Why it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chayut to win the grievance...

[patsox23]

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

 

[SaCaCh]

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

Yup, look at the restricted free agent compensation. Imagine if you could offer a RFA 6 mil, what would the picks be for that??

 

[Mike the Brit]

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

Florio at PFT explains it pretty clearly. If Branch is going to win a grievance it will have to be for breach of contract.

But there are two difficulties. First of all, it is very unlikely that the terms of any verbal agreement (if there was one) would be sufficiently clear for there to be a contract. Secondly, one of the principles of contract law is that there is only a contract where there is "consideration" (something given in return). But even if the Pats promised to let Branch take a decent offer if one came along, there would be no consideration because Branch did not offer anything in return.

Florio is a lawyer and knows about this stuff. I'm not but it smells of b*llsh*t to me.

Florio's view is that the idea of letting Branch seek a trade has blown up in the Pats' faces because, whatever the legality, the fact that there are offers in excess of what the Pats have offered will reinforce Branch's sense of grievance. That's an interesting and plausible interpretation, it seems to me.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What did the Pats have to lose? The Twig was gonna sit out 10 games, throw a hissey fit and whatever.

The Pats just PROVED because of the $ offered that the player equaled the league's stated price for a franchised player...2 #1s.

 

[dhamz]

Florio's view is that the idea of letting Branch seek a trade has blown up in the Pats' faces because, whatever the legality, the fact that there are offers in excess of what the Pats have offered will reinforce Branch's sense of grievance. That's an interesting and plausible interpretation, it seems to me.

It is hard to argue with that. It has hardened Branch's holdout position at the start of the regular season which historically is when most players crack and come into camp.

Not only did it not resolve it, it ensured it will last until November.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Under normal circumstances, you would think that this grievance is just B.S. But, as I explained in the Taildragger thread, I think that Chayut has probably already contacted Upshaw, who clearly has a serious bone to pick with the Pats.

Rather than repeat my previous post, I will simply say that the politicians of the union and the agents who seem to advise them nowadays, are very strongly against the Pats, to the point that Upshaw and Chayut and the rest have 'Patriot Clauses' that they like to boast about in the media.

I think it would be ill advised to hope for any good will from the NFLPA in this matter, and I am a little apprehensive that those Nutcrackers are going to try and set a precedent of some kind with the Pats.

I think they relish the opportunity.

Remember that Owens was able to screw the 49ers and the Ravens with a little help from the union, and remember that the Redskins/Jets struggle over Coles was a political fiasco.

 

[PromisedLand]

Here's why it is impossible for Branch to win the grievance:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=172285&postcount=35

 

[upstater1]

What did the Pats have to lose? The Twig was gonna sit out 10 games, throw a hissey fit and whatever.

The Pats just PROVED because of the $ offered that the player equaled the league's stated price for a franchised player...2 #1s.

But they also proved that other teams will pay Branch more than the Pats will. That was a bad gamble. There are 31 other teams. Someone will always throw crazy money out there (see David Patten, David Givens, Tom Ashworth, etc.)

 

[upstater1]

It is hard to argue with that. It has hardened Branch's holdout position at the start of the regular season which historically is when most players crack and come into camp.

Not only did it not resolve it, it ensured it will last until November.

+1 Agreed.

I'm sighing here. Yeesh.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

But they also proved that other teams will pay Branch more than the Pats will. That was a bad gamble. There are 31 other teams. Someone will always throw crazy money out there (see David Patten, David Givens, Tom Ashworth, etc.)

And you really think that the Pats didn't know that???????

 

[RAWKY]

It is hard to argue with that. It has hardened Branch's holdout position at the start of the regular season which historically is when most players crack and come into camp.

Not only did it not resolve it, it ensured it will last until November.

I disagree; Branch never had any intention of playing for the Pat's this year that is why he refused to counter their offer.

What the Pat's did was the correct response, move this off the dime and get resolution regardless of the end results.

The last thing this team needed was Branch's agent constantly milking the press after evey game we played trying to stir up more and more dirt to defocus the team.

This whole thing was a planned assault on the Pat's to force them to deal Branch this year rather then next.

There are three reasons for this decision on their part.

1) Branch felt the Pat's screwed him after Given's hit the lotto

2) Branch is afraid of injury and rightly so based on his history.

3) Branch discovered last year he could not beat double teams and feared that more teams would play him that way this year due to the team not having a real number two...... i personally believe this is a wrong judgement but it is what it is from his perspective. If more teams doubled him he would have less yrds and less production thus his value would go down.

For Branch this has all been about feeding his family in Ty Law speak.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

But they also proved that other teams will pay Branch more than the Pats will. That was a bad gamble. There are 31 other teams. Someone will always throw crazy money out there (see David Patten, David Givens, Tom Ashworth, etc.)

I have no problem with the fact that other teams are willing to throw vast sums of money around for "talent" like there was no tomorrow, but if these teams are willing to do so over a player that's already under contract to someone else, then that team (in this case, the Patriots) has every right to be compensated at a level deemed "reasonable". And since we are talking fantastic sums of money, the "just compensation" that the Patriots are asking for, given the level of compensation offered this non-free agent, seems more than reasonable.

To wit: Who, coming out of the college ranks, would be the equal of Branch to the Patriots? The guy is worth at least a first rounder because he's fully developed as a professional football player. So actually, in the overall scheme of things, the other team making the trade would doubtless come out ahead, were the "trade" to be Branch for a #1.

FWIW, I do agree with the earlier post about the NFLPA having it in for the Pats, and I think that does bear watching.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

According to the Tomase piece:

- the Pats are apparently willing to settle for a 1st and mid-round pick, down from two firsts.

- the Seahawks are apparently willing to offer a 1st, up from a second.

Looks like negotiations are progressing nicely. If you consider mid-round 3, 4, & 5, then I can see Deion heading to Seattle for a 1st and 5th. This makes more sense then the musings about getting a WR from a team that is scrambling to obtain a top tier WR.

 

[flutie2phelan]

....
To wit: Who, coming out of the college ranks, would be the equal of Branch to the Patriots? The guy is worth at least a first rounder because he's fully developed as a professional football player. So actually, in the overall scheme of things, the other team making the trade would doubtless come out ahead, were the "trade" to be Branch for a #1.

Bump that potent insight.


And also ... whence stems the union's jurisdiction to even consider this appeal?
They can order adjudication of offenses against the collective bargaining agreement.
This is a CLAIM of breach of oral contract.
(BTW, the values involved here would seem to far exceed anything enforceable as an oral contract ... and lead to prompt dismissal in a court of law.)

 

[arrellbee]

I have no problem with the fact that other teams are willing to throw vast sums of money around for "talent" like there was no tomorrow, but if these teams are willing to do so over a player that's already under contract to someone else, then that team (in this case, the Patriots) has every right to be compensated at a level deemed "reasonable". And since we are talking fantastic sums of money, the "just compensation" that the Patriots are asking for, given the level of compensation offered this non-free agent, seems more than reasonable.

To wit: Who, coming out of the college ranks, would be the equal of Branch to the Patriots? The guy is worth at least a first rounder because he's fully developed as a professional football player. So actually, in the overall scheme of things, the other team making the trade would doubtless come out ahead, were the "trade" to be Branch for a #1.

FWIW, I do agree with the earlier post about the NFLPA having it in for the Pats, and I think that does bear watching.

I certainly agree with your premise about an established player being worth a significant package of draft picks.

Are 2 first round picks are even absurd ?? Prime example might be the Lions. Don't you think they would be much better off now if they had given up two first round draft picks to get a proven productive receiver like Branch ? I don't see how you can answer that question in any other way than that they would be much better off. There are plenty of other teams that would have come out at least as well by offering 2 first round picks - David Terrell comes to mind and I'm sure folks can fill in plenty of other examples. After all, picking a WR in the first round who will be one of the top 15 WR in the league is, by my guess, much less than a 50/50 proposition !!

Not only that, but it might well be the case that the Patriots would settle for even just one 1st round pick if it was high enough - in fact, apparently that was reported (whether there was any credibility to it or not).

 

[upstater1]

I have no problem with the fact that other teams are willing to throw vast sums of money around for "talent" like there was no tomorrow, but if these teams are willing to do so over a player that's already under contract to someone else, then that team (in this case, the Patriots) has every right to be compensated at a level deemed "reasonable". And since we are talking fantastic sums of money, the "just compensation" that the Patriots are asking for, given the level of compensation offered this non-free agent, seems more than reasonable.

To wit: Who, coming out of the college ranks, would be the equal of Branch to the Patriots? The guy is worth at least a first rounder because he's fully developed as a professional football player. So actually, in the overall scheme of things, the other team making the trade would doubtless come out ahead, were the "trade" to be Branch for a #1.

FWIW, I do agree with the earlier post about the NFLPA having it in for the Pats, and I think that does bear watching.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Patriots did the right thing and the NFLPA has it in for the Patriots, because you have to take all this into account. The Patriots are now embroiled with the NFLPA in a legal skirmish, and though the Patriots are right and the NFLPA will lose, it just about destroys any hopes you had of having Branch play for you ever. There''s only one way that this story ends: Deion will be traded, either in the next week or right before the draft.

 

[upstater1]

It's possible Branch might have agreed to report in return for the Partiots promise to trade him for a reasonable offer. That would blow this legal theory out of the water.

 

[sarge]

Florio at PFT explains it pretty clearly.

Do you have a link?

 

[DaBruinz]

But they also proved that other teams will pay Branch more than the Pats will. That was a bad gamble. There are 31 other teams. Someone will always throw crazy money out there (see David Patten, David Givens, Tom Ashworth, etc.)

Excuse me. No one KNOWS if the other teams are willing to pay more than the Patriots. In fact, NO ONE knows how much the Patriots were willing to fork over for Branch. It was at LEAST 6.25 million a year.

The PROBLEM is that Branch and his agent didn't bother to try and negotiate so they have no idea WHAT the Patriots were willing to go up to.

 

[AzPatsFan]

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

patsox23,

Your catching On!!!

The only question since a writtten contract didn't exist, amongst the three parties was whether a valid, enforceable verbal and implicit contract exists. The NFLPA has just checked in and supported Chayut and Branch and (and also the Pats if the are shrewd) that a three way contract exists. That is the great legal difficulty. Insuring that a contract exists, giving items of value to each, and it does. Pats get picks, Branch gets $, and Jets get (suddenly expensive) Branch.

But the NFLPA says deal exists and is enforceable! Their are only two parties who determine contract issues NFLPA, and Management Council, by the CBA, and the NFLPA has already implicitely voted yes!

The Pats attorneys merely have to hold out for the collectively bargained compensation rate, and the precedent set by the Galloway situation. They should hold out for nothing less or more than 2 #1s. Period. And they'll get it after arbitration as prescribed by the CBA.

What else can an arbitrator do, except accept a collectively bargained rate and a precedent conmfirmed rate ?