A Brady story that could be better

[Miguel]

10 Questions: Is Brady's deal an issue? - Extra Points - Boston.com

1.) It would add context to the story if it was noted that Brady has already received a $3 million roster bonus.
2.) If Breer explained why "an extension signed now, too, can’t have bonus money spread out (option, roster bonuses can’t be used in these cases)" I doubt that this is true. See Patrick Willis and Dunta Robinson.
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Under The Cap: The 30-Percent Rule
http://www.patscap.com/dunta.xlsx
3.) I wish that Breer noted that it would be cheaper for the Pats in 2011 to franchise Brady than it would be for the Colts to franchise Manning because Manning's 2010 cap number (19.3 million) than Brady's ($10.2).
4.) I would have included Brees in the discussion.

 

[Miguel]

2.) If Breer explained why "an extension signed now, too, can’t have bonus money spread out (option, roster bonuses can’t be used in these cases)" I doubt that this is true. See Patrick Willis and Dunta Robinson.
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Under The Cap: The 30-Percent Rule
http://www.patscap.com/dunta.xlsx

By this I wish that Breer would explain why option and roster bonuses can be used in new contracts (see Dunta) but not in extensions. Saying it does not make it true.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I wish the media would stop focusing on Tom's contract situation. Very little has been written about Peyton not getting his deal either.

I'm sure part of it is that Irsay said he'll make Peyton the highest-paid player in the game, but it still doesn't mean that deal is anywhere close to being done. The Colts are waiting on a CBA, as are the Pats. No one is suggesting Manning's getting upset despite his general whiny nature, so why all the focus on Brady potentially being unhappy with his contract?

As for Brees being part of the discussion, he's another franchise QB who should be getting a new deal. But this isn't the last year of his deal, so maybe Breer excluded him for that reason. Or maybe Breer didn't really care since his main focus seems to be terrifying Pats fans.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I wish the media would stop focusing on Tom's contract situation. Very little has been written about Peyton not getting his deal either.

I'm sure part of it is that Irsay said he'll make Peyton the highest-paid player in the game, but it still doesn't mean that deal is anywhere close to being done. The Colts are waiting on a CBA, as are the Pats. No one is suggesting Manning's getting upset despite his general whiny nature, so why all the focus on Brady potentially being unhappy with his contract?

As for Brees being part of the discussion, he's another franchise QB who should be getting a new deal. But this isn't the last year of his deal, so maybe Breer excluded him for that reason. Or maybe Breer didn't really care since his main focus seems to be terrifying Pats fans.

I think the general meme about the Pats in the national press, reflecting the mindsets of 31 teams' fans, is the old Hatriots theme of 2007. The morality play is still out there, pretty much permanently.

The meme about the Colts is pretty much that they're this squeeky clean team that won it all (once) by doing everything fair and square and boy scouty.

From what I've seen, this is far from the "whole truth," but when you take all things together, you're subject to the pre-written story you go into the story with in your mind.

Now granted, Brady had a baby by a mother he didn't marry, and then married a supermodel. Manning does "aw shucks" commercials that, if anything, magnify his squeeky-clean image. I erased more than I left in, since I'm one of our resident media whiners... suffice it to say, there's a pre-written story about the Pats and another one about the Colts underpinning each story.

Brady: subject to the cultural forces of decadence and decline that underlie the troubles of the elite, east-coast franchise. Manning: embodies the good old midwestern virtues, as do the Colts in general. The lower-paid Brady is out for himself. The higher-paid Manning just wants to do everything he can to help his team win.

If Brady notes, after touring some third-world disaster, that some things are bigger than football, the headline is "Brady Losing His Focus."

If Brady's contract isn't done yet, it's "Patriots, Brady miles apart."

If Manning's contract isn't done yet, it's "Colts, Manning ironing out details."

Does anybody really think this deal doesn't get done?

Sorry to the OP, the question re: the media coverage just occasioned a core dump.

 

[Miguel]

Do not know why I was surprised that the Brady extension was Breer's choice for the number 1 storyline. Personally, I would have chosen something about that happens on the field - lack of a pass rush, Welker, the youth in the secondary.

 

[Urgent]

Under the current situation:
Can teams offer a roster bonus for 2010 as opposed to a signing bonus for an extension?
What are the restrictions?

 

[Miguel]

Under the current situation:
Can teams offer a roster bonus for 2010 as opposed to a signing bonus for an extension?
What are the restrictions?

I know for a fact that teams have used roster bonuses in new deals this year. See Jahri Evans and
Dunta Robinson. Breer claims that there are restrictions against using roster bonuses in extensions this year. He does not back that opinion up. IMO, he should since it can be easily demonstrated that roster bonuses have been used in extensions since the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think that a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that if you could not use certain vehicles to circumvent the 30% rule that meant you couldn't use them at all... Just like the fact that there is presently no cap scheduled going forward meant you could/would not amortize signing bonus. The league was always pretty clear that the broader accounting methodology would remain in place in anticipation there would be a cap again. Otherwise signing bonus in an uncapped year would have become the simply end around the rule.

All the rules in play this season and last were designed to preclude teams from dumping an inordinate amount of any new or extended contract into the one uncapped season that has occurred to date. This team hasn't seemed overly inclined to do that anyway. What they and the Colts likely do miss (and it's the unintended consequence of having those same rules in place) is the ability to structure a contract flexibly as best suits their long term planning, particularly when they don't know exactly what lies ahead relative to new rules and cap limitations or expansion.

You can take the approach the Giants or Steelers or teams stuck drafting a #1 prospect have taken because they felt they had to absorb the risk to reap the reward at that particular position. Felger persists in opining that other deals alone invalidate the Patriots position on contracts heading into the unknown. Owners who do so will never allow new rules to damage them. He's forgotten the good old days of cap hell ever existed.

Neither the Colts nor the Patriots have remotely felt that level of pressure for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the player in question and how they read his personal investment to date as it has unfolded through an already decade or longer NFL career. Other players might be inclined to chuck it all and move on to a place where they feel they just might excell to greater heights not just limited to financially. These two and Brees likely know better. They are smarter than their average so called elite peer...on and off the field. Brees has experienced life in an unstable organizational environment that eventually walked away from him altogether, Manning (except at the very outset) and Brady (except at the WR position) haven't ever experienced that level of frustration, but they are smart enough to realize that it exists in the majority of optional landing sites and to not be willing to seriously contemplate it.

Like Kevin Faulk observed recently, football savvy players know the grass isn't remotely greener elsewhere on any level. And it's not much fun for a driven guy to ride off into the sunset chasing a few more bucks short term only to find it's the path to inconsequence if not oblivion. And for guys like Manning and Brady or even Brees whose present almost unlimited off field earnings potential is tied to relevance and success, that can even have devastating long term off field financial consequences that make any short term gain pale in comparison.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I hope nobody clicks on any Breer links. At some point we have to stand up for the interests of the fanbase and reject people like Breer.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hope nobody clicks on any Breer links. At some point we have to stand up for the interests of the fanbase and reject people like Breer.

The interests of the fan base are not served by silencing voices just because of disagreement.

 

[mgteich]

It is understandable that patriot fans have no interest in discussing whether Brady might or might not be a patriot for the next 3-5 years.

It is understandable that non-patriot fans are interested in the possibilities regarding Brady's future. For non-patriot fans, Brady is an interesting story. They are interested in his family and the possbility that he might want to play on the West Coast.

While Manning's contract is a story also, it is nowhere near as interesting. The colts are about Manning, period, until he chooses to leave or he finally wears out his welcome as Favre did. The only interest in Manning's contract is how its value and timing might affect other contracts. Everyone believes that Manning and the colts will agree on another contract.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The interests of the fan base are not served by silencing voices just because of disagreement.

It's debatable what interest voices of disagreement serve any fanbase, but I can't imagine the proliferation of misinformed voices serves any constructive purpose.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's debatable what interest voices of disagreement serve any fanbase,

Only fools think a fanbase unified mindlessly behind a team serves that fan base well. Bruins fans learned that lesson all too well over the course of 20+ seasons, and the accepting fan base of the Cubs continue to demonstrate it daily.

but I can't imagine the proliferation of misinformed voices serves any constructive purpose.

1.) That's as true with a united group as one divided.

2.) Everyone makes mistakes. If Breer erred regarding the 30% rule, a simple note to him will likely result in a follow up clarifying and/or apologizing.

3.) The 30% rule does appear to do as Breer claimed. What has happened is that teams have found a way to circumvent it by using 2 signing bonuses, not option bonuses or roster bonuses:

How 49ers circumvented the 30-percent rule | National Football Post

4.) Miguel's use of Robinson was a mistake, within the context of the extension point. Robinson did not sign an extension. He was a free agent who signed a contract with a new team. Perhaps you should tell Miguel that his voice serves no purpose, since he was apparently "misinformed". Me, I greatly appreciate Miguel's input, even if he's only human and is capable of error.

 

[Miguel]

4.) Miguel's use of Robinson was a mistake, within the context of the extension point. Robinson did not sign an extension. He was a free agent who signed a contract with a new team. Perhaps you should tell Miguel that his voice serves no purpose, since he was apparently "misinformed". Me, I greatly appreciate Miguel's input, even if he's only human and is capable of error.

I thought that I made it clear in my second post that I was using Dunta to show the use of option bonuses and roster bonuses in new deals and to question if there are indeed restrictions against them in extensions, as Breer claimed.

 

[Miguel]

3.) The 30% rule does appear to do as Breer claimed. What has happened is that teams have found a way to circumvent it by using 2 signing bonuses, not option bonuses or roster bonuses:

I and Ian Whetstone, a fellow capologist, showed Breer that the amount of Brady's 2009 cap number that is subject to the 30% calculation is $10,400,000.

$5,000,000 salary
$3,000,000 roster
$2,400,000 option bonus proration.

Willis' 30 percent threshold base was $1.66 million.

That is close to a $9 million difference.

I seriously question the idea that the 30% rule is preventing a Brady extension.

 

[Deus Irae]

I thought that I made it clear in my second post that I was using Dunta to show the use of option bonuses and roster bonuses in new deals and to question if there are indeed restrictions against them in extensions, as Breer claimed.

I wasn't trying to bag on you, so please don't take offense. I was using your post to demonstrate the folly of Mo's position. For that, I had to take your O.P. as written. As I'd also noted in my post to Mo, if Breer was wrong, a note to the man could result in clarification. That's where your second post would serve as a good example.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I wasn't trying to bag on you, so please don't take offense. I was using your post to demonstrate the folly of Mo's position. For that, I had to take your O.P. as written. As I'd also noted in my post to Mo, if Breer was wrong, a note to the man could result in clarification. That's where your second post would serve as a good example.

Except that I believe Miguel and Ian undertook this task some time ago... And although Shalise was contacted last week she failed to correct her mis statements. At a time when on twitter she was soliciting questions she could include in a blog prior to going on vacation this week.

It's a simple matter for mediots to contact the NFL PR department for clarification on any number of issues they intend to address. Not to mention the number of agents most of them have a quid pro quo relationship with. The difference between what Miguel and Ian do even in the absence of such resources is they always correctly qualify their statements and whether challenged or not continue to persue the correct answer even through there is nothing in it for them as amatuers beyond the satisfaction of knowing they give their avocation and thrie audience their best efforts anyway...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Only fools think a fanbase unified mindlessly behind a team serves that fan base well. Bruins fans learned that lesson all too well over the course of 20+ seasons, and the accepting fan base of the Cubs continue to demonstrate it daily.



1.) That's as true with a united group as one divided.

2.) Everyone makes mistakes. If Breer erred regarding the 30% rule, a simple note to him will likely result in a follow up clarifying and/or apologizing.

3.) The 30% rule does appear to do as Breer claimed. What has happened is that teams have found a way to circumvent it by using 2 signing bonuses, not option bonuses or roster bonuses:

How 49ers circumvented the 30-percent rule | National Football Post

4.) Miguel's use of Robinson was a mistake, within the context of the extension point. Robinson did not sign an extension. He was a free agent who signed a contract with a new team. Perhaps you should tell Miguel that his voice serves no purpose, since he was apparently "misinformed". Me, I greatly appreciate Miguel's input, even if he's only human and is capable of error.

Honestly DI your problem is you continue to insist that unity or positivity or fan support is universally mindless and criticism by virtue of nature conversely isn't...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Seems Rob Bradford of WEEI got an interview with Polian at the Sox game. Hustle. And while Florio's minion did his own spin on Polian's comments, that same spin applies to Brady at the end of the day. Which is probably why Bradford noted Brady's comments expressing no concern when wrapping up his piece because essentially the situation is what it is...despite what some football mediots want to make it be.

Colts team president Bill Polian showed up to the Red Sox-Orioles game at Fenway Park Saturday night. He spoke with Boston's WEEI radio station and touched on the impact of Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations on extensions for veteran contract-year quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Polian's own, Peyton Manning.

"It's bound to have some effect," Polian said. "What we don't know is what the system is going forward. We've been going slowly along with [Manning's agent] Tom Condon because we're trying to formulate some things that will fit no matter what the system is."

The good news? The sides are talking. The bad news, from a Colts' fan perspective? No extension for Manning sounds imminent.

"We can't get into the nitty-gritty because we don't know what the rules will be," added Polian. "And that will clarify itself as the year goes on because there will be talks, people will understand what's on the table and what's not on the table. It's not like you're going to get [a new CBA] in October, I don't think. If that happens it would be great. But at least you can get a feel for the way things are going."

So it sounds like Polian isn't planning to extend Manning's contract before the season, necessarily. The Colts are going to wait, try to feel out the NFLPA and owners' stance on matters such as salary cap proration and acceleration, and then proceed from there.

Allowing Manning to enter the 2010 season unextended may seem like a risky maneuver on the Colts' behalf, but even in a worst-case scenario they could franchise tag the 10-time Pro Bowler.


Bottom line? Manning isn't going anywhere.

Polian speaks on CBA, Manning negotiations | ProFootballTalk.com

It Is What It Is Polian on issues facing Brady, Manning talks

 

[fgssand]

I hope nobody clicks on any Breer links. At some point we have to stand up for the interests of the fanbase and reject people like Breer.

Sadly, Breer is no different than most all the rest these days.

Somewhere along the way, a few years ago, they figured if they aggravate, agitate, mock their readers/viewers/listeners their ratings would be much higher than if they actually do a real job of reporting/interviewing/commentating etc.

If even one of them can read this and realize that many of us have totally tuned them out, stopped buying & reading their papers and no longer watch them - maybe they would actually consider running their business with some honesty and integrity?? Is that too much to ask??

Fanantic or not - we're not stupid, most of us are on to them and reject them all the way.