Don Banks on EEI yesterday re Branch

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

An ex-patriot (no name) tells Don Banks that Branch is preparing to hold until week 10?

This is just more Chayut chatter.

A little OT of the thread (and definitely something to get flamed on), but we showcased Cobbs last night, and if Faulk beats him out for the roster (likely) why not dangle him at Denver for Lelie? I know Lelie ain't our "type" of player because of his being disgruntled and holding out, but as time goes by Branch ain't looking a lot different. Denver would want a pick too I imagine.

Anyway, not trying to hijack the thread. I just don't like the looks of our WR corps, and with Branch and his agent becoming a distraction I am open to something radical to get us more set. Or maybe I would love to see Branch get his ass set down in week 10 if/when he showed up because our "need" for him had lessened considerably.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

An ex-patriot (no name) tells Don Banks that Branch is preparing to hold until week 10?

This is just more Chayut chatter.

A little OT of the thread (and definitely something to get flamed on), but we showcased Cobbs last night, and if Faulk beats him out for the roster (likely) why not dangle him at Denver for Lelie? I know Lelie ain't our "type" of player because of his being disgruntled and holding out, but as time goes by Branch ain't looking a lot different. Denver would want a pick too I imagine.

Anyway, not trying to hijack the thread. I just don't like the looks of our WR corps, and with Branch and his agent becoming a distraction I am open to something radical to get us more set. Or maybe I would love to see Branch get his ass set down in week 10 if/when he showed up because our "need" for him had lessened considerably.

I'd use Cobbs as a WR before Lelie.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

I'd use Cobbs as a WR before Lelie.

Hahaha, thats not a bad idea. I knew the voice of reason would come from somewhere.

Or just a one liner to refute.

Anyway, to stick with thread; Branch won't sit to 10.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm thinking that Leinart is looking for top 2 money since he thought he'd be drafted that high. Hope the Cards don't cave-in to that thinking!

Does anyone know of long hold-outs by vets? I seem to recall a flurry of them last year, enough to prompt articles about agents trying to hold the NFL hostage, but most reported before the reg season started I think? Anyone else?

Leinart isn't technically considered a holdout because he's not under contract. The only veteran holdout is Lelie, and his is about as stupid as Branch's. Only in his case because he wants to be a #1 although he plays like a #3 he will likely be traded. Branch is our #1 who wants to be overpaid. He won't get traded because you could never get value for him at this juncture.

If he holds out until week 10 he is not going to get any more than we are already offering on the FA market. If he comes back in week 11 and plays lights out we will franchise him and trade him to the highest bidder. The need to get a trade done in order for him to get any deal will severely limit the takers which in turn limits his market (which is why his agent wants the tag off the table). If he comes back and doesn't put up impact numbers in the last 6 games, one or more of which BB likely won't let him play let alone start in, he is screwed.

The only problem with this is we will also be screwed in the process. And if we give in to him in any fashion, including waiving the tag, we will be screwed in future negotiations. Unlike Seymour he doesn't have a 6th contract season left from which to just advance him some old money to lure him in with the promise of a negotiation in the coming off season. Anything we gave him now would be new money and a win for his holdout. And like with Seymour we can't give him a new deal now that he has held out. Deion is no Seymour, and yet the Pat's made Richard wait for his big new deal until his holdout season was history.

The Branch camp has been talking about his determination to stay out all along, so this is nothing new. But as AZ said name the last player who did? It's not a viable strategy, and BB knows this. The likely scenario is he comes in before week 1 and the Patriots never levy any fines. Chayut somehow tries to spin this as a victory or spin poor Deion as caring more about this team than the FO does. But he's gone after this season.

 

[Water Boy]

Don't know if this was mentioned already, if so, my apologies.

Don Banks said that through information he got from an ex-patriot he wouldn't name, Branch is prepared to sit out until the 10th game!
After watching the game last night, I couldn't help but think, yet again, what a stupid move this is for Branch. He's under contract, he'll only hurt his numbers this year, not to mention garner the rep of being a bad teammate, difficult and unreasonable to deal with.
Are there any other starters out there holding out like this?

I'm pissed as anyone about Branch's holdout, but in my opinion, I don't blame Branch and his agent in terms of their negotiating tactics. The truth is that the Pats need Branch badly this year, and their offense will suffer if he's not on the field. The Pat's have no contingency for replacing Branch if he holds out most of the season, and that gives Branch and his agent considerable leverage.

If Branch holds out until week 10 and is then suspended for the season, I don't think that will deter teams from going after him. I don't think players on other teams will consider him a bad teamate, in fact, many of the me-first types like Law, Milloy, Vinatieri etc. will probably admire the fact that he didn't back down from BB/Pioli.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

Don't know if this was mentioned already, if so, my apologies.

Don Banks said that through information he got from an ex-patriot he wouldn't name, Branch is prepared to sit out until the 10th game!
After watching the game last night, I couldn't help but think, yet again, what a stupid move this is for Branch. He's under contract, he'll only hurt his numbers this year, not to mention garner the rep of being a bad teammate, difficult and unreasonable to deal with.
Are there any other starters out there holding out like this?

If he holds the Pats ransom until game 10 (hence maintaining his free agent status next year), the Pats should tell him "thanks, but no thanks", let him sit out the season, and trade him in the offseason.

 

[Willie55]

Branch was already fragile. If he tries to come back in week 10 and expects to just jump right into it, he'll get killed.

If I was BB, if he did come back in week 10, I would sit him and not let him play. Its not like they would be missing anything if he rotted on the becnh.

 

[Willie55]

The Pat's have no contingency for replacing Branch if he holds out most of the season, and that gives Branch and his agent considerable leverage.

The Patriots have been known to pull trades, ala Ted Washington a few years ago.

 

[upstater1]

I'm pissed as anyone about Branch's holdout, but in my opinion, I don't blame Branch and his agent in terms of their negotiating tactics. The truth is that the Pats need Branch badly this year, and their offense will suffer if he's not on the field. The Pat's have no contingency for replacing Branch if he holds out most of the season, and that gives Branch and his agent considerable leverage.

If Branch holds out until week 10 and is then suspended for the season, I don't think that will deter teams from going after him. I don't think players on other teams will consider him a bad teamate, in fact, many of the me-first types like Law, Milloy, Vinatieri etc. will probably admire the fact that he didn't back down from BB/Pioli.

I bet BB does have a continegncy plan, and you saw it last night. Running the ball and using his tight ends. Sure it's not pretty, but he did it in 2001.

I guarantee that if Branch holds out till late and goes on the market, he makes less than 6.3m average. Especially after Givens flops this year.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

Branch was already fragile. If he tries to come back in week 10 and expects to just jump right into it, he'll get killed.

If I was BB, if he did come back in week 10, I would sit him and not let him play. Its not like they would be missing anything if he rotted on the becnh.

Part of me says let him return on Game 10, make him return punts and give him time at running back and just make him take on bullrushers every snap.

 

[fgssand]

Branch was already fragile. If he tries to come back in week 10 and expects to just jump right into it, he'll get killed.

If I was BB, if he did come back in week 10, I would sit him and not let him play. Its not like they would be missing anything if he rotted on the becnh.

Seems to me he came back in 2004 after having been injured by Neal early on - when he returned, he played lights out the rest of the way.
Branch could come back week 10 and contribute nicely. Maybe it all works out as he will be fresh for playoffs.

Then we franchise him next year - tag him and trade him.

 

[Pats726]

Only other holdout i know of is Matt Leinart. But he isnt a starter so that shouldnt hurt the falcons too much.

Falcons????? Defitely won't hurt them..

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm pissed as anyone about Branch's holdout, but in my opinion, I don't blame Branch and his agent in terms of their negotiating tactics. The truth is that the Pats need Branch badly this year, and their offense will suffer if he's not on the field. The Pat's have no contingency for replacing Branch if he holds out most of the season, and that gives Branch and his agent considerable leverage.

If Branch holds out until week 10 and is then suspended for the season, I don't think that will deter teams from going after him. I don't think players on other teams will consider him a bad teamate, in fact, many of the me-first types like Law, Milloy, Vinatieri etc. will probably admire the fact that he didn't back down from BB/Pioli.

They can't suspend him if he reports in week 10. Although there is no law that says he has to be active or featured or start once he does show up.

While there are many teams who will look the other way on the holdout, they will also have a copy of his resume with a single 900+ season in 5 to counter every word out of Chayut's mouth about Wayne money. It's not that he couldn't find work, it's that he will not make any more than we're already offering, and may make a lot less. That is why if he does that and plays well for the last 4-6 games we will tag and trade him to the highest bidder. And if he can't reach a deal with them he'll be stuck here under the tag with nobody to blame but himself and no choice but to play his ass off in 2007 to try to get a better deal in 2008 when he's 29 and starting all over again with god knows who behind center. It will likely be a guy who doesn't read defenses all that well and relies on a WR's size and speed and ability to seperate to make him look good.

And while players may admire his determination on one level they will also know that he cared more about his money than his teamates and winning, and he will have become the most recent poster child for why the week 10 holdout is a hollow threat unless you are a top 5 player at your position.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

They can't suspend him if he reports in week 10. Although there is no law that says he has to be active or featured or start once he does show up.

But they can inactivate him and tell him not to ever show up at the facility. TB did it with Keyshawn and someone else did it too. They would have to pay him but his fines would roughly equal 6 weeks of pay so he could be told never to show up and he would collect nothing, or close to nothing, for the season.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Seems to me he came back in 2004 after having been injured by Neal early on - when he returned, he played lights out the rest of the way.
Branch could come back week 10 and contribute nicely. Maybe it all works out as he will be fresh for playoffs.

Then we franchise him next year - tag him and trade him.

He came back after a full TC and preseason (he used to practice and play in TC and pre season in those days) which is quite different from returning from a holdout. What a player can do on his own to get or stay fit just does not equate to what is done in camp or practice not to mention game action even when it is pre season. I think we saw the effect of that early last season after BB ran that rather conservative camp and this teams starters came out struggling with execution issues early on in 2005.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

But they can inactivate him and tell him not to ever show up at the facility. TB did it with Keyshawn and someone else did it too. They would have to pay him but his fines would roughly equal 6 weeks of pay so he could be told never to show up and he would collect nothing, or close to nothing, for the season.

I don't think they can unless there is a disciplinary reason beyond the pre season holdout (which both MeShawn had with TB and TO had with Philly). I believe the new TO rule in the CBA will not allow a de-activation even with pay beyond 4 weeks. The NFLPA understands (as BB often says) taking away their stage hurts as much if not more than taking away mere money. And I believe even a short de-activation is appealable and likely would not stand up to an arbitors review unless he reported and then left or mixed it up with a coach in practice or did something else publicly that would constitute damaging the team.

 

[Patjew]

But they can inactivate him and tell him not to ever show up at the facility. TB did it with Keyshawn and someone else did it too. They would have to pay him but his fines would roughly equal 6 weeks of pay so he could be told never to show up and he would collect nothing, or close to nothing, for the season.

Didn't Belichick do that with Glenn in 2001?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I don't think they can unless there is a disciplinary reason beyond the pre season holdout (which both MeShawn had with TB and TO had with Philly). I believe the new TO rule in the CBA will not allow a de-activation even with pay beyond 4 weeks. The NFLPA understands (as BB often says) taking away their stage hurts as much if not more than taking away mere money. And I believe even a short de-activation is appealable and likely would not stand up to an arbitors review unless he reported and then left or mixed it up with a coach in practice or did something else publicly that would constitute damaging the team.

Even if they can't tell him to go away then can certainly de-activate him weekly and still pay him about $0.00 for the year after fines.

 

[mtbykr]

According to Miguel's site, 6/16 of his salary would be about $392K. So he can afford only 28 days of $14K fines before he starts owing money for the year :rocker:

Nice, so if he holds out till the 10th game, then he's playing for free:rocker:

 

[fgssand]

But they can inactivate him and tell him not to ever show up at the facility. TB did it with Keyshawn and someone else did it too. They would have to pay him but his fines would roughly equal 6 weeks of pay so he could be told never to show up and he would collect nothing, or close to nothing, for the season.

Why spite ourselves? Let him come in week 10, pay his fines, basically play for zero this year and then Deion can look forward to being franchised next year.

Now Deion - if you possibly read this, please explain to us how the above situation is better for you then what the Pats offered (as told to us by your agent).

It all just does not make sense. Of course, no panic sets in until at least 1 week before TC.