"Manning should take pay cut to win SB"

[sweetsurrender]

This is all silly. When has Manning ever taken less? I am not sure he even knows that football contracts come in less than $100 mil. 

 

Also not sure what the author is even getting at. $17 mil is not that monumental. Just a trendy thing to say given the Broncos just lost the SB.

[MAC]

Never said it was unreasonable....it's a fair contract. But a player in his position, having made the money he has over his career, taking less to win another ring would make sense and would not be unique.

Actually I would say that it very well might be unique for a player in Manning's position to do what you suggest, plus (as I said before) one could make the argument that he already DID. Anyone remember when he supposedly could have locked in for $25? How much do you think that the Jets or someone might have been willing to pay him? Maybe people should pat him on the back for the decisions he's already made instead of suggesting that he's greedy and selfish.

 

Peyton already makes less than Rodgers, Ryan, Flacco and Brees, and pretty much the same as Brady (before the questionable cap manipulation was put in place). Do their teams not need to sign other free agents as well? Cutler, Romo and Stafford are JUST below him. In comparison aren't they VASTLY overpaid? The next level of QB's below that are overpaid even more. QBs make a lot of money. That's a given in a salary cap. GMs don't complain about it, they celebrate it. It's the REST of the roster that's the problem.

 

It's just a silly topic. As I discussed in earlier replies, it's simply not a fans place to say that an athlete has made "enough" money. I SERIOUSLY doubt that any of us would feel the same way about the subject if we were on the other end.

[Narcosys]

Why should he take a pay cut? They might restructure it a bit so that some is paid after he is retired but I wouldn't take one less dollar then what he is getting. He is a bargain compared to some. They will just have to replace some of those players like all other good teams have to do.

Its not just to resign those players, but to also sign quality players on key positions on the D.  Manning can take care of the O, but its the D that needs a massive bump.

[pacolts56]

"If Peyton Manning really wants to win a Super Bowl he will restructure his contract and give the Broncos more cap space to work with. Just keeping what free agents they have won't be enough. " 

 

The strange thing is 18's age scares me a little bit. Manning is gonna be 38 in March I believe & once a QB approaches 40 the rigors of a decade plus in the NFL begins to take it's toll. In short, your body begins to breakdown. True, to Manning's credit, he does release the ball quickly & he has taken less money that allowed GM Bill Polian in INDY to place weapons around him in the past so Peyton would certainly be open to the discussion. 

 

I have no doubt that Peyton can continue to win Playoff games & get back to the big dance, but win it? That's gonna require a better Denver pass rush & cut Champ Bailey right now. He's too darn old & not effective speed wise anymore. I would encourage Manning to take less dough if he truly wants another shot at a ring. All the matters now is can Denver win the SB? Those detractor voices just went from whispering to shouting no IMO. Peyton should take less money to get more defensive weapons in Colorado. 

 

I love Manning, but without more cap room the Broncos are not reaching the Lombardi Promiseland or emerging victorious in my estimation. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still must be said. 

That was one of my take-aways from the Super Bowl too.

 

The unfortunate part is it really should have ended better for Manning.

 

Had the Broncos been able to keep Elvis Dumervil instead of that weird fax fiasco that resulted in them cutting him, and had Von Miller not suffered a torn ACL....Denver would have at least had two significant difference makers to fight Seattle with and at least make it a contest. I gotta believe it would have made some difference, anyway. 

 

I won't say its impossible for Peyton to win another SB....but so many things have to go right for Denver, and at first glance their regular schedule next year looks like murder.

[BOTT]

Actually I would say that it very well might be unique for a player in Manning's position to do what you suggest, plus (as I said before) one could make the argument that he already DID. Anyone remember when he supposedly could have locked in for $25? How much do you think that the Jets or someone might have been willing to pay him? Maybe people should pat him on the back for the decisions he's already made instead of suggesting that he's greedy and selfish.

 

Peyton already makes less than Rodgers, Ryan, Flacco and Brees, and pretty much the same as Brady (before the questionable cap manipulation was put in place). Do their teams not need to sign other free agents as well? Cutler, Romo and Stafford are JUST below him. In comparison aren't they VASTLY overpaid? The next level of QB's below that are overpaid even more. QBs make a lot of money. That's a given in a salary cap. GMs don't complain about it, they celebrate it. It's the REST of the roster that's the problem.

 

It's just a silly topic. As I discussed in earlier replies, it's simply not a fans place to say that an athlete has made "enough" money. I SERIOUSLY doubt that any of us would feel the same way about the subject if we were on the other end.

He is in a far different spot than younger guys like Rodgers, Flacco and Ryan....that's an apple to oranges comparison. And I have always stated a player should get the money he can.....but I believe a player like Manning, who has made an insane amount of money and is at the end of his career, would have been wise to take less. That doesn't mean I think he had a moral obligation or I think less of him. For whatever reason, Manning's career has been judged harshly and if I were him I would have done everything I could shove it down people's throats....or at least I hope I would.

[Superman]

That was one of my take-aways from the Super Bowl too.

 

The unfortunate part is it really should have ended better for Manning.

 

Had the Broncos been able to keep Elvis Dumervil instead of that weird fax fiasco that resulted in them cutting him, and had Von Miller not suffered a torn ACL....Denver would have at least had two significant difference makers to fight Seattle with and at least make it a contest. I gotta believe it would have made some difference, anyway. 

 

I won't say its impossible for Peyton to win another SB....but so many things have to go right for Denver, and at first glance their regular schedule next year looks like murder.

 

Just gonna point out that the fax issue isn't the reason Dumervil got cut. The Broncos were going to cut him all along, the fax fiasco was trumped up. This is just my opinion, but I think Dumervil's agent tried to call the Broncos' bluff, and got burned. It's not that hard for an NFL agent and player to get paperwork taken care of. They ran up to the deadline and forced the Broncos' hand, and the rest is history.

 

But whatever, it's irrelevant. That just sticks out to me...

[pacolts56]

Just gonna point out that the fax issue isn't the reason Dumervil got cut. The Broncos were going to cut him all along, the fax fiasco was trumped up. This is just my opinion, but I think Dumervil's agent tried to call the Broncos' bluff, and got burned. It's not that hard for an NFL agent and player to get paperwork taken care of. They ran up to the deadline and forced the Broncos' hand, and the rest is history.

 

But whatever, it's irrelevant. That just sticks out to me...

Well, I won't put anything past John Elway....and if you're right, then its fair to say Elway crapped the bed with that decision.

 

The Broncos clearly could've used Dumervil against Seattle.

[Superman]

Well, I won't put anything past John Elway....and if you're right, then its fair to say Elway crapped the bed with that decision.

 

The Broncos clearly could've used Dumervil against Seattle.

 

Not really. Dumervil wasn't worth the $12m they were set to pay him. He had a pretty nondescript 2012, and was only slightly better in 2013 with the Ravens. Teams make decisions like this all the time, getting rid of players that are either overpaid or underperforming, or, as in Dumervil's case, both. That's before you acknowledge that Von Miller wasn't expected to be suspended and then finish the season on IR. Shaun Phillips more than replaced Dumervil's production, at a fraction of the cost.

 

It's also kind of unfair to talk about how Denver could have used Dumervil in the last game of the season, after they lost their best pass rusher to injury.

 

Not to mention that I don't think Dumervil's absence was among the top ten things the Broncos suffered from in the Super Bowl.

[dw49]

Last year Brady signed a three year $27 mil extension for the 2015 -2017 seasons when he will be ages 38-40. The entire contract was guaranteed and it included a $3 million signing bonus along with annual salaries of $7 million in 2015, $8 million in 2016 and $9 million in 2017, when Brady will turn 40. So he basically got $30 mil guaranteed last off-season to play until he is 40. His contract freed up $8 mil in cap space for the Pats last year and will free up another $7 mil this year. His cap hit will be $13 mil this season.

 

But all of this is moot in terms of Manning as if he was going to do something like this he would have had to do it when he first signed with Denver two seasons ago. His numbers are set now for the next three seasons.

 

 

I mean yeah... I spouted off 50 mill when it was 30 mill. .... my bad. But you really have to think a bit when you write , especially since it's your guy. How in the world could they do that deal with a 3 million $ signing bonus ? His pro rated bonuses for 2013 and 2014 was 12.8 per year alone. No doubt Brady gave NE a discount . But it's not as big a difference (1st two years)as one might think if he read your ill written stuff.

 

Brady's cap hit for 2014 is 14.8 mill. Manning's is 17.7.  So yeah... it's 2.7 difference . Chump change..

 

Now going forward it widens out . Hugely different . manning is around 21 in 2015 and 2016 , while Brady is around 14. But it isn't 2015 yet and it's possible that both won't be playing or the contracts could change. But fact is , yes Brady gave then=ma discount but he did pocket a guaranteed 30 mill lat year NOT the 3 mill you and an * I will copy below. The 2nd turd (below) turd is where you probably got that ridiculous 3 mill from. The first copy and post is what his deal is. 

 

 

The Real deal.........

 

 

By Field Yates | ESPNBoston.com

• RECOMMEND185
• TWEET120
• COMMENTS146
• EMAIL
• PRINT

The details are in for quarterback Tom Brady's new contract, laid out below. 

The deal includes a $30 million signing bonus for the quarterback, which will be paid out over a period that extends to Feb. 15, 2015, according to a league source. Brady will earn $10 million of that signing bonus during the 2013 season, $5 million in a payment on Feb. 15, 2014, $10 million during the 2014 season, and $5 million on Feb. 15, 2015. 

 

 

 

Below ...the wrong deal... unless the 30 mill was partly guaranteed roster bonuses but will still need to be mentioned when discussing the deal.

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Brady has agreed to a three-year, $27 million contract extension with the Patriots, a deal that will keep him with New England through the 2017 season, a league source confirmed to ESPNBoston.com's Mike Reiss.

The extension includes a $3 million signing bonus along with annual salaries of $7 million in 2015, $8 million in 2016 and $9 million in 2017, when Brady will turn 40, according to the source.

More from ESPN.com

Less is more for Tom Brady, whose team-friendly contract backs up what he has always said -- it's about winning, writes Mike Reiss. Story

The Pats are taking a risk in extending Tom Brady's contract until he's 40. But if anyone is a safe bet, it's Brady, writes James Walker. Blog

• Yates: What Deal Means For Welker

• Joyner: Pats' free-agent targets 

• Hensley: Impact for Flacco?

• ESPNBoston.com Patriots Blog

 

 

 

[pacolts56]

Not really. Dumervil wasn't worth the $12m they were set to pay him. He had a pretty nondescript 2012, and was only slightly better in 2013 with the Ravens. Teams make decisions like this all the time, getting rid of players that are either overpaid or underperforming, or, as in Dumervil's case, both. That's before you acknowledge that Von Miller wasn't expected to be suspended and then finish the season on IR. Shaun Phillips more than replaced Dumervil's production, at a fraction of the cost.

 

It's also kind of unfair to talk about how Denver could have used Dumervil in the last game of the season, after they lost their best pass rusher to injury.

 

Not to mention that I don't think Dumervil's absence was among the top ten things the Broncos suffered from in the Super Bowl.

....if 11 sacks and 6 forced fumbles is "nondescript", then I hope our OLB Erik Walden has such a nondescript season next season.

 

Whatever....they did indeed wind up having too many weak spots to count, highlighting the fact that John Elway is responsible for building a Super Bowl winning roster, and the roster of players he assembled failed in historic fashion and were thoroughly humiliated and embarrassed....whether Peyton Manning likes the word or not.

[Superman]

....if 11 sacks and 6 forced fumbles is "nondescript", then I hope our OLB Erik Walden has such a nondescript season next season.

 

Whatever....they did indeed wind up having too many weak spots to count, highlighting the fact that John Elway is responsible for building a Super Bowl winning roster, and the roster of players he assembled failed in historic fashion and were thoroughly humiliated and embarrassed....whether Peyton Manning likes the word or not.

 

Meh; maybe nondescript is too far. But Dumervil wasn't worth the money he was under contract for. 

 

Not sure why you're comparing DE Dumervil to Sam backer Erik Walden, who play two significantly different positions in two significantly different defenses.

 

And it's rich to criticize Elway's team building when his team has gone to the playoffs three years in a row and was easily the best team in the AFC in 2013. Yes, they lost the Super Bowl, but that doesn't mean Elway failed. That's a nonsensical notion, at best. They have a lot of work to do, but so do the other 30 teams in the NFL not based in Seattle (and when you look at the Seahawks FAs and cap situation, they have to figure some things out as well).

[dudeski]

There is no such thing as taking a pay cut. The NFL players union wouldn't allow it. There is such a thing as restructuring your contract with an extension so that your cap hit is less and more money is guranteed etc...problem with that....Peyton doesn't have many years left...you can't stretch it out at the end...without hurting the team when he retires because he would hamstring the team when he is gone. Legitimently he has probably two years left to win another ring....this coming year and perhaps the next...his money will be coming off the books when his contract expires...they will still be able to sign DT and JT. I'm not sure what this take a pay cut thing means...unless you mean restructure over longer period. Tom did that...but at the back end of that contract he won't be able to do it again and again. Eventually you have to eat that money...and pay the piper....as time runs out on these guys years its harder and harder to restructure.

nope. Guys can take pay cuts. Happens all the time

[shecolt]

I know that SW, but that's not what this thread is about (as I was trying to point out).

 

This thread is flat out about asking Peyton to take a pay cut, which it sounds like you agree is an absurd proposition. Contract restructurings are about playing games with the cap - the player involved NEVER ends up with less money in their pockets as a result. In fact they virtually always get EXTRA money as part of the restructure. I also tried to point out that the BRONCOS don't appear to be interested in robbing peter to pay paul by creating large future dead money obligations. It's the TEAMS who do these things, it has precious little to do with the players.

 

And again, this was started by AM, and the motivation is to imply that "Brady has made a sacrifice, therefore he's better than Manning". As FX alluded to with a ;) in his reply, we've talked the Brady contract around in circles until we are all dizzy, and I don't believe that it was a sacrifice on his part in the first place. It's the most cynical kind of cap manipulation. The fact that the Broncos haven't stooped to the same level is admirable. The reality is that Peyton is ALREADY accepting perhaps $8 million or more less per season than he could get if he was putting his own financial interests ahead of winning. He's getting a fair contract.

 

Once again, it's a job. Players aren't fans, they are employees. All businesses are competitive. I'd love to find a person on here who is interested in reducing their own salary in hopes of improving their employers chances of competing and profiting. No, you obtain the most money that you possibly can, work as hard as you can, and when you leave the employer moves on. The Broncos owner is concerned with his own ego and profit, is he making a sacrifice for Manning? It's a business - period.

 

This all comes from people looking at their own paychecks and thinking "ah, he's rich, he doesn't need it". That's not their decision. Any employees LIFE revolves around how much money they earn. The job is simply what they do to earn the money. Why in Gods name would anyone expect an athlete to give away money to help the team? They pose it as a moral issue, but in actuality fans who suggest this are suggesting that a player swap one human failing (greed) for another (ego) because it benefits THEMSELVES. There is no moral high-ground here, everyone involved is thinking of themselves - such is life.

 

What? 

 

Are you saying that Brady wasn't being "selfless in every aspect of the word"???  ;)

[southwest1]

 "Players don't take pay cuts. Expecting to them to do so is ridiculous." --MAC

 

 

"Not to mention the fact that it's hard to give a home-town discount when your home-town releases you." --MAC

 

Both valid points except for 1 thing. The only thing ever guaranteed in the NFL is a player's signing bonus.