I'll bet every one of the six dollars and 23 cents in my pocket that there is no such CBA prohibition against disclosure. That doesn't mean that there isn't legal grounds for a tampering claim, because there could very well be an NFL by-law or just a plain ol' common law tampering claim. But some dopey beat writer cited the CBA for the grounds behind the claim, and that just wouldn't be correct. That's not a collective bargaining agreement dealy.
The draft pick that the Jets were willing to give up for Branch is a moot point. It has nothing to do with the amount of compensation that the player is willing to accept. It also does no harm to the Patriots. With 31 other teams in the league, who really cares how much the Jets were willing to give up? If it really mattered, Branch would have won in arbitration and the Patriots would have something to complain about. After the way the whole Herm Edwards saga ended, the Jets are the LAST team that should be charged with tampering.
I think you misunderstand.. The team(seahawks or JEts) tells the player what kind of contract they want to offer him (6 years 39 mil) then Branch tells the PAtriots hey I'll accept a trade to these teams who are interested (Jets, Seahawks) the teams then work out what compensation will be, If the teams do not agree, there is no deal, player stays on original team. IF they do (example: Seahawks 1st for Branch) the player is traded, then signs the agreed upon extension with the new team. SO what happens is 4 steps. Step 1- provisional contract agreement with player Step 2- Trade negotiations with player's team Step 3- Trade Step 4- extension
I missed that at first but understand it now. It still is a moot point though. Unless Branch won the arbitration hearing, the Patriots were not damaged. Therfore, the Jets should not have to fork over any draft picks. Also, it would be extremely difficult to prove the allegation that the Jets told the agent what they offered the Patriots. He could have guessed a second rounder very easily.
What the difference with this situationand what the falcons did to us with the j Abe trade? If I remember correctly: They ran to the press saying that they had a contract in place with Abe and that they were only offering a 2nd round pick to us for him. We replied that we have a better offer from Seattle and said they had to at least match it. NE just didn't have the better offer on the table at the time, So it is there loss.
I don't see why it was an amateur move by Tannenbaum. He got Branch traded from the Patriots out of the division; ie. he weakened them tremendously this year; and the Jets WILL NOT (my opinion) pay any compensation.
Don't know if anybody posted Mike Fluoride's view from Pro Football Schmuks... The link (scroll down): http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm POSTED 10:12 a.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 12:25 p.m. EDT, September 13, 2006 PATS PISSING IN THE WIND? On the surface, it makes for intriguing reading, especially with the two teams involved scheduled to play each other this weekend. The New England Patriots claim that the New York Jets "tampered" with receiver Deion Branch. It sounds so official -- and ominous. Even to the untrained eye the words are compelling, conjuring images of Jets G.M. Mike Tannenbaum hiring a two-bit hoodlum to give Branch the Nancy Kerrigan treatment while walking off of the practice field. But in the NFL "tampering" isn't a dirty word. As we've learned over the years, it's an accepted business practice. And it's yet another example of an organization having rules on the books that are never enforced. Indeed, it's believed in league circles that no one has ever been found guilty of tampering with another team's players. We've managed to get our hands on the portion of the NFL's anti-tampering policy that relates to players. The language confirms our belief that violations have occurred in the past, without incident. As a result, it's hard to believe that the NFL will do anything to the Jets regarding the allegations currently made by the Patriots -- even if the Pats can prove that there was "tampering." The operative term generally is defined in the policy as "any interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another club or any attempt by a club to impermissibly induce a person to employment with that club or with the NFL." As to college players, the policy prohibits any direct or indirect attempts to induce underclassmen to enter the draft. In this regard, the policy expressly prohibits team personnel from making "public comments about the football ability or NFL potential of underclassman who have not yet been officially declared eligible for the draft." But in January 2006, Broncos coach Mike Shanahan and Saints G.M. Mickey Loomis gave quotes to Sports Illustrated regarding the football ability of Texas quarterback Vince Young, before Young had been declared eligible by the league for the draft. Said Shanahan: "Everyone makes fun of his [throwing] motion, but you can't argue with his results. He was the best in college football in passing efficiency. You don't change that." Said Loomis: "Historically, mobile quarterbacks don't last in the NFL unless they become pocket quarterbacks. Look at Michael Vick. It seems like he's starting to break down a little bit." Neither team, to our knowledge, was disciplined for the remarks. As to current NFL players, the policy sets forth various specific rules and examples regarding tampering. Statements of interest in a player under contract with another team, qualified or unqualified via words like "but he's under contract with another team," are prohibited. Disclosure of confidential trade discussions are a potential violation. If a player contacts a team on his own, the team must report the situation immediately. Obviously, any contact between a team official and a player under contract with another team (or the player's agent) is forbidden, especially where the objective is to discuss potential contract terms. But this happens all the time in the days and weeks prior to the launch of unrestricted free agency in March of each year. The discussions intensify during the scouting combine in Indianapolis, where team personnel gather to eyeball incoming players -- and where agents flock to begin gauging the market for their clients who'll soon be available as free agents. It's gotten to the point that some teams (as one league source advised us on Tuesday) opted to begin doing it simply because every other team is and has been doing it. In this specific case, the Pats claim that the Jets and Deion Branch's agent impermissibly discussed trade terms at a time when the only permission given to other teams was to negotiate a contract with Branch. The Patriots contend that their negotiating position was compromised when Branch and his agent became aware of what the Jets were offering. (As noted above, trade discussions between teams are supposed to be confidential, and the leaking of that information is a potential tampering violation.) There could be other potential bases for the present charges. For example, Jets G.M. Mike Tannenbaum disclosed to Ron Borges of the Boston Globe details of the trade discussions. Regarding the question of whether the Patriots asked for two first-round picks for Branch, Tannenbaum said on the night of September 1 (after the window for getting a deal done had closed), "That didn't happen. They didn't ask for anything." In our view, the grievance that Branch ultimately filed against the team, alleging that the Pats had broken a verbal promise to trade him, highlights the potential violation of the anti-tampering policy -- if New England can show that the permission given to Branch (and to other teams) was limited solely to working out a new contract and not to working out a trade. We're also not prepared to rule out a possible allegation by the Patriots that Branch's agent Jason Chayut had "gauged the market" for Branch's services before advising Branch to go ahead with his holdout. Though, as we've explained in the past, it's prudent for an agent to develop a feel for what other teams will pay to their clients, a team's acquiescence to such a request constitutes tampering. And the policy makes it clear that, if a contract dispute arises between a player and his current team after there has been discussion with another team regarding potential contract terms, tampering will be found even if there is no proof of a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the impermissible contact and the contract problems. "In other words," as the policy reads, "a club will not be able to defend a tampering charge in these circumstances by asserting that its private contact with a player (or the player's representative) did not involve any expression of interest in the player or was not related in any way to the player's subsequent contract problem with the club." So if there's evidence that Branch's agent contacted the Jets during the offseason to find out, hypothetically, what the Jets would pay to a guy like Branch (wink, nod) and the Jets provided contract parameters and the contract dispute between Branch and the team arose and/or escalated thereafter, the league could find that the Jets engaged in tampering. It all looks good on paper. The problem, as we've learned, is that the policy isn't -- and likely won't be -- enforced. Part of the problem in a case like this, however, is that it will be impossible to prove the content of any conversations between the Jets and Branch's agent, since Branch's agent could have been talking to the Jets about other clients. We're not ruling out the possibility that new Commissioner Roger Goodell will decide that the time has come to take action regarding tampering, given the rampant and blatant violations that occur. But the fact that he held such a high position in the previous regime tells us that the NFL is likely to continue to acknowledge that it has a policy. But never actually enforce it.
