PFT: Branch will cave before 9/10

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

Branch, on the other hand, could just be an athlete who wants to be liked, and thinks quicker on his feet vs. a cover-2 than he does in front of Camera 2.

Nice...

 

[edzo44]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

It seemed to me like the "expert" was applying some sort of "negotiation psychology 101" on Branch's interview, suggesting that Branch saying everything would work out was a "surrender statement." . . .

Any chance this "expert" is actually the pencil-necked geek? Clayton was talking fairly positively about Branch returning 7 to 10 days before 9/10 the other night (as mentioned in another thread). If this is the source triggering the PFT comments it would immediately be suspect in my book IMHO.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

I suppose it's possible, but it could also be a situation like where a veteran poker player misreads an inexperienced opponent because the opponent doesn't bet in the rational, traditional method. In other words, had Chayut said he felt everything would work out, I would see it as a "surrender statement," because you have to assume he knows that others would recognize it as a "surrender statement," and certainly wouldn't want to imply surrender if he didn't mean it.

Yeah, I could see that.

Still, you have to admit that BB looks like he will (may not want to, but will) play this year without him if he continues to hold out. It will hurt our chances for sucess a bit, but giving in to him on a ridiculous contract thus setting the precident to be blackmailed by all future players approaching UFA would hurt far more.

Branch, on the other hand, has a lot more to lose. What if he holds out all season? The fines alone are going to kill him financially. Sitting out of football for a year and being labeled a malcontent will affect possible contracts with teams next year... either way, it will cost him money.

I don't see the positive for branch to continue the hold out all year.

 

[belichickaholic]

Actions speak louder than words, he's said in the past that he was going to honor his contract.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

Yeah, I could see that.

Still, you have to admit that BB looks like he will (may not want to, but will) play this year without him if he continues to hold out. It will hurt our chances for sucess a bit, but giving in to him on a ridiculous contract thus setting the precident to be blackmailed by all future players approaching UFA would hurt far more.

Branch, on the other hand, has a lot more to lose. What if he holds out all season? The fines alone are going to kill him financially. Sitting out of football for a year and being labeled a malcontent will affect possible contracts with teams next year... either way, it will cost him money.

I don't see the positive for branch to continue the hold out all year.

It is foolish to think that the Pats won't be seriously hurt by the lack of talent at WR if we don't bring Branch back. Decent success in two preseason games doesn't show anything -- it's a simple fact that our offense would be much better off with Branch than without him.

If Branch holds out into the season, there's always the possibility that the team will look good on D and running the ball, but struggle in the passing game -- we all seem to assume BB would hold firm on principle, but I'm not so sure. If this looks like an otherwise SB contending team w/ a big whole at WR, I'm not sure he wouldn't be willing sweeten the pot to prevent wasting a potential championship season. Call me crazy.

Even if the Pats do ok w/out Branch, there's still the fact that he'd have to worry about getting injured in only 6 possible games, instead of 16 -- and not even those, if BB suspends him. In the offseason he would either be let walk, or franchised and dealt -- with Branch being able to scuttle any deal he didn't like by intimating to potential suitors that he would be hard to get under contract.

Also, his agent would advance him the money for the fines, to be recouped when he gets Branch his big payday, so I don't think finances will have that much to do with it.

 

[ilduce06410]

Branch will cave before 9/10

Actions speak louder than words, he's said in the past that he was going to honor his contract.

....and he is an honorable young man. anyone who would take time before the SB to call every coach of his he can find, is someone who tries to live an ethical life.
IMO deion won't break a contract bearing his signature. i'd be shocked.
this is shaping up as a modern-day morality play about agents (in any field), promising young performers, and the erosion of values.
deion breaks a contract, it's surely not the way he was raised.

 

[brady2brown]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

It is foolish to think that the Pats won't be seriously hurt by the lack of talent at WR if we don't bring Branch back. Decent success in two preseason games doesn't show anything -- it's a simple fact that our offense would be much better off with Branch than without him.

There are no simple facts. Go back to 2001 and substitute Terry Glenn for Deion Branch and I would have agreed with you 100%. No Terry Glenn and then no Drew Bledsoe. We were seriously hurt that year. Excpet it didn't quite work out that way.

In hindsight, it seems silly to worry about the loss of Bledsoe and Glenn, but it wasn't silly then. Patten was some guy from the AFL, totally unproven. We kept Brady who looked okay, but was an unproven raw rookie. We gave up our best two backups in Friez and Bishop.

What I forgot then was that chemistry changes, people step up. People you don't expect to shine, shine. Brady, Patten, Brown, Antowain. Fred Coleman did good. Matt Stevens. Who'd have thought?

I have no doubt that Branch will be an asset, but also no doubt that he will leave us for good after this year. I think the team will be just fine without him when he goes, be it this year or next.

On the other hand, all the sports analysts agree with what you say. Can they ALL be wrong? Maybe we are in trouble, after all.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

It is foolish to think that the Pats won't be seriously hurt by the lack of talent at WR if we don't bring Branch back. Decent success in two preseason games doesn't show anything -- it's a simple fact that our offense would be much better off with Branch than without him.

If Branch holds out into the season, there's always the possibility that the team will look good on D and running the ball, but struggle in the passing game -- we all seem to assume BB would hold firm on principle, but I'm not so sure. If this looks like an otherwise SB contending team w/ a big whole at WR, I'm not sure he wouldn't be willing sweeten the pot to prevent wasting a potential championship season. Call me crazy.

Even if the Pats do ok w/out Branch, there's still the fact that he'd have to worry about getting injured in only 6 possible games, instead of 16 -- and not even those, if BB suspends him. In the offseason he would either be let walk, or franchised and dealt -- with Branch being able to scuttle any deal he didn't like by intimating to potential suitors that he would be hard to get under contract.

Also, his agent would advance him the money for the fines, to be recouped when he gets Branch his big payday, so I don't think finances will have that much to do with it.

Chayut's commission on a franchise tag deal would be $150K TOTAL. His commssion on a long term deal would be 3% of the payout AS IT IS PAID OUT. And you think he's gonna advance Branch $600K in a year in which Deion's after tax income is $-0- and he already lost $30K in existing commission? And then how much more will he advance him to feed his family? Nothing. Not to a player who can turtle on him in a heartbeat and leave him publicly looking like the schmuck who misplayed the whole situation.

He will have to worry about getting injured for free in the 6 game scenario. In the 16 game scenario he at least gets 16 checks for $62K and likely they forego his holdout fines.

Belioli take the disciplined long term view - they want to be a championship contender for years to come, so they will not cave to Branch because the risk/reward is not clearly in the teams long term favor. Regardless of what adding Branch back into the equation might - and I stress might - gain them this season, it will dog them for seasons to come in negotiating with future FA who may be even more valuable and difficult to replace than a top 15 WR.

As for Branch scuttling a trade deal, that won't happen for a number of reasons. First off the Pats control who he can even talk to. And until he signs his tender it is revokable well past the time when most teams will have spent the bulk of their FA $$$. And as word spreads about just how difficult this player and his agent are to deal with, interest would wane. Teams move on because they all have more to worry about than one disgruntled WR. There are more than enough of those to go around annually.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: PFT: Branch will cave before 10/10

It is foolish to think that the Pats won't be seriously hurt by the lack of talent at WR if we don't bring Branch back. Decent success in two preseason games doesn't show anything -- it's a simple fact that our offense would be much better off with Branch than without him.

If Branch holds out into the season, there's always the possibility that the team will look good on D and running the ball, but struggle in the passing game -- we all seem to assume BB would hold firm on principle, but I'm not so sure. If this looks like an otherwise SB contending team w/ a big whole at WR, I'm not sure he wouldn't be willing sweeten the pot to prevent wasting a potential championship season. Call me crazy.

Even if the Pats do ok w/out Branch, there's still the fact that he'd have to worry about getting injured in only 6 possible games, instead of 16 -- and not even those, if BB suspends him. In the offseason he would either be let walk, or franchised and dealt -- with Branch being able to scuttle any deal he didn't like by intimating to potential suitors that he would be hard to get under contract.

Also, his agent would advance him the money for the fines, to be recouped when he gets Branch his big payday, so I don't think finances will have that much to do with it.

I think MoLewisRocks responed to your point exactly as I would have concerning the relative damage of caving into Branch's demands vice just playing the season without him.

Also, as Brady2Brown points out, your argument:

"If this looks like an otherwise SB contending team w/ a big whole at WR, I'm not sure he wouldn't be willing sweeten the pot to prevent wasting a potential championship season. Call me crazy."

Is refuted by the historical evidence concerning Terry Glenn... who was at the time, the UNDISPUTED #1 WR on our team with Troy Brown a distant 2nd and David Patten an after thought. The one game BB let Glenn come back and play in (because he began to cooperate), he lit the other team up and showed proof that with him our team was a whole lot more dangerous.

Dispite this evidence, BB still sat his ***** for the rest of the year because he started pulling his crap again. We went on to win the Super Bowl.

I know that Branch is not even in the same galaxy as that malcontent Terry Glenn, but the evidence is there that BB is willing to play tough... crazy or not.

I just read that we may have given Branch permission to seek a trade... so it looks like BB has answered this question for us.