I kind of hate that my first post on this excellent forum is about DB, who jumped from one of my all time favorites to all time least favorites in a hurry.
But I had one thought about the way this grievance is being packaged. Until this article, the prior articles had suggested the implied agreement was to trade Branch for "reasonable" value. Now we're told the expectation was that Branch would be traded for value commensurate with the value giving for similar players.
Does anyone else see this as an incredibly saavy move for Branch? I agree with everyone that the arbitration is ultimately a loser. However, this argument puts the Patriots in an awkward situation. Branch's team and the union have put them in position where to defend themselves they need to argue that Branch is worth a lot -- precisely the argument Branch has been making in his contract negotiation. In other words, Branch has set a playing field on which, at a minimum, he picks up some ammunition if there are to be future negotiations. The alternative for the Patriots is to not engage Branch on this point at the arbitration and to not let that be the playing field. But that's a risky strategy in arbitration, where the arbitrator has nearly unfettered discretion and significant power.
