I agree with Borges

[RayClay]

Considering Branch was holding the Pats hostage pretty much, if the Pats get a 1st from Seattle, I would have to say the Pats made out like Bandits.

They will gotten Gabriel and a first for Branch and a 5th.

So if that happens, I think the FO will walk away smelling like roses.

That said, I would rather have Branch. I guess I misunderstood some of the initial explenations of the Pats first offers. I think if they made the same offer but had it kick in a year earlier, we may not have been witnessing this mess!

AS far as BorgASS, his opinion is meaningless as it is based on nothing other then his hatred for BB. Even when he tries to back up his opinion with the facts, it is BorgASS trying to find events to back up his preconcieved agenda, not the facts helping him to come up with is opinion.

But the mess when every player on the roster wanted to tear up the last year of theit original contract would have been something to see.

 

[BelichickFan]

$6M a year isn't lowballing. Honestly it's more than I would give him although I wouldn't have complained if he's accepted it.

 

[DSal]

Don't get me wrong: Branch has acted like an idiot during this whole thing.

IMHO they need to upgrade the level of contact with their players during the negotiations. I'm not saying offer more, just make the players feel wanted. JMHO.

There's a right way and a wrong way for a player to approach renegotiating.
Right way - Richard Seymour - keep it between the 2 parties, out of the papers

Wrong way - Deion and Chayut

If the players want warm and fuzzy, they need to approach it the way Seymour and his agent did

 

[Tunescribe]

Here's Borg-ass's latest salvo. He keeps harping on this theme that the Pats are cheap and don't treat players fairly. OK, suppose everything he says is true. What would the solution be and how should Belipioli conduct matters differently? Does it simply boil down to them needing to be "nicer" to people in wrRONg's eyes?

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/09/03/long_shot_hits_the_jackpot/?page=2

It became fashionable for some Patriots toadies in and out of the media to attack not Deion Branch but his agent, Jason Chayut, since Branch's summer-long holdout began, but Chayut proved his point Friday. He was right all along when he said the Patriots were lowballing his client.
The Patriots' plan to make a public display of challenging Chayut to find Branch a better offer exploded in their faces when he came back with not one but two far in excess of what New England said it was willing to pay. Of course, many of the Patriots sympathizers continued to say this only meant Branch would be overpaid, a charge that now extends to at least five of the league's 32 teams since they either hired wide receivers in the offseason, re-signed their own, or were willing to pay Branch what he felt was fair.



Just as significant is that no one in the Patriots locker room feels Branch deserves to be treated this way. ``How does he come back now?" one of Branch's teammates said. ``Only if they pay him the money."
The Patriots can, of course, continue to run their business however they like. They can continue to treat their employees the way they do and end up with ones like David Givens and Adam Vinatieri refusing to even return last-second phone calls from Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli before they leave. Or they can create situations like the one with tight end Daniel Graham, who is set to become a free agent next season and has already told friends, ``They got one chance to bid on me. Then I'm gone."
What has gone on with Branch was a serious miscalculation. More important, as one of Branch's teammates said last week, ``If this is how they treat a guy who's everything they say they want, what are they going to do to the rest of us?"

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The Patriots have treated both David Givens and Deion Branch well, and have been very open and ethical about it. They made many overtures to extend both of them well over a year before their contracts ended, for very good money. Felger and Borges keep saying that these situations have been mismanaged, but short of making them the highest paid recievers in the game, there simply aren't any magic answers.

The Pats are 3-time SB champs. All the downtrodden teams want a piece of their team, and are willing to pay over and above for it. And many of those teams have huge cap space because they haven't been spending as much as the Pats do for their players, consistently spending to the cap. With 32 teams, it only takes 1 or 2 loser teams to entice a guy away. That's actually what the system is designed to do - it's difficult for teams to keep their above-average players at the end of their rookie contracts.

We made more than fair offers to both guys. The difference is that Givens played out his contract, while Branch is trying to shoot his way out of his. What's going on right now should not have happened until next summer, and the NFL had better address this somehow. Branch should have no right to be doing what he's doing.

 

[BelichickFan]

What has gone on with Branch was a serious miscalculation. More important, as one of Branch's teammates said last week, ``If this is how they treat a guy who's everything they say they want, what are they going to do to the rest of us?"

The "rest of them" will need to decide if they want to stay.

Bottom line, there's only a few Patriots we cannot lose. Belichick. Brady. Seymour. That's probably it for talent. Throw in a couple of guys like Bruschi and Harrison and that's about it.

Regarding Graham's comment, I hope we keep him but he's not a guy we can't win without. The rest of the team may not like it but Belichick, Brady and Seymour really are the Patriots.

Oh, I'd kind of hate to lose Wilfork too.

 

[shmessy]

The "rest of them" will need to decide if they want to stay.

Bottom line, there's only a few Patriots we cannot lose. Belichick. Brady. Seymour. That's probably it for talent. Throw in a couple of guys like Bruschi and Harrison and that's about it.

Regarding Graham's comment, I hope we keep him but he's not a guy we can't win without. The rest of the team may not like it but Belichick, Brady and Seymour really are the Patriots.

Oh, I'd kind of hate to lose Wilfork too.

Actually, BF, the quote you refer to was from Wrong Bogus, not Tunescribe. (Tunescribe was merely posting his column piece).

 

[BelichickFan]

Actually, BF, the quote you refer to was from Wrong Bogus, not Tunescribe.

Thanks, fixed, I guess that was misleading

 

[b72s]

market Value

Just because one team wants to overpay a player (Seattle) that does not mean it is market value aka George Steibrenner is willing to overpay as well as Dan Schneider. Plus the dollars are not that far off.

Plus Pats need to draw the line for other players consider this tactic after Seymour's success could not have everyone doing this.................... Chayut's thinking if Sey can do it so can Deion....NOT!!!!

Too much bad blood for Branch to come back without firing his agent.


PS No one reads the old media rags anymore

 

[Miguel]

Remember he is under his original contract with us for one year. After that our offer averages over 6 mil a year.

Branch wants to rip up the last year of his contract.

If we compare the average dollars for a new contract with offers they are almost the same.

Of course these "offers" are only words until someone makes a trade offer.

He is under contract after all.

What would you do differently?

An extension is a new contract. Here's why I think that a 3-year extension is a 4-year deal.

Branch's cash intake under his current contract
2006 - $1.045 million
2007 - $0
2008 - $0
2009- $0

Under the Patriots' proposal
2006 - $5.45 million
2007 - $5.5 million
2008 - $4.4 million
2009 - $4.85 million

Branch's cash intake increases all 4 years and the Patriots are able to prorate the 2006 signing bonus over 4 years. That is why I think that it is a 4-year deal

Nick Cafardo reported in the Boston Globe:
"Some interesting tidbits from the 22-page contract of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, which was signed May 4:
Here is how the first line reads: ''TERM: This contract covers 5 football seasons and will begin on the date of execution or March 1, 2005 whichever is later and end Feb. 28 or 29, 2010 unless extended, terminated or renewed as specified elsewhere in this contract."

I take the above as Brady's contract including the 2005 and 2006 seasons even though he was already under contract for them. What 5 seasons does Brady's contract cover??

IMO, 2005/2006/2007/2008/2009 and the Patriots had an option for 2010 which they exercised in 2006.

Look at the standard NFL contract in the CBA:

1. TERM. This contract covers __________ football season(s), and will begin on the date of execution or March 1, __________, whichever is later, and end on February 28 or 29, __________, unless extended, terminated, or renewed as specified elsewhere in this contract.

If Branch's extension is going to say that it covers 4 football seasons (from Brady's contract it would), then, IMO, it is a 4-year deal and that its value should be divided by 4 to come with its APY.

Side note to DaBruinz, IMO, this is not BS thinking. This is a reasonable position supported by facts.

 

[mdhprime]

And his column today. This Branch situation was handled horribly. The Pats say a guy like Branch is everything they want... then they lowball him. If you're a Pats player and see this happen, how do you think it won't happen to you?

I'm done drinking the Kool-Aid on every topic. Belichick is a great coach... an HOFer... but he screwed this up royally.

You have got to be joking. Borges' article is nothing but a bitter and inaccurate rant. With TO only making 7mil a year, the 3-year 6mil offer to Branch was more than fair for a receiver who can't even play an enitre season without being injured for a significant amount of time. Blaming the Patriots for sticking to their convictions is lazy thinking. How can a team set a precedent by giving into an agent's idiotic demands and going against a philiosophy (of paying only what a player is worth) that has reaped massive dividends not only for the organization but to the players as well. Who from the Patriots have gone on in free agency to other teams and gotten big contracts? - Givens, Woody, Law, Patten, McGinest, T. Jones (2003) etc. Who has gotten large contract re-negotiations while coming to an agreement that is mutually benficial to themselves and the team?: Seymour & Brady. This is a system that is not only reasonable, but is probably the most equitable system in the entire NFL. Borges and others of his ilk have a grudge. They are haters because the system of a head coach and organization that doesn't roll over for the media works the best. Moreover it is obvious from their repeated success. The biased and contrived propaganda the Borges spews is fiction, plain and simple. The less people pay attention to him the better.

 

[DaBruinz]

And his column today. This Branch situation was handled horribly. The Pats say a guy like Branch is everything they want... then they lowball him. If you're a Pats player and see this happen, how do you think it won't happen to you?

I'm done drinking the Kool-Aid on every topic. Belichick is a great coach... an HOFer... but he screwed this up royally.

Just like Daniel Graham was a bust, right Old Rover.

Give me a friggin break.

1) Belichick isn't the negotiator. That's Pioli
2) How should they have handled it? Just give Branch a gazillion dollars without bothering to negotiate and put the team in cap hell?
3) They didn't low ball Branch. Maybe you shouldn't believe that moron Borges. The Pats treated Branch exactly the way they treated Brady in negotiations. Keep the last year of the rookie pact, give him the extension at or near the Franchise money he's looking for.
4) Branch and his agent are the ones who didn't negotiate and THEY are the ones who screwed this up royally. But you just go on believing that its the Patriots fault. Just like you believed that Graham was a bust after 1 season.

 

[dhamz]

I don't agree with the particulars of what Borges said.

What I do agree is that the Pats move of letting Branch seek a trade was strange move for a front office that doesn't normally make them and it is hard to see what they expected to accomplish.

They didn't get any assurances from him he would report if it didn't work.

They don't appear to have decided they needed to cut ties and trade since the Jets offer (a #2) is what the market is bearing for WRs.

They also did it at a time when players normally crack and come into camp no matter what their agents have been saying publicly and privately.

The reasoning appears to have been that they didn't think he'd get a better offer and it would make him consider the Pats offer. If that is what they hoped would happen it didn't work.

 

[b72s]

Seperated at Birth

Old Rover = Borges

Kill the thread too much publicity for a beaten down rag writer

 

[DaBruinz]

Did he meet all of those incentives, and if not why not?

Branch did not meet all of the incentives. Primarily because he missed so much time on the field.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, but the Pats letting him talk to other teams proved to be a mistake. The wedge between him and the team is even bigger now.

Why has it proven to be a mistake? Because the deals that Branch got were somewhat close to what the Patriots offered without any negotiation from Branch's side? Maybe if Branch had negotiated with the Patriots, he'd have gotten a deal to his liking.

Branch was treated exactly as Brady as a rookie. Patriots gave Brady an extension with a 4 million bonus the 1st year, but the last year of his rookie contract was still played out, salary wise. There was a second tier bonus that was guaranteed, just like they put in the offer to Branch.

I fail to see why Branch, who isn't the player that Brady is, should be treated any different than Brady.

 

[SVN]

borges is not only continuing his BB anti venom...he is going and talking to other team members and spreading the bad vibe more...sad.

 

[SVN]

I agree that the Pats mis-calculated by letting Branch go out and solicit contracts with other teams. At the time I agreed with the move. Negotiations were going nowhere, and it seemed a way to get things jumpstarted.

However, in hindsight, it did blow up in their face. Branch has dug in even further, filing grievances to try and get out.

I guess everyone makes mistakes sometime. The best thing at this point would probably be to trade him and move on. I don't want it lingering all season.

iam pretty sure pioli and BB would have expected branch to find someone paying more. i have heard every say the pats let branch find out his value thats why they allowed him to seek a trade .what is to say if they had a decent trade they wouldnt have done it or looked at it. e.g. swap hines ward with branch ?(hypothetically speaking).
This whole idea of the thing blowing up in the faces is something i dont get it. Someone pointed out earlier- pioli predicted givens's market value when he got to free agency and he got exactly that, and wont he have known what branch would get if left to negiotiate with other teams ?thats assuming pioli is too naive and he is not.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

from Borges:

...tight end Daniel Graham, who is set to become a free agent next season and has already told friends, "They got one chance to bid on me. Then I'm gone"....


"HAS ALREADY TOLD FRIENDS???". Doesn't the Globe exercise any kind of editorial control? They allow this idiot to print what Graham supposedly told a friend, in quotation marks? WTF?

Not to mention that whether or not there's a shred of truth to this "quote", Borges threw Graham under the bus in order to make his weak argument. Man, he has no ethics whatever.

He and a few of our other eminent scribes (Felger, Greenberg) just can't get over that the Pats won't give out injury information, and won't give scoops to them.

 

[smg93]

I actually totally agree that though the extension was for 3 years, it should be counted as a four year offer. Even then, I do not think the Pats lowballed him. To say that it perhaps wasn't the richest offer Branch could have gotten is probably true. The problem is, when you negotiate, you are totally not supposed to come in with your best offer, knowing that the other side is going to ask initially for much more than you want to pay him. (Excuse me for stating the obvious in negotiating 101).

The problem was how Deion and Chayut handled it. By saying that the offer was "insulting" and then not coming back to the table and stating what they wanted really wreaks of immaturity. If Branch indeed found the offer insulting, he should have played out his contract and let the Patriots really know next year in Free Agency about how insulting he felt the extension offer was.

I don't think that BB/Pioli are without blame however. Can they handle this things with less robotic efficiency? They absolutely can. They don't have to treat everyone not named Brady or Seymour like numbers in the system when contract time comes around. But hey, not everyone is perfect. It seems that there has been rough spots in the past with players leaving or holding out, but all in all you can't complain too much about a track record of 3 SB's in the last 5 years.

Despite the somewhat de-humanizing qualities of a BB/Pioli Contract extension or negotiation process, Branch and Chayut meanwhile have acted like spoiled brats through this whole process insisting not to honor a contractual obligation. They have gone about this totally the wrong way and in my view, the lion's share of the blame must go to them without question.