why would franchise Deion next year?

[brdmaverick]

**first off, it's too bad I can't edit the title as I now realize I butchered the English language


I've been reading through some of the many Deion Branch posts and something that has come up with some regularity is the notion that the Patriots could/should franchise Deion next season (as long as he remains with us this year of course).

This has come up as sort of the Patriots' way of 'screwing him over'.

Can someone explain to me how that would be a bad thing for Deion.

Sure, I get the fact that he would not be a 'free' agent in that a team that wishes to sign him away would need to give up a first round pick for him, BUT (correct me if I am wrong) wouldn't being franchised also mean that Deion would get paid the average salary of the top five players at his position?

Would we really want Deion Branch on our books while being paid in the same category as Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Steve Smith, and Hines Ward?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

As you said it only robs him of free agency, but at a compensatory price agreed to by the Players Union.

It helps the Pats because they can Franchise him (hold him) and then trade him for what the market will bear. His 2007 market value both in draft pick(s) and contract $ will be a STRONG function of The Twig's performance or non-performance this season.

 

[mcbee]

I don't think it makes sense either.

The thinking is that one year of franchising would be less than his signing bonus as a FA. True, but the signing bonus is for 4 or 5 YEARS, not one. Also the following year he'd be a FA (unless, as some of the people who REALLY want him screwed over, we'd franchise him twice (second year at 20% more than first)).

If he's franchised one year and a FA the next and isn't injured during the franchise year, that's his best case scenario. Really screwing him over good.

He doesn't want to play here. Given the bad blood and disappointment he must feel, it'd be better if he didn't play here anyway.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

You missed the entire point.
Franchise and TRADE him.
The Pats have the cap $ to hold him pre-draft.
It DOES make sense to get something for the player.

 

[mcbee]

You missed the entire point.
Franchise and TRADE him.
The Pats have the cap $ to hold him pre-draft.
It DOES make sense to get something for the player.

I suppose. The team that trades for him has to be happy that he's happy with their deal, otherwise they won't want him. And he's only going to be happy with top $. So I don't know how that works.

Suppose they franchise and can't trade him. Are they stuck with him? If they cut him do they lose out on the compensatory?

 

[p8ryts]

As I said in another thread, it's all about the bonus. We could pay him big bucks 6-7 M and not have to pay an 8-10 M bonus.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

it's also about the "risk of injury"...
on a franchise deal, DB bears the risk of injury... on a 5 year deal, the pats are on the hook for the whole bonus regardless of injury or performance.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

You missed the entire point.
Franchise and TRADE him.
The Pats have the cap $ to hold him pre-draft.
It DOES make sense to get something for the player.

Well, here's the problem with your scenario: if Branch signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed.

Then the Pats are in the situation where they either trade Branch, or pay him the average of what the top 5 highest paid WRs are making that year, guaranteed. There is no way the Pats would keep him around at this price, considering the entire value of the contract counts against that year's cap.

Thus, opposing teams know that if the Pats don't trade Branch, they'll cut him This takes away a lot of leverage from the Pats. The only incentive a team has to trade for Branch instead of waiting for him to be cut is to get sole bargaining rights for him, rather than getting into a bidding war with other teams -- and considering Branch's base demands start higher than you'd think a bidding war would take you, trading for Branch isn't going to anybody a real discount.

This is why the best case scenario remains trying to sign Branch to an extension by getting to bring his price down. As long as he's asking for the moon, the Pats won't get anything for him.

 

[JoeSixPat]

As you said it only robs him of free agency, but at a compensatory price agreed to by the Players Union.

It helps the Pats because they can Franchise him (hold him) and then trade him for what the market will bear. His 2007 market value both in draft pick(s) and contract $ will be a STRONG function of The Twig's performance or non-performance this season.

I think you should see an "advanced" option under editing for the title

But we all know what you mean

Regardless, I think the franchise salary - as set by this year's top salaries - is in the $6-$7 million range - so assuming he's playing as well as he did last season, that's a reasonable salary, with no long term risk

So there's a very logical reason why the Pats might want to franchise him if he doesn't agree to a long term deal

Branch and his agent know this which is why at the very least, they are "offering" to have Branch report as long as the Patriots agree not to put the tag on him, knowing that it would be very tempting for them to do so

The bad blood that might come out of this holdout - they might feel - is actually in Branch's best interest as the team might opt to let him walk for all the turmoil he's caused

I think that strategy could backfire, and the Pats, on principal would opt to franchise him anyway

 

[Oswlek]

Here is what I had to say about this on another board:

Tommy, the $1mm difference [this is the difference between the 2007 franchis tender and NE's initial offer to Branch] is the inital offer NE gave. Not only would they likely have offered more, but Branch is almost certain to get a contract averaging the franchise amount on the FA market. My point was that NE's lowest offer was right around that amount, therefore the pay under the tender is not sufficiently higher enough to consider it "leverage" for Branch. [the poster that I was arguing with claimed that the franchise tag was leverage in Deion's favor, which I disagreed with.

Also, this line:

Quote:
EVERY PLAYER ASSUMES RISK OF INJURY WHEN THEY STEP ON THE FIELD.


shows that you don't really understand the structure of these contracts. The signing bonus of likely $13-14mm that Branch would receive is his first two year's income up front. Not only that, but the cap cost to cutting him for the first three years would be prohibitive. That means that if Branch has a serious knee injury in training camp after signing his new contract, he will still receive at least two year's income and likely three year's even if he is never all that good again. By comparison, if he injures himself in TC under the franchise tender, he would make $7mm and then have to sign a much smaller "prove you can do it again" in all likelihood.

You just said above that the franchise tag stops Branch from seeing his large FA contract, yet you are still trying to claim that it is leverage in his favor. I'm surprised that you cannot see the divergence of those statements. As long as he ends 2006 healthy, Branch can go into 2007 under two scenerios

1) He made $14mm and is virtually guaranteed to see $21mm regardless of health
2) He will make $7.5mm and must stay healthy to see anything further. This option also shaves one year off of the backend, meaning that it lowers the possibility of him seeing another decent sized contract when the new one expires.

NE can force him to go for #2. Branch wants #1. Who has the power (leverage) again?

Tagging Deion if he is unsigned is a no-brainer. NE is ready to pay him nearly the 2007 tender right now. Plus, it gives them some time to work a trade even if they have no intentions at all of going into the season with Branch on the team.

 

[hwc]

BUT (correct me if I am wrong) wouldn't being franchised also mean that Deion would get paid the average salary of the top five players at his position?

Correct. The franchise tag number for WR this year (average of the top five) is $6.17 million.

The downside for the player is that the player assumes the entire risk of career-ending injury. The team has no bonus money invested and can walk away scott free at the end of the season if the player's leg falls off.

That is why the player benefits from a long-term contract with bonus money and, therefore, why a player should be reasonably expected to sign a long-term contract for less than franchise tag money (with some reasonable allowance for salary escalation over time).

 

[IcyPatriot]

If Deion does not resign by Friday he's as good as gone. He won't be franchised because Belichick will not force him to play...he will be allowed to be a FA. 50/50 on him staying by Friday..... 25/75 he remains a Patriot for the rest of the year and 1/99 that he is a Patriot beyond this year.

 

[dhamz]

If Deion does not resign by Friday he's as good as gone. He won't be franchised because Belichick will not force him to play...he will be allowed to be a FA. 50/50 on him staying by Friday..... 25/75 he remains a Patriot for the rest of the year and 1/99 that he is a Patriot beyond this year.

And whether they want him or not has 0% to do with whether they franchise him - see Tebucky Jones.

It has 100% to do with is there value in franchising him and there is.

 

[mcbee]

Well, here's the problem with your scenario: if Branch signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed.

Then the Pats are in the situation where they either trade Branch, or pay him the average of what the top 5 highest paid WRs are making that year, guaranteed. There is no way the Pats would keep him around at this price, considering the entire value of the contract counts against that year's cap.

Thus, opposing teams know that if the Pats don't trade Branch, they'll cut him This takes away a lot of leverage from the Pats. The only incentive a team has to trade for Branch instead of waiting for him to be cut is to get sole bargaining rights for him, rather than getting into a bidding war with other teams -- and considering Branch's base demands start higher than you'd think a bidding war would take you, trading for Branch isn't going to anybody a real discount.

This is why the best case scenario remains trying to sign Branch to an extension by getting to bring his price down. As long as he's asking for the moon, the Pats won't get anything for him.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. HE wants top $. So a team will give up a draft pick to give him more than they think he'd be worth as a FA? Doesn't make sense.

Anyway, once Branch signs a franchise tag, if the Pats cut him, does that mean his salary is thus not guaranteed, as you said?

I don't know if the Pats would want the distraction of dealing with him. They get a 3rd round compensatory if he's signed as a FA. That might be their best case, least headache scenario.

 

[Miguel]

Re: why franchise Deion next year?

to get better value than a 3rd round pick in the 2008 draft which is not guaranteed, BTW. If in 2007 the Patriots sign more free agents than they lose, they will not get any compensatory picks in 2008

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Well, here's the problem with your scenario: if Branch signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed.

Then the Pats are in the situation where they either trade Branch, or pay him the average of what the top 5 highest paid WRs are making that year, guaranteed. There is no way the Pats would keep him around at this price, considering the entire value of the contract counts against that year's cap.

No, no and no.
Should nobody make an acceptable offer, the Pats could well afford to pay him.
That's the entire point.
Branch & his agent know that.
But there's no long term 'injury' protection in a 1 year franchise contract.
A moot point in that the Pats would in reality take the cap hit pre-draft and then make a trade for the best offer.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If Deion does not resign by Friday he's as good as gone. He won't be franchised because Belichick will not force him to play...he will be allowed to be a FA. 50/50 on him staying by Friday..... 25/75 he remains a Patriot for the rest of the year and 1/99 that he is a Patriot beyond this year.

No, NFW.
IF this goes on, they will franchise him in 2007 and trade him for the best offer.
Please tell us why the Pats would let trade compensation however minimal piss away into the wind.
Answer, they won't.

You need to read the posts here and stop listening to sports radio or reading sports sections.

 

[QuiGon]

**first off, it's too bad I can't edit the title as I now realize I butchered the English language


I've been reading through some of the many Deion Branch posts and something that has come up with some regularity is the notion that the Patriots could/should franchise Deion next season (as long as he remains with us this year of course).

This has come up as sort of the Patriots' way of 'screwing him over'.

Can someone explain to me how that would be a bad thing for Deion.

Because, like all NFL players, they want the big signing bonus. If he gets franchised he will make less money in the short term so he risks injury or losing value.

 

[Miguel]

Projecting the 2007 Tag Numbers for wideouts

Randy Moss Oakland $10,021,250
Andre Johnson Houston $7,787,714
Torry Holt St. Louis $7,405,000
Terrell Owens Dallas $6,666,666
Rod Smith Denver $6,546,000
Chris Chambers Miami $6,516,666
Marvin Harrison Indy $6,400,000
Amani Toomer NY Giants $6,375,000
Muhsin Muhammad Chicago $6,220,000
Chad Johnson Cincy $5,957,000


$7,685,000 Franchise number
$6,990,000 Transistion number

A 20% increase would mean that DB's 2008 salary would be at least $9,222,000.

If DB plays at the level that the Pats think that he will in 2006,2007, and 2008, then Branch is looking at a double-digit signing bonus in 2009.

DB's take during the years 2006 through 2009 would be close to $30 million if we figure a $12 million take in 2009. Compare that to the Patriots's offer of close to $20 million for the same period and I wonder why Branch and his agent do not want to get franchised.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Quigs my man,
You may not realize it but your sig is a political sig.
No place for it here in the football section.

Good comments.