Peyton's Career Salary Cap Hits

[amfootball]

He did take a below market contract back then. He was getting a pretty significant raise from his previous contract, so it's not like he was giving money back, and he certainly didn't take a pay cut. But he definitely could have gotten more than he did.

 

Bill Simmons wrote about this in a column a couple years ago, before Brady's previous extension. Brady left money on the table, assuming the Patriots would spend that money on other players. Meanwhile, Manning was one of the highest paid in the league. But the Patriots let important players walk in free agency (most notably Deion Branch), while the Colts kept their core in tact around Manning for several years and won a Super Bowl. It wasn't until 2007 that the Patriots actually started spending money, and it still didn't result in a Super Bowl.

 

So, for all this talk about the quarterback taking less, the fact remains that doing so doesn't guarantee that the team is going to be more successful. Brady's latest contract will definitely help the Patriots this offseason. But you could argue that it didn't help them in the past. If anything, it perpetuated the "Patriot Way," which might actually have cost the Patriots championships.

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, they let Branch and Givens walk but then retooled with Moss and Welker in '07 and lit the record books on fire and were one flukiest catch in SB history from a perfect season.  They have also been in 4 AFCCG, more than the Colts and 2 SBs (same as Colts) losing both by a couple of plays and 7 points total. Some would say the Patriot Way has been the most successful Way of doing things in the NFL in the salary cap/FA era. They have also been consistently rebuilding the defense the last few years. Most teams that do this win on average about 5-6 a season - the Pats? 12-13. The only judging stick is not just SBs man. I mean they also have the best regular season percentage since 2005 and have had a top 3 offense (three times top 1) offense. You could not be more wrong. And while Brady's restructuring doesn't guarantee anything, it puts them in position to keep this going for another 5 years. I mean what else can you ask for from your QB but that?

[Tony Sullivan]

here is Peter King's article where he references the 2005 deal. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130225/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-contract/index.html

No where in that article does he compare Brady's value to market value other than his opinion that Brady took less. Even if Brady did take less it nowhere proves that he took 30% less like you've claimed. 30% is a huge claim of a number to make.

 

Kind has said at nauseam this week that Brady took about a 30 percent undermarket value in 2005 at 10 mil year compared to Manning's 14.2 mil. He could have easily commanded the 14.2 with three rings and two SB MVPs.

1. This site says Brady made over 15m in 2005 http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/athletes/nfl/tom-brady-net-worth/

2. It's 'ad' nauseum and Brady had no chance of getting Manning money. If this is your belief that's fine but Manning just had back to back league MVP's and was putting up the best stats for a QB to begin his career ever. Brady was not at Manning's level in 2005.

And statstically speaking 2004/2005 were two of his best years compared to his first three so he was on the rise at that point to boot and completely justified in getting Manning type money. He was also 9-0 in the post-season at that point.

What? He only threw 3 more TD's, 2 less Ints, and 400 more yards in those 2 seasons than he did the 2 seasons before. That's barely an increase in production.

Also it's actually very hard to try and compare 04/05 Brady to 04/05 Manning. In those 2 seasons Manning threw for 23 more TDs, 8 less INTs, and 500 more yards.

You don't get that the Pat's superbowls were the only reason that Brady got paid what he did. Without those superbowls Brady would struggle to have been considered a top 10 passer back then.

Realistically, he could have gotten more than Manning if he wanted. With three rings, 2 SB MVPs, the check book was his to write.

This is simply not true and laughable. No GM is going to compare a system QB to a guy who just threw 49 TDs and back-to-back LEAGUE MVP's. Nobody outside of New England fans put Brady in Manning's class until his 2007 MVP.

[Tony Sullivan]

He did take a below market contract back then. He was getting a pretty significant raise from his previous contract, so it's not like he was giving money back, and he certainly didn't take a pay cut. But he definitely could have gotten more than he did.

30% more?

Nope. In that article AM shared Brady says it's a difference of about a million dollars he could have made. Even if you tripled that it's still not a 30% off deal.

My whole issue is that he keeps saying 30%. 30% is a huge claim to make and it's not being justified unless we agree that Brady in '05 was as good of a QB as Manning was and it's simply not true.

If Brady was equal to Manning in '05, Brady would be unarguably the best QB of all time considering his statistical success since '07. That is not the case.

[19colt]

Thank you to the person who found the details.

A case can certainly be made that Manning did not hinder the Colts with his salary cap figures during his tenure. 

 

Brady is getting one of the largest guaranteed money contracts in history here yet is being praised for taking a pay cut. Doesn't make sense to me. 

[Superman]

What on earth are you talking about? Yes, they let Branch and Givens walk but then retooled with Moss and Welker in '07 and lit the record books on fire and were one flukiest catch in SB history from a perfect season.  They have also been in 4 AFCCG, more than the Colts and 2 SBs (same as Colts) losing both by a couple of plays and 7 points total. Some would say the Patriot Way has been the most successful Way of doing things in the NFL in the salary cap/FA era. They have also been consistently rebuilding the defense the last few years. Most teams that do this win on average about 5-6 a season - the Pats? 12-13. The only judging stick is not just SBs man. I mean they also have the best regular season percentage since 2005 and have had a top 3 offense (three times top 1) offense. You could not be more wrong. And while Brady's restructuring doesn't guarantee anything, it puts them in position to keep this going for another 5 years. I mean what else can you ask for from your QB but that?

 

I don't know how else to say it. I know you understand what I posted, because you practically repeated it in your second sentence: they let Branch and Givens walk.

 

Understand what happened. Brady has two years left on his contract, $11.5m due to be paid. His new contract is done in May of 2005, and he's now being paid a total of $31.5m over those two years. Significant raise, but still a below market contract at the time, in terms of total value and yearly average. The assumption was that this would allow the team to build around Brady. The team had just released Ty Law because of his high salary.

 

The following season, they traded their #1 receiver away (Branch), and let their #2 receiver walk in free agency. Then they lost the AFCCG to the Colts, a team with one of the highest paid quarterbacks in the league. The top receivers were Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney.

 

Along the way, the Patriots also let other crucial players walk and/or traded them away prior to free agency. They actually released Lawyer Milloy in his prime because he wouldn't agree to a pay cut. I'm sure I'm forgetting other players as well who were casualties of the system.

 

In 2005 and 2006, they ironically began to rely on Brady even more than they had prior, even though the plan was to build a team around him that would keep winning championships.

 

Ironically, over that time, the Colts paid Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Jeff Saturday, Ryan Diem, Robert Mathis, Dwight Freeney, etc. They went and grabbed Adam Vinatieri from the Patriots. They signed Corey Simon and traded for Booger McFarland. The Colts had the higher paid quarterback and supposedly weren't as capable of putting a team around him, whereas Tom Brady had taken less so that the Patriots could pay his teammates. And the exact opposite happened. And Patriots fans like to point to that lack of receiving options as the primary reason they lost the AFCCG to the Colts in 2006.

 

And that's why the Patriots went and splurged in 2007. But the previous two years, despite Brady's below market contract, they were cheapskates. And probably even more than the two previous years. Milloy was released back in 2003. The Patriot Way isn't a success; Tom Brady has carried that team for the last eight years, and it hasn't been enough for them to win championships, regardless of the status of his contract.

 

Oh, and LOL at the comment about Super Bowls not being the only way to judge, Pats fan. LOL.

[Superman]

30% more?

Nope. In that article AM shared Brady says it's a difference of about a million dollars he could have made. Even if you tripled that it's still not a 30% off deal.

My whole issue is that he keeps saying 30%. 30% is a huge claim to make and it's not being justified unless we all agree that Brady is '05 was as good of a QB as Manning was and it's simply not true.

 

Yearly average, yes, 30%. Manning was making over $14m/year, and Brady was making $10m/year. That's 30%.

 

Brady's compensation in those first two years of that contract was $15.5m/year, average. Manning's first two years compensation was about $17.75m/year, average. But the comparison and highest-paid status is usually based on yearly average.

 

Now, I don't think Brady would have gotten the money Manning did, as Manning had just won MVP for the first time and statistically the two weren't close. But there's an argument to be made there.

[Superman]

Thank you to the person who found the details.

A case can certainly be made that Manning did not hinder the Colts with his salary cap figures during his tenure. 

 

Brady is getting one of the largest guaranteed money contracts in history here yet is being praised for taking a pay cut. Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Yeah, it's not a pay cut. It's basically a front loaded contract, which makes a ton of sense for player who will be 40 at the end of the deal.

[amfootball]

30% more?

Nope. In that article AM shared Brady says it's a difference of about a million dollars he could have made. Even if you tripled that it's still not a 30% off deal.

My whole issue is that he keeps saying 30%. 30% is a huge claim to make and it's not being justified unless we agree that Brady in '05 was as good of a QB as Manning was and it's simply not true.

If Brady was equal to Manning in '05, Brady would be unarguably the best QB of all time considering his statistical success since '07. That is not the case.

here is the article with the 30 percent from King....http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130225/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-contract/

[Tony Sullivan]

Yearly average, yes, 30%. Manning was making over $14m/year, and Brady was making $10m/year. That's 30%.

 

 

Now, I don't think Brady would have gotten the money Manning did, as Manning had just won MVP for the first time and statistically the two weren't close. But there's an argument to be made there.

Like I said, that's if you consider Brady an equal to Manning back then, then it's an argument. From that last part of the post it sounds like you didn't think that. Also I believe Manning had just won his second consecutive MVP when Brady signed that 05 contract.

[Tony Sullivan]

here is the article with the 30 percent from King....http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130225/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-contract/

That's talking about his current contract. It was probably confusing for you because he starts the paragraph talking about '05.

At a time when the growing market for quarterbacks pegs the average per year at about $20 million -- Drew Brees and Peyton Manning are there, and it's likely Super Bowl champ Joe Flacco will be there soon -- Brady's average over the next six years will be consistently about 30 percent lower.

[Superman]

Like I said, that's if you consider Brady an equal to Manning back then, then it's an argument. From that last part of the post it sounds like you didn't think that. Also I believe Manning had just won his second consecutive MVP when Brady signed that 05 contract.

 

Yes, when Brady signed Manning had just won his second MVP, and had set the record for touchdowns in a single season. But the Patriots had also just beat the Colts in the playoffs two years in a row. I don't agree with that side of the argument, but the argument has been made since back then. To me, Manning was without a doubt the better quarterback, but I don't think that was the consensus at the time.

 

When Manning signed his contract, however, he had just won his first MVP, and actually tied with McNair. Not relevant, but that's what I was talking about.

[amfootball]

I don't know how else to say it. I know you understand what I posted, because you practically repeated it in your second sentence: they let Branch and Givens walk.

 

Understand what happened. Brady has two years left on his contract, $11.5m due to be paid. His new contract is done in May of 2005, and he's now being paid a total of $31.5m over those two years. Significant raise, but still a below market contract at the time, in terms of total value and yearly average. The assumption was that this would allow the team to build around Brady. The team had just released Ty Law because of his high salary.

 

The following season, they traded their #1 receiver away (Branch), and let their #2 receiver walk in free agency. Then they lost the AFCCG to the Colts, a team with one of the highest paid quarterbacks in the league. The top receivers were Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney.

 

Along the way, the Patriots also let other crucial players walk and/or traded them away prior to free agency. They actually released Lawyer Milloy in his prime because he wouldn't agree to a pay cut. I'm sure I'm forgetting other players as well who were casualties of the system.

 

In 2005 and 2006, they ironically began to rely on Brady even more than they had prior, even though the plan was to build a team around him that would keep winning championships.

 

Ironically, over that time, the Colts paid Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Jeff Saturday, Ryan Diem, Robert Mathis, Dwight Freeney, etc. They went and grabbed Adam Vinatieri from the Patriots. They signed Corey Simon and traded for Booger McFarland. The Colts had the higher paid quarterback and supposedly weren't as capable of putting a team around him, whereas Tom Brady had taken less so that the Patriots could pay his teammates. And the exact opposite happened. And Patriots fans like to point to that lack of receiving options as the primary reason they lost the AFCCG to the Colts in 2006.

 

And that's why the Patriots went and splurged in 2007. But the previous two years, despite Brady's below market contract, they were cheapskates. And probably even more than the two previous years. Milloy was released back in 2003. The Patriot Way isn't a success; Tom Brady has carried that team for the last eight years, and it hasn't been enough for them to win championships, regardless of the status of his contract.

 

Oh, and LOL at the comment about Super Bowls not being the only way to judge, Pats fan. LOL.

I don't mean to be disrepsectful but your recollection of Patriot history could not be more inaccurate and in some cases completely false. Allow me to educate you. The Patriots didn't just trade Branch, he held out for more money. They offered him about 6 mil a year over 4 years and when he wouldn't budge, they got a FIRST round pick for him (not bad considering he was a second rounder) from Seattle who paid him a little more than the Pats offered and gave him 5 years. The Pats offered him more than a fair contract but he wanted more. Branch even said when he came back in 2010 that he should have never left and that it was his fault the Pats did not keep him. But we knew this. I mean it wasn't like he was even average in Seattle. No one cared about Givens leaving. He got some obnoxious contract for the Titans which he never fulfilled due to injury.

 

Law wanted to continue to be the highest paid corner in the league. Again, pats offered him a contract and he walked. He was the highest paid corner in Pats history for his years with the Pats by the way. And they went and replaced him with Asante Samuel who was a great corner and a fine replacement. In terms of Milloy, his skills were declining and when he refused to restructure they released him and replaced him with Rodney Harrison, a much better all around saftey who anchored the secondary for years.

 

Based on the rest of your points, I gather that you are just looking at the 2006 Pats team which I would agree on the offense had a weak receiving corp yet then you boast about your Colts in 2006 and yet the Pats came within one first down of beating them at your place and in fact had a 21-3 lead in the first half. So, even as "bad' as you want to say that Pats team was, it was in the AFCCG against YOUR team. Again, Brady's undermarket contract was not just for one year but for five. In 2007, Pats mgmt took that money and retooled getting Moss, Welker, Stallworth and Seau. Almost went undefeated.

 

It is a myth that the Pats don't spend $$. They just don't over spend as a general rule. They always spend to the cap. They just spread the money out and it also helps when your superstar QB takes TWO undermarket contracts. Hence the Patriot Way.

 

The colts on the other hand spent ALL their money on Manning and the offense so much so that when he wasn't there the team got its doors blown off to the tune of 2-14. Compare that to the Pats who lost Brady and still won 11 with Cassell. I mean really man, your argument is ridiculous especially when you compare to the Colts. Manning hamstrung your team for years and years so much so that the defensive players were irate that they got no money on their side of the ball yet they were always blamed when the Colts lost. If any model has proved to be a failure it is Polian's model. Even he has admitted that he should have built a more well balanced team.

 

One last point, the steelers of the 70s, niners of the 80s and cowboys of the 90s never got to another SB after their runs. The Pats have reached TWO SBs since going 3 of 4 from '01-'05. Their success is unprecedented and is and forever will be the model for all franchises in the cap/fa era.

[amfootball]

Yes, when Brady signed Manning had just won his second MVP, and had set the record for touchdowns in a single season. But the Patriots had also just beat the Colts in the playoffs two years in a row. I don't agree with that side of the argument, but the argument has been made since back then. To me, Manning was without a doubt the better quarterback, but I don't think that was the consensus at the time.

 

When Manning signed his contract, however, he had just won his first MVP, and actually tied with McNair. Not relevant, but that's what I was talking about.

Good points. The issue here is not who was the better QB. Clearly both were the top TWO best QBs in the league. Manning had better stats while Brady had the rings. Again, with 3 rings and 2 SB MVPs under his belt, Brady could have easily  asked for Manning money and got it. That is the point. He took a 30 percent below market contract. Even if you believe he was not as good as Manning, he could have asked to be paid in line with him which would have been 14 mil. He took 10 over 6 years. A HUGE discount considering he had the rings.

[southwest1]

I'm no CFO & numbers have never been my strong suit. But, I must say that Superman & amfootball seem well versed in number crunching a unique skill that I clearly do not possess. Which leaves me with 1 question: Are either of you gentlemen skilled in tax preparation?  Just Kidding!!!

 

I enjoy reading posts from both of you & I have no desire to pick 1 side over the other & split the atom. Just know that I respect you both as smooth, intelligent writers & debaters. Thank you. 

[Superman]

I don't mean to be disrepsectful but your recollection of Patriot history could not be more inaccurate and in some cases completely false. Allow me to educate you. The Patriots didn't just trade Branch, he held out for more money. They offered him about 6 mil a year over 4 years and when he wouldn't budge, they got a FIRST round pick for him (not bad considering he was a second rounder) from Seattle who paid him a little more than the Pats offered and gave him 5 years. The Pats offered him more than a fair contract but he wanted more. Branch even said when he came back in 2010 that he should have never left and that it was his fault the Pats did not keep him. But we knew this. I mean it wasn't like he was even average in Seattle. No one cared about Givens leaving. He got some obnoxious contract for the Titans which he never fulfilled due to injury.

 

Law wanted to continue to be the highest paid corner in the league. Again, pats offered him a contract and he walked. He was the highest paid corner in Pats history for his years with the Pats by the way. And they went and replaced him with Asante Samuel who was a great corner and a fine replacement. In terms of Milloy, his skills were declining and when he refused to restructure they released him and replaced him with Rodney Harrison, a much better all around saftey who anchored the secondary for years.

 

Based on the rest of your points, I gather that you are just looking at the 2006 Pats team which I would agree on the offense had a weak receiving corp yet then you boast about your Colts in 2006 and yet the Pats came within one first down of beating them at your place and in fact had a 21-3 lead in the first half. So, even as "bad' as you want to say that Pats team was, it was in the AFCCG against YOUR team. Again, Brady's undermarket contract was not just for one year but for five. In 2007, Pats mgmt took that money and retooled getting Moss, Welker, Stallworth and Seau. Almost went undefeated.

 

It is a myth that the Pats don't spend $$. They just don't over spend as a general rule. They always spend to the cap. They just spread the money out and it also helps when your superstar QB takes TWO undermarket contracts. Hence the Patriot Way.

 

The colts on the other hand spent ALL their money on Manning and the offense so much so that when he wasn't there the team got its doors blown off to the tune of 2-14. Compare that to the Pats who lost Brady and still won 11 with Cassell. I mean really man, your argument is ridiculous especially when you compare to the Colts. Manning hamstrung your team for years and years so much so that the defensive players were irate that they got no money on their side of the ball yet they were always blamed when the Colts lost. If any model has proved to be a failure it is Polian's model. Even he has admitted that he should have built a more well balanced team.

 

One last point, the steelers of the 70s, niners of the 80s and cowboys of the 90s never got to another SB after their runs. The Pats have reached TWO SBs since going 3 of 4 from '01-'05. Their success is unprecedented and is and forever will be the model for all franchises in the cap/fa era.

 

I just LOOOOVE that education you gave me. Especially considering the fact that you basically repeated everything I said. Nuance exists, yes, but the Pats traded Branch (like I said), let Givens walk (like I said), released Law (like I said), released Milloy (like I said).

 

How exactly was anything I said inaccurate or false?

 

And where did I boast about the Colts winning the AFCCG?

 

Also, what defensive players were "irate" about anything that happened with the Colts? You are the one that seems to be disconnected from reality here. You're pushing this highly inaccurate meme that the Colts spent all their money on offense and never paid any of their defensive players. The Colts paid their top players on both sides of the ball, some of them too much. And some of their free agent acquisitions turned out to be mistakes, like Corey Simon. Manning's contract didn't hamstring the Colts at all. As has been mentioned, Manning several times restructured to boost cap space, and he took less on his last contract which enabled the team to hold on to some of their players. Polian's failure was specifically overpaying on his own free agents and failing to draft to a high level over a period of several years.

 

You're really struggling with this, and I don't know how to make it any more clear. In 2005 and 2006, in particular, the Colts had the higher paid player at quarterback, but they also spent more on other players, and they were more successful on the field. That's all I was saying. I'm not comparing the entire Manning era to the entire Brady era; I'm not comparing Polian to the Patriots front office. I'm simply saying that, despite Brady "taking less" than Manning, the Pats didn't spend those savings like they should have. Meanwhile, the Colts did continue to keep a solid core around Manning, and won a Super Bowl because of it.

 

And I don't know why you're comparing teams from before the salary cap era to the salary cap Pats.

[SilentHill]

Manning's market value has nothing to do with merchandise and ticket sales. The NFL has a hard salary cap that teams have to manage, despite what other revenues they might be receiving due to a player's presence or a winning culture. It's not baseball.

 

It's also interesting that the Titans weren't a real team because they were willing to pay more than you think they should have been. But you're also willing to assign to Brady a market value that was set by what you claim is not a real team, based on an offer that was made to Manning, not Brady. So Brady gets credit for not taking $25m, but Manning doesn't. Nice.

 

Your thoughts on this remind me of the Rabbi's line in Lucky Number Slevin: I live on both sides of the fence; my grass is always green.

 

I'm sorry, but your analogy is completely absurd. If I sell you a common run of the mill rock from my back yard for $500 does that mean that rock is now worth $500? No. You couldn't re-sell the rock for $500, Market value is so so so much more than what the last person paid. It's basic economics.

 

And if you re-read my post, I'm only comparing brady to the offer from the Titans because you keep dwelling on it. The offer in reality is irrelevant from a 360 degree spectrum.

[southwest1]

I don't mean to be disrepsectful but your recollection of Patriot history could not be more inaccurate and in some cases completely false. Allow me to educate you. The Patriots didn't just trade Branch, he held out for more money. They offered him about 6 mil a year over 4 years and when he wouldn't budge, they got a FIRST round pick for him (not bad considering he was a second rounder) from Seattle who paid him a little more than the Pats offered and gave him 5 years. The Pats offered him more than a fair contract but he wanted more. Branch even said when he came back in 2010 that he should have never left and that it was his fault the Pats did not keep him. But we knew this. I mean it wasn't like he was even average in Seattle. No one cared about Givens leaving. He got some obnoxious contract for the Titans which he never fulfilled due to injury.

 

Law wanted to continue to be the highest paid corner in the league. Again, pats offered him a contract and he walked. He was the highest paid corner in Pats history for his years with the Pats by the way. And they went and replaced him with Asante Samuel who was a great corner and a fine replacement. In terms of Milloy, his skills were declining and when he refused to restructure they released him and replaced him with Rodney Harrison, a much better all around saftey who anchored the secondary for years.

 

Based on the rest of your points, I gather that you are just looking at the 2006 Pats team which I would agree on the offense had a weak receiving corp yet then you boast about your Colts in 2006 and yet the Pats came within one first down of beating them at your place and in fact had a 21-3 lead in the first half. So, even as "bad' as you want to say that Pats team was, it was in the AFCCG against YOUR team. Again, Brady's undermarket contract was not just for one year but for five. In 2007, Pats mgmt took that money and retooled getting Moss, Welker, Stallworth and Seau. Almost went undefeated.

 

It is a myth that the Pats don't spend $$. They just don't over spend as a general rule. They always spend to the cap. They just spread the money out and it also helps when your superstar QB takes TWO undermarket contracts. Hence the Patriot Way.

 

The colts on the other hand spent ALL their money on Manning and the offense so much so that when he wasn't there the team got its doors blown off to the tune of 2-14. Compare that to the Pats who lost Brady and still won 11 with Cassell. I mean really man, your argument is ridiculous especially when you compare to the Colts. Manning hamstrung your team for years and years so much so that the defensive players were irate that they got no money on their side of the ball yet they were always blamed when the Colts lost. If any model has proved to be a failure it is Polian's model. Even he has admitted that he should have built a more well balanced team.

 

One last point, the steelers of the 70s, niners of the 80s and cowboys of the 90s never got to another SB after their runs. The Pats have reached TWO SBs since going 3 of 4 from '01-'05. Their success is unprecedented and is and forever will be the model for all franchises in the cap/fa era.

I will concede that for a very long time under GM Bill Polian the Colts did seem to put a vast majority of their salary cap dollars on the offensive side of the ball, but Polian did take care of Dwight Freeney, Gary Brackett, & Robert Mathis while they all played together at Lucas Oil Stadium. But, an argument could easily be made that we failed to cut athletes who were not necessarily an asset to the team anymore, which makes your Matt Cassell backup QB example a valid point when Cassel is compared to INDY's QB Curtis Painter. It speaks to a GM's evaluation skills & their awareness & pulse on the team from strictly a roster perspective IMO.  

[SilentHill]

Just read your other posts:

so what? he still could have asked 25 millions from Denver. You are spinning an asumption from your part into holly truth. How do you know the Broncos wouldnt have agreed to the type of deal Adams gave?

and like I said, Manning did in his last conract, allowing Diem to retire a colt, addai 1 more year and Clark i believe ...you also proclaim the only reason Adams was willing to offer that money is for merchandise reasons...

 

I'm not spinning anything into the holy truth. Your just interpreting it however you feel like.

 

Everything you mentioned is irrelevant, and furthermore I could care less about the details. Who gave who what deal. Manning's estimated market value was 19.2 million (and it was over-payed at the time IMHO). That is all I'm arguing. Superman is trying to tell me that the Titans offered him 25 million, so that should be his market value. My response to that was that a team like the Titans, where Manning played for the college football team, would 100% without a shadow of a doubt incorporate ticket, and merchandise sales into a deal for Manning. Manning returning to his college town, where everyone loves him would be worth many many many millions to a team owner, and that my friend is a fact.

[SilentHill]

You want us to concede that AM is the one being provoked? Second time recently you've astonished me in your defense of these conversations. She isn't exactly doing "you guys" any favors. More like dragging the concept of "Pats fans welcomed on the Colts board" backwards towards one of your beloved precipices. Hopefully your shoulder is feeling better.

 

Actually you've started eight threads. All divisive, two already locked, more probably should have been.

 

Said the Recluse to the herd of Horseflies (and Silent Hill).

 

 

Yea yea, just go ahead and make the assumption I'm bashing Manning here. Everyone else already has. When in fact I'm not. I mean if the peytonites are going to come down on me because I think he was over-paid last season for his injury history, and the Broncos took a gamble and won, then so be it. Dare we not speak anything of the Manning that could lessen him in any way.

[SilentHill]

Some make it seem like Brady is the first to sign a beneficial extension, while others want to make a case that  Manning is the only one that has fanfare or increased merchandise/tickets/etc..   Tunnel Vision with rose colored glasses.  What a combination.    (ooops...  I just violated my own rule,  I mentioned Both unmentionable names)   

 

Should stayed biting your tongue. lol

[Superman]

I'm sorry, but your analogy is completely absurd. If I sell you a common run of the mill rock from my back yard for $500 does that mean that rock is now worth $500? No. You couldn't re-sell the rock for $500, Market value is so so so much more than what the last person paid. It's basic economics.

 

What analogy?

 

Value is sports isn't determined based on what you can resell for, because you don't resell. Value is based on what someone is willing to pay. The market spoke.

[Gramz]

Should stayed biting your tongue. lol

as is usually the case with me.

[SilentHill]

What analogy?

 

Value is sports isn't determined based on what you can resell for, because you don't resell. Value is based on what someone is willing to pay. The market spoke.

 

And it said 19.2 million.

[Superman]

I'm not spinning anything into the holy truth. Your just interpreting it however you feel like.

 

Everything you mentioned is irrelevant, and furthermore I could care less about the details. Who gave who what deal. Manning's estimated market value was 19.2 million (and it was over-payed at the time IMHO). That is all I'm arguing. Superman is trying to tell me that the Titans offered him 25 million, so that should be his market value. My response to that was that a team like the Titans, where Manning played for the college football team, would 100% without a shadow of a doubt incorporate ticket, and merchandise sales into a deal for Manning. Manning returning to his college town, where everyone loves him would be worth many many many millions to a team owner, and that my friend is a fact.

 

The NFL still has a salary cap. If Manning is worth more to the Titans because of additional revenue, that doesn't change the fact that they still have to fit his contract into the salary cap. If not for that, contracts and annual compensation would balloon like they have in baseball and the NBA.

 

And my point is not that Manning's market value is $25m/year. My point is that Manning had an opportunity to make $25m/year, and chose not to. Just like Brady likely had a chance to make more than he's making, and chose not to.

[Superman]

And it said 19.2 million.

 

Your argument is that he wasn't worth even that.

[SilentHill]

The NFL still has a salary cap. If Manning is worth more to the Titans because of additional revenue, that doesn't change the fact that they still have to fit his contract into the salary cap. If not for that, contracts and annual compensation would balloon like they have in baseball and the NBA.

 

And my point is not that Manning's market value is $25m/year. My point is that Manning had an opportunity to make $25m/year, and chose not to. Just like Brady likely had a chance to make more than he's making, and chose not to.

 

Ok, so let's just say that's true. Manning turned down the 25 million and Brady turned down the hypothetical contract. Who is making more money right now?

[SilentHill]

Your argument is that he wasn't worth even that.

 

My opinion was that he wasn't worth even that. My whole argument stemmed from you telling me his market value was 25 million. We could have been talking about Derek Jeter and the yankees for all I care. I was just arguing the economics lol.

[Superman]

Ok, so let's just say that's true. Manning turned down the 25 million and Brady turned down the hypothetical contract. Who is making more money right now?

 

Manning.

 

How is that relevant?

[Gramz]

Ok, so let's just say that's true. Manning turned down the 25 million and Brady turned down the hypothetical contract. Who is making more money right now?

It's not me....        oh to have such comparisons

[SilentHill]

Manning.

 

How is that relevant?

 

It's not. So what is the argument? lol

[Yehoodi]

When that QB has less than a 2:1 TD/INT ratio, struggles to throw 4000 yards, averages a passer rating under 90 it is heavily debatable. Actually it's the factual reason Brady wasn't considered a top QB. Brady knew the situation was best for him in New England so he stayed there and was one of the highest paid players in the league (even though you say he left 30% on the table.)You're completely speculating on Flacco's next contract. Just because you hear media pundits saying he's going to be the top paid guy doesn't mean he actually will. I can almost guarantee that his % against the cap will be less than that of Manning, Brees, E. Manning etc. when they signed their latest contracts.

Also, could you actually provide me with the numbers that support your claim Brady took 30% less than market value in '05? I'm pretty sure you're talking complete bologne http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2054072 This article from 2005 actually says he's one of the NFL's highest paid. Also market value for Brady =/= Manning type money as Manning was undoubtedly the best QB in the game at the time and Brady was still being called a product of the system (which his passing stats support)

you know Tony you claim that QB of Brady's caliber circa 2005 would not command top dollar money . . . then can you explain how Eli Manning got the contract that he presently has and why ? . . . I for one feel very strongerly that a QB of Brady's caliber circa 2005 commands top dollar . . . or well at least at a minimun in the top 5 paid QBs . . .

[Superman]

My opinion was that he wasn't worth even that. My whole argument stemmed from you telling me his market value was 25 million. We could have been talking about Derek Jeter and the yankees for all I care. I was just arguing the economics lol.

 

Market value is an argument in semantics at this point. I could continue to argue that his market value is whatever he was offered, but it's not relevant.

 

My point is that he chose to take less.

[MAC]

Yea yea, just go ahead and make the assumption I'm bashing Manning here. Everyone else already has. When in fact I'm not. I mean if the peytonites are going to come down on me because I think he was over-paid last season for his injury history, and the Broncos took a gamble and won, then so be it.

Actually I agree completely that the Broncos took a gamble and won. If you believe that he was overpaid, that's fine - it's not really the argument. The point was that Brady is being "elevated" based on the perception that he accepted less money than he could have, when in fact he remains amongst the highest paid players in the sport. We won't know if he will actually receive the lower salary until it happens, and we won't know if said salary represents a bargain for the Patriots until even later than that. On the other hand Peyton absolutely DID accept less money than he could have by signing with the Broncos. The Titans owner was very public in his adoration and solicitations - Peyton might well have ended up with an unprecedented contract to go there - he would have been King of TN for crying out loud. Whether you feel he would have been "worth it" is irrelevant - it's that he would have been "rolling in it", but chose not to that matters. Instead he picked a team for football reasons and insisted on a contract that provides multiple "outs" for Denver based on his health. Is that not actually more admirable than Brady's maneuver - which may well just be a salary cap game that gets magically re-written before the reduced salary kicks in?

[Superman]

It's not. So what is the argument? lol

 

See #112.

[SilentHill]

Actually I agree completely that the Broncos took a gamble and won. If you believe that he was overpaid, that's fine - it's not really the argument. The point was that Brady is being elevated based on the perception that he accepted less money than he could have, when in fact he remains amongst the highest players in the sport. We won't know if he will actually receive the lower salary until it happens, and we won't know if said salary represents a bargain for the Patriots until even later than that. On the other hand Peyton absolutely DID accept less money than he could have by signing with the Broncos. The Titans owner was very public in his adoration and solicitations - Peyton might well have ended up with an unprecedented contract to go there - he would have been King of TN for crying out loud. Whether you feel he would have been "worth it" is irrelevant - it's that he would have been "rolling in it", but chose not to that matters. Instead he picked a team for football reasons and insisted on a contract that provides multiple "outs" for Denver based on his health. Is that not actually more admirable than Brady's maneuver - which may well just be a salary cap game that gets magically re-written before the reduced salary kicks in?

 

Let's just take Brady out of this conversation.

 

Manning to Tennessee was not based on his football play, it was based on the fact that he'd be King on TN, like you said. People who run and own multi-million dollar operations like a NFL franchise know how to make money, and the deal offered by Mr Adams was an attempt to make money. He didn't care if the team won, sure he woulda liked it, but he woulda made due with whatever salary cap he had left. He was in it for the Benjamins. This isn't hearsay, this is a calculated hypothesis based on American business.

[SilentHill]

Market value is an argument in semantics at this point. I could continue to argue that his market value is whatever he was offered, but it's not relevant.

 

My point is that he chose to take less.

 

Agreed, he chose to take less. My point is that the offer from the titans had nothing to do with winning football games, IMHO it was the equivalent of signing Manning to come be at your kids 5th birthday party. Which leads me back to the market value. I think we're stuck in an infinite loop. CTRL C!!

[Yehoodi]

Yes, when Brady signed Manning had just won his second MVP, and had set the record for touchdowns in a single season. But the Patriots had also just beat the Colts in the playoffs two years in a row. I don't agree with that side of the argument, but the argument has been made since back then. To me, Manning was without a doubt the better quarterback, but I don't think that was the consensus at the time.

 

When Manning signed his contract, however, he had just won his first MVP, and actually tied with McNair. Not relevant, but that's what I was talking about.

I think the issue would be a tad clearer and more disgusitable to both sides if we agreed, assuming we could, that Brady's to date 2005 resume commanded top 5 dollar, and as usual the difference in the top 5 salaries is not that much from a differential % standpoint . . .

and like i asked Tony in the preceeding post, Eli Mannning was given top 5 dollar recently, and for what it is worth was top dog for a while, and I would think that most rational observers would agree that Brady's resume was at minimum, and i would argue more, was as trong as Eli's when he got his big pay day . .

And given the fact that Flacco might be in the to 5 coming up only bolsters the point that Brady circa 2005 was due to be top 5 without too much argument . . .

[Superman]

Let's just take Brady out of this conversation.

 

Manning to Tennessee was not based on his football play, it was based on the fact that he'd be King on TN, like you said. People who run and own multi-million dollar operations like a NFL franchise know how to make money, and the deal offered by Mr Adams was an attempt to make money. He didn't care if the team won, sure he woulda liked it, but he woulda made due with whatever salary cap he had left. He was in it for the Benjamins. This isn't hearsay, this is a calculated hypothesis based on American business.

 

Who cares what Adams motivation is? We're talking about Manning's motivation. He took less than he could have because he wanted to win. Did he not?

[SilentHill]

See #112.

 

 

Agreed, he chose to take less. My point is that the offer from the titans had nothing to do with winning football games, IMHO it was the equivalent of signing Manning to come be at your kids 5th birthday party. Which leads me back to the market value. I think we're stuck in an infinite loop. CTRL C!!

 

 

 

OK so I went back, to my post #17.

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/15826-peytons-career-salary-cap-hits/#entry422345

 

It started with you saying that Manning took an under-market contract.to which my rebuttal was that it was for Manning's benefit to take the Broncos deal because of the obvious nature of the Tenn deal, to which i said it was silly to say he took an under-market contract because I don't believe the contract offer from Tenn was a contract to play football. It was a contract to play host in Tenn, and that is where it came from.

[Superman]

I think the issue would be a tad clearer and more disgusitable to both sides if we agreed, assuming we could, that Brady's to date 2005 resume commanded top 5 dollar, and as usual the difference in the top 5 salaries is not that much from a differential % standpoint . . .

and like i asked Tony in the preceeding post, Eli Mannning was given top 5 dollar recently, and for what it is worth was top dog for a while, and I would think that most rational observers would agree that Brady's resume was at minimum, and i would argue more, was as trong as Eli's when he got his big pay day . .

And given the fact that Flacco might be in the to 5 coming up only bolsters the point that Brady circa 2005 was due to be top 5 without too much argument . . .

 

The question was whether Brady signed for 30% less than Manning did, and if you're looking at annual average, the answer is yes.