Patriots Extend Tom Brady for 2 years, $70M

[N4L]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

With the contract voiding before the extension even starts means that they aren't extending him they are just moving some of this years cap number to next year which is a year he isn't even technically under contract for. I think they should get rid of that contract language because it is blatantly dishonest. At least if the contract doesn't automatically void it isn't so in your face that it's a dishonest contract extension.

Again, the money still counts against the cap eventually, so this does not create a competitive imbalance as you are suggesting

[childofpudding]

Mike Sando of The Athletic had a long story about the contract

https://theathletic.com/1116192/2019/08/04/league-execs-and-cap-experts-weigh-in-on-the-impact-of-tom-bradys-contract-history-with-the-pats/

A couple insights from the piece:

- There may have been something fishy with Brady's 2014 agreement. Some kind of handshake agreement between the Patriots and Brady to manufacture more cap room, and perhaps not on the up-and-up. Maybe it was related to the Patriots paying for the services of Brady's company, etc.

- Brady may be leaving money on the table because he's afraid to play somewhere else and doesn't want to force the Patriots to pay him more due to the risk of them just cutting him

[NJerseypaint]

13 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Mike Sando of The Athletic had a long story about the contract

https://theathletic.com/1116192/2019/08/04/league-execs-and-cap-experts-weigh-in-on-the-impact-of-tom-bradys-contract-history-with-the-pats/

A couple insights from the piece:

- There may have been something fishy with Brady's 2014 agreement. Some kind of handshake agreement between the Patriots and Brady to manufacture more cap room, and perhaps not on the up-and-up. Maybe it was related to the Patriots paying for the services of Brady's company, etc.

- Brady may be leaving money on the table because he's afraid to play somewhere else and doesn't want to force the Patriots to pay him more due to the risk of them just cutting him

Patriots wouldn't cut Brady, and he leaves money on the table because he makes the difference on his training program. Also his wife makes a buttload of money.

[childofpudding]

12 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

Patriots wouldn't cut Brady, and he leaves money on the table because he makes the difference on his training program. Also his wife makes a buttload of money.

Sando definitely mentioned the training program, and how the NFL ruled that it wasn't a violation of the rules. I honestly don't know how it couldn't be a violation, but it's all good for this Pats fan!

[Elky]

Ah more ridiculous anti-NE conspiracy theories from the media. Can't wait for the season to start.

Brady taking less money because he's scared of getting cut? Seriously?

Edited August 6, 2019 by Elky

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, Elky said:

Ah more ridiculous anti-NE conspiracy theories from the media. Can't wait for the season to start.

Brady taking less money because he's scared of getting cut? Seriously?

Yeah, I did think that was ridiculous. More anti-Brady than anti-Patriots, though.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, N4L said:

Again, the money still counts against the cap eventually, so this does not create a competitive imbalance as you are suggesting

This specifically moves current salary to a future year in which Brady/Brees aren't under contract so yeah it is wrong. I don't necessarily think it creates a competitive imbalance and never suggested that but it clearly is cheating the integrity of the system. Just don't make the contracts automatically void and the issue goes away.

[Tugboat]

On 04/08/2019 at 12:42 PM, Steelersfan43 said:

 

Just standard Patriots doings basically.  Freeing up more space out of nowhere while keeping their GOAT quarterback around.

[Thomas5737]

3 hours ago, Rockice_8 said:

The Pats haven't had a CLE Browns either.  The Pats have dominated those two over Brady's tenure just like they have the Jets so what is the point?  

Pats haven't dominated the Ravens.

There were 5 teams in the NFL that allowed 100 more points than they scored last year, three of those teams are in the AFCE. The Browns don't get to play a combination of the Bills/Dolphins/Jets twice every year or they would have fared better the last decade than facing the Bengals/Ravens/Steelers twice every year. If you can't accept that as fact then I don't think there is a point.

[N4L]

4 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

This specifically moves current salary to a future year in which Brady/Brees aren't under contract so yeah it is wrong. I don't necessarily think it creates a competitive imbalance and never suggested that but it clearly is cheating the integrity of the system. Just don't make the contracts automatically void and the issue goes away.

They could do the same thing by doing the following:

Year 1: signing bonus of 23 million, 0 base salary.

Year 2: 150 million base salary

Year 3: 150 million base salary

This would mean his cap hit for each year would be 7.6m and the team would obviously cut him before year 2 because no one would ever pay that much to a player. The base salary is nonguaranteed money. Then they would have either 15.2m in dead money in year 2, or designate him as a post june 1st cut and spread it out over two years. 

It would be the exact same thing and there is no way to prevent a team from cutting a guy to save the base salary as it is done all of the time. To be honest, the way they have done this is better for the league to prevent the headlines: "Brady signs three year 323m dollar contract", and "pats cut brady". So, who cares?

[Thomas5737]

4 minutes ago, N4L said:

They could do the same thing by doing the following:

Year 1: signing bonus of 23 million, 0 base salary.

Year 2: 150 million base salary

Year 3: 150 million base salary

This would mean his cap hit for each year would be 7.6m and the team would obviously cut him before year 2 because no one would ever pay that much to a player. The base salary is nonguaranteed money. Then they would have either 15.2m in dead money in year 2, or designate him as a post june 1st cut and spread it out over two years. 

It would be the exact same thing and there is no way to prevent a team from cutting a guy to save the base salary as it is done all of the time. To be honest, the way they have done this is better for the league to prevent the headlines: "Brady signs three year 323m dollar contract", and "pats cut brady". So, who cares?

The headlines were Brady signs 2 year 70 million extension. Which he didn't, it voids out, he just took bonus money and some of his salary will turn into bonus money for 2020, a season in which he isn't under contract. It doesn't really do anything different than a future restructure/cut so why make it a shady contract, same with Brees.

They are pushing current year salary to a future year in which technically the player isn't under contract. That is a little different than cutting a player who is under contract and having his bonus count against the cap. Even if it results in the same outcome you had the option to keep that player's contract this is just moving money to a future year which there is no intent to complete the contract and should be against the rules and I'd expect it to be in the next CBA (I don't see how the league office even allows it now, it's disingenuous).

[43M]

[SBLIII]

8 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Pats haven't dominated the Ravens.

There were 5 teams in the NFL that allowed 100 more points than they scored last year, three of those teams are in the AFCE. The Browns don't get to play a combination of the Bills/Dolphins/Jets twice every year or they would have fared better the last decade than facing the Bengals/Ravens/Steelers twice every year. If you can't accept that as fact then I don't think there is a point.

The Browns would have been trash regardless. Pats were 8-3 overall and 6-1 in the regular season vs the Ravens btw. 

 

Brady vs Ravens 8-3

Brady vs Steelers 11-3

Brady vs Browns 6-1

 

Brady vs AFCN 25-7 

 

And now imagine the Patriots being in the AFCN, it would be even worse for those teams because just like the Jets, Dolphins and Bills, those teams would get frustrated losing to the Patriots and make dumb personnel decisions for years just like the AFCE does/did.

 

The Patriots are 29-8 vs the Jets, so I really don't see the difference. The Jets would have looked far better in the AFCN.

[Thomas5737]

3 minutes ago, SBLIII said:

The Browns would have been trash regardless. Pats were 8-3 overall and 6-1 in the regular season vs the Ravens btw. 

 

Brady vs Ravens 8-3

Brady vs Steelers 11-3

Brady vs Browns 6-1

 

Brady vs AFCN 25-7 

 

And now imagine the Patriots being in the AFCN, it would be even worse for those teams because just like the Jets, Dolphins and Bills, those teams would get frustrated losing to the Patriots and make dumb personnel decisions for years just like the AFCE does/did.

 

The Patriots are 29-8 vs the Jets, so I really don't see the difference. The Jets would have looked far better in the AFCN.

Yeah, I don't buy it at all. If the Jets, Dolphins or Bills traded places with the Browns they would win less and the Browns would win more simply because the Ravens/Steelers/Bengals have been better than the Patriots and any two of the other three collectively.

Yes, the Patriots are the cream of the crop and close the gap but I'd take the Bengals over any of the other three the last 10 years and the Bengals have been the third best in the division.

[N4L]

9 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

It doesn't really do anything different than a future restructure/cut so why make it a shady contract, same with Brees.

"Shady contract" 

Define "shady contract". Why do you think it's "shady" if it's the same as doing a future restructure/cut? 

it's something literally every team does (give large signing bonuses today with fluff money later that will never be actually get paid)

The only 2 ways to eliminate this entirely would be to make signing bonuses and base salary count the same way against the cap, or to make contracts fully guaranteed. That would change the very fabric of the nfls financial structure in a way that would throw everything out of balance

9 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

The headlines were Brady signs 2 year 70 million extension. Which he didn't

Since when do headlines for NFL contracts matter? You must be new here 

9 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

They are pushing current year salary to a future year in which technically the player isn't under contract.

No, technically he IS under contract for next year, until the deal voids next off-season. That's actually the only way this works, because technically he is under contract next year which is why they can allocate cap space for him in that year. 

You have no idea what language these contracts are using. Maybe it 'automatically' voids unless both parties don't want it to. Both would have to opt in, otherwise it 'automatically' voids. Do you see how muddy the waters you are wading into are? 

9 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Even if it results in the same outcome you had the option to keep that player's contract this is just moving money to a future year which there is no intent to complete the contract and should be against the rules and I'd expect it to be in the next CBA (I don't see how the league office even allows it now, it's disingenuous)

First of all, they have waaaay bigger things to negotiate in the CBA than worry about this "shady" thing you think these players and teams are doing. 

Second of all, who exactly do you think is going to push for change? The players, who can get more money up front? Or the owners/teams, who ALL use signing bonuses and restructuring to manuver the salary cap. 

Third of all, this is literally only done with 2 players in the league. Both are cornerstone, first ballot HOF, franchise players in their 40s. I'll say it again in case you don't understand - it's better to have the deal automatically void and the player retire than to have to cut the guy to have him retire. Because technically, if you retire before your contract is up, you owe the team a pro-rated portion of your signing bonus. SO if the team gave Brady the same contract without making it void next year, then he either retires and returns money, or they cut him. Do you see why that is a bad look for everyone involved? it would surely make the team look like jerks to the general public and complicates a career decision unnecessarily

Again, it's something literally every team does (give large signing bonuses today with fluff money later that will never be earned) because that's how the salary cap works