The No-Win Situation Tom Brady Put Himself In

[ivanvamp]

Mods, feel free to merge this if you think it's appropriate. But I wanted to specifically address the no-win situation that Brady seems to have put himself in. Let's look at the facts:

(1) Brady just signed an extension that is well, well below market value for him.

(2) That extension just freed up a considerable amount of cap space for the Patriots, which means more money is available to spend on other players.

(3) Brady also got more long-term guaranteed money out of the deal than he had before he signed it.

Critics are lining up all over the place on this. There are those that say that he really isn't doing the Patriots any favors because all that's happening is an accounting trick to get Brady more guaranteed money. So he's a bad guy for pretending to take less but really taking more.

Then there are those that say that Brady taking less actually means that it'll be hard for other teammates to take more because he'll be giving the Patriots leverage. They can say, look Wes (or Sebastian or Aqib or whomever), Tom Frickin' Brady just took half of what he's worth on the open market so that this team can win. You should follow his example and take less than what you're worth to stay here. So it would put pressure on these guys to take less than they otherwise could get.

Then there are those that say that Brady should have taken an even *bigger* pay cut because he can afford it, and if he *REALLY* wanted the team to win, he'd have taken the league minimum to free up as much money as possible (and I'm not even sure this would be allowed by the NFLPA).

Then there are those that say that Brady taking less actually depresses salaries for other QBs like Flacco, so other QBs are going to be mad at Brady for doing that.

But then if Brady did what Peyton Manning did and took a huge contract, he would have been greedy and would have put the Patriots in a tough spot with the cap...less money to sign complementary players, so Brady would have been putting himself above the team.

So how, exactly, was Brady supposed to win here in the eyes of his critics?

What we know is that Brady is making more guaranteed money than he had before he signed this extension, but: (1) It's still less than what he almost certainly would have been making had he played this contract out and got a new one in a couple of years, and (2) it *did* free up money for the Patriots to use the next few years. A lot of money.

It's very difficult for me to see how anyone can look at Brady as a bad guy in this situation.

Haters gonna hate, I guess.

 

[Uncle Rico]

 

[ralmat55]

And, I don't think he cares one bit for what others say or think.

 

[eom]

despite what you may think, I believe he's put himself in a position for quite a few wins.

 

[BSR]

I think you have to understand that these reactions are from a very small vocal minority of those that follow football. The largest majority either don't care or look at it favorably. More importantly, it doesn't matter. He didn't sign the contract with any thought as to how it would play in the public eye.

I think fans in general tend to be more sensitive to these types of reactions then most of the players are.

 

[DocHoliday]

So how, exactly, was Brady supposed to win here in the eyes of his critics?

You think he cares. But you came around at the end:

Haters gonna hate

 

[Frezo]

Has this contract been approved by the league office yet?

 

[ivanvamp]

And, I don't think he cares one bit for what others say or think.

No, but from the reaction this got in here and other Patriots' fans sites, plus what I hear on talk radio, clearly we the fans care.

 

[ivanvamp]

despite what you may think, I believe he's put himself in a position for quite a few wins.

Heh, well yes, I agree with that.

 

[Gronkandez]

I don't think anyone is saying he should have taken a bigger pay cut. At least not anyone that matters.

The premise of the OP is valid though. Everyone in the media wants to come up with a contrarian take on the deal. That's their job.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The criticism for effect on the franchise tag number is stupid because the effect is pretty minor. Brees replaces Brady among the top 5 QB cap numbers and the tag salary drops 800K, but it's still up near 20 million. Not like I wouldn't like an extra 800K, but relative to 20 million it's kinda like the change you find on your couch, for most of us.

The reaction of players could be mixed. Your teammates are likely to appreciate that you are not taking up 20% of the team's cap room. A few of them are more likely to be retained. It would seem that only guys on other teams at your position are negatively impacted, and really it's not many.

Most players, most fans, and yes even most media think he did something that was positive with respect to winning. Most of the critics are just looking to be contrarians.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

no win situation? HA

 

[F0nSY]

And, I don't think he cares one bit for what others say or think.

Or drink...

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I haven't heard a single criticism yet from anyone whom I didn't suspect already was predisposed to want to criticize him.

On the day he signed, reasonable journalists (and there are some) were pretty unanimous in praising his decision. Some played up the "it's good for him too and he has a rich wife" angle, but by and large it was met with the reasonable people understanding it to be exactly what it was.

Then came the blowback a couple of days later, which is how news in particular and sports in general does its business. Build 'em up to tear 'em down.

Belichick got it a long time ago. There is nothing I can say that won't be worked over, so I'll just say nothing. It's a real shame more people don't follow the Belichick model, because it would eventually force these guys into some semblance of reason and accountability. But most in the spotlight and megalomaniacs and can't keep quiet.

 

[mgteich]

I believe that this is the issue for other teams. A player is expected to sign at "near" market, and yes, there are hometown discounts to help the team, or other reasons to want to play for less. Many think that taking less than 50% of the general market is a more serious issue. Would it really be OK for Brady, Mankins and Wilfork to sign vet minimum contracts to help out the team? If not, why not? If it alright to sign for less than half the market, why not vet minimum.

Most folks don't understand how the cap works.

If the league has any problems with the contract, it will simply be re-written with a bit higher salaries or with a additional bonus before the first year of the extension. In the end, any such increase is not likely to be absorbed until Brady is gone.

Then there are those that say that Brady taking less actually depresses salaries for other QBs like Flacco, so other QBs are going to be mad at Brady for doing that.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Has this contract been approved by the league office yet?

They can only reject contracts that violate the CBA or by-laws. What grounds would they have to reject this one?

And I'm sure any crying jags will be over by the next time Mrs. Brady gets a deposit in the bank.

 

[mgteich]

I repeat. Would it be a violation if Brady, Wilfork and Mankins all took minimum vet pay on extensions. If not, why not?

They can only reject contracts that violate the CBA or by-laws. What grounds would they have to reject this one?

And I'm sure any crying jags will be over by the next time Mrs. Brady gets a deposit in the bank.

 

[Gumby]

I repeat. Would it be a violation if Brady, Wilfork and Mankins all took minimum vet pay on extensions. If not, why not?

I thought there was a clause in the OLD CBA that prevented you from discounting yourself more than a certain % on extensions. As I recall it also said that you couldnt extend the contract and end up w/ less than was already in the contract.

I think teams-players could still cut-re-signed to start over as new contract to avoid that; but then team would eat the cap hit at one time.

But I have no clue (if it did exist) that it survived in the new CBA. I dont think the NFLPA had much of a clue what they were doing (at least from a big strategic picture). So it wouldnt surprise me if some verbage like that got cut by a smart league lawyer and nobody from NFLPA noticed.

 

[Gumby]

I thought there was a clause in the OLD CBA that prevented you from discounting yourself more than a certain % on extensions. As I recall it also said that you couldnt extend the contract and end up w/ less than was already in the contract.

I think teams-players could still cut-re-signed to start over as new contract to avoid that; but then team would eat the cap hit at one time.

But I have no clue (if it did exist) that it survived in the new CBA. I dont think the NFLPA had much of a clue what they were doing (at least from a big strategic picture). So it wouldnt surprise me if some verbage like that got cut by a smart league lawyer and nobody from NFLPA noticed.

I got bored at midnight so I read the 2011 CBA. Now I can sleep easy.....

(g)​

​

​

​

Voiding of Guarantees. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Section 9, a Club and player may negotiate the circumstances under which the guarantee
of any unearned Salary (including, without limitation, Paragraph 5 Salary and/or future​

year roster bonuses, option bonuses or reporting bonuses) may be voided.

So it appears, at least for the current CBA, there is nothing that would stop a +4 year vet from tearing up a multimillion $ deal and taking the vet min. But the commissh has ability to void a contract; so he could probably make up a 'cometitiveness rule' to void such a deal.