Why is it a bad Idea to Trade Branch???

[Keegs]

I've seen people get their heads ripped off today for suggesting this. So i'd like to take the brunt of the abuse because i would actually like to hear why.

I might have missed something but i didn't read anything that said WHY trading Branch is a bad idea. All i read was insults, garbage about how many posts people have, and how stupid it was of an idea.

why is it so absurd?
what is wrong with trading branch if he asks for too much money?
am i missing something?
Is it because our WR position is so thin right now? (we could trade for WR and pick(s))
Im not being a wisea$$, i seriously want to know because i didn't think it was that ridiculous. He has made great contributions but if hes gotta go hes gotta go.
I am not saying we have to do one thing or the other. But if he wants Wayne money and wont settle for less, i'd say nice knowing ya Deion.

I think some people on here need to tone it down but i respect what most of you have to say as Pats fans. With such strong feelings againist this idea, you must have a good reason. Please fill me in.

 

[drpatriot]

I've seen people get their heads ripped off today for suggesting this. So i'd like to take the brunt of the abuse because i would actually like to hear why.

The reasoning behind not trading him is because there is no reason to do so, other than if his holdout extends into the regular season. If we trade Branch, we lose a cheap #1 WR (sure, a low-tier #1, if you must) and get (probably) a 2nd-round pick, maybe some Day 2's added on or instead a 1st-round pick. If we don't trade Branch, we get a cheap #1 WR for a year, then we can resign him. If he doesn't want to resign, we franchise him and trade him for (probably) a 2nd-round pick, maybe some Day 2's added on or instead a 1st-round pick. There is no reason to trade Branch; he is cheap and still tradeable at the end of the year when his contract runs out if we make him the franchise player. Plus, there's a minute chance we might get Branch to resign with us if we keep him, which is a benefit in itself.

 

[pats1]

Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to just come to an agreement with this one player without implicating other teams and other players. I wouldn't this was specifically started by Branch. Agents have a lot of say in the process. I'm sure Branch just wants it to be down and over with more than he wants to get a big pay day. This situation is not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. Just another day of business. It's the media that's making him out to be some greedy, disloyal player who'll do anything he can to get top money. I don't even know why the idea of trading him comes up. Like I just said - this is just another day of business for the Patriots and Branch. Don't get yourself into thinking he's going T.O., Lawyer, or Ty on the Pats.

 

[Remix 6]

b.c who can we get in return? we need him for this season..hes our SB MVP..Brady's favorite target..big plays in playoffs. he can be amazing anywhere else..he can be a Moss/Smtih small WR with speed and quickness but the way our offense is..hes not going to be a 1400 WR. so since hes here..hes not worth top #1 WR money.

 

[spacecrime]

You don't need a reason to not trade a guy.

You need a reason to trade him.

Nobody gets traded unless there is a driving reason to do so.

And the fact that a guy missed a minicamp s not a reason to trade him. It is over-reaction.

 

[Digger44]

Keegs, shut up already.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

My personal spin on it is that we're not at that point yet. Quite likely the Pats and Branch's people continue to talk, with both sides understanding he's missed a minicamp, and may or may not be willing to miss training camp time. So as of now, he's a good player in the midst of negotiations, not a malcontent we need to shop post-haste. Of course, if some other team with a brilliant wideout came to us with a trade offer, based on that player being a workaholic who bothers management by asking them to keep the lights on in the practice dome after hours...

But why would another team want to trade us a guy of equal or greater value, while ours is in the midst of negotiations? They'd have to take the hit on his new status, not us, and in return, they'd be trading someone who we assume to be of equal or greater on-the-field value. Well, what's that guy's contract? The Pats DO still have to pay him.

In this wide world of football possibilities, I guess it could happen that someone really wants to unload a really good wideout, who happens to have a pretty stingy contract, and who therefore would just be a no-brainer from the Pats POV... Or maybe a team who wants to get rid of such a guy so bad they will eat some of the player's cost. But then, that usually happens for character reasons, and the Pats usually avoid the head cases. The counterexample for this last scenario is Dillon, of course -- the apparent sulky head case who turns out to be a high character guy in a bad environment.

But barring an aberation, I see this as the time to get the Branch deal done, not to get the "next" branch acclimated to the system.

Just my 2 cents' worth,

PFnV

 

[Johnny Z]

Basically they would be trashing the product they want to trade.

So right off the bat, how do you get anything for a young player with an astonishing post-season record, including a SB MVP, who you've deemed unworthy for a raise and unnecessary to the organization.

But I know how you feel. When Javonna Walker, fresh out of workouts with Terrell Owens, hired Drew, I told Packer posters the Packers should trade him while they could get something. They called me every name in the book. After that he held out, blew out his knee in the first game, and demanded to be traded or he would retire.

 

[maverick4]

re

Keegs, shut up already.

Seriously.

 

[Keegs]

Guys, great answers. I found it interesting and agree with what a lot of you said. Like i said before i didn't know what to do with him, i just don't want to see him get Reggie Wayne Money, thats all. Good answers tho.

Digger and Maverick i was messin around with you earlier and that was fun.

But i just gave you two morons a chance to show you have any kind of original thought and your credability just went down the ****ter in my opinion. It'll be a pleasure ignoring your future posts since they probably don't have much more substance than the two i read in this thread. This was ur chance to justify ripping on that guy earliier but instead you just prove you know nothing about the subject. You should have just said that before.

Not one original thought. Figures.

 

[abejarano12]

Who came up with this idea. Were they stoned

 

[Keegs]

Who came up with this idea. Were they stoned

some dude, i dont even know but he got reemed for it. I dont think he specified when we would trade him.\

the funny part is the guy who said the most and ripped it apart the most coudlnt explain why its a bad idea.

 

[Pats726]

Instant answers yes no..why is it good?? Why is it bad??

CHILL!!!!!!

It's not as easy as all that...firstly, I don't think the Patriots wish to do that because they don't react and over react like it seems some wish the FO to do. If you want that RE: Ainge and much more obvious Pitino's Celts. Enfing up more like some also ran club..
This is a winning front office not some dumb team. They want Branch but not at his price..but more importnat than that is he's under contract!!! SO the team trades him and every other player who wants out knows all they have to do is hold out and cause a wave...a VERY BAD norm!! Branch wants his money..and trading him will give him that..sometimes it's the best NOT to react at all and give in to wishes.
If they could trade Branchand get back what they think is greater value, I think they would trade him..but is that the case?? If it isn't, it won't be done now or in the future unless a lot has changed.

 

[RayClay]

Because we need somebody to catch passes???

Or is that too obvious?

 

[14thDragon]

Well if other teams are willing to part with high draft picks to get him, just hit him with the franchise tag come next year. We have plenty of time to get value from someone else for him.

Right now we need him as an experienced WR in our system. He will play this season, even if he sits out of TC for some time.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Hey - I got ripped for suggesting that, if the team wasn't planning on re-signing Daniel Graham, they would probably do well to consider trading him.

And that was a player for which we have considerable depth at the position.... Watson, Thomas, Mills, and a veteran FA if need be... not to mention placing an OL or DT at the position as Belichick does often anyways

And its also accepted that Graham isn't the best at his position on the team


So with Branch you're talking about the BEST WR currently on the team - after him you've got a rookie, a 38 yr old 3rd down receiver and Caldwell, who might be a has been that never was.

So its easy to understand why the suggestion of going into the season with those options at WR wouldn't be taken kindly too

But try not to take it personally

 

[Digger44]

some dude, i dont even know but he got reemed for it. I dont think he specified when we would trade him.\

the funny part is the guy who said the most and ripped it apart the most coudlnt explain why its a bad idea.

come on moron, you gotta have better bait than that

 

[Welker83]

I've seen people get their heads ripped off today for suggesting this. So i'd like to take the brunt of the abuse because i would actually like to hear why.

I might have missed something but i didn't read anything that said WHY trading Branch is a bad idea. All i read was insults, garbage about how many posts people have, and how stupid it was of an idea.

why is it so absurd?
what is wrong with trading branch if he asks for too much money?
am i missing something?
Is it because our WR position is so thin right now? (we could trade for WR and pick(s))
Im not being a wisea$$, i seriously want to know because i didn't think it was that ridiculous. He has made great contributions but if hes gotta go hes gotta go.
I am not saying we have to do one thing or the other. But if he wants Wayne money and wont settle for less, i'd say nice knowing ya Deion.

I think some people on here need to tone it down but i respect what most of you have to say as Pats fans. With such strong feelings againist this idea, you must have a good reason. Please fill me in.

Because you'll get more if you sign him than trade him..plus since he has only a year left on his contract he has full control over where he goes which will make it harder to shop him. Basically he has to agree to a new contract with a team before a trade can be done. That right there will limit the field to under 4 teams...and like they say demand drives prices; and 4 teams is not great demand.

 

[Displaced - Fan]

Keegs, shut up already.

If your sick of some of these posts, then don't read them. Move on, but this certainly wasn't needed.

Where's a mod when you need one?

 

[Pats726]

Because you'll get more if you sign him than trade him..plus since he has only a year left on his contract he has full control over where he goes which will make it harder to shop him. Basically he has to agree to a new contract with a team before a trade can be done. That right there will limit the field to under 4 teams...and like they say demand drives prices; and 4 teams is not great demand.

Basically he's taking a BIG gamble...and he could be the loser..Look at the receivers the team had in 01 and won it all...NOT any big big names..Demand will drive the price up and that is ruled by WANT not NUMBERS....