Brady/Mankins Why Not This?

[Bostonian1962]

I'm hoping somebody can tell me the rules, and why or why not the Patriots can't do the following with regard to contracts for Brady and/or Mankins.

This is an uncapped year. Why can't they sign both players to huge 1 year contracts for this year? In other words, instead of signing Brady to (making up the numbers here, but you'll get my point) to $14M per year for 7 years, why not sign him to a 1 year $42M contract. That's $14M plus $28M. Then sign him to a 6 year contract next year for $14M a season, minus $28M. That would make it a 6 year, $56 contract, saving the team $5M per year against the cap (assuming it comes back).

You could do something similar for Mankins.

The contract could have verbiage in there giving the team a right of first refusal in the future, so they are protected next year.

What I'm trying to suggest is since you are not allowed to front load a long term contract, by rule. Circumvent that rule, and front load everything into a one year contract. The rule wouldn't count towards a new contract next year.

Is that doable, or is there something that prevents them from doing that? Discuss.

 

[Sicilian]

My guess is that's not done for one of two reasons. Either because there's specific language in the CBA that protects against that kind of deal, or because it's a big risk to take that the player isn't just going to go after a market value deal somewhere else after you've just paid him three years worth of salary for one season.

"Oh, I'm supposed to sign for less now? Because this team over here is willing to pay my $14m instead of your 10. Thanks for the $42m though, my diamond crusted Hum-V is pretty sweet."

 

[Sciz]

Right of first refusal doesn't protect them from a holdout, though. That puts us right back where we are right now with Mankins.

Actually, right of first refusal means they can match what another team offers. So when the Jets offer Brady $140M/7 years, the Pats either have to match that or play Brady twice a year for the next few years.

 

[A.C Vegas]

and why would they take a deal like that anyway waht happens if they take the one year deal then get injuried there is no security in that

 

[jmt57]

If I'm not mistaken the 30% rule prevents that scenario from happening. Perhaps they can get around that with a big signing bonus rather than a big salary though.

I'm sure somebody that knows more than I do about the 30% rule can set us straight.

 

[cstjohn17]

Collusion, cough, cough...

 

[mgteich]

Mankins would simply sign the $42M million contract and negotiate again when the team was allowed to sign a new long-term contract under the rules of the CBA, after a year. Brady is in a different since he is already signed for 2010. If you are suggesting tearing up his old contract and signing a new $42M dollar one year contract, I'm sure Brady would be fine with that. He too would then certainly be willing to to talk with the team about a long term contract afer the season.

As far as "collusion", business is business. Neither would accept a long-term contract under the terms you quoted.

I'm hoping somebody can tell me the rules, and why or why not the Patriots can't do the following with regard to contracts for Brady and/or Mankins.

This is an uncapped year. Why can't they sign both players to huge 1 year contracts for this year? In other words, instead of signing Brady to (making up the numbers here, but you'll get my point) to $14M per year for 7 years, why not sign him to a 1 year $42M contract. That's $14M plus $28M. Then sign him to a 6 year contract next year for $14M a season, minus $28M. That would make it a 6 year, $56 contract, saving the team $5M per year against the cap (assuming it comes back).

You could do something similar for Mankins.

The contract could have verbiage in there giving the team a right of first refusal in the future, so they are protected next year.

What I'm trying to suggest is since you are not allowed to front load a long term contract, by rule. Circumvent that rule, and front load everything into a one year contract. The rule wouldn't count towards a new contract next year.

Is that doable, or is there something that prevents them from doing that? Discuss.

 

[Spiral]

My guess is that you'd only do the one-year contract if you had some type of verbal agreement to sign a longer-term deal for agreed-upon terms after this year. Otherwise, why bother? And if you have that verbal agreement, you have a contract--whether it's written or not.

 

[Deus Irae]

My guess is that you'd only do the one-year contract if you had some type of verbal agreement to sign a longer-term deal for agreed-upon terms after this year. Otherwise, why bother? And if you have that verbal agreement, you have a contract--whether it's written or not.

Also, the Minnesota Timberwolves would strongly recommend that teams think twice before taking that approach.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If I'm not mistaken the 30% rule prevents that scenario from happening. Perhaps they can get around that with a big signing bonus rather than a big salary though.

I'm sure somebody that knows more than I do about the 30% rule can set us straight.

The 30% rule would preclude it, including using a signing bonus which could not be amortized to anywhere to mitigate it's effect since it's a one year deal, not that any businessman in his right mind would attempt that foolish an end around even if it didn't...

 

[stinkypete]

It could work for Brady, who already earns high enough salary to keep the 30% rule from being prohibitive. The bonus would have to be large, but for Brady it will.

Mankins, on his rookie deal, doesn't earn high enough salary. I think Mankins is worth $5-$6 per year, but the 30% rule would require the Pats to more money into guaranteed bonus money than I'm sure they would want to.

Mankins is probably looking for Jhiri Evans money too. Elite guards get paid.

 

[lillestroom]

It could work for Brady, who already earns high enough salary to keep the 30% rule from being prohibitive. The bonus would have to be large, but for Brady it will.

Mankins, on his rookie deal, doesn't earn high enough salary. I think Mankins is worth $5-$6 per year, but the 30% rule would require the Pats to more money into guaranteed bonus money than I'm sure they would want to.

Mankins is probably looking for Jhiri Evans money too. Elite guards get paid.

Mankins SHOULD get paid GOOD money, just not SILLY money.