NO deal for Branch

[CD6405]

I'm with Branch, I think some of these players should try to get as much money as they can because who knows how long their career will last?

 

He could go out there for 1 million dollars, get a career ending injury and never get to play again and be screwed in money too.

 

The deal for Branch was unfair, the Patriots said they did not get compensation that they thought was worth of Branch, they wanted 2 first round picks. Look at his contract, it is not worth 2 first round picks. I understand they offered him a deal, but what the other teams offered were better.

[forever in debt to mo lewis]

this guy turned down 5 for 35 with a nice bonus...half the money guaranteed...he has no leg to stand on

[Yukon Cornelius]

this guy turned down 5 for 35 with a nice bonus...half the money guaranteed...he has no leg to stand on

 

correct

[Caveman_Nick]

this guy turned down 5 for 35 with a nice bonus...half the money guaranteed...he has no leg to stand on

 

 

 

Can you back this up with a link? The best I have seen documented is 4/24.

[AtomicCEO]

Where does this happen all over the country? Last I checked, the vast majority of employment opportunities didn't entail people signing contracts for fixed terms of employment.

 

I see offers for contract work all the time. I'm in IT and System Design. It's very common.

 

Branch, with his play, has earned more respect than T.O.? I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Talent-wise, T.O. and Branch aren't even close to being on the same level

 

I wasn't saying talent-wise. You questioned his character, and I'm saying character-wise, he has earned more respect than TO.

 

Who's worse off is immaterial, but I'd say it's clearly Branch. He's being fined every day and he's NOT getting traded. His grievances are an absolute joke as well. The Pats will be no worse off without Branch - mark my words.

 

 

I disagree. Branch will be able to pay off the fines with 1/24th of the signing bonus he gets next year from Seattle or New York or any other team that might be interested now that it wont cost them a pick. And I seriously disagree that the Pats will not be worse off without him.

 

The Pats are frugal, cold, and tough when it comes to contracts. There's no arguing, and the fans here understand that. It's understood that players will leave to get higher paydays elsewhere.

 

There's the answer. How can you blame Branch for looking for a better deal? I'm certainly going to be thinking "Man, those guys should have paid Branch" when the Pats struggle. They have a good team, and they shouldn't be shorting the entire team because they are frugal, cold, and stubborn. I'd be pissed if I was Tom Brady.

[Caveman_Nick]

There's the answer. How can you blame Branch for looking for a better deal? I'm certainly going to be thinking "Man, those guys should have paid Branch" when the Pats struggle. They have a good team, and they shouldn't be shorting the entire team because they are frugal, cold, and stubborn. I'd be pissed if I was Tom Brady.

 

 

I don't see people going out of their way to call out Branch.

 

But he is under contract. It's his perogative to sit out, but fans don't have to like it. Again, he was offered $6 million for 4 years with $12 million guaranteed. The other contracts he is looking at are only better in appearance. In the NFL, they never come to completion and you know that.

 

I think you're just a bitter Broncos fan looking for a puppy to kick

[Sgt. Ryan]

A player is worth what he can get on the market. so in this case 12 mil more. NE needs Branch, and to think they dont is homerism at its best. That team spreads the ball around, but not a WR on that roster demands double coverage, where Branch provided that at times. Teams can now play that offense straight up, put 8 in the box, and put a FS on Watson. They are much easier to defend without a WR capable of stretching the field or demanding attention like Branch did.

[Balzac]

If the Pats are no worse off without branch, then why offer him 12 mil to sign and 24 overall. That statement is ludicrous. Branch is by far the best receiving option on that team, and he has every right under the terms of this collective bargaining agreement to sit out until week 10, just like the owners have every right to cut him before the end of his contract. Bottom line Branch is playing hardball with the Pats, and their fans dont like it. But if this organization like the Iggles, would actually pay their players what they were worth, and not try and affectionate them at the end of their career to take less money to stay, younger players may have shown some loyalty. But when Troy Brown gets a terrible contract to play out his remaining days, after everything he gave to that franchise during their SB years, and Brady wasnt paid like one of the top 2 Qbs in the NFL, expected to take a hometown discount, and Ty Law not being paid his market value, having to walk. Those are just examples of players from this team that havent been treated fairly, and Branch probably doesnt want to be there as a result.

 

 

Perhaps I phrased my point a little too aggressively - what I should've said is that I don't think that losing Branch will be a huge blow to the Pats (i.e. one that will affect the outcome of their season). Would I prefer that he was getting ready to suit up this weekend? Sure. Will they be slightly "worse off"? I think so. My bottom line is that the Pats as a franchise are hurt a lot less by this than Branch is as an individual.

 

Anyway, I don't understand this whole concept of treating players "fairly". Football teams are businesses - they do what's best for the franchise. Paying players "what they're worth" instead of holding them to contracts that they signed is stupid and it's bad business (and giving undeserved contracts to vets who have more or less outlived their usefulness is even dumber). Why anyone would expect a team to give a player more than what they signed on for simply because the player asks for it is beyond me. If Branch were a franchise WR who the Pats felt they could build around for years to come, I could see them making an exception and paying him b/c they don't want him to get away - the problem here is that (in their eyes and my own) Branch isn't worth as much as he's asking for. The Pats would prefer to let him go and then just go out and get another $6mm/yr caliber WR . . . one that would most likely perform just as well as Branch has (let's recall that Deion hasn't exactly done anything spectacular in his career). Doing otherwise would be bad business.

[Sgt. Ryan]

I don't see people going out of their way to call out Branch.

 

But he is under contract. It's his perogative to sit out, but fans don't have to like it. Again, he was offered $6 million for 4 years with $12 million guaranteed. The other contracts he is looking at are only better in appearance. In the NFL, they never come to completion and you know that.

 

I think you're just a bitter Broncos fan looking for a puppy to kick

 

 

 

So if you are saying contracts never come to completion, who is to say the pats 4 for 24 will, so why not get the higher signing bonus and more money the first couple of years.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Perhaps I phrased my point a little too aggressively - what I should've said is that I don't think that losing Branch will be a huge blow to the Pats (i.e. one that will affect the outcome of their season). Would I prefer that he was getting ready to suit up this weekend? Sure. Will they be slightly "worse off"? I think so. My bottom line is that the Pats as a franchise are hurt a lot less by this than Branch is as an individual.

 

Anyway, I don't understand this whole concept of treating players "fairly". Football teams are businesses - they do what's best for the franchise. Paying players "what they're worth" instead of holding them to contracts that they signed is stupid and it's bad business (and giving undeserved contracts to vets who have more or less outlived their usefulness is even dumber). Why anyone would expect a team to give a player more than what they signed on for simply because the player asks for it is beyond me. If Branch were a franchise WR who the Pats felt they could build around for years to come, I could see them making an exception and paying him b/c they don't want him to get away - the problem here is that (in their eyes and my own) Branch isn't worth as much as he's asking for. The Pats would prefer to let him go and then just go out and get another $6mm/yr caliber WR . . . one that would most likely perform just as well as Branch has (let's recall that Deion hasn't exactly done anything spectacular in his career). Doing otherwise would be bad business.

 

 

How do you figure branch will be hurt more than the pats. the Pats need Branch, and Branch is being offered more money than the Pats elsehwere. Not sure that comment makes any sense

 

Branch was in a system that spread the ball around more than most systems out there. If Branch played for New York he could very well put up 1300 yards and 10 TDs with Coles opposite him. Just because a player hasnt done it yet, doesnt mean he is not capable of doing it. Why else would 1st round rookies get paid like they do, if those teams didnt think they could produce up to that contract. Branch has proven more than any rookie out there, and obviously feels he should be paid more than the Pats are offering.

[Balzac]

I see offers for contract work all the time. I'm in IT and System Design. It's very common.

 

And people commonly leave mid-contract w/o any consequence? Those must be some weak contracts.

 

I wasn't saying talent-wise. You questioned his character, and I'm saying character-wise, he has earned more respect than TO.

 

Not sure where/why respect came into this (you brought up T.O. out of the blue), but I think it's completely irrelevant. I guess you're saying that Branch should be given more deference here than T.O. got b/c he has more "respect" in the character department? WRs get big Ks b/c of their ability/production - while I'm sure character is a consideration, the former are the crux of the K. Keeping that in mind, I think T.O.'s request made a little more sense (though it was still asinine) b/c he has vastly outperformed Branch.

 

I disagree. Branch will be able to pay off the fines with 1/24th of the signing bonus he gets next year from Seattle or New York or any other team that might be interested now that it wont cost them a pick. And I seriously disagree that the Pats will not be worse off without him.

 

He's losing money - he'd get the signing bonus he gets next year no matter what. Unless the Pats cave, Deion isn't getting any signing bonus this year - he's just sitting there losing money and wasting one of his prime seasons as an NFL WR.

 

There's the answer. How can you blame Branch for looking for a better deal?

 

I can't - he asked and the Pats made a reasonable offer, which he summarily rejected. What I can blame him for is deciding to tank the season b/c he (apparently) thinks he should get 2 more years on a contract, regardless of the fact that he'd likely never see those years anyway. It's idiocy.

[Balzac]

How do you figure branch will be hurt more than the pats. the Pats need Branch, and Branch is being offered more money than the Pats elsehwere. Not sure that comment makes any sense

 

It remains to be seen just how badly the Pats need Branch - I, for one, don't think it's nearly as much as people think. Anyway, he's being OFFERED more money . . . but he can't take it b/c he's under contract. Like I said in a previous post - he's losing money every day and wasting one of his prime years. The Pats will be fine this year and they'll be fine next year and going forward - Deion Branch certainly isn't going to have a lasting impact on this franchise.

 

As far as Branch goes, how much has he been fined to date? $150K? What will that grow to if he never shows? $500K? I have no idea. Football players only make the big bucks for a few years in their lives - losing this $500K will have a much bigger effect on the life of Deion Branch than his walking will have on the Pats franchise - that's all I'm saying.

 

Just because a player hasnt done it yet, doesnt mean he is not capable of doing it.

 

True, but it certainly doesn't mean that he IS capable of doing it either - any team that pays Branch like a #1 WR is taking a huge risk. Branch has talent - no doubt. He just hasn't proven that he's worth what he thinks he's worth . . . especially to an offense that spreads the ball around so much.

[Whiskey Pimp]

Maybe the Pats should just tack on 12 mil and 2 more years to be equal on the offer. Branch can sign it and then the Pats can just cut him after year 4. Done and done.

[forever in debt to mo lewis]

I see offers for contract work all the time. I'm in IT and System Design. It's very common.

I wasn't saying talent-wise. You questioned his character, and I'm saying character-wise, he has earned more respect than TO.

I disagree. Branch will be able to pay off the fines with 1/24th of the signing bonus he gets next year from Seattle or New York or any other team that might be interested now that it wont cost them a pick. And I seriously disagree that the Pats will not be worse off without him.

There's the answer. How can you blame Branch for looking for a better deal? I'm certainly going to be thinking "Man, those guys should have paid Branch" when the Pats struggle. They have a good team, and they shouldn't be shorting the entire team because they are frugal, cold, and stubborn. I'd be pissed if I was Tom Brady.

 

 

tom brady, pissed?...ehh i dunno...maybe...maybes hes a bit pissed because he feels like him and deion are almost at a peyton/marvin comfort zone level together on the field...maybe because hes shared some big games with him...maybe because they talk and get along well off the field

 

but i think tom trusts the guys who are in charge and sees how thinks work in NE...he sees a bigger picture that extends beyond 06

[loyalboyd]

Screw that pay the man. If he wasnt their in the superbowl they just not might have won. Tom Brady is good but lets be real. Branch light it up.

[Sgt. Ryan]

If Branch wasnt worth what he thought, he wouldnt have been offered what he was. If the Pats didnt want to hang onto Branch, they would have traded him by now. Branch missing 10 weeks does nothing for him, only the Pats. Its not like next year he wont get the same money he is being offered now. If Im Branch I do exactly what he is doing, and really the pats have no leg to stand on, unless they are going to franchise Branch next year, but then they will have to pay him even more than he is asking now and he wont have to sign that franchise contract until after training camp, and instead show up for the season and cant be fined a penny for it.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan

[FishFreak]

I just don't understand both sides of this dispute.

 

1) The Pats are being understanably frugal but would rather not make a deal and lose Branch to free agency after this year and get nothing in return? Take what ever teams are offering now and move on! They obviously don't want to pay him his market value. Apparently the Jets and Seahawks do.

 

2) Branch is piling up fines and missing out on an opportunity to play with a solid team and put up career numbers. Sitting out for potentially 10 games and griping with the organization is just tarnishing his image. Either accept a fair deal or honor your current contract.

 

3) In the end this helps no one and hurts the franchise this year. The Pats lost Givens to free agency and now have Branch holding out. Brady is the best in the business but when you lose two starting WR's and replace them with scrubs, your offense is simply easier to defend. We'll see what happens....

[Balzac]

If Branch wasnt worth what he thought, he wouldnt have been offered what he was.

 

That's not exactly true - "worth" is subjective and, to the Pats (who utilize so many different receiving options on a regular basis), Branch isn't worth what he wants. To the Jets and Seahawks, he's obviously worth more b/c they offered him more.

 

If the Pats didnt want to hang onto Branch, they would have traded him by now. Branch missing 10 weeks does nothing for him, only the Pats. Its not like next year he wont get the same money he is being offered now.

 

I think they definitely want to hang onto him - but for the price they're willing to pay. Frankly, I wish they'd come to some sort of resolution (either pay him or trade him and get some sort of compensation) b/c having him walk next year w/o any compensation is a no-win scenario.

[Balzac]

1) The Pats are being understanably frugal but would rather not make a deal and lose Branch to free agency after this year and get nothing in return? Take what ever teams are offering now and move on!

 

Agreed.

 

They obviously don't want to pay him his market value. Apparently the Jets and Seahawks do.

 

The concept of market value shouldn't even be relevant here b/c the dude is under contract. Anyway, market value always gets driven way up b/c a few desperate teams are always willing to overpay for players - I think the Pats are smart to go no higher than they have.

 

3) In the end this helps no one and hurts the franchise this year. The Pats lost Givens to free agency and now have Branch holding out. Brady is the best in the business but when you lose two starting WR's and replace them with scrubs, your offense is simply easier to defend. We'll see what happens....

 

It also hurts Branch who, like you said, is damaging his image and is also sitting out a year in the prime of his career - he could (I say could b/c I'm not sure what would happen) be putting up monster stats this year with Givens gone, making his "market value" soar even higher for next year. Instead, he's sitting on his ass getting fined.

[forever in debt to mo lewis]

andre rison

[MikesMarauders]

Ok there has been alot of talk about this and 2 things caught my eye. First of all I believe he was offered a contract with the pats for 35 million (believe a boston paper reported that before) and I also see that people are saying that he will just make up the fines that he has to pay buy signing with the Jets or Seatle next year and the pats will get nothing in return, I think this is wrong he is going to be a unrestricted free agent the pats can counter it or (and no one seems to mention this) but cant they can JUST PUT A FRANCISE TAG ON HIM

Edited September 6, 2006 by MikesMarauders

[AtomicCEO]

The concept of market value shouldn't even be relevant here b/c the dude is under contract. Anyway, market value always gets driven way up b/c a few desperate teams are always willing to overpay for players - I think the Pats are smart to go no higher than they have.

It also hurts Branch who, like you said, is damaging his image and is also sitting out a year in the prime of his career - he could (I say could b/c I'm not sure what would happen) be putting up monster stats this year with Givens gone, making his "market value" soar even higher for next year. Instead, he's sitting on his ass getting fined.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to get all T.O. "It's a business" on you... but I think that your concept of a contract is somewhat naive. You're making it some kind of moral issue. The reality is that neither Branch nor the Patriots are required to live up to their contract if they don't want to.

 

And I don't think Branch is at all concerned about 500K in fines. He'll make more than that just by going to another team.

 

It's a great point that the Patriots should get whatever value they can out of Branch at this point, because teaching him a lesson and forcing him to sit is not worth losing out on a 2nd rounder from the Jets. That's a high 2nd rounder. Take the value. They're just being dumb if they don't.

 

As a fan, wouldn't you rather have pick 34 next year than the satisfaction of watching Branch sit out?

[Caveman_Nick]

As a fan, wouldn't you rather have pick 34 next year than the satisfaction of watching Branch sit out?

 

No. As a fan I would rather know that my team is going to deal with players in the fashion that they advertise they will deal with players. I want the players to know that holding out on this team is not going to get it done.

[loyalboyd]

I just don't understand both sides of this dispute.

 

1) The Pats are being understanably frugal but would rather not make a deal and lose Branch to free agency after this year and get nothing in return? Take what ever teams are offering now and move on! They obviously don't want to pay him his market value. Apparently the Jets and Seahawks do.

 

2) Branch is piling up fines and missing out on an opportunity to play with a solid team and put up career numbers. Sitting out for potentially 10 games and griping with the organization is just tarnishing his image. Either accept a fair deal or honor your current contract.

 

3) In the end this helps no one and hurts the franchise this year. The Pats lost Givens to free agency and now have Branch holding out. Brady is the best in the business but when you lose two starting WR's and replace them with scrubs, your offense is simply easier to defend. We'll see what happens....

 

 

 

Just no.2

 

U as a player must play your 6 yr contract out. But if u out perform it u get nothing. U as a player get hurt or under perform u get cut yr 2 or 3 and never see the 6 yr money. Honor your contract nope. He and every other NFL player put his azz on the line every down they play. He dont want to be the next big player that never got paid off. He is always one hit away from a career ending injury.

[rellen13]

I'm sorry, but those of you arguing that the team takes no risk in a player contract are wrong. Years and total amounts of a contract are nothing more than fictional numbers. The only real part of a contract today is the signing bonus/guaranteed money, and if after signing a shiny new contract a player blows out both ACLs, the team still pays that gauranteed money to him and gets zip in return (except perhaps the undying love of the players assc. and an 2-14 record).