Sour Grapes???

[Mike the Brit]

My Bad

I can't help feeling that There Is More Here Than Meets The Eye. Where are the New England sports journalists when you need them?

According to PFT, who quote Reiss, I'm quite wrong: that is EXACTLY what the Pats are claiming in their grievance:

"In their tampering charge, the Patriots say that while the Jets had permission to negotiate a contract with Branch, any trade talks were to be solely between the teams. They claim that because Branch and his representatives had knowledge of what was being offered in a trade, the Patriots' negotiating position was compromised."

I don't want to sound like Ron Borges, but that is a complete joke. I bet they don't have this in writing (if they did Kessler would never have filed the grievance he did) and I can't imagine any arbitrator wouldn't laugh the grievance out of his office given what they say in their press release.

"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 September 1, 2006."

If all the permission that they gave was to negotiate a contract the phrase "seek a trade" is redundant. So it seems weird that they should be claiming that Branch wasn't authorized to discuss compensation. And it would be even weirder to have authorized Branch to discuss compensation with the Jets but then complain that the Jets are discussing compensation with Branch.

So it looks like the Pats ARE stupid and vindictive. Yikes!

Mr James, if you read this board for the team, tell your bosses they're making a HUGE mistake in pursuing this.

 

[dryheat44]

I can't help feeling that There Is More Here Than Meets The Eye. Where are the New England sports journalists when you need them?

Well, ProFootballTalk.com raises the possibility that Chayut talked with the Jets to discuss "theoretical" contract before the Pats gave permission, like how Lawyer Milloy had a contract offer in hand from the Redskins when the Pats asked him to take a pay cut. If so, Branch and Chayut entered negotiations knowing that they could afford to hold out.

However, this seems like conjecture at this point.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Well, ProFootballTalk.com raises the possibility that Chayut talked with the Jets to discuss "theoretical" contract before the Pats gave permission, like how Lawyer Milloy had a contract offer in hand from the Redskins when the Pats asked him to take a pay cut. If so, Branch and Chayut entered negotiations knowing that they could afford to hold out.

However, this seems like conjecture at this point.

Well that IS tampering, no question -- although the likelihood of having evidence to prove it is tiny.

(Tampering (tapping up, as they call it in the UK) is so pervasive in soccer that players and agents have all but forgotten that there are rules against it.There was a hilarious case in England last year when a player with one club (Arsenal) was seen having dinner with his agent with the GM of another one (Chelsea). They were fined a -- for them -- trivial amount, and the player now plays with Chelsea.)

 

[PATSNUTme]

That is interesting.

Do you have evidence for what you say (that this is what the Patriots' case consists in)?

If so, it seems to me to be an incredibly weak case.

If my partner is negotiating a deal and it's clear that he has to make that deal acceptable to me as well as to himself, it would be absurdly restrictive if he were unable to talk to other interested parties only about that part of the deal that affects him. If the Patriots gave Branch authority to seek a trade, how could they not also be authorizing him to talk about what compensation the other team would give the Patriots?

You say. "Is that tampering? Absolutely." What is the definition of "tampering" that makes it so? Where is that written down.

If it is all as you say, then I too think that the Patriots should drop such a silly complaint and move on. Knowing the organization as I think I do, I don't imagine that they would be pursuing this if there wasn't some clear and flagrant breach of an ethical principle (as well as a violation of the rules).

Let this Homer tell you where you are missing the point.

The Patriots gave Branch permission to talk to other teams about what they would offer HIM if there was a trade. They did not give Branch permission to talk to other teams about what they would offer the Patriots if there was a trade.

Any team that talked to Branch or his agent about what hey would offer the Patriots exceeded the authority given and therefore tampered with the player.

 

[Mike the Brit]

OK, Homer. But then why produce a press release that says that they gave Branch permission to seek a trade AND negotiate a contract. That sounds like two things to me

(OK, to be really pedantic, sometimes "and" means "and thereby" like "lying on the beach and getting a tan", but that's not usual and unless the Pats had that interpretation NAILED DOWN I can't believe any normal person would read it that way.)

Love the sign in the sig, by the way!

 

[Pats726]

I find one thing said a few days ago inrteresting as far as tampering charges are concerned....Here is what FBN mentioned about the Jets...

The Jets thing was etched in stone before camp started. I knew personally that he was gone for good before camp started...though I was unaware of the Jet's angle.

Etched in stone??? Sorry..but if in anyway that was true, THAT is clearly tampering...Case closed and NFL taking no action. I think there are many tampering charges around and unless it is flagrant..is NEVER noted. So why have rules against it??? SINCE it goes on and on.

 

[PATSNUTme]

OK, Homer. But then why produce a press release that says that they gave Branch permission to seek a trade AND negotiate a contract. That sounds like two things to me

(OK, to be really pedantic, sometimes "and" means "and thereby" like "lying on the beach and getting a tan", but that's not usual and unless the Pats had that interpretation NAILED DOWN I can't believe any normal person would read it that way.)

Love the sign in the sig, by the way!

Press releases are just that.They are not legal instructions.

The Patriots say that they gave Branch trough his agent limited authority. The authority was to seek a deal only for Branch as it would relate to a trade.

I believe that's what the Patriots did because I'm a Homer.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Press releases are just that.They are not legal instructions.

The Patriots say that they gave Branch trough his agent limited authority. The authority was to seek a deal only for Branch as it would relate to a trade.

I believe that's what the Patriots did because I'm a Homer.

I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows
I believe for everyone that goes astray someone will come, to show the way ...

 

[patological]

So, we can blame (or praise) the Lions providing for the motivation for the trade? Lower down in the Czar's blog:

"Seattle GM Tim Ruskell didn’t want to surrender his first-rounder, but when his team escaped Detroit with only a 9-6 win, he had no choice."

 

[PATSNUTme]

I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows
I believe for everyone that goes astray someone will come, to show the way ...

What's wrong with that?

If you are musical you might be able to get a song out of the prose.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Re: My Bad

According to PFT, who quote Reiss, I'm quite wrong: that is EXACTLY what the Pats are claiming in their grievance:

....
So it looks like the Pats ARE stupid and vindictive. Yikes!

Mr James, if you read this board for the team, tell your bosses they're making a HUGE mistake in pursuing this.

Oh, Mike, you threw in the towel too soon !
Although i think i fathom what dryheat and PatsNut are saying ... you had them on the ropes.
PFT does not speak authoritively. It honestly proclaims itself to be a Rumo(u)r Mill.
Reiss certainly makes hay of whatever grass the Pats send him.
But is this f/o not well-known for emitting disinformation? If Reiss says it, then that is what they told him.
But why assume that they told him the whole truth and nothing but?

You were right, that the claimed grievance is laughably venial.
As you first said, but then repudiated, the cause easily could lie elsewhere.

Where? Well, as PFT sensibly continues (in part):
We're also not prepared to rule out a possible allegation by the Patriots that Branch's agent Jason Chayut had "gauged the market" for Branch's services before advising Branch to go ahead with his holdout. Though, as we've explained in the past, it's prudent for an agent to develop a feel for what other teams will pay to their clients, a team's acquiescence to such a request constitutes tampering.

And the policy makes it clear that, if a contract dispute arises between a player and his current team after there has been discussion with another team regarding potential contract terms, tampering will be found even if there is no proof of a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the impermissible contact and the contract problems. "In other words," as the policy reads, "a club will not be able to defend a tampering charge in these circumstances by asserting that its private contact with a player (or the player's representative) did not involve any expression of interest in the player or was not related in any way to the player's subsequent contract problem with the club."

So if there's evidence that Branch's agent contacted the Jets during the offseason to find out, hypothetically, what the Jets would pay to a guy like Branch (wink, nod) and the Jets provided contract parameters and the contract dispute between Branch and the team arose and/or escalated thereafter, the league could find that the Jets engaged in tampering.

Those are two possible "elsewheres".

A third lies in that rumor ... which we have heard no more of ... that the Jets made an offer
to do Chayut a favor ... and that said offer had a "funky structure".

Seems very likely that there is SOMETHING more to the Patriots' complaint than merely ...
We Didn't Authorize You To Discuss Our Compensation.

 

[rookBoston]

The key factor in all this is the grievance filed by the agent against the Patriots, which alleged that they were dealing in bad faith. That claim was substantiated by the fact that the agent knew that the Jets were prepared to offer a 2nd round pick.

From the Pats perspective, these should be no basis for that claim, because the agent should not know what the trade compensation would be for the team. Just like the Pats have no interest in what Branch's new contract terms will be (other than informational), Branch's representatives have no interest in the compensation arranged between the teams in question.

If the Jets hadn't leaked the trade compensation, the grievance couldn't have been filed. And without the grievance to put futher separation between the player and the team, we might have had him back in the fold... or theoretically, anyway.

So, the Jets may have materially harmed the Patriots negotiating position by sharing that info. I buy it.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Re: My Bad

Oh, Mike, you threw in the towel too soon !

No, I declared victory and withdrew!

 

[Mike the Brit]

Let me have one last go at this.

The Patriots have filed a grievance against the Jets for tampering. We didn’t know, initially, what the allegation was but Reiss now tells us that it was because the Jets discussed the possible compensation that would come to the Pats in a trade for Deion Branch with Deion and his agent.

Remember that the Pats had given Branch permission to “seek a trade and negotiate a contractâ€.

Remember too that after the Pats rejected the Jets trade proposal Chayut filed two grievances on Branch’s behalf, one for not negotiating in good faith, one for having rejected a trade with reasonable compensation. The issue there was whether, in authorizing Branch/Chayut to seek a trade the Pats were committed to accepting a reasonable offer of compensation should Branch/Chayut come back with one. The Pats were denying (so far as I recall) that they had made any such commitment. It seemed to be common ground that any authorization was verbal. As far as I could make out, the lawyers think that, in the absence of a written agreement between the Pats and Branch/Chayut, what was said in the press release is potentially significant.

But now, apparently, the Pats are denying that in giving Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract they were authorizing him/Chayut to discuss possible compensation – to the extent that any team discussing compensation with Branch/Chayut should be counted as tampering.

Taking a step back, isn’t it obvious that that’s absurd? How can you seriously and in good faith let someone go and negotiate a trade without being able to talk to the possible trade partner about the compensation? Anyone who is thinking of signing a player has to face two costs: the monetary cost of paying for the player’s contract and the compensation cost in pick(s). And the one will affect the other. How could a front office make a decision about an offer of a contract if it didn’t have an idea of what it would cost them in terms of picks? If this is really the Pats’ position then they will make themselves look utterly ridiculous. The more so because what do they hope to gain from this tampering charge. If the Jets are reprimanded then they will surely get the sympathy of all neutrals. All the Pats get is bad blood.

So surely (or at least so I thought) there must be some other explanation. But the Pats don’t usually give Mike Reiss wrong information.

Of course, there are those who believe that the Pats are in the right, just as there are those who believe that the Pats’ wide receivers are the best ever. Some people can believe six impossible things before breakfast and who am I to mock their simple faith? As for me, it’s part of the pleasure of watching and rooting for this Pats’ team and organization that they have been both smart and classy. If this move really is as it seems then it looks as if in this case they’re being neither.

 

[BlueTalon]

He also said that Ruskell was reluctant to part with a #1 for Deion but the decision had been made on Saturday that if the offense struggled to score points Sunday they would pull the trigger. Of course if Ruskell had pulled the trigger and franchised or signed Hutchinson last March instead of transitioning him and losing him in that poison pill ploy they wouldn't be in the position of grasping at straws like adding to an already crowded WR corps to try to compensate for losing the best Olineman in the league.

Ruskell btw is the guy Paul Allen hired to take over as GM when he stripped Holmgren of his personnel duties. He was Allen's second choice, since Pioli didn't want to leave NE just to make $15M. Unlike Branch, Pioli chose to stay with a dynasty he helped build, and for a lot less.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but there are a few corrections to be made here.

First, Hutch is one of the best interior O-linemen in the entire league, but he wasn't even the best O-lineman on the Seahawks. That honor belongs to Walter Jones. And he (Jones) was paid like it, too, which is what set the stage for the whole poison pill sticky wicket. And Transitioning Hutch was not an attempt to save some money, as some people think -- it was a means of allowing Hutch to find his own market value. The mistake was in assuming that Hutch and potential suiters would deal in good faith.

Second, Ruskell was not hired to replace Holmgren as GM. Holmgren had been fired as GM a few years prior by then president Bob Whitsett. Paul Allen had a hands-off policy toward the Seahawks, and let Whitsett run everything. Also, all Seahawks communication to Allen went through Whitsett, so Allen didn't hear about how dysfunctional the relationship was between the FO and the coaching staff... until Todd Leiweke was brought in as chief executive officer to take some of the load off of Whitsett. Then Allen started hearing some of the stuff he hadn't been hearing. After then end of last season, Holmgren had had enough and was thinking of quitting. Allen decided there was a problem that needed fixing, and the problem wasn't Holmgren, and he canned Whitsett.

The Ruskell hiring came after a lengthy search by a committee of Allen's top personnel guys. Pioli might have been interviewed, but I don't know where you get that he was Allen's first choice.


Please note, I just added this for the sake of accuracy. I don't expect any of you to be familiar with the inner workings of the Seahawks, any more than I am of the Patriots (I'm not).

 

[kolbitr]

Of course, there are those who believe that the Pats are in the right, just as there are those who believe that the Pats’ wide receivers are the best ever. Some people can believe six impossible things before breakfast and who am I to mock their simple faith? As for me, it’s part of the pleasure of watching and rooting for this Pats’ team and organization that they have been both smart and classy. If this move really is as it seems then it looks as if in this case they’re being neither.

Alice references aside, it is not simple faith to have concluded from the evidence thus far presented and arrayed that we have a limited set of data, almost entirely tinged with the ambiguity of the press release and the clear bias of the agent at-work. We do not really know the Patriots' side of these manifold accusations and arguments intricately. Thus, I feel confident in stating that it remains awkward to ascribe motives to their actions.

I would also add, strongly, that although it is certainly possible for the management of this team to act in a mean-spirited or petty manner, it is likely that they are doing so purposefully, i.e. not from mere vindictiveness but from a sense of tactics. Let's not forget that the Jets are on the schedule this week. And let's see how things develop afterward.