Is this what Branch meant by pulling a TO

[sarge]

When the trade for TO with the Ravens and Eagles debacle was going down, TO's agent filed a grievence.

Some have said that the greivence was that he should have been a free agent in the first place.

I thought the grievence was something along the line of TO having a verbal contract with the 49ers to seek his own trade. But I certainly don't remember.

Now putting 2 and 2 together, there was the report by cbs sportsline saying Branch was gonna pull a TO, and you have BorgASS yesterday saying Branch had something up his sleeve.

Might Branch And Chayut have known all along that the Pats would never agree to the trade and planned on filing the greivence from the get go? In essence, doing what TO did that got him off the Ravens and on the Eagles???

Might this be him pulling a TO?

Remember how that went down?

Should the Pats lose this greivence, and it concievable they might, this will be a huge blow to the Pats.

Anyone know how long till this goes to arbitration?

 

[sarge]

This playing hardball may backfire and cause a massive distraction for this entire season.

Not that I am saying they will lose, but if the choices are losing Branch in arbitration and just matching the Jets offer, I say match the Jets offer.

This has the potential to give the front office a black eye bigtime!

 

[BradyisGod]

When the trade for TO with the Ravens and Eagles debacle was going down, TO's agent filed a grievence.

Some have said that the greivence was that he should have been a free agent in the first place.

I thought the grievence was something along the line of TO having a verbal contract with the 49ers to seek his own trade. But I certainly don't remember.

Now putting 2 and 2 together, there was the report by cbs sportsline saying Branch was gonna pull a TO, and you have BorgASS yesterday saying Branch had something up his sleeve.

Might Branch And Chayut have known all along that the Pats would never agree to the trade and planned on filing the greivence from the get go? In essence, doing what TO did that got him off the Ravens and on the Eagles???

Might this be him pulling a TO?

Remember how that went down?

Should the Pats lose this greivence, and it concievable they might, this will be a huge blow to the Pats.

Anyone know how long till this goes to arbitration?

I guess I don't understand how this could be a "huge blow" to the pats...

Even if they "lose" in arbitration, they will be compensated for Branch, and net result, he doesn't play for them this year. That has been a possibility for a while. So, "huge blow"? Not so much to me...

 

[zippo59]

I think it is and I think it is also what Borges said that Branch had something up his sleeve. I just didn't know that something was going to be something so stupid.

 

[sarge]

I guess I don't understand how this could be a "huge blow" to the pats...

Even if they "lose" in arbitration, they will be compensated for Branch, and net result, he doesn't play for them this year. That has been a possibility for a while. So, "huge blow"? Not so much to me...

I don't mean huge blow as in the loss of a player(but since we have no one else to play the position, that could be argued).

But you can't tell me this won't be a major embarrassment for the Pats PR wise. The Pats will have tried playing hardball and will have gotten smacked around by a snot nose agent! It will be a PR nightmare!

And as far as compensation, should the Pats lose the grievence, all they will get is the second round pick. Nothing else. So people who keep thinking that they will inexplicably gain extra picks, I don't know where that is coming from.

 

[RAWKY]

This playing hardball may backfire and cause a massive distraction for this entire season.

Not that I am saying they will lose, but if the choices are losing Branch in arbitration and just matching the Jets offer, I say match the Jets offer.

This has the potential to give the front office a black eye bigtime!

I think you misunderstand Mr Branchs intentions. He has no plans to ever play for the Pat's again, "PERIOD"

Branch and his agent hatched this scheme to get him out of here right after the Super Bowl MVP.

What we are witnessing is by design not chance.

 

[Pats726]

This has the potential to give the front office a black eye bigtime!

Excuse me..!!! How is the front office going to get a black eye?? ANyone with any type of brain can look at this and see how UNFAIR CVhuyut and Branch have been..If anyone has anything painted on them it is Branch who has a big "M" for malcontent on him. Maybe an "A" as well....

 

[sarge]

Excuse me..!!! How is the front office going to get a black eye?? ANyone with any type of brain can look at this and see how UNFAIR CVhuyut and Branch have been..

Hey now,

I agree with you. I do!

But should the Pats lose this arbitration, I think it would be a major embarrasment for the team.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The TO grievance was over the fact that his agent failed to file paperwork in a timely manner that would have voided the last 3 years on his deal in SF thus allowing him to be a FA. SF told him he wasn't a FA but told him to go look for a deal. He found suitors in Baltimore and Philly but wanted Philly more. Philly only offered a 5th and a player while Baltimore offered SF a 2 and they traded him. He then refused to negotiate on a new deal with Baltimore.

The union argued that while the new CBA had changed the dates those in TO's original contract should have applied. There were indications that the arbitor was leaning towards voiding the deal and grantine him FA on that basis. Rather than let a ruling result that set a precedent the three teams got together and worked out a deal where SF and Baltimore each got something and Philly got TO. The union advised TO not to let the teams settle and not to sign the contract with Philly because it was not a good deal had he been a FA. TO signed anyway and the rest as we know is ugly history.

That said, nothing like this deal. Deion might wish to be arguing coercion on his 5th year of a rookie deal, but that ain't gonna fly. So they are simply arguing that they thought they got a sufficiently good compensation deal that a club should be forced to trade an unhappy asset who remains under contract. That ain't gonna fly either.

 

[sarge]

I just found the article and TO's greivence was in fact based on him feeling he should have become a free agent. Not a verbal contract allowing him to seek a trade.

He just didn't file the greivence until after the trade was being made.

 

[sarge]

The TO grievance was over the fact that his agent failed to file paperwork in a timely manner that would have voided the last 3 years on his deal in SF thus allowing him to be a FA. SF told him he wasn't a FA but told him to go look for a deal. He found suitors in Baltimore and Philly but wanted Philly more. Philly only offered a 5th and a player while Baltimore offered SF a 2 and they traded him. He then refused to negotiate on a new deal with Baltimore.

The union argued that while the new CBA had changed the dates those in TO's original contract should have applied. There were indications that the arbitor was leaning towards voiding the deal and grantine him FA on that basis. Rather than let a ruling result that set a precedent the three teams got together and worked out a deal where SF and Baltimore each got something and Philly got TO. The union advised TO not to let the teams settle and not to sign the contract with Philly because it was not a good deal had he been a FA. TO signed anyway and the rest as we know is ugly history.

That said, nothing like this deal. Deion might wish to be arguing coercion on his 5th year of a rookie deal, but that ain't gonna fly. So they are simply arguing that they thought they got a sufficiently good compensation deal that a club should be forced to trade an unhappy asset who remains under contract. That ain't gonna fly either.

Thanks, I just found the an article on it and you are 100% correct.

 

[arrellbee]

The TO grievance was over the fact that his agent failed to file paperwork in a timely manner that would have voided the last 3 years on his deal in SF thus allowing him to be a FA. SF told him he wasn't a FA but told him to go look for a deal. He found suitors in Baltimore and Philly but wanted Philly more. Philly only offered a 5th and a player while Baltimore offered SF a 2 and they traded him. He then refused to negotiate on a new deal with Baltimore.

The union argued that while the new CBA had changed the dates those in TO's original contract should have applied. There were indications that the arbitor was leaning towards voiding the deal and grantine him FA on that basis. Rather than let a ruling result that set a precedent the three teams got together and worked out a deal where SF and Baltimore each got something and Philly got TO. The union advised TO not to let the teams settle and not to sign the contract with Philly because it was not a good deal had he been a FA. TO signed anyway and the rest as we know is ugly history.

That said, nothing like this deal. Deion might wish to be arguing coercion on his 5th year of a rookie deal, but that ain't gonna fly. So they are simply arguing that they thought they got a sufficiently good compensation deal that a club should be forced to trade an unhappy asset who remains under contract. That ain't gonna fly either.

Thank you !! Very interesting perspective. If the grievance fails, this is an excellent rationale as to why it may have failed.

 

[NE39]

The arbitrator never ruled in the TO case, so there was no precedence set.

In the TO case, a deal was brokered to make everyone happy before any decision was made. There was nothing decided.