Cole: Great interest in Brady, Manning negotiations

[BPF]

Good read. Very telling quote from agent in 3rd paragraph.

Great interest in Brady, Manning negotiations - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

For those with an interest in history, there are many people in and around the NFL who view the upcoming negotiations between quarterbacks Peyton Manning(notes) and Tom Brady(notes), and their respective clubs as akin to Fort Sumter in the Civil War.

It could be the beginning of a very ugly war between the players and the league. Specifically, it could indicate whether the NFL Players Association and league work out a new collective bargaining agreement or if players will be locked out by owners in 2011.

“If Manning [of the Indianapolis Colts] doesn’t get the kind of contract we all expect or, worse, doesn’t get a deal done at all, that really means it’s going to be war,” an agent said last week. “There has never been a player with more leverage than him. No one. If he can’t get a deal done at his price, we’re all in trouble.”

While some players such as the New England Patriots’ Vince Wilfork(notes), Jahri Evans(notes) of the New Orleans Saints and the San Francisco 49ers’ Patrick Willis(notes) have signed high-dollar extensions this offseason, none of those guys are in the expected tax bracket of Manning and New England’s Brady, guys who could reset the wage scale in the NFL.

 

[BradyBranch39]

Brady played all 16 games last season after missing most of the 2007 campaign with a left torn ACL.

Oh my god! He threw 50 TDs in one game!

 

[Deus Irae]

He seems to think Brady will take $5 million less than Manning.

 

[BPF]

Telling for cba as well:

Generally, the value of quarterbacks’ contracts is always important, but there’s even more attention paid to the Manning and Brady negotiations because of the collective bargaining agreement. While some people say that is only symbolic, many believe that monster contrast in the area of $25 million a year for Manning and perhaps $20 million a year for Brady would be a clear indication that football will be played in 2011.

“There’s no way I could see that any owner is going to spend that kind of money on one player and not have football,” the AFC executive said. “You spend $7 [million] or $8 million on somebody, OK, that’s just common-sense business. You spend $20 [million] or $30 million, you’re making a commitment.”

 

[jmt57]

I don't see how a team can sign a player like Manning or Brady without knowing what the new salary cap is first. It's one thing to make an educated guess on players like Wilfork and Mankins, and perhaps be off by a bit but be able to recover from that. But for top dollar players like these quarterbacks you really need to know exactly what the cap will be, because the risk of putting yourself in an unworkable cap situation is too high with these big dollar contracts. It's even more important for the Pats than it is for the Colts, because the Patriots have more of a philosophy of spreading cap dollars throughout the middle of the roster whereas Indy tends to spend more at the top and fill more of the roster with minimum or very low dollar contracts.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I read the undertones of that article like this:

"Peyton Manning, please get a huge deal done so that other teams will feel compelled to pay other players a lot of money"

If PM or TB gets a large deal done, everyone will use it to justify their own large contract. I'm not sure either one of those guys is in any rush to get a deal done.

For PM and TB, in my opinion, it's all about getting close to their worth while getting a cap friendly deal. I don't think they are worried about getting paid. If the Pats really weren't going to re-up TB at a fair price, he could just leave and get one of the most absurd contracts ever (I'm looking at you, Oakland).

I think at this point, TB/PM are interested in doing what's best for their teams because they know the money is there. They are (probably) not interested in setting a league wide salary precedent with their upcoming negotiations.

 

[upstater1]

I don't see how a team can sign a player like Manning or Brady without knowing what the new salary cap is first. It's one thing to make an educated guess on players like Wilfork and Mankins, and perhaps be off by a bit but be able to recover from that. But for top dollar players like these quarterbacks you really need to know exactly what the cap will be, because the risk of putting yourself in an unworkable cap situation is too high with these big dollar contracts. It's even more important for the Pats than it is for the Colts, because the Patriots have more of a philosophy of spreading cap dollars throughout the middle of the roster whereas Indy tends to spend more at the top and fill more of the roster with minimum or very low dollar contracts.

There is a way to do it.

People like Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft know already what the minimally acceptable % for a split between players and management is. They've already set the line under which a contract will be hammered out, or they go to a lockout. Kraft can work with that % knowing there is no way in hell the owners would ever agree to more. They've already set their strategy. They've already talked about what they are willing to give up in compromise.

Say the max for the owners is a 50/50 split of ALL revenues. Well, there's your salary cap. Done.

 

[xmarkd400x]

There is a way to do it.

People like Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft know already what the minimally acceptable % for a split between players and management is. They've already set the line under which a contract will be hammered out, or they go to a lockout. Kraft can work with that % knowing there is no way in hell the owners would ever agree to more. They've already set their strategy. They've already talked about what they are willing to give up in compromise.

Say the max for the owners is a 50/50 split of ALL revenues. Well, there's your salary cap. Done.

I disagree. If the Pats' base Brady's contract on 50% of revenue (or any other number) and the league decides on a lesser number, you have hurt yourself. In this scenario Brady's contract would take up a larger percent of the salary cap than anticipated. In fact, going off of a theoretical maximum almost guarantees that you will spend too much.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm sure owners have their line in the sand. They are looking for what the union characterizes as an 18% rollback but that's really a rollback in the % of the pie they believe will allow them to continue to grow the pie ever larger and effectively result in increased dollars for everyone tied to a workable formula that accounts for the cost of growing that pie and supporting the less marketable teams and potentially even expanding their number (which means more jobs for NFLPA members).

The split used to be just under 59% of adjusted gross revenue (with the adjustments exempting certain revenue like luxury boxes from the calculation thereby allowing ownership to retain capital for expansion and growth). Now it's 60% with no adjustments and some in the union calling for non team owner driven investment revenue tied in any way to the team (like Patriot Place) to be included. Although if those investments result in a loss the union wants no part of absorbing that...just the lions share of any profits...

As for the QB contract babble, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Both Bill Polian and Bill Belichick have their overall average formulas for teambuilding. Belichick has determined that 10-12% is the max ideal dedicated cap value of the QB position. Polian seems to believe he can do better in Indy (as long as Manning remains) averaging as much as 15%.

There was a lot of talk heading into Eli's deal about how he would get $50M guaranteed and average $20M per. Didn't come close relatively speaking, even with Tom Condon guiding the process. Peyton Manning isn't getting $25M AAV and Tom won't sniff $20. Probably closer to $20M+ for Peyton and $17M+ for Brady based on a cap that will likely average somewhere in the $140M+ range over the next 5 seasons with position averages also not being fueled by irrational top ten rookie deals that were unrealistic and largely driven by Tom Condon and his never ending supply of wannabe #1 drafted QB's. Manning's deal will be driven in part by Condon's need to salvage his status on the eve of those rookie capped contracts. His may be longer as well even though he's older because Polian will roll the dice as he historically has that he can push money forward long enough and far enough that it's not his problem what happens once Peyton hangs up his spikes. His job is to keep him slingin' it for as long as it's humanly possibly because Irsay needs a reason to keep fannies in the seats since ownership of that team is his only substantial revenue source. Not to say he's a poor man, none of them are at least on paper. But he had to pawn his beloved rock and roll memorabelia collection to help fund Peyton's $34.5M signing bonus back in 2004... With a new taxpayer funded stadium up and running and a series of sweetheart deals that transpired as part of that process, he is in a much better position to cough up the bonus money now than he was then. But he's no Dan Snyder stadium revenue stream wise and no Paul Allen personal wealth wise.

I expect both QB's to also top Eli in guaranteed money in excess of $40M. But that's OK because at least in their case each is a good bet to earn it, on and off the field. No other QB's in this league can make that claim, although Brees is sniffin at that territory. Just gotta prove he can do it consistently. Others may prove they can down the road but to date none have.

 

[Rob0729]

I do have to agree with Cole that Manning has far more leverage than Brady. The Pats won 11 games in 2008 without Brady. The Colts would struggle to win 6 games without Manning. I think I would rather have Brady as my QB (at least pre-injury), but the Colts rely on Manning far more to win games.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I do have to agree with Cole that Manning has far more leverage than Brady. The Pats won 11 games in 2008 without Brady. The Colts would struggle to win 6 games without Manning. I think I would rather have Brady as my QB (at least pre-injury), but the Colts rely on Manning far more to win games.

In the AFCE that year, the Colts probably would have won 11. The division and the divisions the AFCE played against that year were horrible.

 

[jmt57]

Another thing to consider is that the owners may have talked about big contracts this year with each other, and agreed to try to avoid them if possible as it would give them a bit less leverage in negotiations for the CBA. Free agents like Julius Peppers would be fair game, but players like Brady and Manning and Revis that still have time left on their contract would not be extended. Yes, I know that's collusion, but I wouldn't doubt that the owners had some type of agreement along those lines.

 

[Jetssuck]

I do have to agree with Cole that Manning has far more leverage than Brady. The Pats won 11 games in 2008 without Brady. The Colts would struggle to win 6 games without Manning. I think I would rather have Brady as my QB (at least pre-injury), but the Colts rely on Manning far more to win games.

The Pats only won 11 games because they played one of the weakest schedules in their history. In fact, their third weakest schedule ever according to the numbers at New England Patriots Team Encyclopedia | Pro-Football-Reference.com

If it's all about Manning when the Colts are 14-2, what is it all about when the Colts are 3-13 (1998) and 6-10 (2001) with Manning?

 

[Peytonsbetter]

The Pats only won 11 games because they played one of the weakest schedules in their history. In fact, their third weakest schedule ever according to the numbers at New England Patriots Team Encyclopedia | Pro-Football-Reference.com

If it's all about Manning when the Colts are 14-2, what is it all about when the Colts are 3-13 (1998) and 6-10 (2001) with Manning?

Umm, 98 was Mannings rookie season, as well as Bill Polians first with the Colts. That team was also the remnants of the ATROCIOUS Tobin/Infante era.

In 01, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL HISTORY, while also losing Edgerrin James for the season with a torn ACL.

As for Peyton's importance to the success of the Colts, consider this-the Colts made the Super Bowl last season DESPITE having the WORST running game in the league. If thats not a testament to how crucial Manning is to the success of the team, I don't know what is.

 

[Jetssuck]

Umm, 98 was Mannings rookie season, as well as Bill Polians first with the Colts. That team was also the remnants of the ATROCIOUS Tobin/Infante era.

In 01, they had one of the worst defenses in NFL HISTORY, while also losing Edgerrin James for the season with a torn ACL.

That's exactly what happened and that just proves what I said. Manning needs talent around him to succeed. The idea that the Colts are Manning and a bunch of jags is complete nonsense.

As for Peyton's importance to the success of the Colts, consider this-the Colts made the Super Bowl last season DESPITE having the WORST running game in the league. If thats not a testament to how crucial Manning is to the success of the team, I don't know what is.

Manning is important to the success of the Colts, but no more important than Brady is to the success of the Patriots. In 2003 the Patriots won the Super Bowl despite having the third worst running game in the league and a receiving corps not in the same league as the corps that has both Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark.