Branch is bluffing

[upstater1]

The article also says, "As proof of the oral agreement, Kessler cited the Aug. 25 press release in which the Patriots announced their intentions to let Branch seek a trade. The release read, “The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until Sept. 1, 2006.â€
Said Kessler: “The Patriots agreed with the player and his agent that if he could find a team where he could work out his player contract, and that team was willing to provide the Patriots with the type of draft-choice compensation that other teams have received in the past for comparable players, they would make the trade.â€

***

Since the press release constitutes proof the Pats gave Branch permission to seek a trade, it follows that the Pats would expect reasonable compensation. If a second can be shown to be reasonable (and it looks like Kessler has some good examples) then Branch may have a valid grievance. I think a similar game is going on here as went on when BB came to the Pats. A deal is in the works, and all sides are trying to get a little bit of an advantage.

You're assuming way too much. The press release says nothing about compensation. Even though we can infer from it that the Patriots expected some compensation (obviously) who's to say that they didn't insist on a premium for Branch's services.

I used the EBAY example in another post. Go on EBAY and write the words, "Gibson Les Paul Goldtop Reissue."

You'll see some people selling them for $2500. Others will try to sell them for $1600. That's what sets the market. The guy asking for $2500 isn't going to get it very easily, but eventually after a lot of time someone might come along and say, "OK, I'll buy it." The other seller is more desperate and needs money because he has to pay for his daughter's braces.

It's the same thing here. Just because the Patriots countenanced a trade does not mean they were willing to give him away for a 2nd. It could easily mean that the Patriots were dangling him to receive a premium pick.

The Patriots know that they'll get a 2nd rounder for Branch as we approach the draft, so they don't have to worry about trading him now. If someone wants to offer a 1st, then fine.

 

[tkayo]

Branch, Graham, Koppen already know what other teams would be willing to pay for their services. These agents talk with all organizations for their players all the time. Branch's agent already knew what he could get before he decided to hold out. The whole idea that both team and player didn't know what kind of contracts Branch would get on the Market, doesn't take into account that the agents and the teams constantly communicate. The Patriots are trying to get the teams who are tampering with these players to surface, in order to get them to pay higher than what is fair for their player, because they are tampering with players under contract. I don't think that Pats think that Branch is worth a 1st round pick, but that's what its going to take to trade for him because he's under contract with the Patriots.

I think that people inside Denver's front office already tried to leak a desire to trade for him in order to get the patriots to move on it. Graham already knows what teams want him and what they will be willing to pay.

I think Graham and Koppen are already gone after this year, thus the Pats were proactive in drafting replacements. I don't think the Pats thought Branch would hold out for the majority of the season, so they are scrambing at the last minute to try to fill out their roster. But I think that Branch will either be traded for a 1st round pick by Monday or he will be back in camp.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Branch, Graham, Koppen already know what other teams would be willing to pay for their services. These agents talk with all organizations for their players all the time. Branch's agent already knew what he could get before he decided to hold out. The whole idea that both team and player didn't know what kind of contracts Branch would get on the Market, doesn't take into account that the agents and the teams constantly communicate. The Patriots are trying to get the teams who are tampering with these players to surface, in order to get them to pay higher than what is fair for their player, because they are tampering with players under contract. I don't think that Pats think that Branch is worth a 1st round pick, but that's what its going to take to trade for him because he's under contract with the Patriots.

I think that people inside Denver's front office already tried to leak a desire to trade for him in order to get the patriots to move on it. Graham already knows what teams want him and what they will be willing to pay.

I think Graham and Koppen are already gone after this year, thus the Pats were proactive in drafting replacements. I don't think the Pats thought Branch would hold out for the majority of the season, so they are scrambing at the last minute to try to fill out their roster. But I think that Branch will either be traded for a 1st round pick by Monday or he will be back in camp.

Unless you are a fly i BB/SP office, what makes you think Koppen or Graham are gone ?

The pats are $12 Mill under the cap, and certainly will have lot more room next year. This is not to say these guys will or will not be here. However, to make a statement to the effect Koppen and Grahambo are gone next year is assanine.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Boston Herald had an interesting article today:

"Branch’s side plans to highlight a number of players traded in the past year for second-round picks or lower, such as Dolphins quarterback Daunte Culpepper (second), Broncos receiver Javon Walker (second) and Eagles wideout Donte’ Stallworth (conditional third or fourth, plus backup linebacker Mark Simoneau). Players Association attorney Richard Berthelsen also noted that Branch was selected at the end of the second round with the 65th overall pick in 2002.
The goal, Kessler said, is to force the Patriots to accept the second-round pick and send Branch to the Jets."

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=155742

Until I read that, I thought that Branch did not have a valid grievance, but now I think that at least he can make a good case.

Why, because the Dolphins traded a #2 for a QB who was demanding a raise or a trade after being embroiled in one of the most embarrassing off season escapades (particularly for a team in disarray trying to get taxpayers to build them a new state of the arrt stadium) he could have chosen to be a part of to underscore his lack of leadership? Not to mention he was coming off a string of the worst performances of his career capped by a severe knee injury that until this month was believed to require over a year to fully recover from.

Or because the Broncos traded a #2 for a WR with one breakout season who hadn't played in over a year since and was not projected to be ready for TC or the pre season, if the season because he too had suffered a severe knee injury? Or because the Eagles (who publicly stated they thought the contract Branch had already declined was his value) preferred to trade a conditional draft pick and a player for a disgruntled #2 WR on his former team whose #1 describes him as immature? While Brady describes Branch as the single most inportant player on the Patriots offense....

And none of these other players has been signed to a multi year deal by the team he was traded to with anything approaching the guaranteed money Branch has apparently been offered...Stallworth (and Lelie) got nothing but out of town (and Lelie still owes the Broncos his fines and one fifth of his signing bonus which he and Atlanta agreed to pay as part of his trade price), Walker and Culpepper are on short leash deals than can be terminated early without much dead cap consequence if they don't pan out.

If Tom Brady demanded a trade tomorrow and we told him to shop around would we be limited to a #2 for him as well? After all Culpepper has been a co-MVP of the League and 3 time Pro Bowler and was drafted 188 places ahead of Brady in the preceding year's draft...

So, what I think is going on right now is that the Jets and Branch are really moving to prevent a trade to the Seahawks (which BB would probably prefer), and meanwhile BB is making things difficult in the hope of getting the Jets to sweeten the pot. I'm thinking Branch will go to the Jets and we'll get their better second or a second and something else.

I'm thinking we will get what Belioli feels constitutes value for trading the remaining year of Branch's service at apparently $5M under market ( ) and the ability to control him longer via the franchise tag - or he will not be traded.

 

[fgssand]

I'm thinking we will get what Belioli feels constitutes value for trading the remaining year of Branch's service at apparently $5M under market ( ) and the ability to control him longer via the franchise tag - or he will not be traded.

Yes, now that makes sense and there should be real value received in return for parting with a #1 priced right for this year and also, via franchise tag able to be priced somewhat reasonably next year as well.

Those are the facts that should be considered when they rush to judgment along with the fact he is 100% healthy and productive.

But will they consider these things or is the deck stacked in the favor of Upshaw & the NFLPA??

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I'm not saying that Branch has an open and shut case, but he does have a good argument, especially if the verbal agreement used a phrase like "reasonable compensation." In that case, the question would be who gets to determine what reasonable compensation is. I think there's a presumption that when the Pats gave Branch permission to seek a trade they were acting in good faith. I see these technicalities as a legal grounds for an arbitrator to rule in Branch's favor. That said, I do think that the Pats are in a stronger position, but maybe not as strong as some of us thought.

Branch's team has concocted the whole "reasonable compensation based on similar deals" phrase. The Patriots never said it or wrote it. Berthelson is saying that by allowing the trade scenario to take place, the Patriots implicitly meant that. It is total fabrication. They've already made many fans like yourself believe the Pats actually stated that, when that never happened.

 

[vapatsfan]

The release read, “The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until Sept. 1, 2006.”
Said Kessler: “The Patriots agreed with the player and his agent that if he could find a team where he could work out his player contract, and that team was willing to provide the Patriots with the type of draft-choice compensation that other teams have received in the past for comparable players, they would make the trade.”

Edit- same post as 40 year...

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The article also says, "As proof of the oral agreement, Kessler cited the Aug. 25 press release in which the Patriots announced their intentions to let Branch seek a trade. The release read, “The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until Sept. 1, 2006.â€
Said Kessler: “The Patriots agreed with the player and his agent that if he could find a team where he could work out his player contract, and that team was willing to provide the Patriots with the type of draft-choice compensation that other teams have received in the past for comparable players, they would make the trade.â€

***

Since the press release constitutes proof the Pats gave Branch permission to seek a trade, it follows that the Pats would expect reasonable compensation. If a second can be shown to be reasonable (and it looks like Kessler has some good examples) then Branch may have a valid grievance. I think a similar game is going on here as went on when BB came to the Pats. A deal is in the works, and all sides are trying to get a little bit of an advantage.

You miss one big point however. Does "seek a trade and negotiate a contract" constitute, legally speaking, abdication of the New England Patriot's right to sign an agreement that involves them? Does it abdicate their legal right to accept or refuse any deal regarding a New England player under contract? In essence their freedom to accept or reject a contract? If that terse press release abdicated the Patriot's rights on a player under contract, I think lawyers are way overpaid. The verbose wording, the fine print, the henceforth's, the contained in paragraph 9's are grossly overused. Future contracts can be 'You own this house, sign here'. 'You own this car, sign here'. The verbose contract's purpose is to leave no doubt. It is to leave as little gray area as possible. Now hey, maybe Chayut honestly thought he had a free hand to make a deal that would be binding as long as the Patriots received what others, but obviously not the Patriots, consider fair compensation. Maybe he honestly thought that. The Patriot's obviously didn't think that. We have a disagreement of so let's go to the contract to determine who is right..."The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until Sept. 1, 2006.". Doesn't say the Patriots will sign anything. Doesn't say the Patriots are abdicating a thing. (Maybe the CBA has language in reference to a situation like this). Again, here is where the verbose would have helped. But since it is one big gray area, the idea that a court would find from this press release the Patriots were abdicating their freedom to execute deals involving their contracts seems insane. A judge would have to take a huge, gigantic leap of faith and conclude, without any written document and likely without any spoken word, that the Patriots intentions were to abdicate their freedom in this matter. Think about it. The Patriots gave up their freedom to execute and not execute a contract from that press release?? I'll say it again. This can't win on its MERITS (though merits sometimes are not the important factor in an arbitration). This must be about agent tactics to turn the heat up on the Patriot FO and maybe even the NFL to get Deoin the amount of money they feel he deserves. You can argue the Patriots should offer DB more. I just don't see how, in any way, that press release could be concocted as a release of rights.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

The Boston Herald had an interesting article today:

"Branch’s side plans to highlight a number of players traded in the past year for second-round picks or lower, such as Dolphins quarterback Daunte Culpepper (second), Broncos receiver Javon Walker (second) and Eagles wideout Donte’ Stallworth (conditional third or fourth, plus backup linebacker Mark Simoneau). Players Association attorney Richard Berthelsen also noted that Branch was selected at the end of the second round with the 65th overall pick in 2002.
The goal, Kessler said, is to force the Patriots to accept the second-round pick and send Branch to the Jets."

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=155742

Until I read that, I thought that Branch did not have a valid grievance, but now I think that at least he can make a good case.

So, what I think is going on right now is that the Jets and Branch are really moving to prevent a trade to the Seahawks (which BB would probably prefer), and meanwhile BB is making things difficult in the hope of getting the Jets to sweeten the pot. I'm thinking Branch will go to the Jets and we'll get their better second or a second and something else.

Nah, they cherry picked a few examples, two of which were coming off torn ACLs.

How about #2 WR Peerless Price for a #1 a few years ago ? How about injury prone John Abraham for a #1 this offseason ?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

You miss one big point however. Does "seek a trade and negotiate a contract" constitute, legally speaking, abdication of the New England Patriot's right to sign an agreement that involves them? Does it abdicate their legal right to accept or refuse any deal regarding a New England player under contract? In essence their freedom to accept or reject a contract? If that terse press release abdicated the Patriot's rights on a player under contract, I think lawyers are way overpaid. The verbose wording, the fine print, the henceforth's, the contained in paragraph 9's are grossly overused. Future contracts can be 'You own this house, sign here'. 'You own this car, sign here'. The verbose contract's purpose is to leave no doubt. It is to leave as little gray area as possible. Now hey, maybe Chayut honestly thought he had a free hand to make a deal that would be binding as long as the Patriots received what others, but obviously not the Patriots, consider fair compensation. Maybe he honestly thought that. The Patriot's obviously didn't think that. We have a disagreement of so let's go to the contract to determine who is right..."The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until Sept. 1, 2006.". Doesn't say the Patriots will sign anything. Doesn't say the Patriots are abdicating a thing. (Maybe the CBA has language in reference to a situation like this). Again, here is where the verbose would have helped. But since it is one big gray area, the idea that a court would find from this press release the Patriots were abdicating their freedom to execute deals involving their contracts seems insane. A judge would have to take a huge, gigantic leap of faith and conclude, without any written document and likely without any spoken word, that the Patriots intentions were to abdicate their freedom in this matter. Think about it. The Patriots gave up their freedom to execute and not execute a contract from that press release?? I'll say it again. This can't win on its MERITS (though merits sometimes are not the important factor in an arbitration). This must be about agent tactics to turn the heat up on the Patriot FO and maybe even the NFL to get Deoin the amount of money they feel he deserves. You can argue the Patriots should offer DB more. I just don't see how, in any way, that press release could be concocted as a release of rights.

I'm with you. If I tell someone they are free to make an offer on my house it doesn't make me obligated to sell it to them for a value that is set by someone else.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I'm with you. If I tell someone they are free to make an offer on my house it doesn't make me obligated to sell it to them for a value that is set by someone else.

Speaking of verbose! I go ahead and write that long post when I could have wrote 2 sentences, like yours, and I'm done. That is a good example. Another example might be 2 owners of one car. They can't decide on what to sell it for. So owner X says to owner Y 'you can seek and negotiate a price for the car'. Owner Y comes back and tells owner X that it's 10k and a done deal. Owner X says I don't think so. Owner Y says somewhat similar cars go for that amount so it is fair. Owner Y also says Owner X gave up his rights to NOT sign off on the deal because of what he said. Doesn't seem anywhere on the same planet as what is right. We'll see what this arbitration decides IF it ever gets there.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

I think there is a very good chance that Branch could gain some leverage with this grievance. He is most likely gone, and of the two teams with the offer his better chance for comfort and success is with Mangini in NY.

I would not be surprised if the Patriots have already come to terms with Seattle on a trade, but Seattle is awaiting the grievance outcome before pulling the trigger. Last thing they would want would be a headline trade announced, to have it yanked by arbitration and branch shipped to the Jets days later.

Branch being given permission to seek a trade from the Pats is testament to agreeing to reasonable negotitation and the killing term; good faith. The Patriots may have been acting strictly for Branch to obtain market value, but that does not give them the privilege of acting as such after the fact. By allowing to seek a trade they made a "good faith" agreement to trade should something fair come along. Don't fall for the nothing is in writing so it ain;t worth squat argument-that won't fly here unless the FO actually produces a document that was served to Chayut and Branch stating it would take a minimum of X for them to agree to a trade. If it was really as simple as fair compensation the only debate becomes what is fair compensation.

I actually think the FO wanted Branch traded, and obviously want top exchange for him, that was the real reason for giving him permission to seek a trade in the first place. I know most arguments were that they wanted to restart negotiations, or have Branch learn his real value which they assumingly undervalued, but I believe trading him was the motivation all along.

Calling up some teams and shopping Branch is bargaining from a point of weakness, sending him out to find his own deal and making it appear to be for other reasons keeps your hole cards covered.

I will wager a 20 spot to Miguels cousins sisters housekeepers sons girlfriends moms charity that it boils down to the Jets this year, or next. Seattle was used for money inflation and to show another teams interest.....Branch/Chayut are angling for NY.

Either way, the Pats lose this one. Damn.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I would not be surprised if the Patriots have already come to terms with Seattle on a trade, but Seattle is awaiting the grievance outcome before pulling the trigger. Last thing they would want would be a headline trade announced, to have it yanked by arbitration and branch shipped to the Jets days later.

Seattle would want to do a trade - if we lose the grievance, the player would go to NY not Seattle - and if we make a trade the player would cancel the grievance as he'd have what he wants.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

By allowing to seek a trade they made a "good faith" agreement to trade should something fair come along. Don't fall for the nothing is in writing so it ain;t worth squat argument-that won't fly here

It flies in a court of law I believe, why would it not fly here? Unless the Patriot intention was to allow Branch to consumate a trade if it was believed fair, who even decides fair is a whole different ballgame, by others outside of the Patriot FO, Team Branch will have to show the Patriots did so anyway by contract regardless of their intention. 'seek and negotiate a trade' is so vague as to determine almost no fine print. You don't give up your written, contractual right because of a couple of sentences in a fax unless it is clear in its wording. You give it up if you contractually stated so, which they did not unless I am unaware of further documentation, or that was your intention and stated it so. The argument of either 'it seemed to me regardless of what it seemed to them' or 'it was agreed upon and they're lying' by Team Branch won't fly. Either they have paper documentation above and beyond the terse fax, or they have some very distinct words spoken in a conversation. Words that can be proven by more than the dubious nature of an agent. Again, merits are not there but merits don't always decide an arbitration. Bottom line, if Branch goes to the Jets for only a #2? We got shafted! I would rather have a #3 or #4 from Seattle than to help the Jets. But see that's where the argument also lives. Why is it that the Patriots can't determine that for themselves about their own contractually obligated player? A player they can simply franchise next year and guarantee the bigger compensation. Cause of a terse ' seek and negotiate' fax?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

By allowing to seek a trade they made a "good faith" agreement to trade should something fair come along. Don't fall for the nothing is in writing so it ain;t worth squat argument-that won't fly here unless the FO actually produces a document that was served to Chayut and Branch stating it would take a minimum of X for them to agree to a trade. If it was really as simple as fair compensation the only debate becomes what is fair compensation.

To further my other point, if I put my house up for sale with a realtor with a certain asking price that is going further than the Patriots who, in essence, put Branch up for sale but without an asking price. Back to my house, if someone offers what I asked for I am not obligated to sell until I sign the papers agreeing to the transaction. The whole concept is nutty.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Bottom line, if Branch goes to the Jets for only a #2? We got shafted! I would rather have a #3 or #4 from Seattle than to help the Jets.

I'm actually OK either way. Worst case, the Redskins' #2 for the jesters to overpay an above average WR is fine with me. We've replaced him with a guy who's owed $600K in 2007, let the jesters pay ten times that - and give us a draft choice.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Seattle would want to do a trade - if we lose the grievance, the player would go to NY not Seattle - and if we make a trade the player would cancel the grievance as he'd have what he wants.

Thats the point I was making. If a deal was/is in the works with Seattle that the Pats FO feels good about, Seattle probably wants nothing to do with it before the hearing in the event the Pats lose and he ships to the Jets. No point to consummate and bring him in if he is down the road days later.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Thats the point I was making. If a deal was/is in the works with Seattle that the Pats FO feels good about, Seattle probably wants nothing to do with it before the hearing in the event the Pats lose and he ships to the Jets. No point to consummate and bring him in if he is down the road days later.

If Seattle and the Patriots consumated a deal, the player would almost certainly cancel the hearing as there would be no point - he would have his money. So the player wouldn't be down the road as there would be no hearing to send him that way.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

It flies in a court of law I believe, why would it not fly here? Unless the Patriot intention was to allow Branch to consumate a trade if it was believed fair, who even decides fair is a whole different ballgame, by others outside of the Patriot FO, Team Branch will have to show the Patriots did so anyway by contract regardless of their intention. 'seek and negotiate a trade' is so vague as to determine almost no fine print. You don't give up your written, contractual right because of a couple of sentences in a fax unless it is clear in its wording. You give it up if you contractually stated so, which they did not unless I am unaware of further documentation, or that was your intention and stated it so. The argument of either 'it seemed to me regardless of what it seemed to them' or 'it was agreed upon and they're lying' by Team Branch won't fly. Either they have paper documentation above and beyond the terse fax, or they have some very distinct words spoken in a conversation. Words that can be proven by more than the dubious nature of an agent. Again, merits are not there but merits don't always decide an arbitration. Bottom line, if Branch goes to the Jets for only a #2? We got shafted! I would rather have a #3 or #4 from Seattle than to help the Jets. But see that's where the argument also lives. Why is it that the Patriots can't determine that for themselves about their own contractually obligated player? A player they can simply franchise next year and guarantee the bigger compensation. Cause of a terse ' seek and negotiate' fax?

I disagree. In some instances oral agreements are binding and legally enforceable, particularly more so in business regards. And as I stated I think if nothing in documentation states specifically what the Patriots FO was willing to allow as their compensation as a minimum, and relied only on a simepl oral "fair compensation in line with past players of caliber/situation", then that becomes enforceable with "fair compensation" being what needs be defined.

The grievance alleges that the Patriots said (assumingly) shop for a trade, if you find one with adequate compensation we will trade you off. This is where the good faith clause comes into play. chayut has every reason to believe that if he neogtiates a contract somewhere else, and if that team offers "fair compensation" to the Patriots, then the deal will consummate. That is working in "good faith". His claim is that the Patriots are not behaving in good faith by failing to uphold their end of the bargain.

If the Patriots specified what would be required that changes everything, but it is because it appears the details were so vague that it will require a third party to identify and define what they are.

I hate every aspect of this whole mess, and I hope my hunch is wrong and way off base and Branch ends up in Seattle, instead of the Jets if thats the way it goes. But I truly believe (from consideration and not panic) that the Pats may have outsmarted themselves on this one.

But thats just an opinion, for which I wish to be in error having.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

If Seattle and the Patriots consumated a deal, the player would almost certainly cancel the hearing as there would be no point - he would have his money. So the player wouldn't be down the road as there would be no hearing to send him that way.

assuming Branch is happy with only the money. IF the monies are even (as it sounds they are) I think he prefers being with Mangini in NY. And if he does and believes the hearing will go that route, why not ride it out and win all the way around?

He knows the offense Mangini will run, it's close to where he has settled his family, and he gets the chance to play against the Pats. Versus Holmgren, a WC offense, and a 3200 mile relocate.

But hey, who knows what he wants these days. A few months ago I thought he wanted to be a Patriot.