Report: Brady has given up at least $60 million to help NE

[Kdo5]

Alternative headline. Brady gave up millions to make sure his contract would always be considered value by one of the most successful and ruthless GMs in NFL history and never be traded. The thing is a give and take and not solely a gift by Brady to the team.

Belichick would not have the capacity to be both ruthless and successful without Brady. There have been a number of Patriots teams with glaring, debilitating weaknesses that were covered for by Brady.

I suspect with a slightly lesser QB Belichick has at least a few 8-8 records on his resume with the Pats.

 

[Observer]

Patsfans poster : Belichick is a genius!!!

 

[patriot1136]

Nothing new to Pats fans, TB12 is the man. The last paragraph of the article sums it up better than I could:

"You’ll be hard-pressed to ever find a better example of teammate altruism from a player of his stature. Just another reminder that Tom Brady is not the sports villain you’re looking for."

Love this quote. I wish this was known outside of New England. Unfortunately, the media has painted Brady as some arrogant, whiny jerk and not the consummate team player he is. Where I live, he is not well liked but no one really knows anything about him. It's just bad media perception and jealousy.

 

[Kontradiction]

It is your hindsight bias talking here. When Brady signed the last contract nobody could predict with certainty -- not even TB himself -- that his play would not fall off at some point in the middle of that contract. Obviously as long as he is playing at this absurd peak he will not be traded or cut and if he was to decline his contract still makes him value relative to other QBs. If Brady knew he would have a couple of MVP-level seasons at the age of 39, 40 and 41 he would have most probably asked for money.

But what if he fell back to 2013 level of performance ? Still among the better QBs but not unequivocally the best.

No, it's common sense talking. You're beginning to move those goal posts now. Here was your OP:

Alternative headline. Brady gave up millions to make sure his contract would always be considered value by one of the most successful and ruthless GMs in NFL history and never be traded. The thing is a give and take and not solely a gift by Brady to the team.

Your OP said nothing about his performance and your use of the word solely after thinking about why Brady took less implies that you believe there was a real chance that, in spite of how good his play was, Belichick would have considered trading Brady if he began demanding the going market rate for his position (or more, since Brady could have very easily pushed for it beginning in 2005). And he could have. The team would have either had to keep him (which they would have) and paid him or shipped him out of town and experience a fall back to the pack while Belichick would have been ostracized by New England. But this was solely a gift by Brady to the team. He could have played hardball and the team would have been forced to either play ball or trade away/let the greatest football player of all time walk away. It would have been a disaster of a decision. But he didn't. That made Belichick's life as a coach and a GM infinitely easier. Off the top of my head and without giving it much though, it allowed Belichick to:

• Get away with being the ruthless GM that he wanted to be (year early before a year late, sticking to the team's financial playbook, etc).
• Afford to take chances in the draft.
• Court veteran talent that wanted to come to the team to either play with the GOAT and/or revive their careers for their next payday while competing for a championship on lower dollars.

Brady, and his willingness to not bend New England over the barrel, is the essential cog in this machine. None of this is possible without him taking less in the salary cap era.

Don't see BB keeping him at the moment he is not value anymore. Of course the calculation of what is value includes a lot of variables like Bradys performance, salary cap hit but also BBs evaluation of the QB2 on the roster so it is all situational. But for the sake of argument if they still had JG and Brady were to show clear signs of slowing down during camp I don't think it is that outlandish to think that BB would consider moving on.

I actually went back and edited the bolded portion of my post to what I actually meant as I was typing it. With Brady now solidly in his 40's, I could easily see the team moving him the minute it appears that his play begins to fall off. But in the past? Absolutely not. Belichick may be ruthless but he's not a total idiot.

 

[Kontradiction]

Belichick would not have the capacity to be both ruthless and successful without Brady. There have been a number of Patriots teams with glaring, debilitating weaknesses that were covered for by Brady.

I suspect with a slightly lesser QB Belichick has at least a few 8-8 records on his resume with the Pats.

Belichick may even likely be long gone by now if Brady demanded market value and Belichick decided to move on.

 

[luuked]

Belichick would not have the capacity to be both ruthless and successful without Brady. There have been a number of Patriots teams with glaring, debilitating weaknesses that were covered for by Brady.

I suspect with a slightly lesser QB Belichick has at least a few 8-8 records on his resume with the Pats.

Using your own logic I will just claim that without BB holding on to Brady in his rookie season, developing him and then design a system that fits his strengths perfectly TB12 is out of the league within 1-2 years and sells cars somewhere now.

Laughable how people here dismiss the importance of BB for all of this **** to happen. But then again people here ignore the importance of practice, schemes and gameplanning on a regular basis so it is not surprising.

 

[luuked]

Belichick may even likely be long gone by now if Brady demanded market value and Belichick decided to move on.

That is not what I wrote. I wrote that BB might move on if Brady got a market value contract and then started to show signs of falling apart to the point where he is not value relative to his contract anymore. As long as he is playing up to his contract he doesn't need to be scared to be send into exile to a garbage team.

 

[Kontradiction]

That is not what I wrote. I wrote that BB might move on if Brady got a market value contract and then started to show signs of falling apart to the point where he is not value relative to his contract anymore. As long as he is playing up to his contract he doesn't need to be scared to be send into exile to a garbage team.

No, that's literally not what you wrote at all...

Alternative headline. Brady gave up millions to make sure his contract would always be considered value by one of the most successful and ruthless GMs in NFL history and never be traded. The thing is a give and take and not solely a gift by Brady to the team.

You made no mention of his level of play. Zero. Zip. Nada. You did make mention of Belichick being one of the most ruthless GMs in NFL history. Any reasonable person would read that post and come away with the impression that you believe Belichick would have traded/let go of Brady (regardless of him being the GOAT) if Brady asked for market value because he is, and I quote, "ruthless". If that's what not you meant, you may want to add it to the post in the future because otherwise it makes it look as if you're moving the goal posts in subsequent responses.

 

[luuked]

No, that's literally not what you wrote at all...



You made no mention of his level of play. Zero. Zip. Nada. You did make mention of Belichick being one of the most ruthless GMs in NFL history. Any reasonable person would read that post and come away with the impression that you believe Belichick would have traded/let go of Brady (regardless of him being the GOAT) if Brady asked for market value because he is, and I quote, "ruthless". If that's what not you meant, you may want to add it to the post in the future because otherwise it makes it look as if you're moving the goal posts in subsequent responses.

????

I mention him being VALUE for his contract in the first sentence of the paragraph you quote. What do you think being value means ? Curious how you evaluate a player's contract to be value without taking into account the level of play of that player.

But lets clarify. BB would move from anyone (including Brady) if a) he determined in his own evaluation that the player is not playing up to his contract and is unlikely to get there again. And b) there was a replacement player available who was competent enough to the point where the difference in salary is more value than the loss of performance (i.e. the classic "I can get 70% of player x by paying only 20%"). And c) the added players with the opened up cap space give the team a better chance to win than hanging on to the evaluated player.

This means a lot of things needed to align for it to happen. But if Brady was on a top end contract and his 2014 would have been similar to his 2013 and JG developed the same way the potential for exactly that scenario to occur was there. The reality is that nobody is a sacred cow but for Brady to be traded away a lot of things would have needed to fall into place.

 

[XLIX]

Using your own logic I will just claim that without BB holding on to Brady in his rookie season, developing him and then design a system that fits his strengths perfectly TB12 is out of the league within 1-2 years and sells cars somewhere now.

Bullsh*t. Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time, and has maintained that level of play for almost 2 decades. Someone would have figured this out eventually and given him a shot.

Laughable how people here dismiss the importance of BB for all of this **** to happen. But then again people here ignore the importance of practice, schemes and gameplanning on a regular basis so it is not surprising.

Not as laughable as suggesting that one single man is the difference between Brady being the greatest QB of all time and selling cars somewhere.

Brady may not have had the same level of success without Belichick’s, but he wouldn’t be some 9 to 5er. We will never know what Brady would be without Belichick, but we have 6 years of seeing Belichick without Brady. He had all of 1 playoff victory in there.

 

[Kontradiction]

????

I mention him being VALUE for his contract in the first sentence of the paragraph you quote. What do you think being value means ? Curious how you evaluate a player's contract to be value without taking into account the level of play of that player.

With this team and with their well documented market rate for positions and players? Value does not automatically translate to talent or level of play. There's been numerous documented instances, the latest of which being Cooks, where their play has still been very good and the team valued them differently than what the market valued them. You know this, though.

But lets clarify. BB would move from anyone (including Brady) if a) he determined in his own evaluation that the player is not playing up to his contract and is unlikely to get there again. And b) there was a replacement player available who was competent enough to the point where the difference in salary is more value than the loss of performance (i.e. the classic "I can get 70% of player x by paying only 20%"). And c) the added players with the opened up cap space give the team a better chance to win than hanging on to the evaluated player.

This means a lot of things needed to align for it to happen. But if Brady was on a top end contract and his 2014 would have been similar to his 2013 and JG developed the same way the potential for exactly that scenario to occur was there. The reality is that nobody is a sacred cow but for Brady to be traded away a lot of things would have needed to fall into place.

Brady has been and very much continues to be a "sacred cow" because Brady allowed and continues to allow Belichick the leeway to do what he has done for the last 18 years. The team had the benefit of the absolute GOAT at the hardest position to adequately staff in football be willing to take much less than what he could have gotten (remember, $60M is the CONSERVATIVE estimate) on the open market to keep the team competitive. The "ruthless" Bill Belichick was not trading him away or letting him walk if he started demanding more money because, in the end, it's still a QB-driven league and Brady is the best on the planet Earth at it. It simply would have made Belichick's job as a GM and coach harder.

 

[Kontradiction]

Bullsh*t. Tom Brady is the si glen greatest QB of all time, and has maintained that level of play for almost 2 decades. Someone would have figured this out eventually and given him a shot.
Not as laughable as suggesting that one single man is the difference between Brady being the greatest QB of all time and selling cars somewhere.

Brady may not have had the same level of success without Belichick’s, but he wouldn’t be some 9 to 5er. We will never know what Brady would be without Belichick, but we have 6 years of seeing Belichick without Brady. He had all of 1 playoff victory in there.

One could very easily argue that Brady has made Belichick's job among the easiest in the NFL. You put the GOAT QB on any team and then have them be willing to take a pay cut to allow the rest of the team to be competitive in the salary cap era, and it will create success wherever he goes.

 

[luuked]

With this team and with their well documented market rate for positions and players? Value does not automatically translate to talent or level of play. There's been numerous documented instances, the latest of which being Cooks, where their play has still been very good and the team valued them differently than what the market valued them. You know this, though.

Of course performance always comes in. In fact, Cooks is the prime example in support of my point. His performance and maybe more importantly lack of outside his boundry skills are what made what the Rams gave him a total non-value situation in our offense. Now the Rams might have a plan to use him totally differently to the point where his skills are emphasized better than they were here and the contract becomes value for them.

As you know all of this is relative but centered around performance relative to the cost.

Brady has been and very much continues to be a "sacred cow" because Brady allowed and continues to allow Belichick the leeway to do what he has done for the last 18 years. The team had the benefit of the absolute GOAT at the hardest position to adequately staff in football be willing to take much less than what he could have gotten (remember, $60M is the CONSERVATIVE estimate) on the open market to keep the team competitive. The "ruthless" Bill Belichick was not trading him away or letting him walk if he started demanding more money because, in the end, it's still a QB-driven league and Brady is the best on the planet Earth at it. It simply would have made Belichick's job as a GM and coach harder.

Nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with my argument about it all being centered around value. Your text never touches on my main point which is that BB would consider to trade him if his performances started to slip and it would have not been worth his price tag anymore (plus my other points from the previous post which I will not repeat again).

Obviously, as long as he is continuing to play at his peak it more or less doesn't matter how much money he is making and nobody would trade him. The point is that when Brady signed his latest extension in 2016 nobody knew with certainty how he would look like at the start of 2018. If Brady would have asked for 30m APY instead of 21m APY I am not sure that extension would have happened.

 

[tasmlab]

Nothing new to Pats fans, TB12 is the man. The last paragraph of the article sums it up better than I could:

"You’ll be hard-pressed to ever find a better example of teammate altruism from a player of his stature. Just another reminder that Tom Brady is not the sports villain you’re looking for."

I never viewed his reasonable contracts as "team altruism" IMO. He looks more like he understands the entire long-view arch of his career, life and legacy. I'm betting between endorsements, post-retirement activities, a TB12 IPO/acquisition, etc., he'll do better than $60MM plus have the status of GOAT and all those rings.

(Armchair speculation from an internet poster)

 

[Kontradiction]

Of course performance always comes in. In fact, Cooks is the prime example in support of my point. His performance and maybe more importantly lack of outside his boundry skills are what made what the Rams gave him a total non-value situation in our offense. Now the Rams might have a plan to use him totally differently to the point where his skills are emphasized better than they were here and the contract becomes value for them.

As you know all of this is relative but centered around performance relative to the cost.

Actually, he's not. Cooks is a receiver that just caught 65 balls for over 1,000 yards and 7 scores in an offense in which one could make the argument that he was limited. The market rate for his position is what he got but in the end, he still hauled in 10 football fields worth of yards for his squad and his skills are actively sought after in this league. The Patriots sought those skills themselves just a year ago and gave up capital to do so. The Patriots, however, had their own value system and, even though he's still one of the more physically talented wideouts in the league, they let him go. He makes my point that, with this team specifically, talent level does not always come into play with value. So if you're talking about playing ability or talent level on the field, you should specify that in the future.

Nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with my argument about it all being centered around value. Your text never touches on my main point which is that BB would consider to trade him if his performances started to slip and it would have not been worth his price tag anymore (plus my other points from the previous post which I will not repeat again).

The problem is, as I've pointed out, that you never originally made it clear that you were talking about any scenario in which is play slipped or begins slipping. Nobody that's being reasonable would have gotten that out of your OP. You either failed to clarify it before or you're moving the goal posts now.

Obviously, as long as he is continuing to play at his peak it more or less doesn't matter how much money he is making and nobody would trade him. The point is that when Brady signed his latest extension in 2016 nobody knew with certainty how he would look like at the start of 2018. If Brady would have asked for 30m APY instead of 21m APY I am not sure that extension would have happened.

With coming off of the season and Super Bowl he'd just had, you'd be out of your mind to believe that it wouldn't. But he didn't. And that's the point that we keep coming back to. He's taken these pay cuts while continuing to perform at a high level and he's doing it solely for the benefit of the team. It hasn't, to date, been a "value" play to guard against the "ruthless" Bill Belichick from moving on from him.

 

[maust]

I never viewed his reasonable contracts as "team altruism" IMO. He looks more like he understands the entire long-view arch of his career, life and legacy. I'm betting between endorsements, post-retirement activities, a TB12 IPO/acquisition, etc., he'll do better than $60MM plus have the status of GOAT and all those rings.

(Armchair speculation from an internet poster)

The two, 'teammate altruism' (not the term I would have used) and big picture awareness, are not mutually exclusive.

 

[XLIX]

I never viewed his reasonable contracts as "team altruism" IMO. He looks more like he understands the entire long-view arch of his career, life and legacy. I'm betting between endorsements, post-retirement activities, a TB12 IPO/acquisition, etc., he'll do better than $60MM plus have the status of GOAT and all those rings.

It is not altruism so much as it is a matter of having the right priorities. There is certainly no shortage of athletes who just want as much money as possible. They'll play anywhere for that fat contract. To them, having the biggest contract is their way of "winning" and the product on the field is secondary.

If we were to list Brady's priorities, maximizing his dollars in not terribly high on the list. His character is such that he is concerned about winning in February moreso than winning during the offseason.

 

[fnordcircle]

A gold digger with a small dik? Oh, she'd still worry about sex hurting, just not from you......

I'd never demand monogamy from my Sugar Mama.

 

[Miguel]

Doubt that Brady coming off a season-ending injury in 2008 would have matched Eli's deal in 2009. Hence, the one-year delay in extending him.

 

[borisman]

Business Insider says Tom Brady's given up at least $60M to help the Patriots....(let me finish this sentence)....win more regular season games, appear in and win more playoff games, AFCCG & Super Bowls than any other franchise during that time.