How Long Pats burn a roster spot on Branch?

[tombonneau]

Even though he is holding out, DB is occupying a spot on the 53-man roster, no? How long into his holdout do you think BB will wait before deciding to cut his losses and place DB on inactive list and free up a roster spot?

Or does it not come to that? I'm thinking if offense looks good and we are in week 6 or 7, injuries are going to happen, Pats are going to need roster spots for healthy players who can actually help the team, and DB might get Keyshawned.

What sort of impact does this have on his eligibility? Does he get credit for the year?

 

[BelichickFan]

He's on the Reserve/Did Not Report list, he's not part of the 53 man roster.

 

[sarge]

Actually, I don't think he is holding a roster spot!

 

[jct]

Very good chance he will be back in time for the denver game.

 

[TNPatsFan]

Right, he's not on the 53 man roster. I feel sorry for the poor guy that wants to be on this team but who will have to get cut in week 10 when Deion has to come back just to fulfill the obligation he has in order to become a free agent. It's too bad they will be forced to put him on the roster at that time.

 

[Pujo]

Right, he's not on the 53 man roster. I feel sorry for the poor guy that wants to be on this team but who will have to get cut in week 10 when Deion has to come back just to fulfill the obligation he has in order to become a free agent. It's too bad they will be forced to put him on the roster at that time.

They might as well release him if it gets to that point; he'll be a free agent come March anyway, and I honestly don't see them franchising him after this.

 

[R_T26]

If they franchised tebuckey jones, they will franchise branch. But they will almost certainly trade him once the tag is placed.

 

[tombonneau]

Ah good to see it was my misunderstandnig and he is not on 53.

 

[Patsgirl_DK]

I know DB doesn´t take up a roster spot right now, but lets say he holds out until week 10 and then comes back. Do the Pats then have to cut a player to make room for DB or can they simply make up an injury and place him on IR? Is there any way they can avoid cutting another player in case they do not plan to put DB on the Field?

 

[RayClay]

Would the transition tag make any sense?

Then they'd only have to pay him top 10 money and could match any offer.

Match and trade?

 

[sarge]

They might as well release him if it gets to that point; he'll be a free agent come March anyway, and I honestly don't see them franchising him after this.

Of course they will franchise him.

But not so that they can pay him. So that they can get something for him.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt we will get a second for him. Come the offseason, more teams may want to compete and that may go up to a first.

If the Pats don't franchise, they get nothing!

 

[lobster]

By week 10 the Pat's will have more room on the roster. However by not reporting today Branch will be ineligible for termination pay, which is guaranteed to every player on the 53-man roster, or injured lists, at the time of 1st regular season game. Termination pay essentially guarantee's a players salary even if they are cut the day after the first regular season game.

Therefore Branch now gets 1/16 of his salary for every game he is on the 53-man roster. If he reports for only 6 games that would be about $375K, which is substantially less than the fines he owes. Branch is going to be the laughing stock of the NFL if he loses his second grievance.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Would the transition tag make any sense?

Then they'd only have to pay him top 10 money and could match any offer.

Match and trade?

absoultely not, it's franchise only. they wouldn't risk him just leaving for not as much compensation. franchising virtually ensures no one will pay a big contract plus two #1 picks.

look how seattle played that card with steve hutchinson(and i know minnesota did that poison pill, but had they frachised him they would still have him or have much more compensation.

 

[fgssand]

Very good chance he will be back in time for the denver game.

What do you know that we don't? Very good chance? Please pass that blunt my way.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

They might as well release him if it gets to that point; he'll be a free agent come March anyway, and I honestly don't see them franchising him after this.

this would have been avoided if the pats hadnt planned on franchising him. he will be franchised

 

[arrellbee]

...termination pay, which is guaranteed to every player on the 53-man roster

No. Their salary for the year is only guaranteed if they are 'veterans' and they are on the roster as of the first game of the season (no salaries are guaranteed if a player is signed after the first game).

(Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 'veteran' designation in this context is defined as a player having accrued enough seasons to qualify as an unrestricted free agent once his contract is up - which is 4 accrued seasons required.)

 

[zippo59]

this would have been avoided if the pats hadnt planned on franchising him. he will be franchised

The Pats wouldn't take the tag off the table not because they necessarily wanted to use it but because they wanted the option of using it. Even if they weren't planning on using it if they took it off the table then every player who didn't want to franchise would threaten to hold out unless they promised not to. Then they would be in trouble. Also the tag gives you valueable leverage during negotiations. The Pats understandably didn't want to lose that edge.