Why don't Pats match Hawks deal for DB?

[hwc]

I'm saying that the Seahawks think that 2007 wideout FA crop will even be worse. With demand high and supply low, Branch could get even more in 2007 if there were more teams competing for his services.

That works both ways. If the 2007 free agent pool is weak, then the Pats should get a king's ransom when they tag n' trade Branch next spring.

What's the worst case? They get six games plus the playoffs out of him this year for nothing (less than an undrafted street free agent) and move him next year with a tag n' trade.

 

[QuiGon]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but if 2 teams quickly reached agreement with Branch on a contract, why don't the Pats use that agreement to reach agreement as well?

It's difficult to answer this question when no one has really provided any specific details on exactly what the Seahawks' offer to Branch was, but I think it's obvious that their offer was too high and/or too cap-unfriendly for New England's tastes. Especially for a player that they have under contract.

 

[SamBam39]

That works both ways. If the 2007 free agent pool is weak, then the Pats should get a king's ransom when they tag n' trade Branch next spring.

What's the worst case? They get six games plus the playoffs out of him this year for nothing (less than an undrafted street free agent) and move him next year with a tag n' trade.

yeah, but if he's still a holdout - 2 things.

1) our whole season is effected by him missing.
2) how well do you think he would play apon returning? he's be out of practice and angry.

 

[SamBam39]

It's difficult to answer this question when no one has really provided any specific details on exactly what the Seahawks' offer to Branch was, but I think it's obvious that their offer was too high and/or too cap-unfriendly for New England's tastes. Especially for a player that they have under contract.

well first of all I think they have to forget about 'they have him under contract' - they have to look at it as trade versus keep.

secondly, Miguel just quoted the contract a few posts back, and in general, I think the pats could fins a way to match - they're in pretty good cap shape.

 

[hwc]

Miguel just quoted the offer.
I stand by the viewpoint if that's what the market bears, then match it.

I don't think the Seahawks faxed the offer to Miguel. He's quoting the same media reports. You ALWAYS have to give it a few days to let real contract numbers leak out. The initial reports are almost always exaggerated.

Also, keep in mind that the Patriots hold REAL VALUE in the fifth year of Branch's rookie contract. No matter who Branch signs with, the Pats must be compensated for that value: either in a discount on an extension for Branch with the Pats or trade value from another team.

So, when you look at, for example, the Jets offer: the real cost to the Jets would be $6 million a year to Branch and a minimum 1st round draft pick to the Pats. They were not willing to make that offer. So, to the Jets, Branch obviously worth less than $6 million a year.

 

[QuiGon]

ok - so you've proven that the hawks/jets offer is an increase to what the pats offered. fine.
I'm saying, now that you see what these other teams are willing to give him, and you're gonna lose him if you don't do the same, give it to him.

Why should they give $23 million to a player who is under contract this year and could be franchised next year for about $10 million total...?

 

[hwc]

yeah, but if he's still a holdout - 2 things.

1) our whole season is effected by him missing.
2) how well do you think he would play apon returning? he's be out of practice and angry.

I'm assuming that Branch would ride the pine as our fifth or six WR after his return in Week 10. Since Branch would be paying the Pats to ride the pine, he'd be cheaper than any street free agent bum the Pats could sign to hold down the end of the bench.

Since Branch has clearly decided he's done in the New England, the Pats should look at it strictly from a financial standpoint. They made him a legitimate offer, a year before his contract expired. He chose not to negotiate. They don't owe him jack.

 

[SamBam39]

I don't think the Seahawks faxed the offer to Miguel. He's quoting the same media reports. You ALWAYS have to give it a few days to let real contract numbers leak out. The initial reports are almost always exaggerated.

Also, keep in mind that the Patriots hold REAL VALUE in the fifth year of Branch's rookie contract. No matter who Branch signs with, the Pats must be compensated for that value: either in a discount on an extension for Branch with the Pats or trade value from another team.

So, when you look at, for example, the Jets offer: the real cost to the Jets would be $6 million a year to Branch and a minimum 1st round draft pick to the Pats. They were not willing to make that offer. So, to the Jets, Branch obviously worth less than $6 million a year.

yeah, but that's only if they're willing to lose him. If they want to keep him, and I'm saying they should, they have to just match the offer. Saying 'we should get a discount' and trading him is not their best move.

regarding the actual contract, it's gotta be ballpark, but regardless, if the other team can pay it, we can too.

 

[SamBam39]

Why should they give $23 million to a player who is under contract this year and could be franchised next year for about $10 million total...?

because the siuation has become so ugly they are going to trade him to end it.

I'm saying they should pay him to end it - much better outcome for the team.

if not - he aint playing anyway.

 

[QuiGon]

well first of all I think they have to forget about 'they have him under contract' - they have to look at it as trade versus keep.

Why in the world would they want to forget they have him under contract..? That's kind of what puts them in the driver's seat.

secondly, Miguel just quoted the contract a few posts back, and in general, I think the pats could fins a way to match - they're in pretty good cap shape.

Everyone here knows and respects Miguel's knowledge, but he can only be as accurate as the news reports he reads. And I think that entire contract offer he quoted originated from a Ron Borges column. Therefore, to me, that makes the information more likely to be inaccurate than accurate.

 

[SamBam39]

I'm assuming that Branch would ride the pine as our fifth or six WR after his return in Week 10. Since Branch would be paying the Pats to ride the pine, he'd be cheaper than any street free agent bum the Pats could sign to hold down the end of the bench.

Since Branch has clearly decided he's done in the New England, the Pats should look at it strictly from a financial standpoint. They made him a legitimate offer, a year before his contract expired. He chose not to negotiate. They don't owe him jack.

this is about good outcomes and winning games.
branch riding the pine helps neither cause.

 

[hwc]

yeah, but that's only if they're willing to lose him. If they want to keep him, and I'm saying they should, they have to just match the offer.

There's no issue of the Pats "keeping" him. He's UNDER CONTRACT TO THE PATRIOTS.

He has exactly two choices: Play for the Pats and earn a paycheck OR not play in the NFL and don't earn a paycheck.

Furthermore, the PATS can keep him next year, too...by simply using the franchise tag.

 

[QuiGon]

because the siuation has become so ugly they are going to trade him to end it.

I'm saying they should pay him to end it - much better outcome for the team.

I think that is very short sighted. You essentially want to cave into his demands, which is a horrible precedent to set because next year it will be someone else doing the same thing, then someone after that, and after that...

One of the major reasons I support NE sticking to their guns here is to prevent this exact sort of thing from happening again down the road.

 

[PatsRI]

because the siuation has become so ugly they are going to trade him to end it.

I'm saying they should pay him to end it - much better outcome for the team.

if not - he aint playing anyway.

I'd be worried about the precedent now. What happens if Wilfork, Koppen, Graham etal decide "Hey it worked for Deion". Trading him also sets a precedent but guys have to be willing to leave the team and take a PR hit too. Some may decide it's better to play out their contract than start with a new team.

 

[Patriotsfan 712]

IMO, the Seahawks are a SB contender.

A contender....no doubt. However there is a big difference between contending and actually winning a superbowl. Case in point ask the Bill's 0-4 in superbowls. The Hawks are close. Would having Branch on their team help? Without a doubt!!! Would it be enough? IMO i think not. Im not big on Matt Hasselbeck. They have a great running game no doubt but IF Alexander goes down then what. Nate and Dion would be a good pair receivers but i dont think Matt could throw it consistantly. I.M.O.

 

[SamBam39]

Why in the world would they want to forget they have him under contract..? That's kind of what puts them in the driver's seat.
Everyone here knows and respects Miguel's knowledge, but he can only be as accurate as the news reports he reads. And I think that entire contract offer he quoted originated from a Ron Borges column. Therefore, to me, that makes the information more likely to be inaccurate than accurate.

1) after they let him show his market value and let this situation get this far, it has now become a trade or pay question. no more driver's seat.

2)the contract's accuracy is not really the point. even if it's ballpark - fine. but even if not - if other team's are willing to pay it, and deion's agreeable, the market has been set, and the pats should match rather than lose him.

 

[SamBam39]

I'd be worried about the precedent now. What happens if Wilfork, Koppen, Graham etal decide "Hey it worked for Deion". Trading him also sets a precedent but guys have to be willing to leave the team and take a PR hit too. Some may decide it's better to play out their contract than start with a new team.

well, doubt it will happen that often, but don't allow player to seek offers anymore.

as of now - keep deion and win.

 

[SamBam39]

A contender....no doubt. However there is a big difference between contending and actually winning a superbowl. Case in point ask the Bill's 0-4 in superbowls. The Hawks are close. Would having Branch on their team help? Without a doubt!!! Would it be enough? IMO i think not. Im not big on Matt Hasselbeck. They have a great running game no doubt but IF Alexander goes down then what. Nate and Dion would be a good pair receivers but i dont think Matt could throw it consistantly. I.M.O.

irrelevant.

branch helps pats have better chance.
if dealt, hawks chances go up, pats go down.
don't do it.

 

[hwc]

2)the contract's accuracy is not really the point. even if it's ballpark - fine. but even if not - if other team's are willing to pay it, and deion's agreeable, the market has been set, and the pats should match rather than lose him.

What if Branch's agent has refused to show the Jets and Seahawks offer sheets to the Pats? Would you still maintain the Pats should match those offers, sight unseen?

Do you really think the Pats should just take Borges' word for it?

 

[QuiGon]

1) after they let him show his market value and let this situation get this far, it has now become a trade or pay question. no more driver's seat.

Why..? Did the NFL just tear up his contract...? He's still under contract for the Patriots. They are in the driver's seat.

2)the contract's accuracy is not really the point. even if it's ballpark - fine. but even if not - if other team's are willing to pay it, and deion's agreeable, the market has been set, and the pats should match rather than lose him.

Huh...? How can you say the "accuracy is not really the point"...? If you want to say the Seahawks have set the market, then we really need to know the details of what that contract says. It could be a totally backloaded contract but, after going through Ron Borges' distorted view of things, gets completely misrepresented in terms of guaranteed money.