What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    there's a report out that he will probably restructure his contract
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sml1210. Show sml1210's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?:
    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before? : And what are you basing this information on? Branch was due $5.5m this year. With 12 weeks remaining of the 17 week season, that's 12/17 x 5.5 = $3.9m. So yeah they'll pay him $4m for the rest of the year but that basically means he has a $5.5m salary. He gets only $4m but playing only 3/4 of this season. And next year he's due $6m. And I don't see any renegotiations stated anywhere. He will need to massively underperform for us to release him.
    Posted by murghkhor


    So do you get it now?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    It's a good deal for the Pats. From the sounds of it the deal is incentive laden and even if he reaches all of the goals he will probably make about 3.5 to 4 mil. This also frees up Money for the Pats to re-up Wes Welker. From what Bill Burt was saying on the radio this afternoon they believe Brady was, in essence, recruiting Branch and at the same time finding out if he'd be willing to restructure. A friend indeed!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1024us. Show m1024us's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?:
    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before? : Wrong, I know more.
    Posted by Grogan77


    LOL!  Seattle already paid part of this year's contract....obviously you don't know more....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1024us. Show m1024us's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    he has restructured hie 2011 contract....we owe him 2.2 million for next year and he could earn 2 more million in incentives.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    In Response to What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?:
    Pats will pay Branch about $5.5m in 2010 and another $6m in 2011. Pats were not willing to pay Brach $6m per year in 2006. Why? Seahawks signed him to 6 years for $39m, $6.5m per year. Instead we endured a year of Caldwell as our top receiver (oh the horror!). Basically either $6.5m per year was not too much then or $6m per year is too much now, they can't both be true. And we gave Moss $9.5m per year. BTW we pay Welker $3.5m per year for reference. Welker signed a 5 year $18.1m contract before we signed him (Welker's 3 yr performance = 2x Pro Bowls, 2x NFL reception leader, 3x Team reception leader, 2x All Pro Selection) So what's going on here?
    Posted by murghkhor
    I guess you wrote this before the restructuring of Branch's contract this AM. The Patriots and Branch have agreed to
    restructure his contract for 2011 so that his base salary is going to be 2 million and with incentives he could conceivably earn 4 million next season. Even Deion realizes that winning in New england for 2-4 million a year is much better than playing in Seattle or Detroit for 6 million a year and losing all the time.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dboss. Show dboss's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    Well now that branch has agreed to a new contract that will reduce his base for next year part of this post has become moot.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    FOXBOROUGH -- Deion Branch said the move to renegotiate his contract was done to get him back to this situation.

    "I think it was just more so something that I was dealing with;it's nothing bad at all," Branch said today. "I just always wanted to be around champions. It's always good to have that feeling and to know what you're surrounded with."

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fancy-shamanski. Show fancy-shamanski's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    Its annoying because they could've easily afforded him.  If they had him they would've done much better in 2006.  Kraft is sitting on billions, but yet the pats are always last in the league in terms of overall payroll. They could've easily played the cap right and afforded branch, but they went cheap.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from flutie66. Show flutie66's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?:
    Its annoying because they could've easily afforded him.  If they had him they would've done much better in 2006.  Kraft is sitting on billions, but yet the pats are always last in the league in terms of overall payroll. They could've easily played the cap right and afforded branch, but they went cheap.
    Posted by fancy-shamanski


    which orifice did you pull that out of?  the pats are typically at the top of the league in spending, but we distribute our money more than other teams do by paying our stars less (usually) and getting better depth
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from passedball. Show passedball's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?:
    Its annoying because they could've easily afforded him.  If they had him they would've done much better in 2006.  Kraft is sitting on billions, but yet the pats are always last in the league in terms of overall payroll. They could've easily played the cap right and afforded branch, but they went cheap.
    Posted by fancy-shamanski



    So the millions he paid to build a stadium just magically reappeared in his wallet? This forum, & the Red Sox one, makes me laugh because so many people act like the owners have no bills to pay at all.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?

    In Response to Re: What explains Pats' willingness to pay Branch $6m per year now as opposed to before?:
    Its annoying because they could've easily afforded him.  If they had him they would've done much better in 2006.  Kraft is sitting on billions, but yet the pats are always last in the league in terms of overall payroll. They could've easily played the cap right and afforded branch, but they went cheap.
    Posted by fancy-shamanski


    He was offered a contract and because it was turned down doesn't mean it was cheap.  Seattle way over paid for Branch.  Branch has now come to his senses.  It doesn't matter if Kraft has billions.  There's a cap which the Pats have been consistantly at the top with the exception of the year we traded Seymour which opened up some cap space.  Your post is pretty much a fabrication and shot from the hip.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share