Two related Globe notes on arbitration

[patchick]

Borges (in non-editorial mode) reports that the Patriots are challenging one of the two grievances based on the arbitrator's jurisdiction:
http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../branch_patriots_scrimmage_over_jurisdiction/

Reiss mailbag offers speculation that might suggest why:
The first grievance is that the Patriots received reasonable compensation for Branch in the form of a second-round pick. The Patriots will fight that and say he is worth more than that, and probably win. Then comes the second grievance, which is that the Patriots haven't negotiated in good faith. Branch's camp would then use the Patriots' argument from the first grievance that Branch is worth more than a second-round pick, and say "Then why don't you pay him accordingly?"
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extras/askreiss/09_05_06/?page=2

Of course, this doesn't even count the mysterious 3rd suit that Kessler alluded to. Personally, the "throw up every lawsuit we can think of and hope that one sticks" approach is pretty loathsome.

 

[DarrylS]

From the Borges Article:

"The Patriots and the league filed a motion contending that Feerick has no jurisdiction over Branch's non-injury grievance because there is no issue to be decided by him under the rules established in the collective bargaining agreement. The union, arguing for Branch, insisted an arbitrator has jurisdiction over ``the broken promise to trade him."

The Patriots countered that there is no such issue, but if there were, it should go directly to the special master, Steven Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, who under the CBA has sole jurisdiction to decide non-injury cases involving an issue of whether or not a team negotiated a contract in good faith."

I have felt from the onset that this case may not be arbitrable, and by filing all it does is transfer responsibility from agents incompetence to an arbitrators decision. I do not know what aspect of the NFL CBA the the pats violated, a side agreement (to the best of my knowledge) is not something that can be argued in this forum.

 

[dryheat44]

Borges (in non-editorial mode) reports that the Patriots are challenging one of the two grievances based on the arbitrator's jurisdiction:
http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../branch_patriots_scrimmage_over_jurisdiction/

Reiss mailbag offers speculation that might suggest why:
The first grievance is that the Patriots received reasonable compensation for Branch in the form of a second-round pick. The Patriots will fight that and say he is worth more than that, and probably win. Then comes the second grievance, which is that the Patriots haven't negotiated in good faith. Branch's camp would then use the Patriots' argument from the first grievance that Branch is worth more than a second-round pick, and say "Then why don't you pay him accordingly?"
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extras/askreiss/09_05_06/?page=2

That response sounds almost verbatim like something I posted here this weekend. I guess it's safe to say Mike reads the boards.

I find the lawsuit absolutely hysterical. "I'm going to sue the Patriots to get the money the Jets said they would pay me." Isn't this tantamount to a suit against the NFL standard player contract? If Branch somehow wins this lawsuit, every player in the NFL might be able to declare themselves a free agent every year.

 

[BelichickFan]

Branch's camp would then use the Patriots' argument from the first grievance that Branch is worth more than a second-round pick, and say "Then why don't you pay him accordingly?"

That's ridiculous and is counter to the way the NFL works. Lots of players are worth more than they're paid - and lots of players are worth less. But between the salary and salary cap hit to cut them the team has to figure out what to do.

 

[RAWKY]

From the Borges Article:

"The Patriots and the league filed a motion contending that Feerick has no jurisdiction over Branch's non-injury grievance because there is no issue to be decided by him under the rules established in the collective bargaining agreement. The union, arguing for Branch, insisted an arbitrator has jurisdiction over ``the broken promise to trade him."

The Patriots countered that there is no such issue, but if there were, it should go directly to the special master, Steven Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, who under the CBA has sole jurisdiction to decide non-injury cases involving an issue of whether or not a team negotiated a contract in good faith."

My understanding of this article is that Feerick only has jusisdiction over INJURY claims and Injury Claims are appealable in Federal Court.

This is where Kissler got the idea if they lost the arbatration he would then sue.

A special maser on the other hand deals with specifics of the CBA and his decisions are final and non appealable in any court.

So if the NFL and the Pat's get this before a Special Master then when it is done it is at least done.

 

[Willie55]

The first grievance is that the Patriots received reasonable compensation for Branch in the form of a second-round pick. The Patriots will fight that and say he is worth more than that, and probably win. Then comes the second grievance, which is that the Patriots haven't negotiated in good faith. Branch's camp would then use the Patriots' argument from the first grievance that Branch is worth more than a second-round pick, and say "Then why don't you pay him accordingly?"

IMO its Branch's camp that hasn't negotiated in good faith. The Pats made a couple contract offers to Branch and he didn't counter. I know this has been said before, it just gets maddening reading the same things day after day.

 

[Sundayjack]

Borges (in non-editorial mode) reports that the Patriots are challenging one of the two grievances based on the arbitrator's jurisdiction:
http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../branch_patriots_scrimmage_over_jurisdiction/

Reiss mailbag offers speculation that might suggest why:
The first grievance is that the Patriots received reasonable compensation for Branch in the form of a second-round pick. The Patriots will fight that and say he is worth more than that, and probably win. Then comes the second grievance, which is that the Patriots haven't negotiated in good faith. Branch's camp would then use the Patriots' argument from the first grievance that Branch is worth more than a second-round pick, and say "Then why don't you pay him accordingly?"
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extras/askreiss/09_05_06/?page=2

Of course, this doesn't even count the mysterious 3rd suit that Kessler alluded to. Personally, the "throw up every lawsuit we can think of and hope that one sticks" approach is pretty loathsome.

You know what I find most amazing about this? That so many of us could correctly nail the correct issues with only dreadful, agenda-driven reporting as resource. It wasn't 30 minutes after it was announced that Deion would file arbitration that a slew of people asked these same questions that have taken five days to hit the newspapers.

We should make a new thread just for press flunkies who wander in here, so that they can start asking the right questions.

 

[patsox23]

Then comes the second grievance, which is that the Patriots haven't negotiated in good faith. Branch's camp would then use the Patriots' argument from the first grievance that Branch is worth more than a second-round pick, and say "Then why don't you pay him accordingly?"[/I]

I've read that a couple of times and my hope is that BB/Pioli will counter with, "We ARE paying him accordingly! Have you seen the offer?!" People are falling into the trap of acting as though the Patriots 5 years, 31 mill isn't in the realm of compensation for a #1 WR. It is ABSOLUTELY a competitive offer for a middle-tier #1 WR.

 

[BelichickFan]

I've read that a couple of times and my hope is that BB/Pioli will counter with, "We ARE paying him accordingly! Have you seen the offer?!" People are falling into the trap of acting as though the Patriots 5 years, 31 mill isn't in the realm of compensation for a #1 WR. It is ABSOLUTELY a competitive offer for a middle-tier #1 WR.

Based on his numbers and what the team did with/without him and with/without Givens, I honestly think our offer was OVERpaying him. Remember, Givens actually did better without this player than this player did without Givens.

 

[Pujo]

They're trying to turn the NFL into MLB with its STUPID method of salary arbitration.

 

[Clonamery]

You know what I find most amazing about this? That so many of us could correctly nail the correct issues with only dreadful, agenda-driven reporting as resource. It wasn't 30 minutes after it was announced that Deion would file arbitration that a slew of people asked these same questions that have taken five days to hit the newspapers.

We should make a new thread just for press flunkies who wander in here, so that they can start asking the right questions.

I'm driving home from work yesterday afternoon and I almost drove off the road accidentally on purpose. Why? I had WFAN in NY on with Collingsworth giving his usual informed opinions on the hot issues in the NFL.

His take was that the Pats should pony up the $$ or trade Branch. Yeah, pay him or trade him. He was questioned whether it was a fair offer by the Pats and I paraphrase him, 'they (the Pats) only offered him HALF what he was offered by the Jets and Seahawks.'

When questioned further that the Pats really only offered half what others teams were offering, he backtracked and said it wasn't in the same ballpark. When pressed, he finally admitted that he didn't know the numbers at all.

WTF? Yaba daba do time.

I guess it's why we come here: for a little light.......

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

[
Of course, this doesn't even count the mysterious 3rd suit that Kessler alluded to. Personally, the "throw up every lawsuit we can think of and hope that one sticks" approach is pretty loathsome.

Of course, there is the age old addage, "if you can't dazzle 'em with brillance, baffle 'em with bullsh1t."

 

[arrellbee]

My understanding of this article is that Feerick only has jusisdiction over INJURY claims and Injury Claims are appealable in Federal Court.

This is where Kissler got the idea if they lost the arbatration he would then sue.

A special maser on the other hand deals with specifics of the CBA and his decisions are final and non appealable in any court.

So if the NFL and the Pat's get this before a Special Master then when it is done it is at least done.

The only problem with this is that McCardell's holdout against Tampa Bay WAS handled by an arbitrator - Shyam Das in that case. Was that a mistake ? Or even if it was, did it set a precedent ?

 

[Sundayjack]

My understanding of this article is that Feerick only has jusisdiction over INJURY claims and Injury Claims are appealable in Federal Court.

This is where Kissler got the idea if they lost the arbatration he would then sue.

A special maser on the other hand deals with specifics of the CBA and his decisions are final and non appealable in any court.

So if the NFL and the Pat's get this before a Special Master then when it is done it is at least done.

I'm not sure I follow, and that's probably more my fault than yours.

There certainly is a non-injury grievance procedure. Whether this is one of the issues that can be heard under that section of the CBA is at issue.

And, I read Kessler not to say that he would look to appeal any loss at arbitration to Federal Court. I don't think he has that in his arsenal of options. Rather, I read him to say that he would try a third new argument - a suit for contract damages.


Am I misreading your point?

 

[PF1996]

I don't understand where either of these grievances has a logical basis and why anyone thinks the Pats are in the wrong. Granting permission to seek a trade isn't equivalent to a "promise to trade", it isn't a promise of anything. At most, it's an implication that if the player wants to leave the team, that he's free to find possible suitors and if the Pats are inclined to trade him and they like the offers they receive from those suitors, that they would then trade him. If the Pats sole intent was to trade Branch, they would have taken the time to look for suitors. The fact that they didn't, but rather allowed Branch to do so indicates that trading Branch wasn't their primary intent.

The "negotiate in good faith" grievance also doesn't make any sense. Branch is under contract and the Patriots are not obligated to offer him an extension...or if an extension/new contract is offered to offer him, a "reasonable offer". The point is, where does it say in the CBA that the Patriots are obligated to negotiate extensions/new contracts with players already under contract, that they are obligated to make competitive offers during negotiations and if they don't, then the player can void his contract?

There's no inconsistency between the Pats position because no second round pick is paid between 5-6 million a year. However, it doesn't matter if the positions are inconsistent because the Pats, as OWNERS of DB, are the ones who determine what's fair compensation for THEM.

 

[BTTA]

Part of me wishes the Pats had taken the Jets offer

Tie up their salary cap of a rival on a player who isn't worth what they are offering, has a high probability of getting injured, given his size and position.