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

[JMarr]

Re: Does Pioli's hiring make KC a potential suitor for Brady?

Mods, can we please merge this?

..........

 

[j00fek]

mods kill this thread

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Does Pioli's hiring make KC a potential suitor for Brady?

We HAD the greatest quarterback of all time, and then Bernard Pollard happened. There is very little chance brady ever hits his 2007 numbers again, and theres some chance that hes not even 2006 brady anymore.


How Brady was is irrelevant. How Brady is going to be in 2009 and 2010 is what needs to be evaluated.

And, from your many posts on the subject, you seem to think that how Brady played in 2007 has no bearing on the kind of QB he will be in 2009. We're still talking about the same QB, and he's coming back from an injury that we've seen QBs come back from with great success. Plus, Brady never really relied on mobility to begin with- he will still read defenses just as well and throw with just as much accuracy, even if his knee isn't quite 100%. There is no reason to think that Brady will come back as a shadow of his former self, and plenty of reason to think that he'll do fine.

 

[Synovia]

Re: Does Pioli's hiring make KC a potential suitor for Brady?

And, from your many posts on the subject, you seem to think that how Brady played in 2007 has no bearing on the kind of QB he will be in 2009.

You're not understanding me. 2007 was a career year. Even if Brady hadn't got hurt, I don't think he'd ever put those numbers up again. I think the rest of his career would be in the 35TD 10 INT 66% completion percentage range, which is phenominal.

We're still talking about the same QB, and he's coming back from an injury that we've seen QBs come back from with great success. Plus, Brady never really relied on mobility to begin with-

Brady isn't mobile in the sense that Cassel is, or "running qbs" are. Hes mobile in the same way that Manning is: He almost never gets sacked because hes so good at taking two steps out of the way.


Take a look at the way the Colts looked earlier this season: Manning couldn't sidestep, and because of this, the colts had to keep extra blockers back. Their offense had huge issues because of Manning's knee, and Manning is much less mobile than Brady.

Manning's knee wasn't nearly as bad as Brady's.

he will still read defenses just as well and throw with just as much accuracy, even if his knee isn't quite 100%.

Yes, if hes unharrassed. But if hes unable to move, they're going to be less receivers out in the field, because the TEs will be blocking, and so will Kevin Faulk. If he can't move, its going to be more likely that he gets hit while throwing. If you don't think these things will affect completion percentage, I disagree.

There is no reason to think that Brady will come back as a shadow of his former self, and plenty of reason to think that he'll do fine.

Theres on very good reason that Brady will be less than his former self: Most athletes who get hurt past 30 never are.

 

[JSn]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

This thread is lame.....

Heap big irony.....

 

[BradyManny]

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.

95% of the posts are calling the idea crazy because it is, from many, many standpoints for the many, many aforementioned reasons posters have explained. The entire thing is a non-starter because of the financial repercussions, but some people are so hell-bent on moving Brady for whatever reason, or keeping Cassel for whatever reason, that they ignore it.

Every once in a while, the majority is right. Sometimes ridicule is justified.

I can't get many people to talk about my idea of eliminating elections and replacing them with a Gladiator style combat between opponents. For instance.

 

[JSn]

Heap big irony.....

Hey it's "Mr. Context hardly Matters to me"... thanks for punching in.

 

[Deus Irae]

Hey it's "Mr. Context hardly Matters to me"... thanks for punching in.

Given that my point about the threads was all about context, perhaps you should be reaching for a dictionary rather than typing on the computer.

 

[JSn]

Given that my point about the threads was all about context, perhaps you should be reaching for a dictionary rather than typing on the computer.

So close to a burn. Go again!

 

[Deus Irae]

So close to a burn. Go again!

No need....

 

[JSn]

No need....

Yes there is. If you and I troll this thread enough, it might finally get locked and allow some kind of discussion on the issue for those of us who want to discuss it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

95% of the posts are calling the idea crazy because it is, from many, many standpoints for the many, many aforementioned reasons posters have explained. The entire thing is a non-starter because of the financial repercussions, but some people are so hell-bent on moving Brady for whatever reason, or keeping Cassel for whatever reason, that they ignore it.

Every once in a while, the majority is right. Sometimes ridicule is justified.

I can't get many people to talk about my idea of eliminating elections and replacing them with a Gladiator style combat between opponents. For instance.

That's a spectacularly good idea, though. Let's go with it.

 

[JSn]

That's a spectacularly good idea, though. Let's go with it.

Pretty good odds you'd have gotten the same results, methinks...

 

[Synovia]

95% of the posts are calling the idea crazy because it is, from many, many standpoints for the many, many aforementioned reasons posters have explained. The entire thing is a non-starter because of the financial repercussions, but some people are so hell-bent on moving Brady for whatever reason, or keeping Cassel for whatever reason, that they ignore it.

What financial repercussions?

They trade Brady and they save $4.9m on the cap this year, and $10m next year. They carried a $4m cap hit the last 2 years on Corey Dillon for god sakes.

If they trade Brady, and give Cassel a Shaub-deal, they'll be at a lower cap number than just cutting Cassel loose. Brady only has 2009 and 2010 left, and 9M total of bonus.

 

[BradyManny]

What financial repercussions?

They trade Brady and they save $4.9m on the cap this year, and $10m next year. They carried a $4m cap hit the last 2 years on Corey Dillon for god sakes.

If they trade Brady, and give Cassel a Shaub-deal, they'll be at a lower cap number than just cutting Cassel loose. Brady only has 2009 and 2010 left, and 9M total of bonus.

1) Dillon's cap hit could be spread over two years, Brady's could not if he were traded.

2) Brady's dead money is more than twice Dillon's. There is still nearly $10 million in dead money that would be paid in 2009, chewing up half of our cap space. So we'd save a combined $15 milli on the cap over two seasons while wasting $10. To rid yourself of the league's best player, that's a laughable.

3) Brady's 07 season was unprecedented, Dillon's career was basically over.

4) The main contention is that Cassel would save money over Brady. In order to save money over Brady, he would have to sign a deal for $10 million less to hit a break even (the dead money). Given Cassel's bloated value right now, given Brady has two years left on his deal at this point in time, there is no financial benefit to signing Cassel. Short term, its a wash at best.

 

[Synovia]

Short term, its a wash at best.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it. Financial repurcussions are non existant. Brady is slated to make $15M this year. You trade him and theres $10M of dead cap. Thats a $5M savings.

You sign cassel to a deal similar to Shaub's: 6 years, 50M. You give him $20m guaranteed. Cap hits are as follows:

2009: $1M+5M = $6M
2010: $2M+5M = $7M
2011: $4M+5M = $9M
2012: $6M+5M = $11M
2013: $8M =$8M
2014: $9M =$9M
------------------------
$50M


Costs you $1M over Brady this year, saves you $5M next year, probably $10M over brady in '11, etc. The numbers could be massaged and moved around, they could use roster bonuses to make it more friendly. But the idea that they can't afford it is ridiculous.

 

[Synovia]

There is still nearly $10 million in dead money that would be paid in 2009, chewing up half of our cap space.

Our $20M worth of cap space already includes Brady's contract. Trading Brady would move us from $20M to $25M. Trading him IS A CAP SAVINGS.



The only players who can't be cut/traded are A. Thomas and T. Warren. They'd be huge cap problems (cutting Thomas would cost $6.5M more this year than keeping him)

 

[BradyManny]

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it. Financial repurcussions are non existant. Brady is slated to make $15M this year. You trade him and theres $10M of dead cap. Thats a $5M savings.

You sign cassel to a deal similar to Shaub's: 6 years, 50M. You give him $20m guaranteed. Cap hits are as follows:

2009: $1M+5M = $6M
2010: $2M+5M = $7M
2011: $4M+5M = $9M
2012: $6M+5M = $11M
2013: $8M =$8M
2014: $9M =$9M
------------------------
$50M


Costs you $1M over Brady this year, saves you $5M next year, probably $10M over brady in '11, etc. The numbers could be massaged and moved around, they could use roster bonuses to make it more friendly. But the idea that they can't afford it is ridiculous.

LOL. OK, so for dollar for dollar, you'd rather have Matt Cassel than Tom Brady? I think you've made my point.

 

[BradyManny]

Our $20M worth of cap space already includes Brady's contract. Trading Brady would move us from $20M to $25M. Trading him IS A CAP SAVINGS.



The only players who can't be cut/traded are A. Thomas and T. Warren. They'd be huge cap problems (cutting Thomas would cost $6.5M more this year than keeping him)

Right, yup the overall would be 5 million. My bad. Still, its $10 million of dead money. That's stupid.