Branch Speaks: "I have three kids. I take care of them. Not the Patriots."

[upstater1]

Sure, it's all part of the rules of the league, but there is still a definition of right and wrong outside of the given rules. I happen to believe what Deion was doing was unfair and unethical. Self-interest is OK and natural up to a certain point.

Well, do you think it's unethical when owners break a player contract?

 

[RI Pats Fan]

Football players, Transit workers, or teachers.... whatever it is, Americans do not like strikes and those who do them. I'm a union guy, I'm not looking forward to the looks of passerbys when we're in picket lines if it comes to that, that's for sure.

 

[BradyManny]

How is that more unethical than ownership that signs a player to a huge deal and has no intention paying the bulk of it at the end?

What's so unethical about that? The players know going in that the dummy years are built in. It's not like they are tricking the players. It's both the players and the owners agreeing to trick the salary cap.

People need to stop with the whole 'keep his word' BS. It has nothing to do with anything. Branch is doing what the CBA allows him to do. It is WRITTEN IN. He didn't do some sort of weird deception.

No, but what if everyone in the league did as Branch did and decided they all deserved raises? Basically you'd have a strike.

 

[PatsRI]

How is that more unethical than ownership that signs a player to a huge deal and has no intention paying the bulk of it at the end?

People need to stop with the whole 'keep his word' BS. It has nothing to do with anything. Branch is doing what the CBA allows him to do. It is WRITTEN IN. He didn't do some sort of weird deception.

.

So if Dan Koppen, Asante Samuel, Ty Warren and Dan Graham all decide tomorrow to hold out because they want more money it'll be OK. Hey, why not Maroney, did better than Dillon yesterday and makes alot less. Where does it stop if we all just say OK guys go get whatever money you think you deserve. Should it be guarenteed contracts. It seems that alot of ex-NFL guys say that wouldn't work because you have to play in too much pain in the NFL and that would take alot of incentive to play through the pain away, knowing someone can take your job. It's been said before many times the players should look to their own union before complaining about the rules. Like I posted earlier if it's alright to call teams cheap then by the same token we can call the players greedy. Deion knew what he was doing, he did it well but I'm sure his agent told him he'd take a PR hit in New England. He has his new contract to make him feel better if we're hurting his feelings otherwise I think fans have the right to vent. From a selfish standpoint it's a quality of game issue for me. I LIKE the way the NFL does business right now. I'll take it over any other league including the NCAA who are the biggest frauds in the world. I love college football but when you have books being written about how the NFL is like the "slave trade" maybe they should be looking at an orginization that makes millions off players who don't get 1 dime (legally). That's another rant though

 

[upstater1]

What's so unethical about that? The players know going in that the dummy years are built in. It's not like they are tricking the players. It's both the players and the owners agreeing to trick the salary cap.

Well, Willie McGinest must have missed that memo because he didn't consider it a dummy year, that's for sure.

 

[maverick4]

Well, Willie McGinest must have missed that memo because he didn't consider it a dummy year, that's for sure.

Right. I highly doubt it's always wink-winked as a dummy year with the player. Are owners 'breaking their word' when they cut someone?

Also, this got lost in the thread, but Branch actually HAS a kid with a debilitating disease that could easily wipe out his fortune in a short amount of time.

.

 

[upstater1]

Of the players you mentioned, only Warren would have the leverage (I wasn't aware he's in his last year of contract). Because Graham, Samuel and Koppen are not going to make more than the Patriots would offer them by sitting out. They maximize their earnings by playing. With Deion that wasn't necessarily the case. Maroney gains nothing because he has a longer term contract and he would be an old man before he saw another down of football with a new contract.

This scenario is specific for stars in the league who are in their last year of a contract. Otherwise, the players have no leverage under the CBA.

 

[PatsRI]

Well, Willie McGinest must have missed that memo because he didn't consider it a dummy year, that's for sure.

Actually I thought back in Feb or March before he was cut he admitted that a new deal had to be done because he did know it was a "dummy" year.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

People need to stop with the whole 'keep his word' BS. It has nothing to do with anything. Branch is doing what the CBA allows him to do. It is WRITTEN IN. He didn't do some sort of weird deception.

That argument has already been ripped to shreds and debated ad infinitum in another thread months back. Limited punishments being specified in the CBA for a violation is not the same thing as the CBA 'allowing' said action.

Doesn't matter. I'm done with it and no longer care. He's gone, we got more than I expected for him, the only thing left for me to waste my gray matter on is where in the first round that pick is gonna be, my hope that the Patriots do to Mr. Branch what the Donks did to Mr. Lelie, and to root on my team regardless of who's catching Brady's bombs.

 

[PatsRI]

Of the players you mentioned, only Warren would have the leverage (I wasn't aware he's in his last year of contract). Because Graham, Samuel and Koppen are not going to make more than the Patriots would offer them by sitting out. They maximize their earnings by playing. With Deion that wasn't necessarily the case. Maroney gains nothing because he has a longer term contract and he would be an old man before he saw another down of football with a new contract.

This scenario is specific for stars in the league who are in their last year of a contract. Otherwise, the players have no leverage under the CBA.

Leverage? Is that in the CBA rules also? I thought we were talking about what a player CAN or CAN'T do (side issue here, is it still rude to use caps in a forum like this, I never considered it shouting but as a point of emphasis) under the CBA. Obviously those other guys would get laughed at but they could do it if they wanted right? Would it be as acceptable as Deion's is? Or is it that maybe some fans value Deion more than others just like if Ggaham did it some might think he deserves it (probably not many) while others don't. Again it's about value, the valur the team has for a player, the value the player has for himself and then the value fans perceive a player is worth. That's where the opinions are formed I think.

 

[maverick4]

Again it's about value, the valur the team has for a player, the value the player has for himself and then the value fans perceive a player is worth. That's where the opinions are formed I think.

I completely agree with you, and admit that given our depth, I wanted Deion back at his price, while in a different situation, say with Graham, I would get pissed off if he did the same thing. Our individual valuations of players affect our reactions.

.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

PatsRI, well said, but I have a different opinion on this whole 'honoring your contract' argument regarding Branch. It seems to me that holding out IS allowed as part of the contract, and the contract stipulates certain penalties for doing so. Similar to how the Patriots can cut any player without paying the rest of that man's contract, I think the players are entitled to any weapons at their disposal, as stipulated under their signed agreements.

I personally believe a man's word and reputation is sacred, but for this situation, all this 'keeping your word' stuff doesn't ring with me. It seems that Deion's move is legal and not 'breaking his word' under the current contracts and rules.

A 1st round choice is probably as good as we could have hoped for, but would you rather have our old Deion or that 2007 draft pick? The answer is obvious. We have a SB caliber team this year, and his actions have weakend that team. We have a right to be PO'd about it.

Branch certainly was entitled to request a renegotiation, but not to hold out and file baseless lawsuits. He broke his legal contract with the team as well as his moral contract with his teammates and fans. He was offered a huge contract extension by the team that made him what he is today, and should have negotiated with the Patriots for a deal that was fair. That was the right thing to do.

The fact that he got away with this power play makes it doubly wrong and hard to accept. He should have been forced to work within the parameters of his contract, not break the contract and then be enriched by those actions.

Invoking his children only proves that he has no moral compass, and no moral argument that he can make for himself. He's in the wrong, he knows it, and he should be embarassed for his actions. The whole sorry episode was disgraceful. Someday he will realize how wrong his actions were.

 

[upstater1]

Actually I thought back in Feb or March before he was cut he admitted that a new deal had to be done because he did know it was a "dummy" year.

Who knows? Recently, he changed his tune. He had some gripes about being cut. Certainly, his contract wasn't absurd. I think he was being paid too much, but it wasn't a ridiculous amount.

 

[upstater1]

Leverage? Is that in the CBA rules also? I thought we were talking about what a player CAN or CAN'T do (side issue here, is it still rude to use caps in a forum like this, I never considered it shouting but as a point of emphasis) under the CBA. Obviously those other guys would get laughed at but they could do it if they wanted right? Would it be as acceptable as Deion's is? Or is it that maybe some fans value Deion more than others just like if Ggaham did it some might think he deserves it (probably not many) while others don't. Again it's about value, the valur the team has for a player, the value the player has for himself and then the value fans perceive a player is worth. That's where the opinions are formed I think.

Well, of course it's all about leverage. The CBA caters to the stars. The whole league does. The union nor the NFL office nor the TV guys give a crap about your average player.

By the way, I never argued that this is good for the league or for the fans. It's good for the players. But then again, getting cut isn't good for the players.

A week ago I was arguing how stupid Branch was and I was cussing him with every name in the book. Now, if he stood before me, I couldn't say anything bad about him because I believe the facts are on his side. He proved I was wrong. I do think he ****ed over the fans, but I'm just as mad that the CBA and the NFL allowed him to.

 

[Miguel]

They succeeded in retroactively cancelling the 5th year of preexisting contracts for 2nd round picks around the NFL.

When and where did that happen???

 

[JR4]

To hold out against an organization like the Patriots it can’t just be about money.

I'd LOVE to know what the greedy ass jerk means by this.

Yeah ... I was wondering what he meant by that. One thing I thought of
was that Branch and Belichick had different ideas of what his value to the
team was.
That view point of value by each was expressed in terms of contract dollars.
So in a sense it isn't just the money ... Branch may have been thinking
their offer doesn't say they value me very highly.

Another possibility is Branch saw BB/SP essentially saying we are not
ripping up the last year of your contract in order to make a point to other
players that the last year of a contract is expected to be fullfilled.

So from Branch's point of view he saw the real obstacle being something
more than just money.

 

[DrewWho?]

Have you ever heard of loyalty to the people who made you who you were?

loyalty??? you gotta be kidding me. he can be cut by the team at any point... what loyalty?? he had the leverage and he used it – good for him. not pointing fingers or anything, but at times these pretentious high morale posts just to make the poster feel good about him/herself are driving me nuts. Loyalty to an employer? – give me a break. We are not talking about family or motherland here. we talking about fricking employer. Come on.

and it works out for the team.... long term that is. but they took a step back in 2006.

 

[jct]

Sorry Branch.
I have no love or remorse for you.
I won't be surprised when they figure out just how ordinary you are.

 

[Brownfan80]

"To hold out against an organization like the Patriots it can’t just be about money. Money’s always involved because this is a business. They let you know that from the first day you come into the NFL. But to go through this and stay strong, money can’t be your main purpose."

As I read this quote I was reminded of the quotes that Willie let fly when he signed with the Browns. Something to the effect of him not wanting to be involved in what was going on with the Patriots these days.

Branch's comments seem to indicate something deeper than money was involved, as did McG's. Is it lip service to hide greed? Or is there really some player led movement against the FO in the lockerroom? I have a feeling we won't know for years, but when we do finally know, I hope it sheds some light on everything that we've scratched our heads about through the years.

I'd read that book.

 

[Willie55]

Sorry Branch.
I have no love or remorse for you.
I won't be surprised when they figure out just how ordinary you are.

Branch isn't made for the West Coast offense. If I understand the theory behind the offense is the receivers run short routes and then gain yards after the catch. Branch doesn't do that. He turtles. The only time he runs is when he has open field. If he catches the ball in traffic he goes down.