- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,939
- Reaction score
- 16,946
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Between Manning's contract and Bob Sanders' contract, has any team paid more money to players for little or no production than the Colts? Sanders got paid the most money for a safety at the time when he re-signed with the Colts and then went on to play like 8 games in the three years of the deal he collected. Manning, if cut, will walk away with $26.4 million for the 2011 (signing bonus and base salary) without playing a single play for his current contract.
Not to crow but this has been my take on the entire situation (parts 1 and 2) for the last 3 months.
"The only reason I could surmise why Manning would move the option date back is to allow the Colts to receive some compensation for his services and trade him. However, Irsay has said he will not trade Manning, and being traded is certainly not in Manning’s best interests. He can become free to sign with any team in the NFL, rather than be limited to negotiating with one team through a trade.
From the Colts' perspective, they would certainly like to have the benefit of time to monitor the situation longer. But they are not the party in this negotiation with leverage."
Were Manning to decide to keep his legacy a warm one in the minds of his Indy fans he could agree as I have suggested previously in these threads to defer the date with the trade clause being that he gets to select the team and can opt out become a FA and receive the $28M bonus after all were the Colts to ask for too much compensation. Probably too complicated.
I agree that were I the owner I would not take the cap, money and health risk and I'd part ways with Manning wishing him good health. Onto the Luck error.
"The only reason I could surmise why Manning would move the option date back is to allow the Colts to receive some compensation for his services and trade him. However, Irsay has said he will not trade Manning, and being traded is certainly not in Manning’s best interests. He can become free to sign with any team in the NFL, rather than be limited to negotiating with one team through a trade.
From the Colts' perspective, they would certainly like to have the benefit of time to monitor the situation longer. But they are not the party in this negotiation with leverage."
Were Manning to decide to keep his legacy a warm one in the minds of his Indy fans he could agree as I have suggested previously in these threads to defer the date with the trade clause being that he gets to select the team and can opt out become a FA and receive the $28M bonus after all were the Colts to ask for too much compensation. Probably too complicated.
I agree that were I the owner I would not take the cap, money and health risk and I'd part ways with Manning wishing him good health. Onto the Luck error.
Clever...
As for your trade scenario, beyond complicated it just flies in the face of common sense. It always did, but now Manning is getting increasingly testy. He doesn't do change well, anal types seldom do. If he has to face it it might as well be on a better positioned team. And why would he do a solid for the team who walked away from him and in the process hamper the team that eagerly scooped him like a mutha...
There is also the matter of the NFLPA. They would grieve any attempt to characterize a simple date change in this instance as not being substantial change, since it would be totally leverage altering. He essentially has a no trade clause in the form of an option clause with an exercise date prior to the start of the new year and backed up by a non-exercise fee, and for those who come after him the union would be remiss to allow someone who can walk walk away from essentially unguaranteed contracts held by 95% of their constituents to be allowed to emotionally maneuver a superstar into backing down when he has one of league owners over the proverbial barrel. You never surrender FA for nothing tangible.
manning to the jets would be awesome
talk about ratings and amazing games being played against our rivals and a Future HoF
The comedy of Payaton and Fat Rex trying to co-exist would be pure gold.
Can the Jets even afford Manning?
I doubt he's gonna take a pay cut. If he's willing to do so, he could end up anywhere. But I don't think he's gonna be that effective. He was already declining before he was out. Then he's gonna have to adjust to the speed of the game again, then he's already got happy feet, imagine how happy they'll be, with his questionable neck, when he's about to get sacked and have to land backwards. I think it's about time Manning called it a career.
Have the Saints offered Brees a new deal, now he's a QB I'm really concerned with landing in the AFCE.
Can the Jets even afford Manning?
I doubt he's gonna take a pay cut. If he's willing to do so, he could end up anywhere. But I don't think he's gonna be that effective. He was already declining before he was out. Then he's gonna have to adjust to the speed of the game again, then he's already got happy feet, imagine how happy they'll be, with his questionable neck, when he's about to get sacked and have to land backwards. I think it's about time Manning called it a career.
Have the Saints offered Brees a new deal, now he's a QB I'm really concerned with landing in the AFCE.
Based on the article, it appears that the real expense is the option bonus. If the Jets only have to pay the salary, it's affordable.
Irsay has to figure out:
$26 million that you have to spend anyway is not that much if it means the highly valued commodity can translate into valuable picks.
Irsay just spent over $20 million for nothing.
But if the Colts pay him and trade him the entire $26 million hits cap year 2012. No pro-rating (OK unless Goodell inserted another hidden "Get out of Cap Jail Free" card in the CBA like he did for his Jets) They won't be able to re-sign their D players and won't be a factor in FA.