Giselle brings home the bacon for the Brady bunch

BradyManny said:

Right. Both sides win. I never said otherwise.

But, specific to your earlier points, you were worried about a scenario on Brady's side where his value diminishes. Kraft said he was worried about a scenario where Brady's value outreaches what the Patriots would pay for them, once he played out his original contract. This article does not support or address your argument.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm replying to another poster.

Kraft wass relating an actual scenario, since he mentioned it, whereby because of an injury like Mannings, the Patriots would be forced to cut brady or lose many millions of dollars. it is a business.

For the record, Manning stuck the colts with over 50 million and had to forego 30-40 million in his 90 million dollar "contract" when they decided to tank the season to get Andrew Luck. Manning still made out because he came back and Denver pays too much, but he did have to give up a 28 million dollar bonus and more from the Colts.

From what I've read, Peyton got a 90 million dollar contract for five years while Brady got 72 million over four years, which is the same = 18 million.

Brady's extension added on years when most quarterbacks are retired and guaranteed all of it against injury and most of it if they wanted to cut him.

I'd love Miguel to pipe in on the relative contracts of Brady and Manning because it's too damn complicated for me, but i believe that Brady will likely collect every cent of this and it will never be a business decision that he needs to be cut.

I'll probably ask him, if he doesn't see this.

BradyManny said:

Right. Both sides win. I never said otherwise.

But, specific to your earlier points, you were worried about a scenario on Brady's side where his value diminishes. Kraft said he was worried about a scenario where Brady's value outreaches what the Patriots would pay for them, once he played out his original contract. This article does not support or address your argument.

Click to expand...

Then why say 5 million means nothing to him? Obviously, since he converted a lot of money to guaranteed, actually collecting that money must mean something.

RayClay said:

I'll probably ask him, if he doesn't see this.

Click to expand...

Peyton was cognizant of what Brady makes when he got his Denver contract:

Peyton Manning didn't want to get paid more than Tom Brady, then did anyway | For The Win

So it's not like Manning was a hard bargain for Denver. (Aside: Another example of a guy taking less than he could've. Easily could've negotiated for more. Actually wanted to negotiate for less. Again, it's not all about money all the time.) Frankly, it's both of them that could be making more given the rich contracts being handed out to much lesser QBs.

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. There are benefits for Tom Brady in signing last year's extension, yes. I said that from my original response to you. I just don't see any way they work out that extension deal without a ton of money coming up front, but Miguel correct me if I'm wrong. So I don't think you can hold the fact that Brady got that money up front against him when evaluating if its a team friendly deal. If that's what we're evaluating.

Then why say 5 million means nothing to him? Obviously, since he converted a lot of money to guaranteed, actually collecting that money must mean something.

Click to expand...

I say $5 million means nothing to them because I surmised at this point in his life and in his career, Brady would be very comfortable in prioritizing other things over money when working out any deal with Kraft. It's very different, than say a 24 year old coming off their rookie deal. To my surprise, apparently this is a point of debate.

BradyManny said:

My bad. I forgot that there was someone who policed this board and tried to make sure everything on it was 100% literal. Are you kidding me? Is this a peer reviewed science journal? No, its the internet, and a message board for a football forum. Of course I can say things for effect. Get a grip.

My point was simply that Brady & Giselle are finically comfortable, and saying $5 million to them is NOTHING intended to get that across. I maintain that $5 million to Brady is less a motivating factor than the team being good. I maintain that Brady probably doesn't worry that much about a few million at this point in his life, knowing he and his wife are going to continue making gobs of money in many different ways. My evidence is that he continually takes less money so the team can sign guys. Your evidence that he feels otherwise is something to do with your grandmother, who I'm guessing wasn't a star athlete or high end super model worth several hundred million dollars.

I regret using the word "nothing." I didn't realize it would upset people that much. I think people are being rather silly about it, but I regret disrupting the thread.

Click to expand...

The word didn't upset anyone. Your stubborn insistence on not seeing any point of view other than yours and dismissing things because you do not comprehend the relevance is the issue.
It's fine. You aren't going to get it. Time to move on.

AndyJohnson said:

Your stubborn insistence on not seeing any point of view other than yours and dismissing things because you do not comprehend the relevance is the issue.

Click to expand...

That's rich coming from you! Maybe the most stubborn person on the board. You still think BJGE was a stud, still think they'll never move McCourty to safety, never draft a lighter DE, never play 43, and all the while everyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant.

AJ, you're one of the best posters on this board, we all recognize it and respect your knowledge - but accepting other people's points of view is not your strong-suit. I'm really not going to take crap from you on that issue.

"me" said:

I don't think either you or Andy's point is without merit, and in general, I think a person's income is nobody's business.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I've said I can see your point of view if it made sense in the context. But it doesn't. That's fine, I agree it's time to move on.

BradyManny said:

Peyton was cognizant of what Brady makes when he got his Denver contract:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/peyton-manning-contract-tom-brady

So it's not like Manning was a hard bargain for Denver. (Aside: Another example of a guy taking less than he could've. Easily could've negotiated for more. Actually wanted to negotiate for less. Again, it's not all about money all the time.) Frankly, it's both of them that could be making more given the rich contracts being handed out to much lesser QBs.

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. There are benefits for Tom Brady in signing last year's extension, yes. I said that from my original response to you. I just don't see any way they work out that extension deal without a ton of money coming up front, but Miguel correct me if I'm wrong. So I don't think you can hold the fact that Brady got that money up front against him when evaluating if its a team friendly deal. If that's what we're evaluating.



I say $5 million means nothing to them because I surmised at this point in his life and in his career, Brady would be very comfortable in prioritizing other things over money when working out any deal with Kraft. It's very different, than say a 24 year old coming off their rookie deal. To my surprise, apparently this is a point of debate.

Click to expand...

Lots of people took different points on topic or not on this. I think I'm arguing against somebody else's post, but it's not worth it to ceck back. Obviously, neither Brady or his wife need money, but someone thought he should give it back,or did agree to give money back to help the team. He did, but not to his own detriment. He did get stuff converted into upfront bonuses which helped the cap, but the contract is so complicated,i don't want to go into it. the part where the team took the risk and he took an advantage was the guaranteed money which id doubly important because stuff happens to football players as they approach 40.

I personally think Brady could play up to even 45 with the shape he's in, but I wouldn't bet on it. The best part is, Brady won't be cut because of business (missing a year like Peyton, or whatever) when he can still play.

BradyManny said:

That's rich coming from you! Maybe the most stubborn person on the board. You still think BJGE was a stud, still think they'll never move McCourty to safety, never draft a lighter DE, never play 43, and all the while everyone who disagrees with you is just ignorant.

Click to expand...

Of course that is a total misprepresentation of me, but you know that.
Since when is having an OPINION stubborn? You seem to not understand that when the team was a 34 team and played 43 in the preseason the fact that I (correctly) said they were not playing 43 does not mean that for the rest of my life if eventually what I am correct about changes, I said it will never happen.

AJ, you're one of the best posters on this board, we all recognize it and respect your knowledge - but accepting other people's points of view is not your strong-suit. I'm really not going to take crap from you on that issue.

Click to expand...

Again, just not correct. I accept that I am stubborn in my opinion and I am not easily swayed, especially by someone repeating what I have already taken into consideration.
What I am talking about here is you stubbornly not listening to what I have to say and responding about something totally irrelevant to the point that we are discussing.
I recognize that you made a large post that had other points in it than the ones I was discussing. The obstinence is in saying how an example that illustrates my point is invalid because it doesn't fit other parts of what you were talking about. Perhaps that is why you have the view you have.

On the contrary, I've said I can see your point of view if it made sense in the context. But it doesn't. That's fine, I agree it's time to move on.

Click to expand...

The fact that no one on the planet can be the judge of the value of that $5,000,000 to Tom Brady is the point that you continually refuse to accept.
The fact that you are holding him to a standard (whether you are saying he is wrong if he doesnt or simply presenting a case that makes it seem selfish) of going above and beyond based upon that perception, when other players are not expected to do that is something you also refuse to acknowledge.
I understand that you think that given your assumptions to those 2 points that applying it to a football team makes it a unique example. That does not mean those 2 points are eliminated because you added a third.

AndyJohnson said:

Of course that is a total misprepresentation of me, but you know that.
Since when is having an OPINION stubborn? You seem to not understand that when the team was a 34 team and played 43 in the preseason the fact that I (correctly) said they were not playing 43 does not mean that for the rest of my life if eventually what I am correct about changes, I said it will never happen.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm mistaken, but you certainly maintained the no 43 into the camp in which they really did make the switch. Either way, you certainly wouldn't let go of the other issues and were wrong on those. Which I am most certainly not holding against you as it comes to your football IQ. I have been more wrong on a lot more things than you. And I get that. In fact, I've probably never been more wrong on anything in my life than Chad Jackson.

My point is you seem to come to each thread with a refusal to admit capability of being wrong. I've conceded points in this thread when someone brought up a valid point. But your Microsoft and other examples were really quite poor, yet you refused to let them go.

The fact that no one on the planet can be the judge of the value of that $5,000,000 to Tom Brady is the point that you continually refuse to accept.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why as an adult, equipped with knowledge of mathematics and a general common sense, I wouldn't be allowed to harmlessly opine on a messageboard that Tom Brady & Giselle Bunchden are financially comfortable. Yes, I have conceded that specifically, I do not know what Tom Brady would do with $5 million pre-tax, atop his current wealth. He could donate it to Best Buddies. He could buy another property. He could privately want to fly to the moon for all I know. And all of these things would have value to Tom Brady. Yes. Again, I have let go of that. I am not saying that $5 million LITERALLY has no value to him.

The fact is, I made an innocuous comment about the Brady-Bunchden wealth and people got upset, probably because it struck a nerve with political or social values they have, not realizing that those values really aren't at all relevant given the context. I wasn't trying to turn this into a social issue. I just care about the football.

AndyJohnson said:

Is anyone saying Microsoft should sell computers for less because Bill Gates already has too much money?

Click to expand...

Does Tom Brady have employees and shareholders?

BradyManny said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but you certainly maintained the no 43 into the camp in which they really did make the switch. Either way, you certainly wouldn't let go of the other issues and were wrong on those. Which I am most certainly not holding against you as it comes to your football IQ. I have been more wrong on a lot more things than you. And I get that. In fact, I've probably never been more wrong on anything in my life than Chad Jackson.

My point is you seem to come to each thread with a refusal to admit capability of being wrong. I've conceded points in this thread when someone brought up a valid point. But your Microsoft and other examples were really quite poor, yet you refused to let them go.

Click to expand...

That is your issue not mine.
You saying that it is stubborn to not admit that what you expect to happen is wrong when you don't believe it is wrong. Stubborn is refusing to admit it after the fact.
I absolutely will probably never accept I am 'wrong' about my expectation of something unless I am given compelling evidence. Whether that turns out to be a correct or incorrect expectation affects admitting you were wrong after it happened. It is silly to expect someone to admit they are wrong about what will happen in the future. That is a major drawback of this board because people insist on 'proving someone wrong' about something they just do not know.
My examples were fine with regard to the portion of the topic I was discussing. YOU were the one who refused to 'let them go'. I mentioned them ONE TIME, and then countered your outrage about them not being applicable by explaining why I find them to be.

And no, I did not argue they would not switch to a 43 the year they switched to a 43.

I don't understand why as an adult, equipped with knowledge of mathematics and a general common sense, I wouldn't be allowed to harmlessly opine on a messageboard that Tom Brady & Giselle Bunchden are financially comfortable. Yes, I have conceded that specifically, I do not know what Tom Brady would do with $5 million pre-tax, atop his current wealth. He could donate it to Best Buddies. He could buy another property. He could privately want to fly to the moon for all I know. And all of these things would have value to Tom Brady. Yes. Again, I have let go of that. I am not saying that $5 million LITERALLY has no value to him.

Click to expand...

Then why is this still going on?
My points were:
1) Saying someone has 'enough' money and does not need more is a myopic view of someone who fails to try to understand that all money has value to everyone.
2) Painting Brady as someone who 'should' take less is unfair to him.
If you are arguing something else, you are arguing with yourself, because this is all I have been discussing.

The fact is, I made an innocuous comment about the Brady-Bunchden wealth and people got upset, probably because it struck a nerve with political or social values they have, not realizing that those values really aren't at all relevant given the context. I wasn't trying to turn this into a social issue. I just care about the football.

Click to expand...

No one got upset, unless you did.
If this is your point of view, then accept that I was discussing those 2 points above, and move on, because you do not seem to disagree with them. You seem to be on a mission though to create an argument to attribute to me, or come up with some way to insult me, so you can 'win'.
I find that childish, so go ahead, have the last word, say all the things you want about me. list things I have been wrong about so you can imply no one else is ever wrong. Get your 'win' buddy!!! I'm done.

JackBauer said:

Does Tom Brady have employees and shareholders?

Click to expand...

He has a family and heirs. Why would 2 entities have to use money for the same purpose to prove that everyone has purposes for money. Pointing out the differences between the 2 actually furthers my argument.

So would Tom Brady choose to forego some part of his salary if the team were to commit to spending all of that money to enhance it's chances of winning a Super Bowl?

The question is not about whether or not he should. It's not about whether or not he's a good guy.

The question is about what has more utility to Tom Brady - the money or a better chance to win. There is no correct answer and it is 100% up to Brady.

I think it is fair to say that Brady would be in a far better position to forego the money (if that were to be his choice) than almost all of his peers. Taken to the extreme, the rational argument would be that Brady might choose to play for nothing provided the team committed to spending all of that money to bettering its prospects. (That is to say that an enhanced chance of winning might have far greater utility to Brady than the additional income given that he is arguably one of the wealthiest athletes in the world).

On the other hand, Brady's competitiveness, pride and ego (I think all of these have had enormously positive effects on his performance) would argue otherwise. Then there's peer pressure, in the form of the NFLPA.

I'm trying to choose my words carefully here (probably a bad move on my part, but what the hell ...). I'm not suggesting that Brady should do anything other than what's in his heart. I just think it's an interesting question. If we all had a beer, we could discuss it.

AndyJohnson said:

If this is your point of view, then accept that I was discussing those 2 points above, and move on, because you do not seem to disagree with them. You seem to be on a mission though to create an argument to attribute to me, or come up with some way to insult me, so you can 'win'.

Click to expand...

If this is what you thought I was doing, than I have erred, because that most certainly wasn't my intent. Frankly, this is what I thought you were doing, and it annoys me. I made a point of calling you out on it because I believe you have gotten into the habit of doing it all the time on this board now, and its been disruptive. I apologize if you feel otherwise.

BradyManny said:

If this is what you thought I was doing, than I have erred, because that most certainly wasn't my intent. Frankly, this is what I thought you were doing, and it annoys me. I made a point of calling you out on it because I believe you have gotten into the habit of doing it all the time on this board now, and its been disruptive. I apologize if you feel otherwise.

Click to expand...

As I said you can have the last word, I will simply clarify.
I do not attempt to do that by any means. In fact, I attempt to limit the discussion only to the point that I am making. In this case, the PORTION of your comments that I disagreed with. If you want to take my words of disagreement with a portion of your argument and then argue as if I disagreed with everything you said, then you create that impression.

Zeus said:

So would Tom Brady choose to forego some part of his salary if the team were to commit to spending all of that money to enhance it's chances of winning a Super Bowl?

The question is not about whether or not he should. It's not about whether or not he's a good guy.

The question is about what has more utility to Tom Brady - the money or a better chance to win. There is no correct answer and it is 100% up to Brady.

I think it is fair to say that Brady would be in a far better position to forego the money (if that were to be his choice) than almost all of his peers. Taken to the extreme, the rational argument would be that Brady might choose to play for nothing provided the team committed to spending all of that money to bettering its prospects. (That is to say that an enhanced chance of winning might have far greater utility to Brady than the additional income given that he is arguably one of the wealthiest athletes in the world).

On the other hand, Brady's competitiveness, pride and ego (I think all of these have had enormously positive effects on his performance) would argue otherwise. Then there's peer pressure, in the form of the NFLPA.

I'm trying to choose my words carefully here (probably a bad move on my part, but what the hell ...). I'm not suggesting that Brady should do anything other than what's in his heart. I just think it's an interesting question. If we all had a beer, we could discuss it.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

AndyJohnson said:

He has a family and heirs. Why would 2 entities have to use money for the same purpose to prove that everyone has purposes for money. Pointing out the differences between the 2 actually furthers my argument.

Click to expand...

Plus I'm sure he has taken care of his parents and sisters (along one of them is married to Youk, right?). I'm sure that Ms. Monihan also gets a decent portion of Tom's salary! Plus he will be paying her that amount until his kid is 18 (plus college, et al), long after his playing days are over. Look, any NFL player knows that he has a limited time to earn money, so I never blame any of them for holding out, or wanting to get the most money that they can (its called capitalism). If he gives the Pats a break so that they can sign additional talent, that is up to him. But to say that in anyone person or entity makes "enough" money is ridiculous! Whatever money the Brady's make, I'm sure they pay taxes on it, invest it, and buy things with it, all of these things help the "common good" of the country and the economy. If they want to put it all in a mattress so that their kids will never want for anything in their lives, that is good too. I HATE it, when people try and tell other people what they should and should not do with the money that they made! Look, its not like if Gisele took less money to model, that the money she didn't take was gong to go to poor orphans in Brazil. I say make as much as you guys can!!

AndyJohnson said:

He has a family and heirs. Why would 2 entities have to use money for the same purpose to prove that everyone has purposes for money. Pointing out the differences between the 2 actually furthers my argument.

Click to expand...

The point is that were Gates in the same position as Brady (where non-monetary considerations > monetary considerations), diminishing his income by lowering Microsoft's profits would not be akin to Brady taking less money in a contract. Bad analogy is all.

FreeTedWilliams said:

Look, any NFL player knows that he has a limited time to earn money, so I never blame any of them for holding out, or wanting to get the most money that they can (its called capitalism).

I HATE it, when people try and tell other people what they should and should not do with the money that they made!

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you said here. I just wanted to point out to @AndyJohnson what I'm talking about when I say people are reacting to one thing I said and taking it to a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with what I said.

God, I love FootBall!!