ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. AKA "Ladypatsfan"
Last edited by DefenseRules; 02-08-2010 at 02:01 PM..
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
With all due respect to Mike, I think it is in the Patriots best interest to pay the bonus first, then sign a new deal, instead of signing a new deal before the payout is due. Nothing wrong with coming to terms before March 5th, but I would wait until March 6th to ink the new deal.
Here is why....any new deal is going to take into account the $3 million dollars. That $3 million is right now scheduled to hit in an uncapped year.
Hypotheically.
March 4th Brady and Pats come to a six year deal with a $15 million dollar signing bonus plus salary etc.
$2.5 million of that signing bonus will hit in an uncapped year and the rest $2.5 each for the next 5.
OTOH March 8th same contract but with a $12 million dollar signing bonus. $5 million will hit in an uncapped year ($3 million plus $2 million) and the pats will have a $2 million hit each of the remaining years.
__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.
With all due respect to Mike, I think it is in the Patriots best interest to pay the bonus first, then sign a new deal, instead of signing a new deal before the payout is due. Nothing wrong with coming to terms before March 5th, but I would wait until March 6th to ink the new deal.
Here is why....any new deal is going to take into account the $3 million dollars. That $3 million is right now scheduled to hit in an uncapped year.
Hypotheically.
March 4th Brady and Pats come to a six year deal with a $15 million dollar signing bonus plus salary etc.
$2.5 million of that signing bonus will hit in an uncapped year and the rest $2.5 each for the next 5.
OTOH March 8th same contract but with a $12 million dollar signing bonus. $5 million will hit in an uncapped year ($3 million plus $2 million) and the pats will have a $2 million hit each of the remaining years.
I generally agree, but that assumes that the roster bonus is deducted from the total signing bonus of the new deal. From a negotiating standpoint, I don't see why Yee would do that - he would just claim the roster bonus was part of Brady's old deal, and that his new money should be the same regardless. He's not going to give up money that he already earned, per se. Then again, you could say that a new deal would eliminate the roster bonus too (hence why Reiss says they might want to get it done now). Personally, I don't think the roster bonus plays a role at all. It's part of Brady's old deal, condition #1 of the negotiation is that all previously-negotiated, unearned money (2010 salary + roster bonus) should stay, and that a new deal will include appropriate compensation on top of that. The total value of Brady's new contract should not be subtracted by the outstanding value of his old contract.
I generally agree, but that assumes that the roster bonus is deducted from the total signing bonus of the new deal. From a negotiating standpoint, I don't see why Yee would do that - he would just claim the roster bonus was part of Brady's old deal, and that his new money should be the same regardless. He's not going to give up money that he already earned, per se. Then again, you could say that a new deal would eliminate the roster bonus too (hence why Reiss says they might want to get it done now). Personally, I don't think the roster bonus plays a role at all. It's part of Brady's old deal, condition #1 of the negotiation is that all existing money should stay.
I generally agree, but that assumes that the roster bonus is deducted from the total signing bonus of the new deal. From a negotiating standpoint, I don't see why Yee would do that - he would just claim the roster bonus was part of Brady's old deal, and that his new money should be the same regardless. He's not going to give up money that he already earned, per se. Then again, you could say that a new deal would eliminate the roster bonus too (hence why Reiss says they might want to get it done now). Personally, I don't think the roster bonus plays a role at all. It's part of Brady's old deal, condition #1 of the negotiation is that all previously-negotiated, unearned money (2010 salary + roster bonus) should stay, and that a new deal will include appropriate compensation on top of that.
I agree if the Patriots and Yee start negotiating after March 6th.
But lets say Yee and the Patriots sit down today and come to term for what Brady ought be paid for 2011 onward. It isn't gonna matter any to Brady or Yee if the new contract is $3 million dollars smaller and signed March 10th, or contains $3 million more and is signed March 1st, but when it is signed will impact future years cap hits.
__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.
I agree if the Patriots and Yee start negotiating after March 6th.
But lets say Yee and the Patriots sit down today and come to term for what Brady ought be paid for 2011 onward. It isn't gonna matter any to Brady or Yee if the new contract is $3 million dollars smaller and signed March 10th, or contains $3 million more and is signed March 1st, but when it is signed will impact future years cap hits.
By your calculations, it would affect future cap hits by $500k/year, or .39% of the 2009 salary cap.
Does that matter more, or $3M to Yee/Brady? And why should Yee care about what the Pats' cap hits are? That's not of his concern.
But all of that is besides the point. There's a fundamental flaw in your logic, being that the roster bonus paid comes out of his new deal. I can't see any reason why Yee would accept an extension that is $3M smaller because of what was negotiated in the previous deal (the $3M roster bonus in 2010). The terms of the prior deal should not have any effect on the terms of the new deal. The Patriots can't say "you received a $3M roster bonus as part of your old deal, so now you're going to get $3M less in your new deal." No. The Patriots negotiated that roster bonus four years ago; it should be a done deal to both sides. It's their problem if they wouldn't want to pay it, or more accurately, wanted to take it out of a separate new deal.
That's kind of like negotiating some X rate on a loan, and then for the next loan the bank saying "we gave you such a great deal on your last rate, so this time your rate will be higher." That's not how it works.
By your calculations, it would affect future cap hits by $500k/year, or .39% of the 2009 salary cap.
Does that matter more, or $3M to Yee/Brady? And why should Yee care about what the Pats' cap hits are? That's not of his concern.
But all of that is besides the point. There's a fundamental flaw in your logic, being that the roster bonus paid comes out of his new deal. I can't see any reason why Yee would accept an extension that is $3M smaller because of what was negotiated in the previous deal (the $3M roster bonus in 2010). The terms of the prior deal should not have any effect on the terms of the new deal. The Patriots can't say "you received a $3M roster bonus as part of your old deal, so now you're going to get $3M less in your new deal." No. The Patriots negotiated that roster bonus four years ago; it should be a done deal to both sides. It's their problem if they wouldn't want to pay it, or more accurately, wanted to take it out of a separate new deal.
That's kind of like negotiating some X rate on a loan, and then for the next loan the bank saying "we gave you such a great deal on your last rate, so this time your rate will be higher." That's not how it works.
How about the scenario where they scratch that $3m bonus and say "let's give you a higher bonus as part of the new deal." ?
How about the scenario where they scratch that $3m bonus and say "let's give you a higher bonus as part of the new deal." ?
As long as it's at least $3M more than it would be with the roster bonus. In other words, as long as you're not giving up money from the previously negotiated, signed, sealed, and delivered deal.
But that's not something that the Patriots would be in favor of, in this case. That is because a $3M roster bonus would count against the cap only in the uncapped 2010; a higher signing bonus (or an option bonus) would mean larger cap hits down the road; as would a roster bonus in 2011 or beyond.
Reiss on a contract extention for Brady
Linear Mode
