Pats V Branch---UGLY

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:26 pm

Have been hearing on the radio that the Jets and Seahags have met Branches contract demands. Deadline for a deal is in about 1 1/2 hours. Pats want 2 #1's........

No way in hell they get that. He will wait until November to report and they will franchise him in the offseason. It's getting really ugly.

Th · Post by Th » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:17 pm

Yeah, and as a bonus they are saying that Maroney hurt his knee last week vs the Foreskins and may be out awhile. This isn't getting out of the box well.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:22 pm

Th wrote:Yeah, and as a bonus they are saying that Maroney hurt his knee last week vs the Foreskins and may be out awhile. This isn't getting out of the box well.

I have heard it's not that bad. It's gonna be the Ben Watson show this year anyway. Dude only cost me 9 bucks too..... :D

Th · Post by Th » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:08 pm

Seems that the Patriots didn't like the picks the Jets and Skunks were offering as far as 'compensation' in a potential trade:

http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http://sp ... 18&srvc=sz

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:11 pm

Seems to me that the Pats are tryin' to pull two rabbits out of one hat. On one hand they don't want to pay him superstar #'s yet on the other, they want returns on a trade as if he were a superstar.

Th · Post by Th » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:30 pm

Ken wrote:Seems to me that the Pats are tryin' to pull two rabbits out of one hat. On one hand they don't want to pay him superstar #'s yet on the other, they want returns on a trade as if he were a superstar.

I think that Belichick and Pioli are trying to set the tone with Branch and the rest of the league. My opinion is that if a team is willing to work out a superstar contract with Branch to get him from the Patriots, that team should be willing to be willing to part with superstar compensation for the Patriots. Value for value.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:37 pm

Th wrote:
Ken wrote:Seems to me that the Pats are tryin' to pull two rabbits out of one hat. On one hand they don't want to pay him superstar #'s yet on the other, they want returns on a trade as if he were a superstar.

I think that Belichick and Pioli are trying to set the tone with Branch and the rest of the league. My opinion is that if a team is willing to work out a superstar contract with Branch to get him from the Patriots, that team should be willing to be willing to part with superstar compensation for the Patriots. Value for value.

I won't argue that... but it appears that other teams don't want to part with superstar compensation. You're not seeing this are you?

Hey, I can't blame the Pats for playing hardball. They're in a position of leverage. May as well ask for the whole shebang.

Th · Post by Th » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:58 pm

Ken wrote:
Th wrote:
Ken wrote:Seems to me that the Pats are tryin' to pull two rabbits out of one hat. On one hand they don't want to pay him superstar #'s yet on the other, they want returns on a trade as if he were a superstar.

I think that Belichick and Pioli are trying to set the tone with Branch and the rest of the league. My opinion is that if a team is willing to work out a superstar contract with Branch to get him from the Patriots, that team should be willing to be willing to part with superstar compensation for the Patriots. Value for value.
I won't argue that... but it appears that other teams don't want to part with superstar compensation. You're not seeing this are you?

Hey, I can't blame the Pats for playing hardball. They're in a position of leverage. May as well ask for the whole shebang.

The reason that the teams don't want to part with that type of compensation is that Branch is not 'superstar' caliber receiver. If you look closely at the offers that the other teams came up with they aren't markedly higher than what the Patriots had offered. Branch is a good #1 receiver but he is not on par with the likes of other #1's in the league - C. Johnson, S. Smith, etc . . . . . . . . .