Union files grievance on behalf of Branch

[wakkoxc]

I don't think Branch has a leg to stand on in his grievance.

When it's over, what do you Pats fans want the Pats to do?

They could probably open trade talks and get a better offer from the Jets or Seahawks, but they're not going to get two firsts. Regardless of what you think he's worth, I think a first and a third would be the best you can get for a disgruntled player. They could try to extend Branch's contract. (I know there's a lot of bad blood there now but $40 million can mend alot of fences.) They can play hardball and let him sit out till week 10. You could be in the thick of a playoff chase when he comes in goes TO on you and torpedoes the end of your season.

If you trade him or extend him, that sets a horrible precendent for future negotiations, if you cause trouble, you can get what you want. If you play hardball, you discourage other players from doing what Branch is doing, but that won't help you at all on the field this year.

I hope he doesn't decide to report to the team and go TO on you. As much as I dislike you guys for beating us in the super bowl, I wouldn't wish that on anyone (at least no one outside of the NFC East).

Good luck in the AFC this year, if I had to chose which team the Eagles got to beat in the Super Bowl, it would probably be you. You're a class organization.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

.

How do you know they haven't been willing to give him the pay, Mikey? The fact is that Chayut never tired to negotiate so he has no idea how high the Patriots were wlling to go.

You and every other person who has brought this item up seems to have forgotten that Chayut turned down the 1st 2 offers that the Patriots sent him WITHOUT bothering to send a counter back.

 

[brady2brown]

Is that a rhetorical question?

Or am I supposed to answer it?


.

I'd like to hear you answer it. Sometimes I wonder if your posts are sincere or not. An honest answer would help. Thanks in advance for answering.

 

[Miguel]

You're getting it backwards.

The Patriots don't have to pay Branch what other teams think he's worth, he's still under contract. But if the other team does think he's worth that and have signed him to that contract, then the conpensation must match the contract offered.

In order for a team to get two #1s for a franchise player, that team first has to offer the player a deal that pays him the average of the 5 highest cap numbers for the players at his position. IMO,the Patriots did not meet the requirement. So why should they get two first-round picks.

 

[DaBruinz]

In order for a team to get two #1s for a franchise player, that team first has to offer the player a deal that pays him the average of the 5 highest cap numbers for the players at his position. IMO,the Patriots did not meet the requirement. So why should they get two first-round picks.

Miguel -
I will ask you the same thing I have asked other posters. How do you know what the Patriots maximum offer would have been had Branch's agent actually NEGOTIATED?

There is only one answer. You have no idea. And neither do I.

OH, and the Patriots contract extension to Branch 5/$33 million, averages out to 6.6 million. That IS Franchise money.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

In order for a team to get two #1s for a franchise player, that team first has to offer the player a deal that pays him the average of the 5 highest cap numbers for the players at his position. IMO,the Patriots did not meet the requirement. So why should they get two first-round picks.

I agree with that point. We are not in a franchise tag situation this year - that would be next year. The two 1st's concept does not apply at this point.

As I understand it, the Pats don't have to anything at this point, at least they didn't prior to this grievance. They probably wish they didn't allow Branch to shop around, because now they've got this huge distraction going on just as the season is opening - worse than if they had just sat on this situation.

Now you've got anti-trust lawyers and potentially wacko arbitrators involved. Remember that it was the arbitrators that ruined baseball.

 

[DarMan]

In order for a team to get two #1s for a franchise player, that team first has to offer the player a deal that pays him the average of the 5 highest cap numbers for the players at his position. IMO,the Patriots did not meet the requirement. So why should they get two first-round picks.

To turn that around, if another team offers Branch a contract worth the average of the 5 highest paid wide receivers, why shouldn't they compensate the Patriots with two #1 picks?

 

[Miguel]

Miguel -
I will ask you the same thing I have asked other posters. How do you know what the Patriots maximum offer would have been had Branch's agent actually NEGOTIATED?
There is only one answer. You have no idea. And neither do I

.

I doubt that the special master is going to base the compensation due to the Patriots on what the Patriots' max offer could have been. I would think that it would be on what the Pats did offer.

OH, and the Patriots contract extension to Branch 5/$33 million, averages out to 6.6 million. That IS Franchise money.

According to Reiss, the last Patriots' offer to Branch was the 4/19.75 million. At least, Reiss reports that is the one that Branch did not make a counter-offer to so that offer is the one I am using.

 

[Miguel]

To turn that around, if another team offers Branch a contract worth the average of the 5 highest paid wide receivers, why shouldn't they compensate the Patriots with two #1 picks?

Because it is not a requirement.

Because teams have traded a franchise player for less than 2 #1s even when the player got a Top 5 contract.

 

[Bostonian1962]

This greivance is a JOKE! We'd run BB and Co. out of town if they accepted only a 2nd round pick so that one of our main, in division rivals could get our #1 receiver/we would not have a #1 receiver. Absurd at any level of reason.

Secondly, Branch IS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT!!!! I repeat, he IS UNDER CONTRACT. There can be no breach on the Patriots' part. If this is ruled any way, but against Branch, I will kick an elderly person.

 

[PatsRI]

John Tomase, of the Boston Herald, reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch's grievance hearing is expected to be held Saturday, Sept. 9, in either New York or Foxboro, according to one of Branch's representatives, Jeffrey Kessler.

 

[CrazyDave]

So much for a quick and speedy trial.

 

[upstater1]

In order for a team to get two #1s for a franchise player, that team first has to offer the player a deal that pays him the average of the 5 highest cap numbers for the players at his position. IMO,the Patriots did not meet the requirement. So why should they get two first-round picks.

Because he's still under contract, and that contract has value for the Patriots. It's the same line of thinking that teams use in baseball when they invest so much in the minor leagues. They know a guy who isn't vested yet is of great value because he provides his services at such a great rate.

I think there's aflaw in the collective bargaining agreement. In my view, if you don't show up for work at the start of the season, you forfeit your right to a vested year unless your team agrees to credit you back. Otherwise, this amounts to ripping off the fans.

If the owners really wanted to something about holdouts, they would get rid of this provision that allows players to show up 2/3rd into the season.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

Because he's still under contract. period.

 

[Sundayjack]

John Tomase, of the Boston Herald, reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch's grievance hearing is expected to be held Saturday, Sept. 9, in either New York or Foxboro, according to one of Branch's representatives, Jeffrey Kessler.

Hmmm. . . attorney for the likes of Latrell Sprewell, Terrell Owens, and Ricky Williams. This just keeps getting better and better.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

.

I doubt that the special master is going to base the compensation due to the Patriots on what the Patriots' max offer could have been. I would think that it would be on what the Pats did offer.

he isnt going to base any compensation on anything. the player is under contract, period. therefore the pats decide the compensation, just like they would for any other player under contract.... if the pats say they want 5 #1's, then that is the required compensation.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

Hmmm. . . attorney for the likes of Latrell Sprewell, Terrell Owens, and Ricky Williams. This just keeps getting better and better.

3 of the most cancerous players in the history of sports... is deion #4?

 

[Brownfan80]

3 of the most cancerous players in the history of sports... is deion #4?

It remains to be seen. The Pats have been very cancer-resistent through the Tom Brady years (Bledsoe situation, Glenn Situation, Milloy Situation, Law Situation, the list goes on), but this one, IMO, will be the biggest test.

 

[Miguel]

OH, and the Patriots contract extension to Branch 5/$33 million, averages out to 6.6 million. That IS Franchise money.

Is it a 5-year extension covering the years 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011??

If so, then, IMO, it is a 6-year deal averaging $5.5 million.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I kind of hate that my first post on this excellent forum is about DB, who jumped from one of my all time favorites to all time least favorites in a hurry.

But I had one thought about the way this grievance is being packaged. Until this article, the prior articles had suggested the implied agreement was to trade Branch for "reasonable" value. Now we're told the expectation was that Branch would be traded for value commensurate with the value giving for similar players.

Does anyone else see this as an incredibly saavy move for Branch? I agree with everyone that the arbitration is ultimately a loser. However, this argument puts the Patriots in an awkward situation. Branch's team and the union have put them in position where to defend themselves they need to argue that Branch is worth a lot -- precisely the argument Branch has been making in his contract negotiation. In other words, Branch has set a playing field on which, at a minimum, he picks up some ammunition if there are to be future negotiations. The alternative for the Patriots is to not engage Branch on this point at the arbitration and to not let that be the playing field. But that's a risky strategy in arbitration, where the arbitrator has nearly unfettered discretion and significant power.