Hypothetical big F-U to the NFL and Goodell: Brady taking vet minimum

IcyPatriot said:

One of the largest obstacles to the Super Bowl is player health. Brady and any other star player would be stupid to sacrifice significant money in pursuit of the Super Bowl ... it's just plain dumb. Key players get injured and you played cheap for nothing. A salary reduction is the way to go ... especially if several vets agree to do it ... but this is a business and these players need to take care of the money first.

Click to expand...

If one of the largest obstacles to the SB is health then the top players taking less money should improve the chances of winning in the case of injuries. The Pats are about as good an example of that as any team right now. That's why they keep making deep runs even though they might lose key players. Well, that and having Tom Brady at QB.

Snake Eyes said:

The money from TFBs salary would better insure proper depth to overcome injury difficulties.

Also, TFB is RICH, he doesn't need the salary, he may prefer another ring to the money.

Click to expand...

From almost every single article I've read about Brady, his main focus is on playing QB for as long as possible.

It isn't about the money in terms of what he can buy with it, but rather I think the trade-off for greater guarantees was designed specifically to make it difficult to get rid of him if they wanted to in the future. If he signed for the veteran minimum and struggled, they could cut him without any long-term ramifications. If there's $20-$30M in guaranteed money that would accelerate onto the salary cap, it does force them to pause and really think through it.

Obviously only Tom and his agent know for sure, but if you see it through that lens, that last contract renegotiation looks like the perfect optimization between helping the team while ensuring it is difficult to move him.

It baffles me why people are thinking it's ok for Tom to take a pay cut just because Gisele is worth $1/2 a billion or he's already made $120m in career earnings.

Tom has done more than his fair share to help the FO put a well-rounded team on the field. He is also the best price to production value in the NFL. He even non guaranteed part of his deal to help with cash flow.

So, the view from here is that Tom owes the Patriots nothing. If anything, he is grossly underpaid and deserves a raise.

How about High, Collins , and Chandler take hometown discounts to keep the team in a cap-favorable outlook over the next few years.

Fencer said:

When it comes to telepathy, you are a blithering incompetent.

Click to expand...

One doesn't need to be telepathic in this case. You keep responding. Your behavior is a tell all. Having said that, I get the feeling that your beef here has more to do with something else other than this thread topic. You're acting like a scorned woman in this post.

Have to wonder if Patsfans are more obsessed with these sort of things than #12 is..

Do not see where this has any advantage to anyone involved in this matter..

robertweathers said:

It baffles me why people are thinking it's ok for Tom to take a pay cut just because Gisele is worth $1/2 a billion or he's already made $120m in career earnings.

Tom has done more than his fair share to help the FO put a well-rounded team on the field. He is also the best price to production value in the NFL. He even non guaranteed part of his deal to help with cash flow.

So, the view from here is that Tom owes the Patriots nothing. If anything, he is grossly underpaid and deserves a raise.

How about High, Collins , and Chandler take hometown discounts to keep the team in a cap-favorable outlook over the next few years.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree on Tom's compensation.

I do however hate the hometown discount double standards. This is not really directed at your post but a more general argument. We as a fanbase wants everyone to take a hometown discount, which is understandable, but then cheer the fact that we often get rid of players one year early rather than one year late. If we expect the players to show that kind of loyalty, we should also expect the front office to do the same.

Husse said:

I absolutely agree on Tom's compensation.

I do however hate the hometown discount double standards. This is not really directed at your post but a more general argument. We as a fanbase wants everyone to take a hometown discount, which is understandable, but then cheer the fact that we often get rid of players one year early rather than one year late. If we expect the players to show that kind of loyalty, we should also expect the front office to do the same.

Click to expand...

I agree.

There are legitimate reasons in taking a hometown discount. Immediate financial security, kids in school, wife happy where she is, you love the team and your role, local endorsements, winning, legacy, etc. Money is important but it's fleeting. You need to be happy.

Clearly the team knows that these are important and use them as leverage during negotiations. That's unfortunate but its business.

I suspect Tom took less money for a few of those reasons. Did the team take advantage of him? Maybe. Does he know it? Sure. In his mind the pros of being here outweigh the cons and he is OK with it.

Although I doubt Brady would do such a thing, it would be awesome and is fun to speculate about. The tone and attitude of the panty-bunchers in this thread is unwarranted. Not everyone values money above all else.

Galeb said:

Although I doubt Brady would do such a thing, it would be awesome and is fun to speculate about. The tone and attitude of the panty-bunchers in this thread is unwarranted. Not everyone values money above all else.

Click to expand...

which is already factored in the fact that there are 15-20 QB's in the league making more than Brady

JMC00 said:

Miguel weighed in on it






Tom Brady is on the verge of getting the NFLPA one of its biggest wins against the NFL.. Don't think they would raise any stink about Brady doing this.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what's in anyone's contracts. Miguel and others here are being naive to suggest that the union, given the strong connection they have with Brady now through the deflategate process, won't be in a position to give a thumbs up vs. thumbs down on how he deals with the League going forward. The strategy is singular; it isn't as if Brady and his agent do their thinking, and the NFLPA does its thinking, and then they meet in court to find out what each other is going to do.

If he redoes his contract for the purpose of giving a "big FU to the League" (which is what this thread is about), and the Union doesn't see that as a desirable tactic in this protracted battle over discipline, or if it doesn't want him to lower the average salary for QB's through this process, and to set a precedent, they'll just tell him not to do it, and he'll cooperate.

robertweathers said:

I agree.

There are legitimate reasons in taking a hometown discount. Immediate financial security, kids in school, wife happy where she is, you love the team and your role, local endorsements, winning, legacy, etc. Money is important but it's fleeting. You need to be happy.

Clearly the team knows that these are important and use them as leverage during negotiations. That's unfortunate but its business.

I suspect Tom took less money for a few of those reasons. Did the team take advantage of him? Maybe. Does he know it? Sure. In his mind the pros of being here outweigh the cons and he is OK with it.

Click to expand...

Generally agree, although if you gave me a million dollars and allowed me to invest it in society as I saw fit, I guarantee you that it wouldn't be "fleeting." Brady (anyone) could change a lot of lives with the money that he didn't negotiate for in the name of increasing the odds that he'd win another game or two.

He certainly owes nothing to the patriots. Patriots also owe nothing to him. I'm sure that both parties complied with what was agreed. But in a hypothetical scenario, it would be nice (why? Perhaps because he is the player with the most time on the team, married to a woman who has 3x more money than him, he is the biggest idol in team history). No one is saying (I think) what he should do or not do, only it would be great if he di. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Many soccer players do it, after being extremely rich, come back and play for their clubs the minimum wage allowed

betterthanthealternative said:

Generally agree, although if you gave me a million dollars and allowed me to invest it in society as I saw fit, I guarantee you that it wouldn't be "fleeting." Brady (anyone) could change a lot of lives with the money that he didn't negotiate for in the name of increasing the odds that he'd win another game or two.

Click to expand...

Yes- having money and what you do with it are certainly different things.

Sfpat said:

I could see him doing this after he deposits the check from the league after winning his defamation suit

Click to expand...

Yeah, he actually probably will be able to play until he's 60...

patsbrasilpatriotas said:

1) He doesnt need the money

Click to expand...

Who are we to say what Tom Brady's financial objectives are or should be?

Is it our place to determine his investment plans?

How do we know what he wants to do when he (finally) retires?

Who are we to say that he should give away his potential to earn an additional $10--20 million dollars or more when he might actually have a plan for what he wants to do with that money...knowledge that is none of our business?

Is it our place to decide how he might want to distribute wealth across generations of his children and grandchildren...and beyond...based on our notions of what is "enough" or what he might "need?"

Tom Brady is one of the most gifted athlete/entertainers (the NFL, as we all know, is an entertainment business as well as an athletic enterprise) of the last 50 years. Only Michael Jordan and a small handful of others are comparable to him. He is entitled to monetize those gifts in any way that he sees fit.

He has chosen to make his salary cap burden as easy as possible for the Patriots to absorb, while still getting paid a reasonable salary. But taking the Veterans minimum? Where do any of us get the right to spend his money for him that way?

PatsFanSince74 said:

Who are we to say what Tom Brady's financial objectives are or should be?

Is it our place to determine his investment plans?

How do we know what he wants to do when he (finally) retires?

Who are we to say that he should give away his potential to earn an additional $10--20 million dollars or more when he might actually have a plan for what he wants to do with that money...knowledge that is none of our business?

Is it our place to decide how he might want to distribute wealth across generations of his children and grandchildren...and beyond...based on our notions of what is "enough" or what he might "need?"

Tom Brady is one of the most gifted athlete/entertainers (the NFL, as we all know, is an entertainment business as well as an athletic enterprise) of the last 50 years. Only Michael Jordan and a small handful of others are comparable to him. He is entitled to monetize those gifts in any way that he sees fit.

He has chosen to make his salary cap burden as easy as possible for the Patriots to absorb, while still getting paid a reasonable salary. But taking the Veterans minimum? Where do any of us get the right to spend his money for him that way?

Click to expand...

1) I was answering to a question: Why in God's name would he do that? Not need the money is a valid alternative ( I dont know his needs thats why i said that a possibility)

2) I never said that what he should do. I just provide an answer.

3) Precisely for this reason he will always be very rich... But that's no an excuse. He may want to maximize his earnings as an athlete, this is not a crime.

As it is not a crime when athletes like David West left a lot money the table to help his chances to achieve his dream... There is no wrong choice.

betterthanthealternative said:

This has nothing to do with what's in anyone's contracts. Miguel and others here are being naive to suggest that the union, given the strong connection they have with Brady now through the deflategate process, won't be in a position to give a thumbs up vs. thumbs down on how he deals with the League going forward. The strategy is singular; it isn't as if Brady and his agent do their thinking, and the NFLPA does its thinking, and then they meet in court to find out what each other is going to do.

If he redoes his contract for the purpose of giving a "big FU to the League" (which is what this thread is about), and the Union doesn't see that as a desirable tactic in this protracted battle over discipline, or if it doesn't want him to lower the average salary for QB's through this process, and to set a precedent, they'll just tell him not to do it, and he'll cooperate.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep dismissing the fact that the union has absolutely zero f***ing say in what Brady does... Him re-doing his deal to take vet minimum would have zero effect on the QB franchise # that's the only thing that'd make them say something. If the NFLPA had a problem with Brady's base pay being low then they would have said something back when his base pay in '12 and '13 was $1m and $2m and he wasn't even a top 30 QB in terms of base pay those years.

convertedpatsfan said:

From almost every single article I've read about Brady, his main focus is on playing QB for as long as possible.

It isn't about the money in terms of what he can buy with it, but rather I think the trade-off for greater guarantees was designed specifically to make it difficult to get rid of him if they wanted to in the future. If he signed for the veteran minimum and struggled, they could cut him without any long-term ramifications. If there's $20-$30M in guaranteed money that would accelerate onto the salary cap, it does force them to pause and really think through it.

Obviously only Tom and his agent know for sure, but if you see it through that lens, that last contract renegotiation looks like the perfect optimization between helping the team while ensuring it is difficult to move him.

Click to expand...

From everything I’ve seen about TFB he doesn’t simply want to play football, he wants to win. Also, if he costs very little to keep on the roster isn’t that more incentive for the Pats to keep him? They’d be getting a lot of production for little cost.

The best way for TFB to not struggle is have him well protected with quality receivers, and a strong running game. Having a very light salary helps BB get those other pieces.

JMC00 said:

Why do you keep dismissing the fact that the union has absolutely zero f***ing say in what Brady does... Him re-doing his deal to take vet minimum would have zero effect on the QB franchise # that's the only thing that'd make them say something. If the NFLPA had a problem with Brady's base pay being low then they would have said something back when his base pay in '12 and '13 was $1m and $2m and he wasn't even a top 30 QB in terms of base pay those years.

Click to expand...

The NFLPA would have an issue if Tom pulled in 10% of the actual $90m in cash he received during the last 6 years and so would the league.

JMC00 said:

Why do you keep dismissing the fact that the union has absolutely zero f***ing say in what Brady does... Him re-doing his deal to take vet minimum would have zero effect on the QB franchise # that's the only thing that'd make them say something. If the NFLPA had a problem with Brady's base pay being low then they would have said something back when his base pay in '12 and '13 was $1m and $2m and he wasn't even a top 30 QB in terms of base pay those years.

Click to expand...

Because it is true. What's being discussed here is Brady using his salary as a tactic in the strategy for getting leverage/revenge on the League for messing with him. Brady isn't going to take a single action against the League without it being part of a coordinated effort with the Union. If they don't like one of the possible tactics that's put forward, he won't do it, because they are working jointly on this matter.

The Union isn't an adversary of Brady's. They are his representatives, and he's part of a collective of players who agree to cooperate to their greater good.

The bigger question is why do you keep making this a question about contract law when it has nothing to do with that. The relationship between Brady and the Union is one of partners in this matter. Neither one of them would do something that the other would disapprove of and then wave "rights" in their face. That would be juvenile and strategically stupid.