If Branch wins the greivance, the NFL is ruined

[R_T26]

If Branch seriously some how wins this greivance, and the Pats are forced to trade their best reciever to a divison rival for a 2nd round pick, I believe the NFL will eventually fall apart. In no way should the league be able to tell what a team has to take for a guy under contract. Now guys who are under contract will be able to force teams to trade him, with the NFL establishing the compensation. Then whose to say a loophole cant be discovered where teams say an unrestricted free agent cant be overpayed by another team because a guy with similar stats was payed x amount, will the NFL say that that player has to play for his original team under the money payed to players of simialr stature. Basically meaning a team cant overpay in FA. This just does not seem legal.

P.s. Screw mangini and Curtis martin part II Deion.

 

[shatch62]

This already started when T.O. left the 49ers.
Owens agent -David Joseph- missed the deadline to void the final years of his contract with the 49ers.
San Francisco traded Owens to the Baltimore Ravens for a second round pick in the 2004 draft.
Owens challenged the 49ers' right to make the deal. Owens states that he would become a free agent on March 3, and did not believe that the earlier deadline was applicable.
The NFL Players Union filed a grievance on his behalf.

Before the arbitrator could make a ruling on Owens's grievance, the NFL and the three teams involved in the controversy reached a settlement because the league was afraid what would happen if Owens won his case.

Funny thing is all three teams ended up getting screwed. Baltimore, thinking they had Ownes didn't pursue any other WR in free agency and by the time the trade was undone it was too late.
49ers - even though they had every right to trade him - only got a 5th and a crappy D-lineman.
Eagels got a great "talent" but I think we all know how that worked ouot for Philly.

The league is going to hell because the inmates are beginning to run the asylum.

 

[Jimke]

This is why I stated on another post that the NFL is probably

putting pressure on the Pats to settle this thing before Saturday.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

If Branch seriously some how wins this greivance, and the Pats are forced to trade their best reciever to a divison rival for a 2nd round pick, I believe the NFL will eventually fall apart. In no way should the league be able to tell what a team has to take for a guy under contract. Now guys who are under contract will be able to force teams to trade him, with the NFL establishing the compensation. Then whose to say a loophole cant be discovered where teams say an unrestricted free agent cant be overpayed by another team because a guy with similar stats was payed x amount, will the NFL say that that player has to play for his original team under the money payed to players of simialr stature. Basically meaning a team cant overpay in FA. This just does not seem legal.

P.s. Screw mangini and Curtis martin part II Deion.

I agree. If Branch was "franchised" this year, it could make sense. Seeing how he's still under contract, forcing a trade would be disasterous for the NFL.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The logic of a decision in favor of Branch would be that the NFL office can set the conditions under which a player under continuing contract can be traded. If Branch prevails, then any time a team makes a trade and salary offer for a player under continuing contract and the team for which the player plays rejects that offer, the player can then file a claim to have the rejection overturned if he thinks he'll get a better deal or wants to make a move for other reasons. I just don't see that happening and so I don't think that Branch will prevail.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

If Branch seriously some how wins this greivance, and the Pats are forced to trade their best reciever to a divison rival for a 2nd round pick, .

I don't see it happening for two reasons that I posted elsewhere.
1) The Jets/Seahawks are not parties to this action. There are due process violations for an arbitrator/Special Master to require those teams to give up a pick and sign a player with its cap implications (what if there is no room?) without them being able to represent/defend themselves.

2) One remedy listed in the CBA is that the arbitrator can void a player's contract. That is what Branch has to be hoping for so that he can create a bidding war for his services on or before week 1 of the season. It wouldn't shock me if Chayut has convinced Deion that this is a likely outcome (in his opinion) of the grievance.

Not a legal opinion, just my $0.02,

 

[lobster]

If Branch seriously some how wins this grievance, and the Pats are forced to trade their best receiver to a division rival for a 2nd round pick, I believe the NFL will eventually fall apart. In no way should the league be able to tell what a team has to take for a guy under contract. Now guys who are under contract will be able to force teams to trade him, with the NFL establishing the compensation.

Excellent point, in other words the Pat's should have allowed Branch to seek a trade without ever mentioning "fair and reasonable" compensation. If a club was interested in discussing a trade with Chayut they could contacted the Pat's to find out what kind of compensation might be expected.

Bob Kraft may regret leaving the Branch problem to Belichick and Pioli to resolve.

 

[lobster]

1) The Jets/Seahawks are not parties to this action.

The players union filed grievances against the NFL, which the Jets and Seahawks couldn't join. However there appears to be some cheerleading for the players union from one anonymous GM who was quoted by Chayut's press agent - Ron Borges.

 

[patchick]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I think the result would be relatively minor--and the parties hurt most would be players in Deion's situation.

What the grievance claims is that by granting a player under contract the right to seek a trade, the team is promising to accept in return compensation at a "fair and reasonable level" -- and that outside parties may determine that level against the team's wishes.

So what's the result if that's upheld? Very simple: no player under contract is ever allowed to seek his own trade ever again. End of story. The Branches, Walkers and Lelies of the world who hope to talk their way out of town would be out of luck.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

Bottom line is the NFL cannot force a team to trade a player who is under contract because he's disgruntled. He's under contract to NE and no one else. So at any time if a player gets pissed, hates his coach, etc, he can file a grievance and allow the NFL to force his team to trade him? No way.

 

[Sundayjack]

This thread is the biggest overstatement in the HISTORY of the UNIVERSE!!!!

 

[patchick]

Bottom line is the NFL cannot force a team to trade a player who is under contract because he's disgruntled. He's under contract to NE and no one else. So at any time if a player gets pissed, hates his coach, etc, he can file a grievance and allow the NFL to force his team to trade him? No way.

Sorry for repeating myself, but that's not what the grievance claims. It claims that IF you give a player the right to seek a trade, then you have a good-faith obligation to accept anything that vaguely resembles a fair trade. I can't possibly imagine this idea will be be upheld, but if so the situation simply won't ever come up again. No team will ever put itself at risk by letting the player find his own deal.

 

[Sundayjack]

Sorry for repeating myself, but that's not what the grievance claims. It claims that IF you give a player the right to seek a trade, then you have a good-faith obligation to accept anything that vaguely resembles a fair trade. I can't possibly imagine this idea will be be upheld, but if so the situation simply won't ever come up again. No team will ever put itself at risk by letting the player find his own deal.

And it was a great point when you first said it, also. Short sightedness by the NFLPA, but that's what years of dues paying buys you, I suppose.

 

[PatsFan37]

Sorry for repeating myself, but that's not what the grievance claims. It claims that IF you give a player the right to seek a trade, then you have a good-faith obligation to accept anything that vaguely resembles a fair trade. I can't possibly imagine this idea will be be upheld, but if so the situation simply won't ever come up again. No team will ever put itself at risk by letting the player find his own deal.

I haven't read the grievance, but doesn't it hinge on the team's agreement to accept a "fair and reasonable offer". So if the NFL upholds the grievance, then teams could still allow players to seek a trade as long as they reserve the right to determine compensation.

It doesn't seem like a big deal.

 

[upstater1]

I guess I'm in the minority, but I think the result would be relatively minor--and the parties hurt most would be players in Deion's situation.

What the grievance claims is that by granting a player under contract the right to seek a trade, the team is promising to accept in return compensation at a "fair and reasonable level" -- and that outside parties may determine that level against the team's wishes.

So what's the result if that's upheld? Very simple: no player under contract is ever allowed to seek his own trade ever again. End of story. The Branches, Walkers and Lelies of the world who hope to talk their way out of town would be out of luck.

That's my reading too. If the Patriots lose, it would end any discussion of trades except by front offices.

 

[upstater1]

I haven't read the grievance, but doesn't it hinge on the team's agreement to accept a "fair and reasonable offer". So if the NFL upholds the grievance, then teams could still allow players to seek a trade as long as they reserve the right to determine compensation.

It doesn't seem like a big deal.

But the arbitrator will have ruled that teams don't have the right. I mean, the Patriots reserved that right. And if the arbitrator rules against them, that right will be worthless. Anyone can invoke the right, but if the ultimate "decider" cans it, then there is no such right.

 

[emoney_33]

That's my reading too. If the Patriots lose, it would end any discussion of trades except by front offices.

Hmmm, so they are in a lose-lose situation with this grievance... Ahh the brat camp completely screwed themselves on this one lol

 

[PatsFan37]

But the arbitrator will have ruled that teams don't have the right. I mean, the Patriots reserved that right. And if the arbitrator rules against them, that right will be worthless. Anyone can invoke the right, but if the ultimate "decider" cans it, then there is no such right.

No, the Patriots said 'fair and reasonable'. That's not reserving the right, that's opening yourself to arbitration.

 

[RI Pats Fan]

This thread is the biggest overstatement in the HISTORY of the UNIVERSE!!!!

If Branch wins the case, the world will implode and time will cease to exist.


(I win?)

 

[patman52]

TOs situation was totaling different. When he signed his contract his conrract stated that he couid void out after the official start of free agency which at the time was say March 1 if he notified the team. After that contract was signed the NFL which wasit right swithched the date to two weeks earlier. TOs contract said "March 1st start of free agency" Two weeks after the new league wide date to declared that he wanted to void out. The niners said he missed the date he then grieved it.