Rubes Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 The Patriots might be playing this loyalty thing up a bit too much when dealing with Tom Brady's contract extension. The team wants to defer much of the signing bonus -- guaranteeing half of it -- according to reports, and Brady doesn't want that type of deal. The numbers won't be quite in the Peyton Manning class -- whose deal included $34.5 million in signing-bonus money -- but they are close. Word is Brady's bonus would be in the $25 million range. But if the Patriots don't come around on the signing-bonus payout issue, this one might not get done. Brady has two years left on his current deal, but he has a cap figure of $10.02 million this season and $14.02 million in 2006 (including a $3 million roster bonus). Interestingly enough, Brady's cap figure for this year is higher than Manning's $8.43 million. And next season, Manning's spikes to $17.7 million -- thanks to a $9 million roster bonus. That's high, but it's not that much higher than Brady's 2006 figure. The funny thing about the Brady deal is how everyone insisted he didn't really care about the contract. Now that it appears the Patriots are trying to stick him, it has become an issue. Forget loyalty, folks. Money pays the bills. And don't ever forget the NFL is a business, big business. Not that I particularly care about either player, but my eyes nearly popped out at those cap figures. Brady has a cap figure of $10 mill this season and $14 mill next? Holy schnickes. He accounts for more than 10% of the entire team cap, I believe. And Peyton's figure next season is obscene at almost $18 mill. Should be interesting to see what happens with these two over the next couple of years. Also makes me shudder to think what might happen in a few years if McGahee, Evans, and Losman all perform as well as expected... Linky (it's down somewhere in the "Around the League" section) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I think the main difference between the two contracts pertains to the jewelry on Brady's hands. As much as I hate the Pats, and as much as I think Peyton is the better QB, Brady has already gotten it done. Sometimes I actually forget that he's won THREE friggin super bowls. Even if it means the team has to allocate much of their salary cap space to one player, I think you gotta pay the guy. He's already done the job. If a QB came in here and led the Bills to three rings (hell, even ONE), I think most of us fans would be all for paying the guy whatever he deserved. If the Pats really are trying to screw over Brady, they are truly asssholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 2, 2005 Author Share Posted April 2, 2005 I think the main difference between the two contracts pertains to the jewelry on Brady's hands. As much as I hate the Pats, and as much as I think Peyton is the better QB, Brady has already gotten it done. Sometimes I actually forget that he's won THREE friggin super bowls. Even if it means the team has to allocate much of their salary cap space to one player, I think you gotta pay the guy. He's already done the job. If a QB came in here and led the Bills to three rings (hell, even ONE), I think most of us fans would be all for paying the guy whatever he deserved. If the Pats really are trying to screw over Brady, they are truly asssholes. 294216[/snapback] That's pretty much right on target, I'd say. Problem is, can you realistically expect to field a championship-caliber team with a QB who demands that high of a percentage of your total cap? I would think that the Pats really owe it to Brady to show him the money, but that kind of money can really handcuff the rest of the team. There may be creative ways of structuring contracts to deal with that, but when you're talking that kind of coin, I'm not sure how you can hide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 That's pretty much right on target, I'd say. Problem is, can you realistically expect to field a championship-caliber team with a QB who demands that high of a percentage of your total cap? I would think that the Pats really owe it to Brady to show him the money, but that kind of money can really handcuff the rest of the team. There may be creative ways of structuring contracts to deal with that, but when you're talking that kind of coin, I'm not sure how you can hide it. 294220[/snapback] Yep, and that's probably exactly the rationale of the Pats management. I can't think of many situations where I'd feel this way, but if you told me that there was a QB we could bring to the Bills who would lead us to three rings, but that afterwards we'd have to put up with a very lopsided team because of how much he'll be paid for the results, I'd be all for it. One super bowl win is probably amazing. But three wins in four years? That basically assures you a place in history. All of a sudden you are in the same conversations as the 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, and 90's Cowboys......and you BELONG in that conversation. What's that worth to a franchise? I'm no Bob Kraft.......and it's not my money.......but to me, that would be worth a HELLUVA lot, bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 All well and good but I think the real question here is whether or not Manning could beat Brady in a footrace... Why, I'll bet Drew Bledsoe could beat them both in a footrace and I'd be willing to watch it on pay-per-view. <WHY IN THE HECK DO PEOPLE KEEP BRINGING UP BLEDSOE?! HE'S NOT ON THE TEAM ANYMORE!> Because he makes me laugh. That simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 <WHY IN THE HECK DO PEOPLE KEEP BRINGING UP BLEDSOE?! HE'S NOT ON THE TEAM ANYMORE!> Because he makes me laugh. That simple. 294253[/snapback] I feel the same way.......just can't help it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Yep, and that's probably exactly the rationale of the Pats management. I can't think of many situations where I'd feel this way, but if you told me that there was a QB we could bring to the Bills who would lead us to three rings, but that afterwards we'd have to put up with a very lopsided team because of how much he'll be paid for the results, I'd be all for it. One super bowl win is probably amazing. But three wins in four years? That basically assures you a place in history. All of a sudden you are in the same conversations as the 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, and 90's Cowboys......and you BELONG in that conversation. What's that worth to a franchise? I'm no Bob Kraft.......and it's not my money.......but to me, that would be worth a HELLUVA lot, bro. 294232[/snapback] But he already won the three Super Bowls, and I'm sure the Pats know as well or better than anyone that while he is a great player and great quarterback, they won because of that team as a whole. And if they pay him too much now that ain't likely to re-occur. And while they publicly or privately would say to him "we owe you" for your past performance, they really don't. He was paid what he got by the contract he signed and must live by, and all future contracts are based on what are you doing for me right now and in the near future for the money, based on the salary cap for the team as a whole. I think the Colts screwed up with Manning, and it will kill them in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 The Patriots had their run. With Brady making that coin, like with the Colts, no (more) SB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 But he already won the three Super Bowls, and I'm sure the Pats know as well or better than anyone that while he is a great player and great quarterback, they won because of that team as a whole. And if they pay him too much now that ain't likely to re-occur. And while they publicly or privately would say to him "we owe you" for your past performance, they really don't. He was paid what he got by the contract he signed and must live by, and all future contracts are based on what are you doing for me right now and in the near future for the money, based on the salary cap for the team as a whole. I think the Colts screwed up with Manning, and it will kill them in the long run. 294262[/snapback] Yep, I can't really agrue with any of that. I guess I just feel that if a QB accomplished that for our team, the last thing I'd try and do is screw him over with the disbursement of the signing bonus or whatever. I'd have no problem paying the guy his worth, even if it meant having to have an unbalanced team like the Colts. Peyton, as great as he is, hasn't won jack. The Pats and their fans will have a share in a part of history because of what Brady and the team have accomplished. Nobody can take it away from them.....ever. The guy is only like what, 26? I just think this is a rare situation where I'd have no problem paying a guy huge jack for what he's already accomplished instead of what I HOPE he'll accomplish in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 2, 2005 Author Share Posted April 2, 2005 Yep, I can't really agrue with any of that. I guess I just feel that if a QB accomplished that for our team, the last thing I'd try and do is screw him over with the disbursement of the signing bonus or whatever. I'd have no problem paying the guy his worth, even if it meant having to have an unbalanced team like the Colts. Peyton, as great as he is, hasn't won jack. The Pats and their fans will have a share in a part of history because of what Brady and the team have accomplished. Nobody can take it away from them.....ever. The guy is only like what, 26? I just think this is a rare situation where I'd have no problem paying a guy huge jack for what he's already accomplished instead of what I HOPE he'll accomplish in the future. 294304[/snapback] It's really an interesting, unique situation. Brady already accomplished as much as you could ever ask of a QB, everything you would expect from a QB with a huge salary. But he didn't have that huge salary. So basically this next contract could be viewed as a "thanks" for what he did for them while being paid peanuts. But in today's NFL, you're paying for future performance, not past performance, and the kind of contract they would need to give Brady might sabotage their chances in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 It's really an interesting, unique situation. Brady already accomplished as much as you could ever ask of a QB, everything you would expect from a QB with a huge salary. But he didn't have that huge salary. So basically this next contract could be viewed as a "thanks" for what he did for them while being paid peanuts. But in today's NFL, you're paying for future performance, not past performance, and the kind of contract they would need to give Brady might sabotage their chances in the future. 294326[/snapback] Exactly......and I can see how the Pats management would see things from a 'this day forward' perspective. It is, after all, a business. But like you said, Brady has already gone above and beyond the call of duty.....with plenty of years ahead of him. Chances are that Manning will never win ONE bowl, let alone three. Yet he's getting paid gigantic jack. I can see it both ways......I just come down on the side of rewarding Brady for what he has already accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 In a salary cap era, you cant reward players for past accomplishments, it will simply KILL your team. The Pats arent looking to cheat Brady, they are just looking to remain viable and competetive throughout the tenure rather than going for broke for a few years and then sucking up a tremendous cap hit. It makes no sense to give him a huge contract/guaranteed bonus that will either cripple the team or having to cut Brady near the end of his contract because its too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I have read where the PAts have the best paid middle class in the NFL. Not to many highly paid super stars. It is time to cut Brady's ass and plug in a serviceable QB to help keep the middle class they like to bragg about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 All that said, I think Brady's #s are reasonable given that of Manning's, Vick's and McNabb's. I also think that the Pats are doing this just for "show" as they are telling the league and more importantly their other players that they deal with EVERYONE the same. They'll get a deal done, of that I have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGill Bill Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 I think the main difference between the two contracts pertains to the jewelry on Brady's hands. As much as I hate the Pats, and as much as I think Peyton is the better QB, Brady has already gotten it done. Sometimes I actually forget that he's won THREE friggin super bowls. Even if it means the team has to allocate much of their salary cap space to one player, I think you gotta pay the guy. He's already done the job. If a QB came in here and led the Bills to three rings (hell, even ONE), I think most of us fans would be all for paying the guy whatever he deserved. If the Pats really are trying to screw over Brady, they are truly asssholes. 294216[/snapback] You know, I'd have to disagree. The Patriots' dynasty is not built around Tom Brady. I simply refuse to believe that he is much more responsible for their success than their starting left guard (that's an exaggeration, but not a very big one). The Superbowls came to New England because of that good ol' cliche of working together as a team. That, and good coaching. If you ask me, there's no way they should pay him that kind of money. He is NOT a franchise player. In fact, if you ask me, there really is no such thing as a franchise player. What was the last Superbowl won by a team that only had one or two superstars? Tom Brady should not be paid Manning- Vick-type money, simply because NO player is worth that much, especially with a cap in effect. The Superbowls are obviously proof that he is a reliable and clutch player. And he deserves his fair share. But come on. That's a little much if you ask me. (By the way, I'm a new member to TSW. I've read the board for a while now, and figured I might as well join and start posting. You guys have a great site going here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 In a salary cap era, you cant reward players for past accomplishments, it will simply KILL your team. The Pats arent looking to cheat Brady, they are just looking to remain viable and competetive throughout the tenure rather than going for broke for a few years and then sucking up a tremendous cap hit. It makes no sense to give him a huge contract/guaranteed bonus that will either cripple the team or having to cut Brady near the end of his contract because its too high. 294342[/snapback] I would rather grease up a turkey and shove it up my ass (al a Martha Stewart in South Park*) then agree with you...but on this I must agree. They'll meet in the middle and that will be that. The last thing the Pats need right now is to lose Brady, and the last thing Brady needs is to be the backup quarterback in Dallas. This is a non-event. *The episode in South Park when Cartman proves that you can shove food up your ass and crap out your mouth...and the subsequent health benefits of it...is, to me, one of the funniest episodes of virtually anything I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 You know, I'd have to disagree. The Patriots' dynasty is not built around Tom Brady. I simply refuse to believe that he is much more responsible for their success than their starting left guard (that's an exaggeration, but not a very big one). The Superbowls came to New England because of that good ol' cliche of working together as a team. That, and good coaching. If you ask me, there's no way they should pay him that kind of money. He is NOT a franchise player. In fact, if you ask me, there really is no such thing as a franchise player. What was the last Superbowl won by a team that only had one or two superstars? Tom Brady should not be paid Manning- Vick-type money, simply because NO player is worth that much, especially with a cap in effect. The Superbowls are obviously proof that he is a reliable and clutch player. And he deserves his fair share. But come on. That's a little much if you ask me. (By the way, I'm a new member to TSW. I've read the board for a while now, and figured I might as well join and start posting. You guys have a great site going here.) 294365[/snapback] I used to defend most of what you are saying here.....in all honesty though, when I think about whether the 2001 Pats would have won it all if Bledsoe had not gotten injured, I really don't think they would have. I, too, have cited the 'team' as being the reason for the Pats success. I've taken part in all the 'Tom Brady likes hampsters' discussions and had a good laugh over them. I just don't know anymore.....I think maybe Brady really is that good. Oh well.....I really don't care either way. Screw the Pats! I just want to see JP, Willis, and the rest of our team make some serious noise this year. The season can't start fast enough! By the way, welcome to the board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheManTheMythTheLegend Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Not that I particularly care about either player 294208[/snapback] good post, but I just found that introduction rather funny... and truthful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 I would rather grease up a turkey and shove it up my ass (al a Martha Stewart in South Park*) then agree with you...but on this I must agree. They'll meet in the middle and that will be that. The last thing the Pats need right now is to lose Brady, and the last thing Brady needs is to be the backup quarterback in Dallas. This is a non-event. *The episode in South Park when Cartman proves that you can shove food up your ass and crap out your mouth...and the subsequent health benefits of it...is, to me, one of the funniest episodes of virtually anything I've ever seen. 294393[/snapback] Agreed 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 3, 2005 Author Share Posted April 3, 2005 Agreed 100% 294408[/snapback] You thought that was the funniest episode of anything you've ever seen too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts