Do you hope the Patriots trade Garoppolo?

[BelichickFan]

nobody's going to trade big stuff for him unless they know they can get a deal done......nobody's going to get the deal done if garoppolo doesn't want to get the deal done.

for this to work, they need his buy in

It's a moot point because he's signed cheap for next year, then can be Franchised, that gives them two years averaging about $12M or so (cheap in today's market) and they'd get the deal done. Other than Osweiller which young QB actually get to the market ? None and Osweiller was an unusual case. If JG were to be traded to a team where he would be the starter Week 1 next year there's no chance he wouldn't buy in.

 

[pats4life12]

Do I hope we trade Jimmy, no. I see a lot of potential in Jimmy and could see him replacing Brady when the time comes. But if we get an offer we can't refuse then you have to do what you have to do.

 

[Gronk]

Yeah, for cap purposes, it is (AFAIK) prorated bonus + salary. So, for example, you could have a 6 year contract with a 12 million signing bonus, with salary escalations from 2 to 4 to million in the first two years. That would give you a prorated cap hit of 2 mil + 2 mil for the first year and 2 mil + 4 mil for the second. (i'm not proposing that as an actual contract, just as an example)

I don't /think/ the guarantee matters except in cases where you want to cut the player before the contract has played out.

Is this close to correct?

I don't see how a cap-conscious team (like NE) could reasonably backload guaranteed money in a contract - the bonus proration (for cap purposes) prevents it unless you guarantee salaries, which are the opposite of how most teams operate except to frontload deals. As in Osweiler's case - the Texans upped the guaranteed money by guaranteeing his salary the first two years (when they're 100% certain they want him on the roster anyway) and if he's not the real deal after year 2 they can get out. If he is the real deal, he's in a good position of leverage to demand a new contract. That's a reasonable deal for both sides, really. He gets paid good up front, he's in a position to get paid again if he's good over the first two years, and the team has an out too.

But if you were trying to do it the opposite way - and I'm not positive you can, or maybe it's just never made sense for anyone to do, but my understanding is that the bonus is always fully guaranteed, and/or you can choose to guarantee full salaries for certain years. In this case for cap purposes you want JG to be really cheap in 2018/2019, and only really start paying him in 2020 when you plan for him to start, then the construct of that deal would be dangerous in that you would have the 'signing bonus' guarantee, whatever that is would still be prorated at a lower number but then you'd be fully guaranteeing salaries 3-4-5 years down the line that could burn you.

Let's say he signed 5 yrs/$80m/$40m guaranteed...$15m being 'signing bonus'
(based on other deals QBs have signed this may be a tad high but I don't think this is totally unreasonable at $16m AAV, and certainly some QB-starved team, say Chicago, could easily offer 5/80/40 with a bigger up-front payday)
Year - Salary - Bonus
1 - $2m - $3m
2 - $3m - $3m
3 - $18m - $3m (salary fully guaranteed = cap $21m)
4 - $20m - $3m (salary fully guaranteed = cap $23m)
5 - $22m - $3m (no salary guarantee)

I mean, doable....sure? but if you're wrong about him you're ****ed. You can play with the numbers and up the signing bonus and lower some of the salaries, or pay him a little more 'salary' in the early years, but there's no avoidable risk in backloading any deal. And the only reason to do it would be to let Brady play it out "til he sucks", and why would JG want to wait that out if he believes he can be a starter somewhere now?

option 1 - trade JG this offseason, gives new team ability to buy in low money-wise and negotiate new deal with him of their own accord, continue to re-stock team to roll with Brady for the next 3-4 years before the Brisket is ready (best slow and low anyway), plus added benefit of no 'QB controversy' everytime Brady isn't perfect (though I suppose there'd be a "did NE do the right thing?" post here weekly)
option 2 - franchise JG after 2017 and try to trade him that way, realizing you may have lost some of your leverage/flexibility due to the tag salary, endure another year and a half of questions about when Tom Brady is done
option 3 - decide you believe JG is the next leader of the Patriots, deal with the ******** in the interim, force the GOAT out by cutting him 6/1/2018, eat the cap money, and move along (to say nothing of the century of bad luck this could usher in)

Presuming TB is still TB - and neither I nor anyone here or anywhere else has any reason to believe otherwise - option 1 makes the most sense to me. BB ain't gonna coach forever...regardless of that I don't think there is any point at which he would change his operational style and stop trying to build the future as well as the present, but there comes a time when a man has to think about his legacy. And Brady is still his best chance to win a few more Lombardi's before he hangs it up and can live long enough to watch them re-name the trophy after him.

 

[IllegalContact]

It's a moot point because he's signed cheap for next year, then can be Franchised, that gives them two years averaging about $12M or so (cheap in today's market) and they'd get the deal done. Other than Osweiller which young QB actually get to the market ? None and Osweiller was an unusual case. If JG were to be traded to a team where he would be the starter Week 1 next year there's no chance he wouldn't buy in.

It's easy for a player to scare off someone looking to part with a couple of high picks....nobody's going to part with high picks unless the guy wants to be there which means an extension

 

[rochrist]

I don't see how a cap-conscious team (like NE) could reasonably backload guaranteed money in a contract - the bonus proration (for cap purposes) prevents it unless you guarantee salaries, which are the opposite of how most teams operate except to frontload deals. As in Osweiler's case - the Texans upped the guaranteed money by guaranteeing his salary the first two years (when they're 100% certain they want him on the roster anyway) and if he's not the real deal after year 2 they can get out. If he is the real deal, he's in a good position of leverage to demand a new contract. That's a reasonable deal for both sides, really. He gets paid good up front, he's in a position to get paid again if he's good over the first two years, and the team has an out too.

But if you were trying to do it the opposite way - and I'm not positive you can, or maybe it's just never made sense for anyone to do, but my understanding is that the bonus is always fully guaranteed, and/or you can choose to guarantee full salaries for certain years. In this case for cap purposes you want JG to be really cheap in 2018/2019, and only really start paying him in 2020 when you plan for him to start, then the construct of that deal would be dangerous in that you would have the 'signing bonus' guarantee, whatever that is would still be prorated at a lower number but then you'd be fully guaranteeing salaries 3-4-5 years down the line that could burn you.

Let's say he signed 5 yrs/$80m/$40m guaranteed...$15m being 'signing bonus'
(based on other deals QBs have signed this may be a tad high but I don't think this is totally unreasonable at $16m AAV, and certainly some QB-starved team, say Chicago, could easily offer 5/80/40 with a bigger up-front payday)
Year - Salary - Bonus
1 - $2m - $3m
2 - $3m - $3m
3 - $18m - $3m (salary fully guaranteed = cap $21m)
4 - $20m - $3m (salary fully guaranteed = cap $23m)
5 - $22m - $3m (no salary guarantee)

I mean, doable....sure? but if you're wrong about him you're ****ed. You can play with the numbers and up the signing bonus and lower some of the salaries, or pay him a little more 'salary' in the early years, but there's no avoidable risk in backloading any deal. And the only reason to do it would be to let Brady play it out "til he sucks", and why would JG want to wait that out if he believes he can be a starter somewhere now?

option 1 - trade JG this offseason, gives new team ability to buy in low money-wise and negotiate new deal with him of their own accord, continue to re-stock team to roll with Brady for the next 3-4 years before the Brisket is ready (best slow and low anyway), plus added benefit of no 'QB controversy' everytime Brady isn't perfect (though I suppose there'd be a "did NE do the right thing?" post here weekly)
option 2 - franchise JG after 2017 and try to trade him that way, realizing you may have lost some of your leverage/flexibility due to the tag salary, endure another year and a half of questions about when Tom Brady is done
option 3 - decide you believe JG is the next leader of the Patriots, deal with the ******** in the interim, force the GOAT out by cutting him 6/1/2018, eat the cap money, and move along (to say nothing of the century of bad luck this could usher in)

Presuming TB is still TB - and neither I nor anyone here or anywhere else has any reason to believe otherwise - option 1 makes the most sense to me. BB ain't gonna coach forever...regardless of that I don't think there is any point at which he would change his operational style and stop trying to build the future as well as the present, but there comes a time when a man has to think about his legacy. And Brady is still his best chance to win a few more Lombardi's before he hangs it up and can live long enough to watch them re-name the trophy after him.

You don't think Belichick has the stones to make up his mind of whether or not he wants JG going forward?

I don't think Brady well be playing at a Brady-like level in 4 years. Maybe he will be, but it's a crap shoot. At that age, bad injuries happen a lot easier. And talk about unproven, all the people who say JG hasn't proved anything yet, Brissett is that times 20.

 

[supafly]

You don't think Belichick has the stones to make up his mind of whether or not he wants JG going forward?

I don't think anyone should worry about the size of Belichick's balls. We know that he isn't afraid to make tough, unpopular decisions. That said, the timing of the situation is the difficult part, as is the fact that we're talking about Tom Brady--someone who has probably earned the right to finish his career here rather than get traded to a piss poor team like the LA Rams (for example). Would Kraft and Belichick really trade Tom Brady? I don't know, but the way his contract was structured has already addressed this scenario ahead of time, and Tom's dead cap hit would be 14m dollars...

The best option would be to try and keep both, so that Brady could play through 2018 (another example). That would give him this year and 2 more. Unfortunately, Belichick isn't likely to dedicate 45m dollars to the position of QB, even if it's only for one year in 2018. I mean, anything's possible--but that would mean that BOTH Brady (agrees to retirement after 2018) and Garoppolo (agrees to new pact here, with the idea that he'd be sitting another year post free agency, then taking over after the 2018 season) are satisfied with the situation. More importantly, it would also have to include Belichick, who would have to accept the fact that he'd need to dedicate 45m dollars to one position for a year, which is obviously a stretch to even consider. Lots of things would have to line up properly, which obviously lowers the odds of keeping both significantly.

I don't think Brady well be playing at a Brady-like level in 4 years.

While I think most of us would agree with you, they don't have "4 years" to come to that conclusion. They have until the end of next season. That's exactly what makes the entire situation so difficult to try and resolve.

 

[supafly]

Do I hope we trade Jimmy, no. I see a lot of potential in Jimmy and could see him replacing Brady when the time comes. But if we get an offer we can't refuse then you have to do what you have to do.

With all due respect to this thought, there are some fairly large obstacles to try and overcome in order to do that. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you can refer to my previous post as a starting point for what they're dealing with. The biggest issue would be the fact that Garoppolo is a free agent after next year, and will be looking for a large payday (Osweiler was much less successful and received a 4/72 deal) as a starting QB in the NFL.

At that same time, Tom Brady's cap hit jumps to 22m dollars, so it's virtually impossible to think that they'd even consider paying 45m dollars or so for the QB position, particularly with one riding the bench and holding a clipboard.

 

[Gronk]

You don't think Belichick has the stones to make up his mind of whether or not he wants JG going forward?

I don't think Brady well be playing at a Brady-like level in 4 years. Maybe he will be, but it's a crap shoot. At that age, bad injuries happen a lot easier. And talk about unproven, all the people who say JG hasn't proved anything yet, Brissett is that times 20.

I don't think I said that. He has the stones to make that call - but making it in a scenario where TB is declining while JG is on the rise vs. making that call while TB is still tip-top and JG seems to be coming on is a different matter. It's a complicated questions, as @supafly points out. If he considers both TB/JG to be relatively equal to his purpose of winning Super Bowls (as the question gets framed, despite only 6 qtrs of football vs. 15 years of football being the basis to support that conclusion) then I think it's an invariably tough call. I just don't think the decision from that perspective is as difficult as the reality, and I don't think it's inhuman to suggest that 2020-2024 matters less to BB than 2016-2019 does.

 

[thecore762]

If he comes back the following week and plays well then yes.
I honestly think Jimmy will be around another year or two at max if Brady doesn't show any sign of wear like Manning.

I think Jimmy could become the next Aaron Rodgers if he has the right coaching staff if BB and McDaniels still stay in town.

With that said if we get a 1st rounder and a 2nd rounder for Jimmy then it's a no brainer, we need some high picks on our Cornerback position and offensive line position.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

@QuantumMechanic put it best: Would you rather have several opportunities to win a Super Bowl over 10+ years (potential span of Jimmy's career)? Or just a couple of opportunities over the next 2 years (before Brady's decline becomes apparent)?

Especially if Jimmy's ceiling is Top 5 "elite" QB, you'd be crazy not to sign him long-term.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I don't want to trade Jimmy, but if he doesn't want to sign w/ New England for the long-term, than you might was well trade him and get something in return.

I wouldn't want the Patriots to suffer the same kind of embarrassment the Broncos went through with Osweiller, and have Jimmy just walk away and leave the team with no assets going forward.

 

[KamikazeKnight]

I don't want to trade Jimmy, but if he doesn't want to sign w/ New England for the long-term, than you might was well trade him and get something in return.

I wouldn't want the Patriots to suffer the same kind of embarrassment the Broncos went through with Osweiller, and have Jimmy just walk away and leave the team with no assets going forward.

This post doesn't make much sense to me tbh. Why wouldn't Jimmy want to stay with the team if we happened to move on from Brady? I can't imagine a better situation for any QB to be in. We're not Denver, we're New England. I think comparing our situation to Denver's is kind of silly because us ending up with no QB at the end of the day is extremely unlikely.

 

[TruthSeeker]

It amazes me that so many actually think TB12 can play an additional 4 or 5 years. Let him play this and next year, give him his gold watch, let him retire or trade him and let the JG era begin.

Get ready to be amazed. Brady's long-term fitness is like no other; he's as obsessive about that as he is about being the best QB in the NFL. Of course, there's no predicting when a significant injury requiring surgery can occur, but apart from that I fully expect he'll be playing 5 years from now - at a high level.

 

[rads2005]

Yes, I do, because I'm pretty sure he'll net some nice draft picks and Brady seems hell bent on beating the odds and playing into his 40's. I believe Brady can do it too, given how hard he seems to work in the offseason and all the advances made with nutrition and exercise physiology.

so with the nice draft picks, Brady for another 5 years? No brainer. And there's no way we can keep JG on a reasonable backup salary.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Right, not everybody takes Aaron Rogers' approach to competition with "The Legend."

Of course, different situation... Rogers didn't have to compete w/Favre's shadow

One other point, to supafly... fans would go batcrap crazy were Brady cut or traded. Hell half the people would leave this board, you know that going in. And it might not be a good move.

Jimmy G remains for the most part an unknown. We don't know his upside. We know he had a good game going for 3/8 of a game. Patriots fans start penciling him in for the Hall of Fame.

Brady's a first-ballot lock and nobody sees him declining. If anything, he doubled down on the things he could do on the field when challenged on the O line last year. Etc. etc. etc.

And I want Brady to retire a Patriot.

That said... nobody "deserves" for a team to make decisions based on the past. That's just the deal in the NFL. Montana playing for the Chiefs.

I don't wanna see it happen, nobody wants to see it happen, but when I see smart and rational people talking about what the player "deserves," I just shake my head.

Nature of the beast.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

@PatsFanInVa I think we know what Garoppolo's ceiling is...those two quarters in the Miami game shows what kind of upside he has. The question is, can he deliver that kind of performance on a consistent basis? Especially in playoff games?

I don't think we'll ever find out in New England. There just isn't any room for Jimmy G. to shine.

I would prefer going with a promising, young quarterback that can carry the franchise into the next decade, but at this point, I think the Pats just want to ride out the last few years of Brady's greatness - as long as they can at least.

 

[Gronk]

That said... nobody "deserves" for a team to make decisions based on the past. That's just the deal in the NFL. Montana playing for the Chiefs.

I don't wanna see it happen, nobody wants to see it happen, but when I see smart and rational people talking about what the player "deserves," I just shake my head.

Nature of the beast.

I agree with this completely, and you seem to have a pretty balanced perspective - i.e. many are already picking sides on "retiring Brady" vs. "let TB go down with the ship no matter what"...and there's a lot more to it.

But Montana/Young, Favre/Rodgers and even the Manning/Luck situations are instructive in their differences, not their similarities. There's no comparable situation, because what Brady has done and is doing with his physical fitness and maintaining a high level of play approaching 40 years old has no historical comparison. A cursory glance at old vs. young and past/present vs. future doesn't give the proper nuance. Injuries for Montana and Manning made each miss entire seasons - their teams were right to be wary of them, especially with a suitable replacement already playing full-time (and winning the MVP award) in SF, and a #1 pick waiting for IND. Favre may have had a resurgent 2007 and been on the brink of the Super Bowl but he and the Packers were downright bad in '05 before McCarthy came in, and there'd been a clear regression in his play besides the annual retirement threats/melodrama that had soured both the organization and the fans on him. I've lived in WI since 2007 and even as Favre had just taken the Packers to the NFCCG, when he tried to come back in fall '08, 95% of the fans were saying "**** that guy, so sick of this". But that's also because it was always "ah, ok I'll do just one more year..." for Brett. It's why his number wasn't retired until last year.

Brady's not an old guy hoping to take his last best shot somewhere (a la Favre in MIN '09), Tom's still at the peak of his powers by all available evidence. If he'd somehow dragged the Pats out of Denver last January and won the Super Bowl - which would have been a damn near miracle - would we just be saying "well, he already got #5, time for Glassroppolo!" ??

So "deserve", well yeah he probably does "deserve" it, he built this thing as much as anyone, but it's not about that because you're right that's not a good reason. It's about that he's still the best guy for the job. That 5.5 quarters of football has blinded a lot of people to that is mind-boggling, at best.

 

[The_Riddler]

Not a chance, I don't care what's offered...This will be Montana passing the baton to Steve Young all over again, allowing us to be great again for another 12 years. Jimmy is the future...

 

[PatriotSpy]

I've got a hunch that McDaniels leaves at the end of the year and Brady is let go to follow him wherever Josh ends up making way for Jimmy G.

Pats get a younger qb and Brady continues to play and continues playing in an offense he is used to.

 

[patfanken]

I still don't see where people think that Garapolo staying is even possible, based on the dead cap numbers Brady carries for the next 2 years.

I also don't see how people are ascribing "top 5 elite QB" potential based on just 5 quarters of football. Think about it. Do we know how this kid will respond the game after he throws 4 picks, or how he'll respond to being banged up, or how he responds when he runs into a defense he has trouble with. We don't. Not even close.

We do know that he's pretty good in the short run, and that is what makes him a great asset to deal in the future. It's not fair, nor is it ideal, but the logistics of the Brady/JG dynamic just makes it inevitable, The fact is that JG's contract will run out BEFORE Brady's skills will diminish to the point where JG would be the better QB. It's just THAT simple.