Brandon Brooks Restructures; Creates $6.37 mil in space

[Kiltman]

 

[Kiltman]

He did it for ol' footlong

https://twitter.com/bbrooks_79/status/988394397451653120

 

[Phire]

One of the more underrated players on our squad. 

[Scalamania]

Good news - give us some wiggle room for post draft free agents. 

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, Kiltman said:

He did it for ol' footlong

https://twitter.com/bbrooks_79/status/988394397451653120

 

The Eagles did it for Footlong.   Brooks didn’t give up anything.   It just creates cap room now but increases the future dead money.   Brooks gets paid right now instead of spreading it the same $ over the year. 

Brooks was awesome last year so don’t get me wrong it’s justified short-term.   But the whole angle players are giving back when they agree to this is pure fiction.   Von Miller got the same accolades and they were false there as well so not throwing shade.   Just the whole “good teammate” angle by agreeing to a conversion to a bonus that gets thrown around is total fiction.   

[Phire]

2 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

But the whole angle players are giving back when they agree to this is pure fiction.

I get what you're saying. But Brooks didn't HAVE to do this. Miller didn't HAVE to do what he did. In fact, the average football player probably has no idea about the intricacies of the salary cap. All they know is that they're agreeing to do something they weren't required to do. So it's entirely possible, if not probable, that these players actually think they're doing something for the good of a teammate.

It's also hard to say it's "pure" fiction. The franchise needs these restructures. The player agrees to something he doesn't have to agree to in order to provide the franchise some relief, which then the franchise can flip to paying other players in the short-term. I don't know how you could possibly suggest that is "pure" fiction. I can anticipate what your response will be. I agree with you to the extent that it's exaggerated. I disagree to the extent that it's a "pure" fiction.

In the legal field there is a certain sanctity to being held to your original deal/contract. If you give up your original agreed contract, even for more beneficial terms, that's still giving something up because you're allowing the other party to the contract the chance and opportunity to retroactively change the terms of the contract. Finality is a very important aspect to contract law. Otherwise, a contract is meaningless. So Brooks giving the team a break from the finality of the contract he agreed to certainly is giving something up in my eyes.

[EaglesPeteC]

2 hours ago, Kiltman said:

He did it for ol' footlong

https://twitter.com/bbrooks_79/status/988394397451653120

 

No, he did it because he gets more guarenteed money out of the deal. 

[Broncofan]

28 minutes ago, Phire said:

I get what you're saying. But Brooks didn't HAVE to do this. Miller didn't HAVE to do what he did. In fact, the average football player probably has no idea about the intricacies of the salary cap. All they know is that they're agreeing to do something they weren't required to do. So it's entirely possible, if not probable, that these players actually think they're doing something for the good of a teammate.

It's also hard to say it's "pure" fiction. The franchise needs these restructures. The player agrees to something he doesn't have to agree to in order to provide the franchise some relief, which then the franchise can flip to paying other players in the short-term. I don't know how you could possibly suggest that is "pure" fiction. I can anticipate what your response will be. I agree with you to the extent that it's exaggerated. I disagree to the extent that it's a "pure" fiction.

In the legal field there is a certain sanctity to being held to your original deal/contract. If you give up your original agreed contract, even for more beneficial terms, that's still giving something up because you're allowing the other party to the contract the chance and opportunity to retroactively change the terms of the contract. Finality is a very important aspect to contract law. Otherwise, a contract is meaningless. So Brooks giving the team a break from the finality of the contract he agreed to certainly is giving something up in my eyes.

The reality is it only benefits Brooks.  He gets the same $ only sooner.  I get you are saying he may not realize that.   It doesn’t change the above though.      Which makes it impossible to call it a sacrifice.  People are always agreeable to something if it costs them nothing or might benefit them. The sacrifice  label doesn’t apply in those cases.  It’s just good PR. 

Unrelated note - if a player doesn’t understand that concept above then that probably makes the argument to always have an agent lol.  

Don’t get me wrong I’m not criticizing Brooks.  Just the narrative is completely off here.  It’s purely for PR when it comes to Brooks (for PHI it's definitely about Foles).  Casual fans don’t realize it’s not a sacrifice for the player.  Why it’s so easy for teams to get them done.  

[Phire]

16 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The reality is it only benefits Brooks.  He gets the same $ only sooner.  I get you are saying he may not realize that.   It doesn’t change the above though.      Which makes it impossible to call it a sacrifice.  People are always agreeable to something if it costs them nothing or might benefit them. The sacrifice  label doesn’t apply in those cases.  It’s just good PR. 

Unrelated note - if a player doesn’t understand that concept above then that probably makes the argument to always have an agent lol.  

Don’t get me wrong I’m not criticizing Brooks.  Just the narrative is completely off here.  It’s purely for PR.  Casual fans don’t realize it’s not a sacrifice for the player.  Why it’s so easy for teams to get them done.  

I'm only addressing the bolded because I don't necessarily disagree with the rest. I agree that it isn't a sacrifice, but I'm not sure who is saying that. I agree that players don't understand these things and they let sports agents deal with these things.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the bolded, but clearly it benefits the team, and others. Nobody is disputing that Brooks doesn't win here, or that it's a common sense thing. I just disagree with the idea that just because something is beneficial to one person that we still can't find a positive narrative that exists tangentially or even as an accessory to that.

Like if you saved someone who was drowning, who cares if you only did it because you wanted to be seen as a hero, and not necessarily because you cared about whether the person survived or not? Or stated in another way, who cares if saving that drowning person was an obvious thing to do?

So to bring this back full circle, yes, Brooks benefits from this. He gets guaranteed money sooner. It was a common sense thing to do. He isn't taking a pay cut.

But who cares if it was common sense? The franchise benefits greatly from the immediate money relief. The Eagles have a terrible cap situation right now. Who cares if it's an obvious thing to do? Tangentially speaking the team benefits. Otherwise, why would the team ever do this? 

And the team used that cap space to pay another player (Foles) or if not Foles, they'll use that money to pay other players on the roster. So clearly it's not just Brooks who benefits. And ultimately even if Brooks is the primary beneficiary or just a plain beneficiary, that doesn't mean that there aren't others who benefit here that we can point out.

Again, I agree that the praise and any "sacrifice" narrative gets greatly exaggerated and is for PR. But there are practical needs for moves like this from the team's standpoint, and real people do get real benefits from Brooks accepting this restructure, even if the restructure benefits Brooks.

[Phire]

28 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

No, he did it because he gets more guarenteed money out of the deal. 

I'm sure you've done nice things for your wife to get get some benefits later in the day. Doesn't change the fact that you still did something for your wife lol.

[Broncofan]

18 minutes ago, Phire said:

I'm only addressing the bolded because I don't necessarily disagree with the rest. I agree that it isn't a sacrifice, but I'm not sure who is saying that. I agree that players don't understand these things and they let sports agents deal with these things.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the bolded, but clearly it benefits the team, and others. Nobody is disputing that Brooks doesn't win here, or that it's a common sense thing. I just disagree with the idea that just because something is beneficial to one person that we still can't find a positive narrative that exists tangentially or even as an accessory to that.

Like if you saved someone who was drowning, who cares if you only did it because you wanted to be seen as a hero, and not necessarily because you cared about whether the person survived or not? Or stated in another way, who cares if saving that drowning person was an obvious thing to do?

So to bring this back full circle, yes, Brooks benefits from this. He gets guaranteed money sooner. It was a common sense thing to do. He isn't taking a pay cut.

But who cares if it was common sense? The franchise benefits greatly from the immediate money relief. The Eagles have a terrible cap situation right now. Who cares if it's an obvious thing to do? Tangentially speaking the team benefits. Otherwise, why would the team ever do this? 

And the team used that cap space to pay another player (Foles) or if not Foles, they'll use that money to pay other players on the roster. So clearly it's not just Brooks who benefits. And ultimately even if Brooks is the primary beneficiary or just a plain beneficiary, that doesn't mean that there aren't others who benefit here that we can point out.

Again, I agree that the praise and any "sacrifice" narrative gets greatly exaggerated and is for PR. But there are practical needs for moves like this from the team's standpoint, and real people do get real benefits from Brooks accepting this restructure, even if the restructure benefits Brooks.

The whole narrative though about being a good teammate goes with the notion that some sacrifice being made.   To be clear, I wasn't saying Brooks is the only beneficiary - just that it's only a benefit for him to agree.    There is no downside to him agreeing.    Sorry if that wasn't clear, it was meant from his perspective alone.

Every time this kind of news comes out, the PR angle of "being a good teammate/team guy" comes out.  It's completely false if it's because of this decision.  It just makes for good PR. 

[Jroc04]

And maybe Brooks structured his original contract in such a way to delay some money because "whatever reason applies". Money management/spending issues, lawsuit requirement/possible payouts, taxes, general preference, etc. To naturally assume Brooks is just getting guranteed money upfront and it's not effecting his bottom line or possible plans he had for his financial endevours is near sighted. The fact is, he did something with his guranteed contract to benefit others to help promote the health of the team. Was it some charitable, magnanimous act? Not exactly. But it was indeed something that wasn't necessary or required for him to do. 

Also, cite me if I wrong but there were reports out he was going to be restructured months ago. And I think it was just faulty reporting and nothing was actually in the works. But someone, maybe just a fan, asked him about it on twitter and his answer was very flipp. Something like, "uhhh, not if you know something I don't." So, obviously there was some level of understanding that an agreement needed to be yielded to fascilitate a restructure. Something that wouldn't be done without his total accord to the Eagles. I don't understand why someone comes in and tries to belittle the gesture. Just kind of unnecessary. If I tell my debtors that they can change the language of our agreement, whether it ultimately benefits me in the end, is still an act of reason and virtue. Still should be commended. 

[Phire]

6 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The whole narrative though about being a good teammate goes with the notion that some sacrifice being made.   To be clear, I wasn't saying Brooks is the only beneficiary - just that it's only a benefit for him to agree.    There is no downside to him agreeing.    Sorry if that wasn't clear, it was meant from his perspective alone.

Every time this kind of news comes out, the PR angle of "being a good teammate/team guy" comes out.  It's completely false if it's because of this decision.  It just makes for good PR. 

I don't disagree with that.

[Phire]

1 minute ago, Jroc04 said:

If I tell my debtors that they can change the language of our agreement, whether it ultimately benefits me in the end, is still an act of reason and virtue. Still should be commended. 

That's what I was getting at. If you save someone's life because you wanted attention, you still saved a life. If you do something nice for your girlfriend to get laid, you still did something nice. If you restructure your contract to get more guaranteed money sooner, you still gave the franchise more cap space that they can use to pay other players.

I also don't think people are wrong in saying that the "sacrifice" narrative gets played up and exaggerated. I think both points are true simultaneously. 

[Jroc04]

2 minutes ago, Phire said:

That's what I was getting at. If you save someone's life because you wanted attention, you still saved a life. If you do something nice for your girlfriend to get laid, you still did something nice. If you restructure your contract to get more guaranteed money sooner, you still gave the franchise more cap space that they can use to pay other players.

I also don't think people are wrong in saying that the "sacrifice" narrative gets played up and exaggerated. I think both points are true simultaneously. 

Surely. If a guy doesn't actually sacrifice money to help fascilitate a deal then right, there's not much appreciation deserved. But what he did was for the Eagles and ultimately Foles. I mean, I guess Howie could have spun it to him in any way he needed to get him to agree. "Hey, Brooks we should really pay Nicky Nine some money and I can see a way I can do that by reworking your deal". Or maybe he just used that as an excuse to get Jeffrey some more money for those lady boys he's into. Who knows? But what's clear is that Brooks didn't have to do anything for anyone. But he did anyway. That's being a team guy to me. No matter how anyone spins it.