The Official 'Trade Brady' Debate Thread - Do Not Start Another One

[Deus Irae]

Dude, You arguing with Miguel and Deus about Salary Cap is like me telling Tiger Woods how to hit a 6 Iron. Seriously.

Thanks for the compliment, and it's much appreciated, but Miguel's knowledge is far superior to mine on this subject.

 

[Synovia]

Dues, do you see anything wrong with the last set of numbers?

 

[TruthSeeker]

This thread is lame. It's impossible to discuss this reasonably because 95% of the opponents to even considering the idea respond with ridiculous sarcasm or yelling and screaming about the stupidity of others. I guarantee very little of the trash associated with the subject of trading Brady has come from the people who think it's worth at least talking about.

This thread is lame.

 

[scout]

This thread is lame.

18,000 hits, tend to differ.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

18,000 hits, tend to differ.

only 60 or so more need to surpass the stallworth trade thread. not many threads surpass this one.

 

[PatriotsReign]

18,000 hits, tend to differ.

Breakdown:

17,990 really smart people telling 10 idiotic "trade Brady" people that their nuts!

 

[Miguel]

Miguel, is there anything wrong with my last set of contract numbers?

Not that I see.

 

[j00fek]

when will this worthless thread be banished?

 

[scout]

Breakdown:

17,990 really smart people telling 10 idiotic "trade Brady" people that their nuts!

Evidently, you didn't bother reading the all the pro-Brady posts. Furthermore, how is it idiotic to look at your options. Because your of one opinion everybody else is an idiot. Glad you put that out there.

 

[Synovia]

Furthermore, how is it idiotic to look at your options..

Exactly. I don't necessarily think they should trade him, but if it hasn't been thoroughly thought through by the patriots, and they haven't done a lot of analysis and modeling, I would be highly surprised, and disappointed.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Exactly. I don't necessarily think they should trade him, but if it hasn't been thoroughly thought through by the patriots, and they haven't done a lot of analysis and modeling, I would be highly surprised, and disappointed.

I'm sure they have, but almost all of it comes back to one fundamental issue: the cost of not having Brady on the roster this year is almost the same as having him. It's also as much a qualitative analysis as a quantitative one--what is a fair price for Brady, in their opinion, and would anyone be willing to pay that price?

If the situation had been reversed--in other words, that it was Brady's contract year and Cassel was still signed for another year or two, the argument for trading Brady would be far more compelling. But, of course, that's not the case.

 

[Topher]

Not that I am per se "for" trading Brady,

But I am curious as to if those completely against the idea are either:

a) against it no matter what could be brought back in return (eg Brady is completely untradeable)

OR

b) dont feel like you could ever get enough compensation in return and the cap hit is not worth it

????

My 2 cents is:

If the Patriots are uncertain about his recovery and were offered a ridiculously nice package for him, I would think that you at least need to consider it.

 

[Synovia]

Not that I am per se "for" trading Brady,

But I am curious as to if those completely against the idea are either:

a) against it no matter what could be brought back in return (eg Brady is completely untradeable)

OR

b) dont feel like you could ever get enough compensation in return and the cap hit is not worth it
.

I would guarantee almost all are A. THe people who actually want to discuss the issue and not just yell "OMG, WHERES THE LOYALTY" are B.


The Cap hit for trading Brady is irrelevant. They've got enough cap space, and you need to spend the money one way or another. Cap space is not going to be a problem this year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Keeping a player because of sunk cost is stupid. The money is already gone, whether Tom Brady can play or not.

Right, but because the money is sunk, it's completely irrelevant in the decisionmaking process.That $10M is gone, and can't be counted in any capacity. Given that, you're left to choose between Tom Brady at $5M or Matt Cassel at $14M.

If you're going to bust out the sunk cost argument, at least do it right.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not that I am per se "for" trading Brady,

But I am curious as to if those completely against the idea are either:

a) against it no matter what could be brought back in return (eg Brady is completely untradeable)

OR

b) dont feel like you could ever get enough compensation in return and the cap hit is not worth it

????

My 2 cents is:

If the Patriots are uncertain about his recovery and were offered a ridiculously nice package for him, I would think that you at least need to consider it.

B, but with on more caveat. Brady cannot be traded unless he can pass a physical. If he can pass a physical, then there's no reason to trade him. Hence, he's essentially untradable.

The Cap hit for trading Brady is irrelevant. They've got enough cap space, and you need to spend the money one way or another. Cap space is not going to be a problem this year.

Do you follow the Pats' FA at all, in any capacity? Cap space is never irrelevant, and the Pats never leave substantial money on the table (and $10M is substantial). That's money that can be used to extend players, if nothing else. Now, if you want to argue that the cap hit is worth it, that's one thing (I don't agree with it, but whatever). Arguing that a $10M cap hit is irrelevant is just dumb, though, when you have to pay $14M to replace the guy that you're blowing $10M to drop.

 

[Synovia]

Right, but because the money is sunk, it's completely irrelevant in the decisionmaking process.That $10M is gone, and can't be counted in any capacity. Given that, you're left to choose between Tom Brady at $5M or Matt Cassel at $14M.

If you're going to bust out the sunk cost argument, at least do it right.

No, you're not.


IF they're keeping Cassel, its not at $14M, its on a long term deal, and most likely in the $6M cap hit in the first year, 7.5 in the second.

SO the numbers work like this:

Keep Cassel: Year1 : Brady 5M, Cassel 6M. Year2: Brady 0M, Cassel 7M.

Keep Brady: Year 1: 5M. Year 2: 10M.


Yeah, it costs you an additional 6M or so this year, but cuts 7M or so off next year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, you're not.


IF they're keeping Cassel, its not at $14M, its on a long term deal, and most likely in the $6M cap hit in the first year, 7.5 in the second.

SO the numbers work like this:

Keep Cassel: Year1 : Brady 5M, Cassel 6M. Year2: Brady 0M, Cassel 7M.

Keep Brady: Year 1: 5M. Year 2: 10M.


Yeah, it costs you an additional 6M or so this year, but cuts 7M or so off next year.

You're assuming that Cassel would sign a contract for $6-7M per year, for starters. Maybe he'll take a discount, but that's not exactly market rate.

 

[Synovia]

B, but with on more caveat. Brady cannot be traded unless he can pass a physical. If he can pass a physical, then there's no reason to trade him. Hence, he's essentially untradable.

The fact that he can pass a physical doesn't mean hes going to be able to play at his previous level. Culpepper passed a physical. He sure wasn't what he was before.

Do you follow the Pats' FA at all, in any capacity? Cap space is never irrelevant, and the Pats never leave substantial money on the table (and $10M is substantial). That's money that can be used to extend players, if nothing else.

They left $8M on the table when they cut Corey Dillon. Again, its not $10M thrown away, that money is gone already, and calculated into the current cap number. Getting rid of Brady gives them more cap money in both years. The question is how much does signing Cassel overweigh that.


You're probably looking 19M this year, 7M next year with Cassel as the starter and brady traded, vs 15M this year and 10M next year with Brady as the starter and Cassel traded. Thats 26M vs 25M over 2 years. Thats why I say the cap is irrelevant. The cap hit for either situation is essentially the same.

 

[Synovia]

You're assuming that Cassel would sign a contract for $6-7M per year, for starters. Maybe he'll take a discount, but that's not exactly market rate.

Its not? A 6 year 50M deal, with 20M guaranteed gives you a 6.85M cap hit in year 1, and a 7.6M cap hit in year 2.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're assuming that Cassel would sign a contract for $6-7M per year, for starters. Maybe he'll take a discount, but that's not exactly market rate.

Sadly, you're wasting your time. They just don't get it, and they don't want to get it. And, I'm not referring specifically to money numbers, but to the entire notion.