Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Peyton's Contract Discussion MEGA MERGE


BleedBlue4life
 Share

Recommended Posts

Peyton is not going to take $5 mil a year for a number of different reasons. For one thing, extra money for FAs doesn't mean the FAs will always pan out and do well. Secondly, if Peyton takes a low contract, he will be messing over every future QB that comes after him and the NFLPA won't let that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peyton is not going to take $5 mil a year for a number of different reasons. For one thing, extra money for FAs doesn't mean the FAs will always pan out and do well. Secondly, if Peyton takes a low contract, he will be messing over every future QB that comes after him and the NFLPA won't let that happen.

I agree that it will never happen. That being said, though, I don't think the NFLPA has any sort of veto power in dictating the amount a player is willing to play for, beyond ensuring compliance with CBA contract minimums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it will never happen. That being said, though, I don't think the NFLPA has any sort of veto power in dictating the amount a player is willing to play for, beyond ensuring compliance with CBA contract minimums.

Actually, there's "rules" about how much you can reduce a salary. It's not veto power - but it essentially does the same thing.

I'll qualify this statement with one thing; this was info from the old CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there's "rules" about how much you can reduce a salary. It's not veto power - but it essentially does the same thing.

I'll qualify this statement with one thing; this was info from the old CBA.

So a guy like Reghie Bush can't accept a contract that is for only half of what he was previously due to make? Hypothetically, a free agent cannot agree to a new contract for a small fraction of what he was previously making? I am dubious about what you say. Pretty sure that a FA vet can sign for vet minimum no matter what he previously made. Of course where Manning is involved, such talk is moot, but methinks the NFLPA has little say in contracts beyond ensuring CBA minimums are adhered to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a guy like Reghie Bush can't accept a contract that is for only half of what he was previously due to make? Hypothetically, a free agent cannot agree to a new contract for a small fraction of what he was previously making? I am dubious about what you say. Pretty sure that a FA vet can sign for vet minimum no matter what he previously made. Of course where Manning is involved, such talk is moot, but methinks the NFLPA has little say in contracts beyond ensuring CBA minimums are adhered to.

so everybody hypothesis is correct Manning is being a Greedy little "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so everybody hypothesis is correct Manning is being a Greedy little "

Not knowing the actual dynamics going on in his negotiation, tough to say.

If I were Manning, though ...

Being 35 years old, already one of the richest athletes in pro sports, my interest would be in securing my legacy, on the field. I would want to go out with a string of championships. Hence, I would balance my desire to be the highest paid with what can also most help the team. So, say a 5 year contract averaging what Brady signed for, plus $1.00. Or, I might try to work out a side deal with Irsay for consideration outside of player salary. Say, stock options in the Colts or some other off the books payments / consideration upon retirement, all in the name of giving the Colts the most flexibility now, to go out and get players to bring home a string of championships in my twilight.

Honestly, once you are already one of the richest athletes in sport, does the difference between 18M, 20M, or 25M really matter all that much? To me, whatever, if I am a true blue Colt, preferably for life, I would absolutely be willing to provide a "home" discount, in return for "future considerations".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I ever mentioned I don't like Stampede Blue? :P

Really I take all they say as "in one ear . . . . out the other".

It will get done. I am just so happy the CBA has been settled.

After months of dealing with that crap I can wait a few more days for Peyton to sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that you would want to tie up that much salary cap when you're not sure how well recovered Peyton's neck issue is and if it will continue to degenerate. AND if he doesn't have protection or a D what good does a single player, no matter how amazing do anyway...

He has protection and a good D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I ever mentioned I don't like Stampede Blue? :P

Really I take all they say as "in one ear . . . . out the other".

It will get done. I am just so happy the CBA has been settled.

After months of dealing with that crap I can wait a few more days for Peyton to sign.

Here's all Stampede Blue blog spots(yes blog, those that call them articles are way off) rolled into one blog spot.

Here is this issue that I see. It's all Polian's fault for this problem. I've talked to other people I know (sure they are all just my different personalities but they are like real people) and they agree with me, it's all Polian's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But can the guys on the cut list wait? :spock:

Yes. I think they can.

Management has to have an idea of what they are willing to pay to sign Peyton to a contract. That of course would give them an idea of what they have to sign other players.

I just don't buy the idea that Peyton is costing us getting players by the contract being not signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you live on the shoulders of one player, you potentially die on the shoulders of one player - it's the double-edged sword of excellence. Peyton is unique and can't be replaced. Yet one man does not a team make. The balance of the needs for top quality team mates, the salary balance and paying a unique in history player what he deserves is what makes this league so interesting.

I am going to assume that the team and Peyton will work that balance out and I'm not sweating it. However, I am concerned that the second neck injury and surgery will signal the shortening of Peyton's career and they have to get serious about grooming a replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Colts are going to continue to arrange the team around Manning. I know it, you know, everyone knows it. Why? Because we have to, more or less. The Colts have been doing this for years & years. That's what has put the team in this situation (rely too heavily upon Manning), which hopefully will end in a last hurrah. Times are different now for a couple of reasons though. Reality is the cap is down 9M and Peyton Manning isn't getting any younger. Even the free spending Jim Irsay can see paying Manning 25M per via a huge raise isn't going to work...and that's quite a statement.....so I don't understand why it's so hard for some fans to realize the situation except for wanting some illusion or clinging to the past.

I know team history and what's happened with salaries over the years, etc. I don't need a lesson. I don't care about alternate hypothesis or possible alternate realities if _____ (fill in the blank player) panned out/stayed healthy/etc., etc. or ______ (fill in the blank) game situation had been handled/approached differently. I view them all as excuses for those points in time which the team was brought to by paths on various decision trees. Each of them with measurable cause/effect. Afterall, every team is going to have a player go down now and then & still have to pay him. That's football. What I do care about is the here-and-now and what might be able to be done to correct/improve things.

To say Manning's salary hasn't been a very large contributory and/or limiting factor in what the team has been able to do with regard to signing other players, whether or not they've been our own product or the rare FA, is ridiculous. It's made things challenging in the past and will become even more challenging in this cap/salary corrected environment during which Manning will need increasingly more help....all while he gets what is projected to be a huge raise. And a large share of folks here seem to be fine with that. Like I said....we live and die by Manning too much. Nobody else in the league is in this position to the degree the Colts are. Nobody. And the situation is going to be exacerbated by the circumstances of the times. Like I said, if we continue with the same formula and don't win any more titles the team will rightfully be viewed by many as foolish. The current Colt formula for success has proven to be less than 50/50 pertaining to postseason. I don't heavily weight our overall success in the win column during the regular season (half of the games over the years against a weak AFC South). Beating that competition is just what gets us to the postseason. How we qualify in our world. When we're there, the best teams have gotten the better of us....and once again that is an historic fact. So it's up to all of us to view the odds doing things the way we do as acceptable or not. We're all in the same boat as fans.

You're right about one thing - the Colts best shot to win short term is with Manning. Of course. Why? Because once again the team has been arranged around him and we have no alternative. What? Are we gonna go to Curtis Painter? As to my far-fetched Andrew Luck scenario, I couldn't care less what anyone says.....I put it out there to make a point. I realize the odds would be slim to none. So, is it better to pay Manning his tag for one year at 23M or even for the next two years....then let him go seek the other 100M elsewhere & use all of that money to restructure the team? Or...... put most of our eggs in the aging Manning basket for the next five years all the while during changing times? Time will tell. Always does.

All I'm suggesting is that Manning's salary be reasonable so the team can be freed up to do more than we have in the past. New CBA rules require teams to spend most of the cap so it's not like Irsay could cheap-out. Not that he would. If Manning's salary isn't reasonable and straps us more than ever I'm not so sure letting him walk would be a bad thing over the longer haul. Spend the tag money on him in 2011 & possibly 2012 and start finding another formula for wins sooner than later instead of riding the horse into the ground to the tune of the same postseason success rate (unless I'm shown otherwise). We still have other good players on the team & could supplement that with all of the would-be Manning money. Everyone can be replaced.....and that includes Manning, sooner or later.

The Patriots can pay Tom Brady $18 million a year, and still add players like Haynesworth and Chad Johnson, plus the talent they already have and have already paid. You're telling me that we can't pay Peyton Manning $20 million a year and add significant talent around him? I would contend that they have done exactly that for the past several years.

I'm not trying to give anyone a history lesson, but I think it's bogus to claim that the Colts haven't been able to pay anyone else because of Manning's pay. And I think it's bogus to pretend that the reason we haven't had more postseason success is because we spend too much money on him.

Moving forward, if you don't think that it would be in the best interests of the team to get rid of Manning, then we agree. But you know, as well as everyone else does, that if you want to keep him, you're going to have to pay him. I just think it's unfair to pretend that because he's making a lot of money the team can't afford anyone else. You're making this about Manning, and it would be more appropriate and more accurate to make this about the others guys who are getting paid and not playing up to their contract. Because that certainly doesn't apply to the best quarterback in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a guy like Reghie Bush can't accept a contract that is for only half of what he was previously due to make? Hypothetically, a free agent cannot agree to a new contract for a small fraction of what he was previously making? I am dubious about what you say. Pretty sure that a FA vet can sign for vet minimum no matter what he previously made. Of course where Manning is involved, such talk is moot, but methinks the NFLPA has little say in contracts beyond ensuring CBA minimums are adhered to.

I'm pretty sure you're correct. Otherwise a player wouldn't be able to go from a big contract to a vet minimum contract, which happens all the time as players get older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots can pay Tom Brady $18 million a year, and still add players like Haynesworth and Chad Johnson, plus the talent they already have and have already paid. You're telling me that we can't pay Peyton Manning $20 million a year and add significant talent around him? I would contend that they have done exactly that for the past several years.

I'm not trying to give anyone a history lesson, but I think it's bogus to claim that the Colts haven't been able to pay anyone else because of Manning's pay. And I think it's bogus to pretend that the reason we haven't had more postseason success is because we spend too much money on him.

Moving forward, if you don't think that it would be in the best interests of the team to get rid of Manning, then we agree. But you know, as well as everyone else does, that if you want to keep him, you're going to have to pay him. I just think it's unfair to pretend that because he's making a lot of money the team can't afford anyone else. You're making this about Manning, and it would be more appropriate and more accurate to make this about the others guys who are getting paid and not playing up to their contract. Because that certainly doesn't apply to the best quarterback in the game.

And now this from Peyton Manning, which is doing the right thing -

Manning conveyed that directive Thursday during a meeting with owner Jim Irsay and vice chairman Bill Polian, who is negotiating Manning’s contract with agent Tom Condon.

“While I appreciate Jim Irsay offering to make me the highest-paid player,’’ Manning told The Indianapolis Star, “I told him I’d rather he save that money and keep whoever it is . . . Joe Addai, Charlie Johnson, whoever that may be.

“I’m willing to take less than they’ve offered if they are going to take that money to keep players we need to keep and go get other players. All I want is for them to have the cap and the cash to keep the players they want to keep and to sign other players.’’

Manning also instructed Irsay, Polian and Condon to get the contract done. Now.

“Today, tomorrow, definitely by Sunday,’’ he said.

Manning took issue with the speculation he’s asking to maximize his contract opportunity.

“The numbers that are being floated out there, the rumors of what I’m asking for … that’s not from me,’’ he said. “I’ve never said one word about the contract. I told (Irsay and Polian) them my cap numbers can be as low as they want them to be in being creative with the salary cap.’’

Seems everyone including Irsay and Manning understand the issue/times at hand.....except for you and some others here. Don't twist my points. I've clearly stated what my view is. As far as others not playing up to their contracts.....I've been a huge proponent of dumping Sanders, Hart, etc. The front office is now getting those decsions right and I couldn't be happier. I've also gone on record saying there are two players currently on the team that are overpaid. They are: Kelvin Hayden and Ryan Diem. To reiterate posts from the past, Hayden isn't going anywhere because of his guarantee/bonus pay situation but in 2012 and 2013 when he's scheduled to make elite money I believe the story will be different. My stance on Diem was that it would be interesting to see if the Colts were going to stay the course with their usual decision making or move away from that. Specifically, as long as he contributes will he have an opportunity to play out his contract & I believed that would happen but was still curious what route the team would go. As it turns out, Polian just said Diem had to reduce his salary or be cut. But even that doesn't change my opinion on the player & I'm stoked we're getting tougher on how value is viewed. In a lot of ways Diem is landmark in the new era both economically speaking and under the new Polian. I very much like the new direction in Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just proves to me that Manning really IS the astute businessman that is so opposite of the bumbler he portrays himself to be. Once he signs a contract like this, taking LESS than his market value to help his team, his marketing value will skyrocket. If you thought sponsors wanted him in the past, they will be all over him now! And his sponsor $$ will SOAR. So while he will take and make less from the Colts on this contract, he will probably end up making more than he would have in the sponsorship area...and that is where the real dollars come into play! This could end up being a VERY shrewd and clever move for Peyton, and make it easier on the Colts.

Well played, Peyton, well played!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the alert from ESPN on my phone. 5 years 90 million, just like nicky says.

Sweet

Edit: Adam Schefter just posted it on twitter as well "@mortreport is reporting Colts and Peyton Manning have reached agreement on five-year, $90 million deal - average that equals Tom Brady's."

Hope quoting that isn't against the rules...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, THANK YOU PEYTON. His deal is an 18M cap hit, which is perfect and ideal. We can resign almost all our free agents that we want to sign, and maybe even go out and get a free agent or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...