SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I'm willing to bet it doesn't effect the team one bit. I associate more with the Terry Glenn situation. Out of sight out of mind. Unlike Lawyer who was in TC the whole time Deion hasn't been seen since the Denver game basically, right?SVN said:all said and done ..an unecessary distraction on the saturday before opening game..the team does not need it
PatsFaninAZ said: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.
Miguel said:.
I doubt that the special master is going to base the compensation due to the Patriots on what the Patriots' max offer could have been. I would think that it would be on what the Pats did offer.
According to Reiss, the last Patriots' offer to Branch was the 4/19.75 million. At least, Reiss reports that is the one that Branch did not make a counter-offer to so that offer is the one I am using.
Miguel said:Is it a 5-year extension covering the years 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011??
If so, then, IMO, it is a 6-year deal averaging $5.5 million.
DaBruinz said:I am amazed that you fell for Chayut's shananigan's with the contracts, Miguel.
You already answered the question for me. I do not know. IMO, what the max offer could have been will be immaterial to the special master.So, again, how do you know how high the Patriots offer would have been had Chayut actually tried to negotiate with the Patriots?
DaBruinz said:Sorry Miguel, but that is BS and Chayut BS thinking and I am amazed that you could even think that way.Its NOT a 6 year deal. Its a 5 year extension deal that averages 6.6 Million a year. Any deal is based on the years added. Just like it was with Brady's deal.
What it does is treat Branch the same way the Pats treated Brady.
Miguel said:Is it a 5-year extension covering the years 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011??
If so, then, IMO, it is a 6-year deal averaging $5.5 million.
Look at the standard NFL contract in the CBA:upstater1 said:It doesn't work that way. With your line of thinking, the last year of any contract is a toss away. It simply can't work like that.
DaBruinz and upstater1, what 5 seasons does Brady's contract cover??Miguel said:Speaking of Brady:
Nick Cafardo reported in the Boston Globe:
"Some interesting tidbits from the 22-page contract of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, which was signed May 4:
Here is how the first line reads: ''TERM: This contract covers 5 football seasons and will begin on the date of execution or March 1, 2005 whichever is later and end Feb. 28 or 29, 2010 unless extended, terminated or renewed as specified elsewhere in this contract."
I take the above as Brady's contract including the 2005 and 2006 seasons even though he was already under contract for them.
Good Call ! Now all we have to do is figure out whether the offers of the Patriots were really for an extension, as it seems it was being reported, or if it was a new contract offer replacing his existing one.Miguel said:Speaking of Brady:
Nick Cafardo reported in the Boston Globe:
"Some interesting tidbits from the 22-page contract of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, which was signed May 4:
Here is how the first line reads: ''TERM: This contract covers 5 football seasons and will begin on the date of execution or March 1, 2005 whichever is later and end Feb. 28 or 29, 2010 unless extended, terminated or renewed as specified elsewhere in this contract."
I take the above as Brady's contract including the 2005 and 2006 seasons even though he was already under contract for them.
arrellbee said:Good Call !
I like your thinking, whatever type it may actually be. Thanks for all of the great info and insights !!Miguel said:Not bad for a person using BS thinking