Holdouts work!

[mgteich]

Isn't this the message for Graham, Koppen and Samuel, and whoever comes after?

Apparently, the last year of a contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The front office made a strategic error by not trading Branch months ago, perhaps even before the draft. By waiting, they may have gotten a 1st instead of a second, but they are no minus one starting receiver, which wouldn't have been the case earlier, unless we believe that Gabriel was the best deal that we could have made.

I suspect that Kraft was pressured to take care of this situation. Instead of waiting for a ruling. We could probably have gotten about as much in March.

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that Graham didn't act in the same way as Branch.

And please, please the next time I say that we need Graham insurance or Koppen insurance (Mills and extending Hochstein), please don't all tell me how we keep our players, and should ignore the possibility of starters leaving.

We needed Branch and Givens insurance. We got Jackson; we needed another last year.

In the end, it is clear that the ultimatum should have been made months ago, so that we could have acted, with perhaps Stallworth playing for the patriots.

The bottom line is that we will go on. We have a fine team. We have $10M or so of cap money to push forward into 2007 or 2008, rather than getting current value. We have a 2007 first, instead of current value. In other words, we are playing 2006 with $10M less spent on improving the team, and a first round draft pick less (or perhaps a second).

Does anyone think that we would be sitting with a weakness at WR and $10M of cap money, if we knew in May that Branch was leaving?

A first is great for 2007 and 2008, as is the cap money (more likely into 2009 or 2010). However, we just might have a posiiton or two that we might have improved in 2006.

 

[Clonamery]

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that Graham didn't act in the same way as Branch.

Yes, not every player is a dirtbag and lacks integrity.

Some play out their contracts due to lingering injuries and questions of ability and because they feel it is the right thing to do. And some because they have little leverage.

 

[Digger44]

yes holdouts work. we held our ground and got a first rounf draft pick, when nobody wanted to offer more than a second round pic. Great job BB & SP. Now lets pray for the curse to take place.

 

[brady2brown]

Isn't this the message for Graham, Koppen and Samuel, and whoever comes after?

Two things you may have missed.

One is that contract length is now standardized, so there is no longer any hard feelings about being "forced" to sign for longer than "normal."

Second is that if we lose all our players a year early in return for a first round pick for each of them, we'll soon have a team comprised of 53 first round picks and will be the first team in NFL history to win 35 consecutive superbowls.

In the end, it is clear that the ultimatum should have been made months ago.

Well, yeah, using hindsight it is easy to see what "should" have been done. In the end, it is clear we should have checked flights leaving Boston for boxcutters five years ago, and in the end, San Diego should not have pick Ryan Leaf.

You make the best decisions you can make at the time. Kraft does it the smart businessman way. Hire the best people you can, and have them make the best decisions they can. Many of us feel we know so much more than BB and SP (Bobs My Uncle and Felger come to mind) and believe that by watching ESPN and a few televised games we know more that the entire Patriots organiztaion of full-time employees. The fact is we are all pissing in the wind and talking out of our butts.

But it's still fun, isn't it?

 

[Murphys95]

I guess it depends on what the individual players is hoping to attain via holding out. If it's money - then you're probably right. If it's prestige, integrity, or respect - then no, the holdout doesn't necessarily work. I mean, do the names Sean Gilbert, Joey Galloway, and Deion Branch exude integrity?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Actually, I think Branch did a lot more harm than good for his fellow players who may be in similar position some day.

The reason this ended poorly is that the Patriots did something they did not need to do -- they offered to let him seek a trade. He and his scumbag agent used that generosity, and exploited it, turning it into leverage and creating an intollerable situation.

The reality is that a team that has basically defined the hard-nose it's-just-business style that every other team now emulates got uncarachertistically soft and sentimental for their former superbowl MVP. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess. But I can virtually guarantee that Deion Branch is the last holdout player on any team for the foreseeable future to be offered a chance to seek a trade. From now on, the standard response is going to be "play or don't, pay your fine, see you in week 10."

 

[RayClay]

The Pats didn't have to trade him. They could have let him hold out, collected all his fines, used him for the stretch run, then traded or franchised him.

Maybe they'll do that to the next guy just to shock him.

 

[Patters]

If your goal was to punish Branch, then I guess you lost, and the season is over for you. I'm more interested in doing what's right for the Pats, and I'm sure that's what BB did. We got the Seahawks #1, got rid of a distraction that would have dragged on with grievances and lawsuits, and now we can get back to the game of football.

 

[PromisedLand]

We are all ASSUMING that when the Pats gave Chayut and Branch permission to seek a trade that they did not want to trade him. We ASSUME that they didn't think he would be able to find a deal better than we offered him to stay.

What if that was NOT the plan? What if BB/SP/RK had decided that

a) Branch was not going to play this season until week 11, and even then perhaps without energy, unless they paid him more than they thought he was worth?

b) That IF they could get appropriate value in return, such as a first round pick, it was better to have that value than a digruntled distraction who was not going to play for you anyway, and was not going to re-sign with you?

I think this theory is just as plausible, perhaps more plausible, than the theory that BB/SP erred in underestimating Dirt Bag's value and never intended to trade him.

 

[RI Pats Fan]

If your goal was to punish Branch, then I guess you lost, and the season is over for you. I'm more interested in doing what's right for the Pats, and I'm sure that's what BB did. We got the Seahawks #1, got rid of a distraction that would have dragged on with grievances and lawsuits, and now we can get back to the game of football.

Patters, you voice of reason you, how are you doing?

 

[Patjew]

Armed robbery or selling crack can work, too, but it doesn't mean that everyone does it.

 

[mgteich]

Hindsight? Nope! On this board, we discussed this issue before last season when the patriots were hardnozed with Givens. We discussed then that Givens would seek free agency and that Branch would do the same the year after. We all discussed the necessity of extending Branch or losing him. When Seymour held out and won, we "knew" that bb would hold the line from then on. So, when it was clear what the market would bear (certainly by the time Givens signed), it was time to trade Branch. We were never going to pay Branch what he would get from elsewhere.

In any case, it's all over, and Gabriel was signed to replace Branch instead of using any of the $12M cap stash.

Two things you may have missed.

One is that contract length is now standardized, so there is no longer any hard feelings about being "forced" to sign for longer than "normal."

Second is that if we lose all our players a year early in return for a first round pick for each of them, we'll soon have a team comprised of 53 first round picks and will be the first team in NFL history to win 35 consecutive superbowls.


Well, yeah, using hindsight it is easy to see what "should" have been done. In the end, it is clear we should have checked flights leaving Boston for boxcutters five years ago, and in the end, San Diego should not have pick Ryan Leaf.

You make the best decisions you can make at the time. Kraft does it the smart businessman way. Hire the best people you can, and have them make the best decisions they can. Many of us feel we know so much more than BB and SP (Bobs My Uncle and Felger come to mind) and believe that by watching ESPN and a few televised games we know more that the entire Patriots organiztaion of full-time employees. The fact is we are all pissing in the wind and talking out of our butts.

But it's still fun, isn't it?

 

[RI Pats Fan]

Armed robbery or selling crack can work, too, but it doesn't mean that everyone does it.

Yes, I compare not showing up to work to armed robbery and peddling drugs too.

 

[ATippett56]

Why is it that NFL wide receivers are a royal pain in the arse:

Terry Glenn (suspended by Belichick)
Keyshawn Johnson (suspended by John Gruden)
Terrell Owens (suspended by Andy Reid)
Joey Galloway (holdout with Seattle)
Keenan McCardell (holdout with Tampa Bay)
Deion Branch (holdout with New England)
Javon Walker (holdout with Green Bay)
Ashley Lelie (holdout with Denver)
Eric Moulds (demands trade ultimatum with Buffalo)
Randy Moss (walks off the field with time on the clock)

 

[DaBruinz]

Isn't this the message for Graham, Koppen and Samuel, and whoever comes after?

Apparently, the last year of a contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The front office made a strategic error by not trading Branch months ago, perhaps even before the draft. By waiting, they may have gotten a 1st instead of a second, but they are no minus one starting receiver, which wouldn't have been the case earlier, unless we believe that Gabriel was the best deal that we could have made.

I suspect that Kraft was pressured to take care of this situation. Instead of waiting for a ruling. We could probably have gotten about as much in March.

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that Graham didn't act in the same way as Branch.

And please, please the next time I say that we need Graham insurance or Koppen insurance (Mills and extending Hochstein), please don't all tell me how we keep our players, and should ignore the possibility of starters leaving.

We needed Branch and Givens insurance. We got Jackson; we needed another last year.

In the end, it is clear that the ultimatum should have been made months ago, so that we could have acted, with perhaps Stallworth playing for the patriots.

The bottom line is that we will go on. We have a fine team. We have $10M or so of cap money to push forward into 2007 or 2008, rather than getting current value. We have a 2007 first, instead of current value. In other words, we are playing 2006 with $10M less spent on improving the team, and a first round draft pick less (or perhaps a second).

Does anyone think that we would be sitting with a weakness at WR and $10M of cap money, if we knew in May that Branch was leaving?

A first is great for 2007 and 2008, as is the cap money (more likely into 2009 or 2010). However, we just might have a posiiton or two that we might have improved in 2006.

MG -
Its my belief that the Patriots did not expect the hardline, no negotiation approach from Chayut. The fact that Chayut took that approach is still mind-boggling to me.

Its also my belief that Chayut was told by Condon to take the approach they did and NOT give the ultimatum to the Patriots earlier than the end of May. That way the Patriots couldn't make a move to replace Branch or even trade Branch until the Patriots had given Branch the ability to seek a trade. The thought being that the Patriots would be hard pressed to trade Branch and that they'd be forced to give out a larger contract than they wanted. The problem was that Condon, again, under-estimated the Patriots.

The Patriots, obviously, were willing to work out a deal with Branch, but its obvious that Chayut, Branch and Condon didn't want the Pats to work out a deal with the Patriots.

I also believe that when Branch returned to the Patriots with the offers, the Patriots tried to match the offers, but I believe that, by then, it was too late.

What we will not know is how much the Patriots were willing to offer Branch since Chayut never countered the Pats. And, because we won't know that, it can only be speculation as to whether or not the Patriots were willing to offer Branch money equal to what he got from Seattle.

 

[DaBruinz]

Hindsight? Nope! On this board, we discussed this issue before last season when the patriots were hardnozed with Givens. We discussed then that Givens would seek free agency and that Branch would do the same the year after. We all discussed the necessity of extending Branch or losing him. When Seymour held out and won, we "knew" that bb would hold the line from then on. So, when it was clear what the market would bear (certainly by the time Givens signed), it was time to trade Branch. We were never going to pay Branch what he would get from elsewhere.

In any case, it's all over, and Gabriel was signed to replace Branch instead of using any of the $12M cap stash.

Well, MG, Did you ever stop to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, Branch didn't want to be here? Or that, MAYBE, there were forces at play here that we don't know about?

Hell, no one but Belichick and Pioli knows how high the Pats were willing to take their contract offer had Branch actually had his agent try and negotiate. It takes 2 sides to negotiate, yet, to my knowledge, Branch's agent turned the Pats down 3 times. Once after the 2004 SB. Once right after the end of the 2005 season. And once in May. At no time did Chayut provide a counter offer. So, what are the Pats supposed to do? Just over-pay for Branch and dis-regard the Pats modus operandi that has won them 3 SBs?

Also, people keep talking about the 12.6 million that Miguel has posted on Patscap.com but they ignore the Caveat that Miguel mentions. And that is the 6.66 million bonus due to Seymour prior to the end of the season. Should the Pats take the entire amount this year, then they really only have 6 million free. And they need some for injuries and some for other extensions. What would you have them do? Blow their budget for one EGOTISTICAL LIAR? No thanks. I'd rather not have Branch on the team than have the Pats have to cut higher end players over the next few years.

 

[mgteich]

The question is why Branch and others might not want to be here. We always assume it is the money, since this is a business, after all. I think that there were several players who didn't even bother to give the patriots a chance to counter or match their offers.

There is no question that we had plenty of cap space to sign three or four players. Cap structured deals are the specialty of the patriots. The FO decided to take the 2006 cap money and push it into 2007 or 2008 or 2009.

Even the $6.6M could be spread over the life of the contract, as it would have been in previous years.

None of us have any idea with regard to the details, or real value of offers made by either side.

What were the patriots to do? Well, if your analysis is accurate, the patriots had made three offers at different times with no interest by May. May was the time to either trade him, or make sure that we picked up a top receiver.
For example, do you think we just might have afforded a 3rd for Stallworth? Maybe Gabriel will be better for us than any other receiver available.

I'm fine with FO decisions. I'm sure that they have a 5 year roster and cap plan that is the best thought out in the NFL.

Well, MG, Did you ever stop to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, Branch didn't want to be here? Or that, MAYBE, there were forces at play here that we don't know about?

Hell, no one but Belichick and Pioli knows how high the Pats were willing to take their contract offer had Branch actually had his agent try and negotiate. It takes 2 sides to negotiate, yet, to my knowledge, Branch's agent turned the Pats down 3 times. Once after the 2004 SB. Once right after the end of the 2005 season. And once in May. At no time did Chayut provide a counter offer. So, what are the Pats supposed to do? Just over-pay for Branch and dis-regard the Pats modus operandi that has won them 3 SBs?

Also, people keep talking about the 12.6 million that Miguel has posted on Patscap.com but they ignore the Caveat that Miguel mentions. And that is the 6.66 million bonus due to Seymour prior to the end of the season. Should the Pats take the entire amount this year, then they really only have 6 million free. And they need some for injuries and some for other extensions. What would you have them do? Blow their budget for one EGOTISTICAL LIAR? No thanks. I'd rather not have Branch on the team than have the Pats have to cut higher end players over the next few years.

 

[1976pats]

How about the theory I hear spouted every once in a while that now that most of these guys have 1, 2 or 3 SB rings, the emphasis is now on scoring big with the $ and that's why there's no allegiance to staying here with a winner. They and their agents know the BB salary structure. Our WRs will just never be among the highest paid in the NFL. BB doesn't see the position as warranting that type of hit on the cap. If a WR like Branch or Givens wants to make a big salary score, they're smart enough to know that it won't be in NE. If you want to see a team that has no clue about slotting positions by salary, check out the Skins with huge paychecks sitting at both WR positions in the form of Randel-El and Sanatana Moss and a stiff QB trying to throw it to them.

 

[Miguel]

Also, people keep talking about the 12.6 million that Miguel has posted on Patscap.com but they ignore the Caveat that Miguel mentions.

I need to make it clearer - "fyi, the $18.66M option bonus is actually two option bonuses . . . the first, for $6.66M is due between aug. 4 of this year and march of next year . . . the second, for $12M is due by march 7 of next year"

That is, the Patriots are NOT required to pay Seymour the $6.66 million during the 2006 cap year.

 

[arrellbee]

What were the patriots to do? Well, if your analysis is accurate, the patriots had made three offers at different times with no interest by May. May was the time to either trade him, or make sure that we picked up a top receiver.

For example, do you think we just might have afforded a 3rd for Stallworth? Maybe Gabriel will be better for us than any other receiver available.

I'm fine with FO decisions. I'm sure that they have a 5 year roster and cap plan that is the best thought out in the NFL.

You had a lot of comments in this thread that were very good.

On these particular points, a couple thoughts.

I have to wonder if the Patriots pursued a trade in May if they could have gotten a first rounder for Branch. I have this feeling that they wouldn't have gotten that kind of offer then. They certainly wouldn't have gotten more than a first rounder, so they certainly have lost nothing in taking this long, and, as I say, I think they actually got more by waiting until now.

You know, the fascinating thing that we would love to know (and have no slightest chance of finding out) is how Belichick/Pioli view all of these receivers that were available. We know they liked Mason, but one would have to draw the conclusion that they didn't feel that Stallworth and many of these other guys were actually players that they wanted on the Patriots roster even at any price - for whatever reason I can't imagine, but I'll be that Belichick has awfully good insight as to why not.

I really like your comment:
"I'm fine with FO decisions. I'm sure that they have a 5 year roster and cap plan that is the best thought out in the NFL."
As I have posted in other threads, I think this year's team is now the strongest and deepest team overall that the Patriots have had under Belichick. I think that is the result over time of a very methodical pragmatic approach to acquiring and dropping players and also pretty productive drafting. Obviously, there are still areas of concern - LB and WR - but if we step back and take those into perspective versus the entire team, I still believe that overall this is a stronger team. Following on with your line of reasoning, I think next year the roster will be even stronger, especially with all of the draft picks that the Patriots have to work with. It's very exciting.

I think there is room to be optimistic about this year. There really is a possibility that by midseason that our receiver group will be as strong - or maybe even stronger than last year. Guaranteed ? Of course not. But ...

And if Seau works out as expected, the LB group could be as strong as last years. And if Banta-Cain is becoming productive, the LBs could actually be a little deeper. Hmmm.

So, that's a long winded way of saying I think you make some very good points.