences - NFLPA concurs!

The NFLPA has now agreed that a implicit contract between and amongst the three parties exists. In that they support the Branch side and if the Patriots attorneys have half a brain, that side as they concur as well.

The New York Jets by making representations and offers of employment and compensation to a player under contract, have implicitly entered in to an enforceable verbal and implicit contract as now agreed by the NFLPA Grievance action.

The Jets Front Office screwed themselves by letting doofus Chayut run amok, in their behalf.

They will soon pay the price. :bricks:

Collectively bargained compensation paid to a player compensated at the "franchise rate" for a WR is 2 #1 draft picks as provided by collective bargaining and by precedent (Galloway and Dallas Cowboys) a WR holdout situation.

The Patriots are just paying out the rope, are in the drivers seat and the poor Jets don't know that they have stepped on their crank...YET!

Go Branch! Screw your new team! The Jets and their fans will just love you when they realize that a couple of top ten round first draft picks went for you. I give you chances of completing your six year deal with them as Slim and None and Slim left town. :rocker:

I hope you enjoy your guaranteed money because thats all you will ever see from the soon-to-be pissed off NY Jets and fans ...

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

That frenzy in the Jets FO might just be gleeful, not fearful. There is no plausible scenario where the Jets will be forced to trade two firsts for Branch. Instead, Mangenie (not mangini tonight) has helped put a burr in the saddle of his number one opponent and let some bad magic out of the bottle.
One thing EM would rather not see is Branch playing for Pats when they meet. So why not take a shot at getting the Pat's best WR while simultaneously inflaming the dispute between the pats and Branch? Jets come out a winner either way. With the Jets offer, Branch becomes that much more unlikely to play for the Pats, weakening the Patriots and the AFC East, both good for the Jets. If the trade works out then the Pats will be playing against their former number one twice a year and the Jets organization can spin up a real boost for the team by playing the trade as having gotten the better of BB. Disrupting the Pats and taking their number one WR in exchange for a second round draft pick and jericho Crochery? Even if the player is Coles, the Jets can still spin this as a winning move for now and fire up the team and the fanbase. Touche Eric, you putz....

 

[patchick]

Re: Exploring consequences - NFLPA concurs!

The New York Jets by making representations and offers of employment and compensation to a player under contract, have implicitly entered in to an enforceable verbal and implicit contract as now agreed by the NFLPA Grievance action.

etc.

AzPatsFan, you've said this a couple of times now but it just doesn't make sense. The grievance is filed by Branch against the New England Patriots. The Jets aren't part of it at all. Why on Earth would an arbitrator decide that the way to settle A's complaint against B is to force an innocent third party C into doing something it would never in a million years have agreed to? (And yes, the Jets are "innocent" for these purposes. The Patriots granted Branch the right to negotiate with them.)

The abritrator can rule that the Patriots are obligated to accept a 2nd-round draft pick as fair compensation (not likely, I think), or that they are not so obligated. The arbitrator can't decide to give the Patriots somebody else's draft picks without that team's permission. That would be outrageous.

 

[Sundayjack]

Re: Exploring consequences - NFLPA concurs!

The NFLPA has now agreed that a implicit contract between and amongst the three parties exists. In that they support the Branch side and if the Patriots attorneys have half a brain, that side as they concur as well.

The New York Jets by making representations and offers of employment and compensation to a player under contract, have implicitly entered in to an enforceable verbal and implicit contract as now agreed by the NFLPA Grievance action.

You jump three steps in two sentences. The NFLPA filed the grievance ostensibly because it buys into Chayut's argument that Branch and the Patriots made an oral contract. Nothing "implicit" about that. He's saying that it was a real, live, express contract, complete in and of itself. You're taking that and turning it into an implied agreement to comply with the CBA-imposed compensation terms.

Wait, I have to correct myself - you're jumping FIVE steps ahead in two sentences.

First order of business for the special master is whether or not this is even a grievable matter. Second order is to determine whether there was an oral agreement, and what it was. Third order of business, assuming Branch gets by the first two, is to enforce THOSE terms of the express contract.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Exploring consequences - NFLPA concurs!

You jump three steps in two sentences. The NFLPA filed the grievance ostensibly because it buys into Chayut's argument that Branch and the Patriots made an oral contract. Nothing "implicit" about that. He's saying that it was a real, live, express contract, complete in and of itself. You're taking that and turning it into an implied agreement to comply with the CBA-imposed compensation terms.

Wait, I have to correct myself - you're jumping FIVE steps ahead in two sentences.

First order of business for the special master is whether or not this is even a grievable matter. Second order is to determine whether there was an oral agreement, and what it was. Third order of business, assuming Branch gets by the first two, is to enforce THOSE terms of the express contract.

At which point he would need to take a side on what 'fair compensation' is, in essence either telling the Patriots he will tell them what they meant by fair, or saying fair is in the eye of the beholder.
There is absolutely no way in the world anyone can hold the Patriots to a defintion of fair compensation that differs from what they judge it to be.
The Patriot FO is not stupid, and there is no question they anticipated this move, and were extremely careful in the way they communicated this permission.

Quite frankly, and arbitrator ruling in Branch's favor would mean nothing because the Patriots would not accept that decision, and move to take legal action to block it, under which they would without question win.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Exploring consequences - NFLPA concurs!

At which point he would need to take a side on what 'fair compensation' is, in essence either telling the Patriots he will tell them what they meant by fair, or saying fair is in the eye of the beholder.
There is absolutely no way in the world anyone can hold the Patriots to a defintion of fair compensation that differs from what they judge it to be.
The Patriot FO is not stupid, and there is no question they anticipated this move, and were extremely careful in the way they communicated this permission.

Quite frankly, and arbitrator ruling in Branch's favor would mean nothing because the Patriots would not accept that decision, and move to take legal action to block it, under which they would without question win.

Not that I think it will come to that but I don't think the loser here gets take any further legal action. The CBA requires that the parties to it agree to be bound by arbitration.

But the point is moot. He is only going to rule on whether or not they had any kind of binding agreement regarding what specifically constituted suitable compensation and the variables are all over the board. While the union may cite Fumblepepper (who was facing a scandalous court date and a knee injury believed prior to this month to take two years to heal) the Patriots can just as easily cite the JETS own John Abraham who was merely disgruntled and traded for a #1. As I recall for a time Seattle was the compensation front runner on that deal until Abraham made it clear he would only sign with Atlanta. Even then NY held firm until Atlanta engineered a deal where they got that #1. No team in the league can be comfortable watching Chayut's antics because of the implications and the damper those would put on player facilitated trades. In fact I wouldn't doubt there are a number of more experienced and high profile agents who are not wxactly thrilled with Chayut's antics at this point.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

So many Branch threads, it's hard to know where to post a comment on the situation.

The end game looks bad any way you dice it if you ask me. If they rule for Branch/Chayut and the Jets agree, we lose him for a second. If they rule for the Pats, we win a key player who is even less likely to meet on terms or play for more than half the season.

Personally, I think the whole mess is such a distraction and exercise in ego, it's worth it to take the deal and ship him to the Jets for the 2nd, shop for a player that wants to wear the flying elvis, and get plugged into the season.

If we were shopping for a WR of Branchs caliber and history would we be willing to offer up a 1st for him? I don't think so, I don't think anyone would. To me that states his max league value regardless of the money on the table.

 

[AzPatsFan]

That frenzy in the Jets FO might just be gleeful, not fearful. There is no plausible scenario where the Jets will be forced to trade two firsts for Branch. Instead, Mangenie (not mangini tonight) has helped put a burr in the saddle of his number one opponent and let some bad magic out of the bottle.
One thing EM would rather not see is Branch playing for Pats when they meet. So why not take a shot at getting the Pat's best WR while simultaneously inflaming the dispute between the pats and Branch? Jets come out a winner either way. With the Jets offer, Branch becomes that much more unlikely to play for the Pats, weakening the Patriots and the AFC East, both good for the Jets. If the trade works out then the Pats will be playing against their former number one twice a year and the Jets organization can spin up a real boost for the team by playing the trade as having gotten the better of BB. Disrupting the Pats and taking their number one WR in exchange for a second round draft pick and jericho Crochery? Even if the player is Coles, the Jets can still spin this as a winning move for now and fire up the team and the fanbase. Touche Eric, you putz....

Do you think you can just knowingly full fore thought tamper with an enforceable legal contract and make representations about creating a default situation without legal cost to yourself?

When the Jets entered into conversations with Chayut they were in effect negotiating with the Patriots with Chayut serving as an agent for both Branch and the Patriots. They came to an agreement with Chayut and he says they did. He has subsequently enlisted the NFLPA grievance procedure to confirm that agreement. That was the first SNAFU; it asserts there is a contract, binding on the jets. The NFLPA supports Chayut, confirming the SNAFU; that confirms the contract has standing by one of the Judges of contracts. The Jets are on the hook, and the Jets have opened their checkbook. But not just to Branch, but also to the Pats, as their lawyers will argue.

There is an established, pre-negotiated and agreed on a compensation plan in place unless supereceded, and the Pats don't agree to supercede it, so the default implicit compensation remains in force. Too bad for the Jets its 2 #1s.

Caveat Emptor! That's why they tell you to read the fine print, dummy!

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

All of those happy horse manure things they say as the lawyers seize your assets.

 

[Ring 6]

Do you think you can just knowingly full fore thought tamper with an enforceable legal contract and make representations about creating a default situation without legal cost to yourself?

When the Jets entered into conversations with Chayut they were in effect negotiating with the Patriots with Chayut serving as an agent for both Branch and the Patriots. They came to an agreement with Chayut and he says they did. He has subsequently enlisted the NFLPA grievance procedure to confirm that agreement. That was the first SNAFU; it asserts there is a contract, binding on the jets. The NFLPA supports Chayut, confirming the SNAFU; that confirms the contract has standing by one of the Judges of contracts. The Jets are on the hook, and the Jets have opened their checkbook. But not just to Branch, but also to the Pats, as their lawyers will argue.

There is an established, pre-negotiated and agreed on a compensation plan in place unless supereceded, and the Pats don't agree to supercede it, so the default implicit compensation remains in force. Too bad for the Jets its 2 #1s.

Caveat Emptor! That's why they tell you to read the fine print, dummy!

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

All of those happy horse manure things they say as the lawyers seize your assets.

I will bet every penny I have that the Patriots never implicitly or otherwise granted Chayut anything in the universe of negotiating FOR THEM or having any say it what the trade compensation would be.

 

[lobster]

When the Jets entered into conversations with Chayut they were in effect negotiating with the Patriots with Chayut serving as an agent for both Branch and the Patriots.

No, Chayut got a contract from the Jets and then it was up to the Pat's and the Jets to negotiate compensation which they were apparently doing on Friday. Chayut would have nothing to do with negotiating compensation which is between the clubs to work out.

The Jets offered a #2 pick to the Pat's which apparently the Pat's declined. At that point Chayut filed a grievance saying that was reasonable and fair compensation under the verbal agreement given to him.

Now I suppose if the Pat's can get more compensation from the Seahawks they could argue that was also reasonable and fair. It will be up to arbitration to decide what is reasonable and fair compensation.

 

[Ring 6]

No, Chayut got a contract from the Jets and then it was up to the Pat's and the Jets to negotiate compensation which they were apparently doing on Friday. Chayut would have nothing to do with negotiating compensation which is between the clubs to work out.

The Jets offered a #2 pick to the Pat's which apparently the Pat's declined. At that point Chayut filed a grievance saying that was reasonable and fair compensation under the verbal agreement given to him.

Now I suppose if the Pat's can get more compensation from the Seahawks they could argue that was also reasonable and fair. It will be up to arbitration to decide what is reasonable and fair compensation.

In essence Chayut is saying:

We dont like the contract we agreed, so we arent playing, and are not even telling the Patriots what we would play for.
The Patriots solution was for me to go find someone my client wanted to play for and they would consider a trade.
We found the team, but they arent giving the Patriots a trade that the Patriots think is fair.
I SAY IT IS FAIR. I SAY IT WOULD BE SMART FOR THE PARTIOTS TO MAKE THAT TRADE.
Mommy, the Patriots are being mean to me, please tell them they have to do what I want them to. I think I'm going to hold my breath until you say yes. And I'm not going to eat those vegetables any more either.

I just don't understand the connection where refusing to honor your contract creates your inalienable right to be traded whereever you want for whatever that team wants to give up.
If Chayut were to win this grieveance anarchy would rule the NFL.

 

[SamBam39]

I just don't understand the connection where refusing to honor your contract creates your inalienable right to be traded whereever you want for whatever that team wants to give up.
If Chayut were to win this grieveance anarchy would rule the NFL.

andy - refusing to honor his contract did not create this inalienable right to be traded - the patriots decided to grant him that right.

 

[patchick]

Mommy, the Patriots are being mean to me, please tell them they have to do what I want them to. I think I'm going to hold my breath until you say yes.

This is precisely it. And I suspect that arbitrator will feel just I do when one of my daughters runs to me complaining that her sister won't play the role she wants in their game of fairy princesses. "Kids, it's up to the people in the game to decide what's fair."

It is entirely possible that an arbitrator would rule that allowing a player to seek a trade does constitute an agreement on the club's part to, say, "consider in good faith any serious trade offers." The idea that this implicit agreement would require a club to accept a lousy offer from a division rival though, seems ridiculous. (Almost as ridiculous as claiming that when the Jets offered a #2, it constituted a binding agreement to fork over 2 #1s.)

 

[Jacky Roberts]

I don't see how any arbitrator can force the Patriots to trade Branch or to force the Jets to trade for him. This would be doom for the NFL in my opinion.