Union files grievance on behalf of Branch

[patchick]

If the Patriots think Branch equals 2 #1's, then why are they not willing to give him the pay of 2 #1's??

Mikey, do you think Tom Brady is a HOF quarterback in the prime of his career? I'm just curious.

 

[SVN]

If the Patriots think Branch equals 2 #1's, then why are they not willing to give him the pay of 2 #1's??

.

the 2 #1's is just wild speculation..there is nothing written that the pats asked for that and chayut has no proof to show for it..he can claim the pats asked 10 1st rounders if he wants ..doesnt me he is right or has any proof.

 

[BelichickFan]

If the Patriots think Branch equals 2 #1's, then why are they not willing to give him the pay of 2 #1's??

And if the jesters of Hawks think he's worth so much money why not trade the appropriate draft choices ? It works both ways.

 

[mikey]

Mikey, do you think Tom Brady is a HOF quarterback in the prime of his career? I'm just curious.

Is that a rhetorical question?

Or am I supposed to answer it?


.

 

[arrellbee]

If the Patriots think Branch equals 2 #1's, then why are they not willing to give him the pay of 2 #1's??

.

Mikey, do you ever get tired of repeating the same stupid question over and over again ?? Must not.

 

[sarge]

From the article

The grievance alleges that in allowing Branch to work out a contract with another team, the Patriots agreed they would trade him if Branch was comfortable with that contract and the draft choice compensation for him "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," Berthelsen said in a telephone interview.

Let me see if you guys understand this the way I do.

Are they suggesting that the mere act of allowing Branch to work out a contract with another team means that they have implicitly agreed that his compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," or that the actual agreement was "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players,".

The way they say it in the article sounds to me like they are saying the Pats never actually said that the compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," but that by just allowing him to seek a trade meant they were doing that!

 

[upstater1]

If the Patriots think Branch equals 2 #1's, then why are they not willing to give him the pay of 2 #1's??

.

They are. Franchise equals the average of the top 5 or 10 in the league.

Do the math. It's 6.5 million. What's the problem?

 

[Sundayjack]

Let the NFLPA check in and assert that a valid contract exsits between and among the three parties, the Patriots, Branch and NY Jets. Let teh NFLPA assert that a verbal contract exsits and should be binding on all three parties.

I am more and more sure that arbitration will lead to two #1 picks from the Jets to the Patriots in return for the services of Branch at the agreed negotiated compensation rate! The NFLPA apparently agrees! Concurs that a implicit verbal contract amomgst the parties exists and is enforceable !!!!

Woo Hoo !!!

That's not a possible result of this grievance. This is not the arbitration of a CBA issue, this is the question of whether the is or is not an oral contract between Patriots and Branch to trade him for the "reasonable value" offered by the Jets.

Here's a twist: Essentially, the NFLPA is arguing that Branch and the Patriots created a new "Player Contract" (otherwise it's not a grievable issue). If that's true, I'm wondering whether that kicks in the restriction against renegotiating a contract twice in one year. That is to say, if Chayut is correct, and there was an oral agreement, does that constitute a renegotiation such that Branch couldn't then renegotiate with the Jets/Seahawks or whoever else?

 

[arrellbee]

From the article


Let me see if you guys understand this the way I do.

Are they suggesting that the mere act of allowing Branch to work out a contract with another team means that they have implicitly agreed that his compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," or that the actual agreement was "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players,".

The way they say it in the article sounds to me like they are saying the Pats never actually said that the compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," but that by just allowing him to seek a trade meant they were doing that!

It's basically claiming 'implied terms and conditions'. It wouldn't get very far in a court, but an arbitration is a real wild card. The trick is for Goodell (sp?) to show his 'fortitude' and not let the NFLPA get a 'ringer' arbitrator. This is, without much fanfare, a crucial first test for the new NFL regime. I hope they are up to the task or it could be the first leak in what could become a flood of chaos.

 

[Murphys95]

From the article


Let me see if you guys understand this the way I do.

Are they suggesting that the mere act of allowing Branch to work out a contract with another team means that they have implicitly agreed that his compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," or that the actual agreement was "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players,".

The way they say it in the article sounds to me like they are saying the Pats never actually said that the compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," but that by just allowing him to seek a trade meant they were doing that!

Yes. That is the same way I read it. It quite possible that the Patriots sent the same exact statement to Branch and his agent as they did to the press. It's quite an extrapolation to say that allowing Branch to seek a trade somehow implies that it must be "commensurate with what has been the value of similar players."

I cannot imagine the Patriots said anything of the type of compensation they would require.

 

[Murphys95]

It's basically claiming 'implied terms and conditions'. It wouldn't get very far in a court, but an arbitration is a real wild card. The trick is for Goodell (sp?) to show his 'fortitude' and not let the NFLPA get a 'ringer' arbitrator. This is, without much fanfare, a crucial first test for the new NFL regime. I hope they are up to the task or it could be the first leak in what could become a flood of chaos.

That's another good point. Imagine an NFL where players are allowed to hold out, file grievances willy-nilly, and come out with more cash in their pocket because of it. That's an image the league wants to avoid - one of spoiled millionaires only playing for money. Getting a hold on this matter would be a first good step for the new commisioner.

 

[sarge]

I cannot imagine the Patriots said anything of the type of compensation they would require.

Exactly!

I do not believe for one minute the Patriots ever agreed to any language where it said "commensurate with what has been the value of similar players."

 

[SBPatsFan]

There is also the issue of trading a present day asset for a future asset. Walker and Culpepper were present day assets traded for present day assets.

Branch would be a trade of a present day asset (his services this season) for a future draft choice (next draft at the earliest). Present day value of a draft choice is typically valued by NFL teams about a round lower than a future choice. This general theme is very strong in draft day trades. For example, it is not atypical to see a trade giving a 3rd rounder this year and fetching a 2nd rounder next year.

So Walker and Culpepper fetching a present day value of a 2nd rounder when they were traded would IMHO seem to argue in favor of the Pats expecting a higher round draft choice at a minimum.

If I were the arbitrator I would also personally look at the situation and in an attempt to come up with 'fair compensation' ask what would it take for me to convince another team entering 2006 season to surrender a player comparable to Branch right now as the season is about to start. Since the contract NYJ offered places Branch's value a bit higher over the next few years than Hines Ward (as one example); what would it take to get the Steelers to be willing to trade Ward today as the season is about to start or for the Broncos to trade Walker today. IMO opinion context is important. But hey, that's just me.

 

[BelichickFan]

There is also the issue of trading a present day asset for a future asset. Walker and Culpepper were present day assets traded for present day assets.

A very good point. Not to mention that Walker and Culpepper were both coming off torn ACLs, Culpepper was coming off the Love Boat incident, every situation is different, for a schmuck like Chayet to think differently is assenine. The dude is in way over his head - kind of equivalent to NEM breaking into Belichick's office and complaining about the Patriots' playcalling.

 

[patchick]

Here's a twist: Essentially, the NFLPA is arguing that Branch and the Patriots created a new "Player Contract" (otherwise it's not a grievable issue). If that's true, I'm wondering whether that kicks in the restriction against renegotiating a contract twice in one year. That is to say, if Chayut is correct, and there was an oral agreement, does that constitute a renegotiation such that Branch couldn't then renegotiate with the Jets/Seahawks or whoever else?

That's magnificently clever. Love it.

 

[upstater1]

That's not a possible result of this grievance. This is not the arbitration of a CBA issue, this is the question of whether the is or is not an oral contract between Patriots and Branch to trade him for the "reasonable value" offered by the Jets.

Here's a twist: Essentially, the NFLPA is arguing that Branch and the Patriots created a new "Player Contract" (otherwise it's not a grievable issue). If that's true, I'm wondering whether that kicks in the restriction against renegotiating a contract twice in one year. That is to say, if Chayut is correct, and there was an oral agreement, does that constitute a renegotiation such that Branch couldn't then renegotiate with the Jets/Seahawks or whoever else?

Thanks for that insight. If this should ever come to pass (the arbitrator rules that Branch is right but that he can't negotiate a new contract) it would make me wonder whether Pioli and Belichick considered this a possibility from the beginning. That would essentially force Branch's hand because they could then pay him at the Jets' rate of 6.X million while not allowing him to negotiate a new contract this year.

In fact, that would be much much worse than what the Patriots offered him in the first place.

 

[arrellbee]

Isn't the restriction on successive renegotiations with the SAME team to which the player is under contract ??

 

[Sundayjack]

Isn't the restriction on successive renegotiations with the SAME team to which the player is under contract ??

I don't know that. All I know of the successive renegotiations provision comes from reading of the Seymour contract.

 

[zippo59]

Since the contract NYJ offered places Branch's value a bit higher over the next few years than Hines Ward (as one example)

Deion Branch being payed more than Hines Ward is a crime.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

From the article


Let me see if you guys understand this the way I do.

Are they suggesting that the mere act of allowing Branch to work out a contract with another team means that they have implicitly agreed that his compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," or that the actual agreement was "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players,".

The way they say it in the article sounds to me like they are saying the Pats never actually said that the compensation "was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players," but that by just allowing him to seek a trade meant they were doing that!

Good catch - that's exactly what they're claiming. Now how ridiculous is that? How they can even say that with a straight face is beyond me, and
I'm sure the arbitrator will agree. Chayut is an ahole, but this proves that the players association are a bunch of pukes too.

Beyond belief. The problem is that time's ticking, and this will go on another week or more.