Pats not trading Garoppolo - Schefter

[sb1]

Not worth it, they will get a third just by keeping him. If they get a top three make the deal. If they get a later 1st plus then make the deal, anything less hold on to him for another year.

I think they definitely keep him if they think he's going to be the heir.

I'm probably in the minority but I get the sense they don't feel that way about him and will be happy to get a net positive return for him in a deep draft this year.

I'm positive it won't be a top pick unless a team is dumb enough to give them one, as I said before. I didn't see anything in those 6 quarters that suggested JG was a budding superstar QB.

 

[sb1]

Brady isn't going anywhere. Kraft will veto anything to the contrary.

 

[Simpelton]

I think they definitely keep him if they think he's going to be the heir.

I'm probably in the minority but I get the sense they don't feel that way about him and will be happy to get a net positive return for him in a deep draft this year.

I'm positive it won't be a top pick unless a team is dumb enough to give them one, as I said before. I didn't see anything in those 6 quarters that suggested JG was a budding superstar QB.

I partially agree with you, but I think that it's important to point out that BB isn't so limited in his thinking that he's likely to have only one "heir apparent" plan for the QB position. He is probably carefully weighing his options right now though, and Garoppolo is by no means the only game in town if we lose Brady tomorrow. but he is the safest/least unsafe bet we have to immediately replace Brady if required, and any team looking to grab him for us had better be prepared to compensate us for the risk of losing him and then suddenly having Brady find the cliff way sooner than expected.

Not that I think that Brady is going to nosedive next year.... but decline is by no means a science.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I think they definitely keep him if they think he's going to be the heir.

I'm probably in the minority but I get the sense they don't feel that way about him and will be happy to get a net positive return for him in a deep draft this year.

I'm positive it won't be a top pick unless a team is dumb enough to give them one, as I said before. I didn't see anything in those 6 quarters that suggested JG was a budding superstar QB.

I thought he played great football in those six quarters but it's still only six quarters of football and that's far from a sure thing for any player, let alone a QB. We have all seen guys like RGIII, Kaepernick, and Nick Foles play full seasons where they played exceptional football only to fall apart once defensive coordinators get the opportunity to study film on them and force them to play when their strengths have been taken away from them. It's possible Garrapolo could adapt and adjust and still play great football, but it's also very possible that he could struggle mightily and only be an average or bad QB when that happens, we will never know until he plays for two or three seasons as a starter. What we do know is that Tom Brady is the best player in football and he has been improving over the last three seasons, not deteriorating. And the ONLY argument his detractors have is his age, which they just keep beating the drum on despite the fact that every metric on his play shows it's not an issue at all.

Right now Jimmy Garrapolos value is at his highest, and once the draft passes it will steadily decline until he reaches free agency, at which point they will obviously get the comp pick for him. I'm all for trading him for top value, be that a top three pick or #12 plus another good pick next year. If they don't get that value I'm fine with keeping him and seeing how next season goes. What I take issue with is those who keep trying to run Brady down based solely on his age, many have been doing it for the past eight years and imo they are completely full of sh.t.

 

[XLIX]

This sounds just like the Bledsoe people. It is going to get a lot worse. Nobody is bigger than the team. Not even Tom Brady.

Bullcrap. The "Bledsoe people" wanted to start Bledsoe even though the kid from U. Michigan was outplaying him.

When Brady declines to the point where he is being outperformed by the backup, get back to me.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Brady isn't going anywhere. Kraft will veto anything to the contrary.

I'm not so sure on that. I think Kraft would struggle mightily with that but to their credit they have steadfastly allowed Belichick to run football operations. That's the deal they made with him, it's worked out exceptionally well, and I think they would have a very difficult time overruling him on any major football decision.

 

[Brewskies]

I wait and see what happens. No use speculating. I wish they could keep him.

 

[patsfan13]

I noticed that in Schefter's he referenced "league sources" as opposed to "sources within the Pats organization". I feel that is an important distiction. Don't forget Jeff Pash is a "league source".

There are just two scenarios where BB keeps JG past the 2017 season. One is that Brady has given him an EXACT time line to his end game and it's shorter than many of us think (say 2 more years). Second, and it's connected to the first, BB has reached some understanding with JG as to some sort of extention that will bridge the time between now and when Brady leaves.

IF those 2 items aren't locked down, then there is NO reason to keep JG past this season, and less not to trade him now to gain the maximum return on investment. To keep JG past the 2017 would require the Pats to invest close to $50MM in the QB postion for the 2018 season.

Factor in that TB & JG have the same agent who has a good relationship w BB

 

[Angelpats]

Well, it'll be nice knowing you, then. I don't see Belichick selling out everything he believes it, and hurting the team, just to suck up to a star player, even one like Brady.

All you "you have to keep Brady as long as he's better than JG!" people crack me up, especially when you don't actually even believe

The key word is better. Why would you not keep Brady if he is not better than JG or any other of our backups. You would get really rid of him even if he is the better QB with the only knock on him is age? And no one said keep him no matter what. You must not have much faith in him or BB if you think he would force himself to play even though he sucks all because you are in love with a backup who can't even finish two games on a hit Brady takes regularly.

 

[Huckleberry1]

The key word is better. Why would you not keep Brady if he is not better than JG or any other of our backups. You would get really rid of him even if he is the better QB with the only knock on him is age? And no one said keep him no matter what. You must not have much faith in him or BB if you think he would force himself to play even though he sucks all because you are in love with a backup who can't even finish two games on a hit Brady takes regularly.

Great post, right on the money.

 

[NoESPNzone]

If the Patriots think JG is truly their franchise qb of the future, they should sign him to a long-term contract. Currently the Pats are paying their qb's $10M less than most other teams with quality qb's. Somehow they should be able to simultaneously restructure TFB and extend JG in a way that doesn't break the bank in any one year. For instance pay TFB for 5 years at $20M, $20M, $10M, $5M, $5M and JG for 5 years at $5M, $5M, $15M, $20M, $20M. Go ahead and guarantee 100% of the money and give no-trades to both. That seems to provide a smooth transition from TFB to JG over the next 5 years without breaking the bank. I don't know the cap implications of doing this, but some of you may be able to tweak this idea to ensure that is cap friendly.

 

[The Gr8est]

I think they definitely keep him if they think he's going to be the heir.

I'm probably in the minority but I get the sense they don't feel that way about him and will be happy to get a net positive return for him in a deep draft this year.

I'm positive it won't be a top pick unless a team is dumb enough to give them one, as I said before. I didn't see anything in those 6 quarters that suggested JG was a budding superstar QB.

A dumber choice would be to use a top pick on one of the QBs in the draft rather than trade it for Jimmy.

I think there is a much better chance to get value with Jimmy rather than one of this draft class's rookies.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Well, it'll be nice knowing you, then. I don't see Belichick selling out everything he believes it, and hurting the team, just to suck up to a star player, even one like Brady.

All you "you have to keep Brady as long as he's better than JG!" people crack me up, especially when you don't actually even believe that.

Let's leave the contracts aside for a minute.

If you knew that Brady would be better than JG all the way to Brady's end and you also knew Brady would hang it up after the 2019 season would you still be so quick to say "we have to keep Brady over JG"? What if you know he'd hang it up after the 2018 season? What if you knew he'd hang it up after the 2017 season? I doubt there's a single one of you who would say "Keep Brady no matter what!" if you knew he was done after 2017.

The point is that a "Keep Brady to the end, no matter what!" position is ludicrous. When the estimate of his remaining time is short enough you have to move on no matter how good he is, especially if you think you have someone who can be a solid starter for you for years.

If Brady is 40 or 41 and BB concludes that at that point Brady only has 1 or 2 years left, BB would be a fool to not move on if he thinks he has his next man up for the job in house and the alternative is to lose him, even if Brady is still better than his replacement.

How is this argument any different than it was when this exact argument was made in September of 2014?

 

[Nehalem]

If the Patriots think JG is truly their franchise qb of the future, they should sign him to a long-term contract. Currently the Pats are paying their qb's $10M less than most other teams with quality qb's. Somehow they should be able to simultaneously restructure TFB and extend JG in a way that doesn't break the bank in any one year. For instance pay TFB for 5 years at $20M, $20M, $10M, $5M, $5M and JG for 5 years at $5M, $5M, $15M, $20M, $20M. Go ahead and guarantee 100% of the money and give no-trades to both. That seems to provide a smooth transition from TFB to JG over the next 5 years without breaking the bank. I don't know the cap implications of doing this, but some of you may be able to tweak this idea to ensure that is cap friendly.

Why would JG sign that contract? Osweiler got 4/72m, 40m guaranteed, and he actually gets to play.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

One potential Garoppolo backup replacement is off the market:

Titans bring back Matt Cassel

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The key word is better. Why would you not keep Brady if he is not better than JG or any other of our backups.

Because he only has so much time left (whether because of decline or because he decides to call it a day and go out on top).

Tell me which you would prefer (again, I'm leaving contracts aside so we don't get all tied up in "well, that's not possible under the current contracts anyways" distractions, as this is a hypothetical discussion):

• Three great years of Brady and then "what the hell do we do for a QB???" for years.
• Two great years of Brady and then move on to a solid starter for 5-10 years.

I know what what I'd want and it's not the first one. And at some point those two choices (or choices very like them) are what Belichick will be facing.

Now sure, we'd all like "6 great years of Brady and then move on to someone we've drafted and groomed by then" but we'd all like unicorns and ponies and winning Powerball tickets, too.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

How is this argument any different than it was when this exact argument was made in September of 2014?

It isn't, and it was correct when it was made then.

At some point the shortness of the remaining time in Brady's career will outweigh how good he is and you'll have to move on even if he's better than the replacement if the alternative is losing the replacement. Obviously, if you have the replacement under your thumb you can keep on playing with house money with Brady.

That point almost certainly will not be this year and will likely not be next year, but it will eventually arrive. The point is that "you can't move on from Brady as long as he's better than his backup" is a stupid statement.

 

[Huckleberry1]

It isn't, and it was correct when it was made then.

At some point the shortness of the remaining time in Brady's career will outweigh how good he is and you'll have to move on even if he's better than the replacement if the alternative is losing the replacement. Obviously, if you have the replacement under your thumb you can keep on playing with house money with Brady.

That point almost certainly will not be this year and will likely not be next year, but it will eventually arrive. The point is that "you can't move on from Brady as long as he's better than his backup" is a stupid statement.

It was wrong then and it's wrong now, you keep the better player in the position until someone beats them out. The goal is to win the Super Bowl and no player gives their team a better chance to do that than Brady. Had those who argued for trading Brady in early 2014 gotten their way the Patriots would have two less Lombardi's than they have now, and that's the final answer to that test. Jimmy Garrapolo may or may not be a good NFL quarterback, no one knows yet, Tom Brady is the greatest player in football history and the best player in football right now, you don't get rid of that known for that unknown,

 

[deters]

Because he only has so much time left (whether because of decline or because he decides to call it a day and go out on top).

Tell me which you would prefer (again, I'm leaving contracts aside so we don't get all tied up in "well, that's not possible under the current contracts anyways" distractions, as this is a hypothetical discussion):

• Three great years of Brady and then "what the hell do we do for a QB???" for years.
• Two great years of Brady and then move on to a solid starter for 5-10 years.

I know what what I'd want and it's not the first one. And at some point those two choices (or choices very like them) are what Belichick will be facing.

Now sure, we'd all like "6 great years of Brady and then move on to someone we've drafted and groomed by then" but we'd all like unicorns and ponies and winning Powerball tickets, too.

I said months ago 2018 would be a huge year for Brady/Jimmy and the direction the team goes. If they decide to keep Jimmy this off-season, I'd imagine Brady might have given an indication he only wants to play through the remainder of his current deal (2019). This allows NE to push to resign Jimmy for a discount in 2018 & 2019 with big pay increase in 2020+ when he becomes the starter. All this depends on both scenarios falling into place and Jimmy accepting to remain the backup for 3 more years. Great opportunity for him to remain on a competitive team while still making bank and know he will eventually be the lead dog.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

If the Patriots think JG is truly their franchise qb of the future, they should sign him to a long-term contract. Currently the Pats are paying their qb's $10M less than most other teams with quality qb's. Somehow they should be able to simultaneously restructure TFB and extend JG in a way that doesn't break the bank in any one year. For instance pay TFB for 5 years at $20M, $20M, $10M, $5M, $5M and JG for 5 years at $5M, $5M, $15M, $20M, $20M. Go ahead and guarantee 100% of the money and give no-trades to both. That seems to provide a smooth transition from TFB to JG over the next 5 years without breaking the bank. I don't know the cap implications of doing this, but some of you may be able to tweak this idea to ensure that is cap friendly.

The problem is getting JG to sign a long term contract. If I'm him, I'm hitting the road next year and find a place where I could start. Why should he sit behind Brady?