Golden Wheels Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 890 ESPN radio in Boston is reporting that the Patriots have traded WR Deion Branch to the Seattle Seahawks for a first round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Wheels Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 confirmation from Boston Globe: link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They waited and got what they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They waited and got what they wanted. 769554[/snapback] Great..the rich (NE) get richer!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They waited and got what they wanted. 769554[/snapback] 3 fgs by a team that was an offensive powerhouse last year must have done the trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 3 fgs by a team that was an offensive powerhouse last year must have done the trick. 769562[/snapback] Wonder if he becomes their #1 over Jackson?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Great..the rich (NE) get richer!!!!!!!!! 769561[/snapback] How does a future late first round pick benefit them this year? Unless The Genius has found a way to bend time and space so that Boy Wonder can make a completion to a player that isn't even on their team yet, this doesn't help them at all. But after seeing the officiating yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised if he got credited with "future completions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 How does a future late first round pick benefit them this year? Unless The Genius has found a way to bend time and space so that Boy Wonder can make a completion to a player that isn't even on their team yet, this doesn't help them at all. But after seeing the officiating yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised if he got credited with "future completions". 769574[/snapback] They obviously dont need anything this year! But it sure sets them up for the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 LOL! If yesterday was any indication, the Pats are no longer a great team. And it's funny how foolishly consistent they are. They covet draft picks more than their actual players who have produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 LOL! If yesterday was any indication, the Pats are no longer a great team. And it's funny how foolishly consistent they are. They covet draft picks more than their actual players who have produced. 769588[/snapback] But....they Win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 How does a future late first round pick benefit them this year?769574[/snapback] It doesn't, but it will go nicely with their very early first-round pick next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 3 fgs by a team that was an offensive powerhouse last year must have done the trick. 769562[/snapback] And the last one when was time expired. Could be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 It doesn't, but it will go nicely with their very early first-round pick next year. 769597[/snapback] Yeah and everyone was saying how bad Notre Dame was the first week. Sometimes have time to prepare and someone can bite you. Tell me again how Penn State did in week 2 against that overrated ND team. I forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 i still cant believe the pats got a 1st rounder (even a late 1st rounder) for an average WR who looked to be holdign out the entire season. they should have, at best, traded him for a 2nd rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cale Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 But....they Win! 769595[/snapback] Against teams in rebuilding mode They don't actually have a stellar offense - if they come up against teams that can slow their run, they are in trouble...Their next four games are not cake by any stretch of the imagination...If they win half, I'd be unpleasantly surprised... Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Gone Deion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 NE knows that it can not over pay players if they want to stay competive. This is why they did not give big contracts to 34 and 35 year old players like Willie and Adam V They also do not give #1 money to a number 2 reciever who is injured a lot like Givens. The loss of Branch will hurt them but they will deal with it. This is a problem a lot of teams get into, paying way to much money to players who are too old or want too much. This eats up cap room and causes a lot of dead money to be on the payroll. This is why teams like TN get to the big game once and never return because of cap problems and bad spending on players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They waited and got what they wanted. 769554[/snapback] They were asking for 2 1st rounders, not one, so they got half of what they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewgetz Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They were asking for 2 1st rounders, not one, so they got half of what they wanted. 769657[/snapback] I believe they were asking for 1 first rounder and a mid-rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 i still cant believe the pats got a 1st rounder (even a late 1st rounder) for an average WR who looked to be holdign out the entire season. they should have, at best, traded him for a 2nd rounder. 769602[/snapback] I know. Teams weren't even willing to give up a 1st rounder for a guy like Sean Alexander or even a starting QB like Culpepper. Branch???? he's pretty good but gimme a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 But....they Win! I didn't say they stunk. I said that they're no longer the invincible dynasty, and a big reason for that is valuing savings and draft picks over proven players. Another reason is loss of good coaching, but that's not entirely within their power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 That's the same we got for Peerless Price. The Pats needed Branch way more than they needed this pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Nobody knows if they need Branch more than a first round pick? Many times a player gets a big contract but never lives up to it. Branch is good but is 5.9 and has been injured alot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 A first rounder for Branch? The Pats got a steal on this one. Yes the Pats need receivers, but they knew Branch wasn't going to play for them. Thats a great move for New England. No way is Branch worth a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Yeah and everyone was saying how bad Notre Dame was the first week. Sometimes have time to prepare and someone can bite you. Tell me again how Penn State did in week 2 against that overrated ND team. I forgot. 769601[/snapback] You finally did it....a post I like. Edit: Actually, I must begrudgingly admit that I've liked a lot of your posts of late. Same good understanding of the game, yet less prickish. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 How does a future late first round pick benefit them this year? 769574[/snapback] It's a Bruschi thing, you wouldn't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 can some explain how why Seattle gave so much $ to Burleson if they made this trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drg2021 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 A first rounder for Branch? The Pats got a steal on this one. Yes the Pats need receivers, but they knew Branch wasn't going to play for them. Thats a great move for New England. No way is Branch worth a first. 769793[/snapback] I have a feeling there going to put some pics together to trade for w reciever.They certainlly dont have much of a recieving core at this time but they must have something in the works.3 recievers dressed yesterday.If troy Brown would have gotten hurt they would have been down to 2.Theyve got something in the works im sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 can some explain how why Seattle gave so much $ to Burleson if they made this trade? 769800[/snapback] I'll take a shot. They felt jilted about the Hutchinson situation and foolishly overspent for an mid-level WR just so they could satisfy a need for revenge. About 24 hours later they realized what they had done and have been planning to get a real WR ever since. Unfortunately, in their desperation to fix problem 1, they have disregarded the fact the Branch has never been and will never be a premier #1 WR. He went from above-average to instant hit because he received a Super Bowl MVP award for the reason that they didnt want to give Brady 3 in a row. whew.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 And it's funny how foolishly consistent they are. They covet draft picks more than their actual players who have produced. You're completely missing the point. This trade is the result of a simple cost-benefit analysis. Branch has produced, certainly; and for four years, he was a tremendous bargain playing on a rookie contract. His holdout, however, meant that he wouldn't be willing to produce for the Patriots again until the team signed him to a contract of a value that exceeded Branch's production. Thus, to get Branch back on the field, the team would have to make an unsound financial decision, which is not beneficial. A 1st round draft pick, conversely, is likely to match or exceed Branch's relative production (at least the player taken should, given Belichick and Pioli's track record in that round), and will be producing under a highly economical 5-year contract. The move is a sound one from a long-term perspective. Obviously, the Patriots could've caved to get Branch on the field this year, but the negative consequences would eventually far outweigh the positive - Branch would be receiving more money than his production warrants, there would be less money for other players, and a precedent would be set that any contract can be altered before it expires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 You're completely missing the point. This trade is the result of a simple cost-benefit analysis. Branch has produced, certainly; and for four years, he was a tremendous bargain playing on a rookie contract. His holdout, however, meant that he wouldn't be willing to produce for the Patriots again until the team signed him to a contract of a value that exceeded Branch's production. Thus, to get Branch back on the field, the team would have to make an unsound financial decision, which is not beneficial. A 1st round draft pick, conversely, is likely to match or exceed Branch's relative production (at least he should given Belichick and Pioli's track record in that round), and will be producing under a highly economical 5-year contract. The move is a sound one from a long-term perspective. Obviously, the Patriots could've caved to get Branch on the field this year, but the negative consequences would eventually far outweigh the positive - Branch would be receiving more money than his production warrants, there would be less money for other players, and a precedent would be set that any contract can be altered before it expires. 769931[/snapback] i'm a big fan of branch and think he's an excellent player. i'm surprised they didn't place more value on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 We simply don't make mistakes because unlike the Bills, our Patriots always initiate an email round to the best informed fans before any move like this. I responded to the Branch email Saturday morning, throwing my full support behind accepting the Seattle pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 can some explain how why Seattle gave so much $ to Burleson if they made this trade? They didn't. The contract includes a poison pill that jacks up and guarantees the salaries if Burleson plays a certain number of games in Minnesota (which he won't as a Seahawk, but he would've as a Viking) so that the Vikings wouldn't match. In reality it's much less (I can't remember the exact numbers, but something about 3 years $14 million sticks in my head). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 i'm a big fan of branch and think he's an excellent player. i'm surprised they didn't place more value on him. I also appreciate Branch's talents. Value, though, is a combination of both talent and salary. Branch was a great value on his rookie deal. He would've been a good value on the contract offered by the Patriots. The Patriots evidently felt that, if given much more money than they were offering, Branch would become a poor value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I'm just glad he didn't go to the Jets. I'll worry about the Pat's 2007 picks in April of 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 can some explain how why Seattle gave so much $ to Burleson if they made this trade? 769800[/snapback] Seahawks didn't sepnd too much on Burleson. The contract reads seven-year for $49 million, but the last three years are basically bogus. Burleson's contract should be viewed as four-year for $14.5 million dollars. He has no chance to see the last three years of the contract which worth $34.5 million. Here is his salary per year from NFLPA: 2006: 1,250,000 2007: 2,750,000 2008: 3,250,000 2009: 3,250,000 2010: 10,500,000 2011: 12,000,000 2012: 12,000,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 ESPN' reaction: Since New England obtained the 1st round pick from Seattle: The Pats genius shows again. They just reload for the draft and will get the best of this deal. Hypothetical scenario #2: Buffalo Bills have Deion Branch, trade him to Seattle for the same 1st round pick: ESPN's reaction: The Bills really reached here. Ralph Wilson is old and still cannot read the CBA. Bills have no clue what they are doing, and remember, just like Trey Wingo says 500 times, the Bills gave up a 1st round pick for Losman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 A first rounder for Branch? The Pats got a steal on this one. Yes the Pats need receivers, but they knew Branch wasn't going to play for them. Thats a great move for New England. No way is Branch worth a first. 769793[/snapback] Yes. They can peddle the pick for future choices, or give it for a needed player and a #2 or something before the trade deadline. Money in the pocket... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Chipper Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think Seatle feels they are close to winning it all and they needed another solid wideout. They got Burleson over the summer and paid alot for him and he had a terrible preseason. They must have felt Jackson and Branch would stop teams from keying on Alexander. I think they made a nice pick up considering they may be drafting last or close to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Frustrating how it seems that every year they find a way to hold multiple first round picks. Why won't they just die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts