In this article Felger criticizes the team for not negotiating deals with players a few years ago, before their full potential came out, their egos becamce enlarged, and their prices went up, such as Givens and Branch. However he fails to acknowledge two things:
1. For a lot of players, hitting the free agent market and getting a big payday is one if the highlights of their career. He acts like it is a given that these players would have foregone their free agency debut to sign a premature extension with the Pats. Add to that the fact that the CBA was coming to an end this year, so both stood a chance of making an even bigger sum in free agency either by the lack of a salary cap renewal or the enormous spike in the salary cap due to the new CBA.
2. Felger says that if the Pats signed Givens and Branch to long term extensions a few years ago, they could have gotten them for cheaper while avoiding the loss of Givens in free agency and the holdout of Branch. He is basically saying they could have signed the two to contracts that were below their current market value, but then later says that clearly neither were/are willing to take a little less to stay with the Pats. Felger inadvertently shows the flaw in his own argument. Had the Pats done what he said they would have likely found themself in a position where not only does Branch holdout but Givens as well. Both players are currently chasing/getting money far beyond what they would have gotten in the hypothetical past extensions. Therefore it is logical to conclude that they both would have still felt underpaid today and taken the common route of holdingout. Especially because in that situation not only would they feel underpaid but would also be years away from hitting free agency, only worsening the effort to get a raise. Branch's demands are so ridiculous, that I don't think a contract of four or five million dollars a year would have kept him from holding out.