I agree with Borges

[Miguel]

Because it talks about NEW money only. You are acting like Chayut in thinking that you should count in the current contract money with everything else. That's not how it works. Not in ANY negotiation.

I have been saying that we should count the current year in determining the APY of the deal.

Because that is the wonderful semantics of the NFL and the league CBA. Its how everything has worked up until now. Just because some garbage wannabe agent and a hack sportswriter want to twist things around doesn't mean that we should let them.

The CBA has always said that "For the purposes of the Salary Cap, any signing bonus given in connection with a contract extension entered into before the expiration of the player’s existing contract will be prorated over the remaining years of the unexpired contract together with its extension."
Call that semantics. I consider it a rule.

The standard contract has this clause in it which is probably updated for the 21st century.

"
COMPENSATION. For performance of Player’s services and all other promises of Player, Club will pay Player a yearly salary as follows:

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season."

The standard contract has always listed how many seasons the contract covered.

So, Borges and Chayut are just following established tradition in using 2006 in their APY value.

I think your assessment is inaccurate yes.

Why??

Miguel, this is beneath you. Pulling out statements and making up garbage that are totally off track.

If you do not want to be called out on your characterization of my opinions, then do not belittle them.

Sorry, Miguel, I'm willing to bet that I am right and if you ask ANYONE who negotiates a contract they will tell you that, with an extension, you talk about NEW MONEY.

I'm willing that I am right and if you ask ANYONE who negotiateas a contract that they will tell you that, with an extension, you include the current year when determining the APY of the deal.

It is a 3year/18.75 million a year deal with a cash advance of $4 million. Just because its paid in advance, it doesn't change the fact that its part of the 3 year/18.75 million extension. Its not part of his current contract. That is why you wouldn't consider the extension 3 years and 14.75 million.

Is it a 4-year deal???It is precisely because it is paid in advance that I consider it a 4-year deal. It is part of a new contract that will cover 4 seasons and have its 2006 signing bonus cost amortized over 4 years.

 

[Miguel]

Miguel, don't waste your time arguing with DaBruinz. He's always right. LMAO!!!

He may be right (I do not think that he is) but that still does not make it right for him to label my opinion BS thinking. My position is a reasonable one and is backed up in the CBA.

 

[oldrover]

Miguel... I was kidding. He certainly THINKS he's always right, tho.

 

[PatriotsRiot93]

He's signed the deal- if he didn't like it- he shouldn't of have signed. If he was screwed over- it was by his agent. That's why they get the big bucks- to make sure their client is not screwed over.

Mr. Branch- you made a deal- you signed a contract- now live up to it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Miguel, don't waste your time arguing with DaBruinz. He's always right. LMAO!!!

Sorry OldRover. Not like you. I actually admit when I am wrong. As I have done on many occasions.

 

[DaBruinz]

I have been saying that we should count the current year in determining the APY of the deal.


The CBA has always said that "For the purposes of the Salary Cap, any signing bonus given in connection with a contract extension entered into before the expiration of the player’s existing contract will be prorated over the remaining years of the unexpired contract together with its extension."
Call that semantics. I consider it a rule.

The standard contract has this clause in it which is probably updated for the 21st century.

"
COMPENSATION. For performance of Player’s services and all other promises of Player, Club will pay Player a yearly salary as follows:

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season;

$__________________________for the 19_____season."

The standard contract has always listed how many seasons the contract covered.

So, Borges and Chayut are just following established tradition in using 2006 in their APY value.


Why??



If you do not want to be called out on your characterization of my opinions, then do not belittle them.


I'm willing that I am right and if you ask ANYONE who negotiateas a contract that they will tell you that, with an extension, you include the current year when determining the APY of the deal.


Is it a 4-year deal???It is precisely because it is paid in advance that I consider it a 4-year deal. It is part of a new contract that will cover 4 seasons and have its 2006 signing bonus cost amortized over 4 years.

You just keep telling yourself that. Your own page proves you wrong on numerous occasions.

 

[DaBruinz]

He may be right (I do not think that he is) but that still does not make it right for him to label my opinion BS thinking. My position is a reasonable one and is backed up in the CBA.

Sorry, but its not backed up by the CBA. Its backed up with your interpretation of the CBA. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Also, Miguel, I consider BS thinking because its the same BS that Chayut is using to try and downplay the fact that his client is still under contract and that the money that his client has been offered for an extension is comensurate with what other players will also be making during that time. You and Chayut would have us believe that Branch would be a Pauper for accepting the Patriots deal.

BTW, back when the Patriots were re-doing Brady's contract, why did you go to GREAT lengths to explain the differences between a contract extension and a new contract if you are going to back peddle and say that there is no difference now and that a 3 year extension is really a 4 year deal?

 

[40yrpatsfan]

OK. For the sake of argument, let's run with your definition.

Then, the Jets offer is not really a 6 year/$36 million deal unless one ignores the fact that the Jets must adequately compensate the Patriots for the value of the year remaining on Branch's contract at below market prices.

For example, suppose that the arbiter ruled that the Jets have to give the Pats two 1st round draft choices. Do you think they would continue to offer Branch 6 year/$36 million? Or, would the cost of buying out his final year reduce the money they would pay Branch?

The value of that final year is real and cannot be ignored. The value is real to the Patriots. It is real to any team seeking to trade for Branch.

We could just as easily write the Pats extension offer to Branch as:

$6 mil (1st year)
$6 mil (2nd year)
$6 mil (3rd year)
$6 mil (4th year)
-$5 mil (credit for value of final year of rookie contract

Total: $19 million

It's all semantics. Call it three years. Call it four years. It is what it is. What it is is finish out the contract you signed and in exchange we will agree to pay top-of-the-market prices for addtional years and guarantee significant dollars from the additional years to protect you against injury while you play out the final year of your contract.

If the value of the final year were not factored into the negotiations, why would the team even bother negotiating early? Why not just let the player assume the full injury risk and negotiate when he become a free agent?

Miguel, I don't see how you can refute hwc's logic. It's 100% dead on. The Pats offer of a $4m bonus this year doesn't change the underlying reality that Branch's salary for 2006, and his requirement to play for that amount, is the same as if no extension were on the table.

The Pats are simply structuring the extension to get him some insurance in case of a bad injury this year. For that, they are allowed to amortize that year.

Without this offer, Branch's only option is to play without that safety net for $1m. For Chayut to twist that around and make it sound like he's getting lowballed at an avg $5m/yr instead of $6m/yr is a distortion. Sure, other teams can offer to pay him $6m starting now, but because he's not a free agent but bound to the Pats, their offers are not a valid comparison.

If Branch had negotiated even a little, he probably could have gotten the Pats to split the difference on the 2006 salary - maybe up their bonus offer this year by $1-2m. But he chose to play war games.

And his ploy to sit out until week 10 is highly unethical and should not be allowed in the CBA. He's under contract to play, not to sit until week 10.

 

[smg93]

Except, in the real world, You would be expected to submit counter offers and actually negotiate with your employer. You'd also be expected to complete your current contract.

BTW, I'd be willing to bet the Brady, when he signed his extension in 2002, saw that he was getting a huge boost from where he was and was perfectly happy with his extension.

PLEASE READ MY WHOLE POST BEFORE YOU START PICKING ON THINGS.

 

[Tunescribe]

Somehow, agreeing with Borges seems like succumbing to the devil.

 

[Miguel]

Also, Miguel, I consider BS thinking because its the same BS that Chayut is using to try and downplay the fact that his client is still under contract and that the money that his client has been offered for an extension is comensurate with what other players will also be making during that time. You and Chayut would have us believe that Branch would be a Pauper for accepting the Patriots deal.

I never said that.

This is what I said:
"I will just point out that the Patriots would have made Branch the 17th highest paid receiver in terms of APY while taking on Branch's 2006 injury risk and setting Branch up to be a free agent after the 2010 season. While I understand and agree with Branch for turning down the deal, the Patriots' offer was a very good one for a low-ball offer, IMO." I was accepting maverick4's contention that the 1st offer in a negotiation is a low-ball-offer.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...thread.php?t=39558&page=6&highlight=extension

"I have a well-deserved reputation for backing the players when it comes to their salary demands. I believe that players should get what they are worth.
IMO, Branch is not worth what he is asking for. (it was reported in the thread 8 to 9 million)He is not giving the Patriots any discount for them taking on his 2006 injury risk. He is not giving the Patriots any discount for them being a good team." "By low-ball offer, I meant the Patriots' first offer. 17th in APY with a year left on the contract, IMO, means that the Patriots rank Branch higher than 17th but expected him to give injury/hometown/winning discounts, the same way Brady, Vrabel and Seymour did. I do not consider what Wayne got to be a premium. IMO, he took less than what he have gotten in FA in return for staying with a consistent playoff contender and the 2nd best QB in the NFL. I happen to agree with Branch and Chayut that a 3-year extension is a 4-year contract because the Pats will be able to amortize the 2006 signing bonus over 4 years. The Patriots' offer led itself easily to counter-offers:
Make it a 4-year extension with an increased option bonus.
Front-load more of the money.
Add reasonable incentives to the deal that pay Branch as a Top 10 receiver if he performed like one. IMO, Wayne's deal is the ceiling for Branch. And Branch should take less since he should give the Patriots an injury discount."

Where did I say or imply that Branch would be a Pauper for accepting the Patriots' offer?? If you can't back up that statement up, please retract it.

I have said several times on this board that ALL NFL players make a lot of money.

Please note that MoLewisRocks wrote this in this thread -
"The Patriots are offering to pay him $6.33M per year for 3 (or 5) years which when added to the $1M he is still due for this season averages $5M per year."

which has been my point all along.

BTW, back when the Patriots were re-doing Brady's contract, why did you go to GREAT lengths to explain the differences between a contract extension and a new contract if you are going to back peddle and say that there is no difference now and that a 3 year extension is really a 4 year deal?

I'm sure that I said then that Brady's deal was a 5-year, likely to be a 6 year deal.

Please provide a post that I said that when Brady signed his deal in 2004 that it was a 3 or 4-year deal.

 

[Miguel]

You just keep telling yourself that. Your own page proves you wrong on numerous occasions.

In my numbers I have always used the current year in amortizing the signing bonus given with an extension.

 

[Miguel]

The Pats offer of a $4m bonus this year doesn't change the underlying reality that Branch's salary for 2006, and his requirement to play for that amount, is the same as if no extension were on the table.

I never said different.

The Pats are simply structuring the extension to get him some insurance in case of a bad injury this year. For that, they are allowed to amortize that year.

Agreed. No player would agree to give up free agency next year without getting something in return this.

Without this offer, Branch's only option is to play without that safety net for $1m.

Agreed.

For Chayut to twist that around and make it sound like he's getting lowballed at an avg $5m/yr instead of $6m/yr is a distortion. Sure, other teams can offer to pay him $6m starting now, but because he's not a free agent but bound to the Pats, their offers are not a valid comparison.

The flip side to that argument is that those teams may have been willing to pay Branch more if they did not also have to give up at least a 2nd round pick.

If Branch had negotiated even a little, he probably could have gotten the Pats to split the difference on the 2006 salary - maybe up their bonus offer this year by $1-2m. But he chose to play war games.

A point also made earlier by me in other threads.

And his ploy to sit out until week 10 is highly unethical and should not be allowed in the CBA. He's under contract to play, not to sit until week 10.

Branch is taking advantage of the CBA. It is his right under a collectively bargained agreement.

 

[Miguel]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=34195

Quote:
Q: There were reports that it was a four-year deal that would average between seven and eight million per season. Is that accurate?
RS: Hey, that's the report.

Q: Will you say what the actual contract was or is?
RS: Well, I think that's pretty accurate.

Richard Seymour considers his 3-year extension a 4-year deal averaging between seven and eight million per season.

I am just following his lead.

 

[upstater1]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=34195

Quote:
Q: There were reports that it was a four-year deal that would average between seven and eight million per season. Is that accurate?
RS: Hey, that's the report.

Q: Will you say what the actual contract was or is?
RS: Well, I think that's pretty accurate.

Richard Seymour considers his 3-year extension a 4-year deal averaging between seven and eight million per season.

I am just following his lead.

It seems fair to me because I think Seymour is worth $9 million a year. Certainly worth $2 million more than Branch. If Seymour's extension causes his contract to drop that average down because he has a year left, he's smart enough to negotiate it. Any player with a year remaining is not going to be able to weasel out of the contract. We saw this with Nomar Garciaparra. He signed a big contract for $12 million a year well before the Red Sox had to actually pay him, and he signed it because he recognized that the Sox had him under contract for a while, so he took a lot less money than he could have.

If the market determines that Branch is worth $7 million a year, then he has to take less with the Patriots the same way Seymour did because of that extra year.

 

[stcjones]

I get a kick out of everyone who says Branch got lowballed.
He signed an incentive laden contract that at the time all parties agreed was fair and equitable - he needs to live with it.

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

amen......

 

[Joker]

Branch,,Super Bowl MVP...the MVP was Brady who put the ball in his hnds doubled covered.Chemistry.Let Branch go to Houston and ply with Carr,,,he'll have a blast..Ask david Patten,Branch with waton , the Pats area very dangerous offensive team, Younhave to think his buds are tekking him,,the Oats aren;t gonna give him a lousy contrct,,it willbe lucrative and he;s anintergral part of this prolific offense..Again, think Galloway..worst deal he ever made