Brady's Contract

[Brady6]

shmessy said: ↑
#1 - Who here is saying that Garopollo should replace Brady in 2015???



Game over.

I do not get it.

 

[shmessy]

In order of conversation:


1) shmessy said: ↑
#1 - Who here is saying that Garopollo should replace Brady in 2015???

2) Brady6 said: ↑
Many people, and that is all the rage in the media.

3) Shmessy: "Game over"

I do not get it.

Of course you don't.

 

[Brady6]

Of course you don't.

Honestly do not know what your beef is but I go out of my way to be respectful to you and not just, because you are a moderator, I do it because I value what you have to say normally, this is not of value though, and not appreciated. I am not playing a game, I am trying to have a discussion

I will reiterate my stance, Tom Brady has already went on record and said he would retire when he sucks, so if he is not capable of leading a winning team that would equate to sucking and therefore he would retire. That leaves one scenario where I could see the Patriots being able to cut or trade Brady without it being detrimental to the team and Belichick’s ability to coach in the NFL, and that is if Brady was injured for an extended period and the backup outplayed him without question. However if Belichick was to simply cut or trade Brady because he wanted to save cap money, or gain a draft pick he would alienate himself from the team, the fans, and any potential free agents, and eventually that decision would be his own demise.

If you disagree with this that is fine, but to think that the team, and fans only value winning is a simpleminded view. There are many reasons people tune in and some of it is to see the career of one of the all-time great player conclude. There is value in that, they will have chances to win Super Bowls for many years, but they will only have one chance to see Brady finish his Hall of Fame career in a Patriots uniform.

 

[shmessy]

Honestly do not know what your beef is but I go out of my way to be respectful to you and not just, because you are a moderator, I do it because I value what you have to say normally, this is not of value though, and not appreciated. I am not playing a game, I am trying to have a discussion

Stop taking everything so personally. Not belittling you. You didn't get it. It was obvious.

And, btw:

"If you disagree with this that is fine, but to think that the team, and fans only value winning is a simpleminded view.".

The team and the fans only value winning. You can call that whatever you want to call it. I'm sure "it's all the rage in the media".

 

[Brady6]

Stop taking everything so personally. Not belittling you. You didn't get it. It was obvious.

Fair enough, my apologies for personalizing it. I am a sensitive poster...

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't understand the Brady missing wide open Wr's people.Brady did the same thing in his prime so does every other QB.When is
the last time a QB went 35,35 on throws? QB's are not robots.

Fantasy football

 

[Dutchmaster617]

There are rumors astray that a man shall strike his donkey and his nephew's donkey!

Oh yeah and Calvin Johnson coming to New England, just rumors..........

 

[JoeSixPat]

Give me a break - is the point of this thread REALLY to suggest the Patriots will trade Brady before the trading deadline on October 28th? REALLY? And hand the team over to a rookie who has yet to play against NFL starters?

REALLY?

And now we're comparing Brady to BERNIE FRIGGEN KOSAR? There's no way those two should be mentioned in the same sentence. Really.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Give me a break - is the point of this thread REALLY to suggest the Patriots will trade Brady before the trading deadline on October 28th? REALLY? And hand the team over to a rookie who has yet to play against NFL starters?

REALLY?

And now we're comparing Brady to BERNIE FRIGGEN KOSAR? There's no way those two should be mentioned in the same sentence. Really.

The point of the thread is that the structure of Brady's contract makes it difficult to get rid of him at certain points in the future without eating a huge chunk of dead money. This makes stories like the ones posted by Mortensen and Silver more difficult to believe. Silver is speculating they could split after this season, but that's when a larger chunk of money becomes guaranteed and it's significantly more difficult to absorb the hit.

I don't think anyone is advocating for trading Brady. Well okay, that's not true. But most of those people have been pretty quiet since the Bengals game. And the Kosar comparison was silly. It's funny that no one brought up the more obvious example of BB sacking a popular QB, Drew Bledsoe.

Don't forget we gave Drew a record 10-year, $103M deal in the spring before he got injured and eventually replaced by a 2nd-year 6th-rounder out of Michigan, then traded him to a division rival.

I don't think we will trade Brady, but after Drew, you can't be 100% sure of anything.

 

[BradyManny]

I'm afraid I haven't been following too closely lately...can someone who has been following summarize Miguel's thoughts on the matter so we don't have to bother with uninformed opinion pieces from mediates?

Well, what I see above:

@BelichickFan:

Yes there would be $18M combined of dead money but that is lower than the current cap hit each season. So while the dead money looks daunting it actually saves against the cap.

@Miguel :

As of now his 2016 cap hit is scheduled to be $14 million, therefore a post 6/1/15 trade creates cap Space in both 2015+2016

 

[BelichickFan]

I'm afraid I haven't been following too closely lately...can someone who has been following summarize Miguel's thoughts on the matter so we don't have to bother with uninformed opinion pieces from mediates?

Well, what I see above:

The bottom line is that trading him after the year would mean an $18M dead money cap hit. However over the next two years that hit is $27M if he stays so we'd actually save money despite the massive cap hit.

How the dead money is handled depends on the timing but it's $18M regardless. A trade before 6/1/15 means the entire hit happens in 2015 and we lose $5M in cap in 2015 but gain $14M in 2016. A trade after 6/1/15 means the hit is split to $6M in 2015 and $12M in 2016 which means we gain $7M in 2015 and gain $2M in 2016. Either way we gain $9M over the two year period.

That's all from reading and digesting Miguel's posts and tweets. I'm not nearly smart enough to figure it out on my own.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The bottom line is that trading him after the year would mean an $18M dead money cap hit. However over the next two years that hit is $27M if he stays so we'd actually save money despite the massive cap hit.

How the dead money is handled depends on the timing but it's $18M regardless. A trade before 6/1/15 means the entire hit happens in 2015 and we lose $5M in cap in 2015 but gain $14M in 2016. A trade after 6/1/15 means the hit is split to $6M in 2015 and $12M in 2016 which means we gain $7M in 2015 and gain $2M in 2016. Either way we gain $9M over the two year period.

Yep- his contract is very trad-able, the financial savings interesting enough to explore and the cap hit manageable.

There is still a number of things that need to play out but it is by no means a lock that TB is with the Pats in 2015.

 

[manxman2601]

Give me a break - is the point of this thread REALLY to suggest the Patriots will trade Brady before the trading deadline on October 28th? REALLY? And hand the team over to a rookie who has yet to play against NFL starters?

REALLY?

And now we're comparing Brady to BERNIE FRIGGEN KOSAR? There's no way those two should be mentioned in the same sentence. Really.

Can't speak for anyone else but I certainly didn't directly compare Brady to Kosar, I merely used Kosar to point out that being a "face of the franchise" and fan favourite alone would not prevent BB trading Brady.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The bottom line is that trading him after the year would mean an $18M dead money cap hit. However over the next two years that hit is $27M if he stays so we'd actually save money despite the massive cap hit.

How the dead money is handled depends on the timing but it's $18M regardless. A trade before 6/1/15 means the entire hit happens in 2015 and we lose $5M in cap in 2015 but gain $14M in 2016. A trade after 6/1/15 means the hit is split to $6M in 2015 and $12M in 2016 which means we gain $7M in 2015 and gain $2M in 2016. Either way we gain $9M over the two year period.

That's all from reading and digesting Miguel's posts and tweets. I'm not nearly smart enough to figure it out on my own.

Yeah, you've got the gist of it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There is still a number of things that need to play out but it is by no means a lock that TB is with the Pats in 2015.

Is there at least a theoretical possibility? Sure. But I don't think we're talking about anything more than moon shots at this point (e.g., Houston offering ten first-rounders or something).

I think the big decision comes after either the 2015 season or more likely after the 2016 season.

 

[BradyManny]

How the dead money is handled depends on the timing but it's $18M regardless. A trade before 6/1/15 means the entire hit happens in 2015 and we lose $5M in cap in 2015 but gain $14M in 2016. A trade after 6/1/15 means the hit is split to $6M in 2015 and $12M in 2016 which means we gain $7M in 2015 and gain $2M in 2016. Either way we gain $9M over the two year period.

That's all from reading and digesting Miguel's posts and tweets. I'm not nearly smart enough to figure it out on my own.

Good stuff, thanks for the breakdown. That's much clearer. And thanks to @Miguel , as always for figuring this stuff out for us.

My own two cents - I'd personally be surprised if they felt incurring $18 million in dead money to save $9M in cap space over 2 years is worth losing his services. They'd have to simply prefer starting Garopollo at that point for that to happen. And/or get a haul via trade.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Good stuff, thanks for the breakdown. That's much clearer. And thanks to @Miguel , as always for figuring this stuff out for us.

My own two cents - I'd personally be surprised if they felt incurring $18 million in dead money to save $9M in cap space over 2 years is worth losing his services. They'd have to simply prefer starting Garopollo at that point for that to happen. And/or get a haul via trade.

That's going to exist no matter what, so it's essentially a sunk cost. (The only question is when it hits the cap, not if). The question is whether or not they get back more than they give up, and whether or not they feel that a mid-20s Garoppolo offers more long-term value than a late-30s Brady.

 

[Danger Zone]

Fantasy football

My first year playing FF and Im 0-5.

I must be a real football genius!

 

[Marinlik]

That's going to exist no matter what, so it's essentially a sunk cost. (The only question is when it hits the cap, not if). The question is whether or not they get back more than they give up, and whether or not they feel that a mid-20s Garoppolo offers more long-term value than a late-30s Brady.

Exactly. You should look at the money that can be saved, and make decision from that. Not from what the dead money is. That money will be there whatever we do. Cap cuts comes down to what can we save by releasing the player, and can we use that cap space to become better than we would be with the player.

 

[shmessy]

Belichick will play the QB who is the best QB on the Patriots roster.

He will bench him if his play diminishes and there is a better option on the roster.

He will not keep him on the field because "the crowd wants him" or that "he is the face of the franchise".

That being said, I think we are at least 2-3 years away from this even being a possibility for Brady.

The HC of the NEP is all football, not media ratings. Anyone who thinks Bill Belichick will play the 2nd best QB because he is afraid of the media and fan fallout simply does not know anything about Bill Belichick.