Tom Brady takes MUCH less to help out Patriots [guaranteed money nearly doubles] (1 Viewer)

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Brady won more Superbowls too.

Brady just helped his team in a way Brees wouldn't.

Kinda assumptious right there. Who knows, maybe Brees does something similar in a year or 2. Makes no sense to do now because his contract was already structured to be backloaded.

 

[E Pluribus Unum]

You don't understand the topic you're posting about.

Brees would be fine "helping" his team in the exact same way if they so chose. This "help" not only costs Brady nothing, it makes him more money.

Yeah, right.

(Drew Brees doesn't like you. You're not his friend.)

 

[SaintsJunkie]

oh i see he wants to keep welker, and get some guaranteed money

 

[Euphonetiks]

It helps when your wife makes $80 million a year.

Right, because he surely could not survive on the $60+ million he has already made and the $27M extension without his sugar momma.

 

[bradman1965]

Yeah that sounds fantastic. Except that contract runs until he is 41.

It's possible he'll still be playing at 41 but he won't be worth $20 million a year anymore and, odds are, he won't be playing then.

This isn't a tremendous sacrifice on Brady's part, this is a cap move the Patriots will have to pay for eventually. But they are correctly estimating that they'll suck anyways the year Brady retires, so just pay all the bills then.

The Saints should do the same thing.

Where is the back-end hit? He's signing up for a below market contract, not reconfiguring an existing one.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Joe Flacco is somewhere cussing.

 

[daybreaker]

Kinda assumptious right there. Who knows, maybe Brees does something similar in a year or 2. Makes no sense to do now because his contract was already structured to be backloaded.

Exactly. Brady has *been* making the kind of money Brees has only made for one season. And Brady is 3 years older.

You cant bash Brees for this unless 5 years down the road, he holds out for another 6 year $100mil contract.

Comparing what a 37 year old QB who has been making bank does on his final contract to what a 33 year old QB in the prime of his career did on his first post-superbowl big money contract is ridiculous.

 

[LSSpam]

Where is the back-end hit? He's signing up for a below market contract, not reconfiguring an existing one.

Because it's doubtful he plays until he is 41 years old. The purpose of extending the deal was so the pro-ration would be spread out over a longer period of time. When you convert his 2013 pay into guaranteed money, spreading it over 6 years, not 3, halves the effective cap hit. It's an accounting move.

Consequently, while the base salary for years 4,5,6 is "less than half",

1) the effective cap number will be more than half

2) if he isn't playing at ages 40 and 41 but retires, they'll owe a substantial cap number for a guy not even playing.

He was due to count $43.6 million on the New England salary cap in 2013 and 2014. Now, his cap numbers will add up to $28.6 million in the next two years, a savings of $15 million in cap dollars at a time the Patriots have free agents they want to sign to help keep the team atop the AFC East, which they have dominated since Brady took over at quarterback in 2001.

Read More: Tom Brady, New England Patriots agree on three-year extension - NFL - Peter King - SI.com

That $15 million is still paid. It's even paid right now. He actually gets that $15 million quicker. But from a cap perspective it's now spread out over a long period of time, increasing cap space.

 

[bradman1965]

Comparing what a 37 year old QB who has been making bank does on his final contract to what a 33 year old QB in the prime of his career did on his first post-superbowl big money contract is ridiculous.

How is it ridiculous? Brady signs a contract that is way below market value because he wants to play with the Patriots for the rest of his career. You can certainly argue about the circumstances, whether he needs the money etc., but this isn't a jiggling of the cap, a restructure or any kind of accounting move. He's just taking less then the market will bear.

 

[cpg]

Because it's doubtful he plays until he is 41 years old. The purpose of extending the deal was so the pro-ration would be spread out over a longer period of time. When you convert his 2013 pay into guaranteed money, spreading it over 6 years, not 3, halves the effective cap hit. It's an accounting move.

Consequently, while the base salary for years 4,5,6 is "less than half",

1) the effective cap number will be more than half

2) if he isn't playing at ages 40 and 41 but retires, they'll owe a substantial cap number for a guy not even playing.



That $15 million is still paid. It's even paid right now. He actually gets that $15 million quicker. But from a cap perspective it's now spread out over a long period of time, increasing cap space.

Exactly. In fact, if I am understanding this correctly, this guarantees Brady close to 50 million over the next 3 years. Conversely, 60 million was guaranted in Brees' deal.

 

[LSSpam]

Exactly. Brady has *been* making the kind of money Brees has only made for one season. And Brady is 3 years older.

You cant bash Brees for this unless 5 years down the road, he holds out for another 6 year $100mil contract.

Comparing what a 37 year old QB who has been making bank does on his final contract to what a 33 year old QB in the prime of his career did on his first post-superbowl big money contract is ridiculous.

Brees will do it. We cant afford the $27 million cap number in, I think it's 2015.

That insane jump of a cap figure is specifically set to trigger a renegotiation. He'll be, what? 36? then. We're not going to pay him $27 million, a fact he knows. At that point we make a decision about extending him, essentially doing what the Patriots just did with Brady, taking him into retirement, or pulling a Green Bay/Brett Favre. At that point with only 2 years left on his deal we could likely easily trade or cut him if we so chose (doubtful of course).

 

[Burtifus]

Because it's doubtful he plays until he is 41 years old.

With the level Brady is currently playing at I'd give him even odds to still be playing at 41.

The purpose of extending the deal was so the pro-ration would be spread out over a longer period of time. When you convert his 2013 pay into guaranteed money, spreading it over 6 years, not 3, halves the effective cap hit. It's an accounting move.

You're right but he didn't have to sign such low base salaries if all they were looking to do was spread out guaranteed money. He could have agreed to large base salaries that would have forced a renegotiation in 2 years but supplied the Pats with cap room now.

2) if he isn't playing at ages 40 and 41 but retires, they'll owe a substantial cap number for a guy not even playing.

They've only added $3 million more in "new" guaranteed money. They haven't taken on any additional large amount of guaranteed dollars. They've just spread it out much more evenly and locked in a HOF QB at a discount at ages 39, 40 and 41 if he's still playing well.

 

[LSSpam]

How is it ridiculous? Brady signs a contract that is way below market value because he wants to play with the Patriots for the rest of his career. You can certainly argue about the circumstances, whether he needs the money etc., but this isn't a jiggling of the cap, a restructure or any kind of accounting move. He's just taking less then the market will bear.

I don't understand where this misunderstanding is coming from.

There is no market for 39 year old quarterbacks. If there was, it would be Brett Favre's one deal at 39 which was for 2 years at $25 million, or around what Brady's "extension" is.

Brady is not making below market up until he is 38 years old. However, by signing the extension now, they can pro-rate his current market rate (he is making more then Brees these next two years mind you) over the space of that extended contract.

It is a jiggling of the cap. He is not taking less then the market will bear.

 

[bradman1965]

Because it's doubtful he plays until he is 41 years old. The purpose of extending the deal was so the pro-ration would be spread out over a longer period of time. When you convert his 2013 pay into guaranteed money, spreading it over 6 years, not 3, halves the effective cap hit. It's an accounting move.

Consequently, while the base salary for years 4,5,6 is "less than half",

1) the effective cap number will be more than half

2) if he isn't playing at ages 40 and 41 but retires, they'll owe a substantial cap number for a guy not even playing.



That $15 million is still paid. It's even paid right now. He actually gets that $15 million quicker. But from a cap perspective it's now spread out over a long period of time, increasing cap space.

I still don't see how you get taking 30% less then the market will bear over the last 10 years of his career as a cap related move, but let's hope our guy feels that same dedication when it's time to sort out his contract.

 

[LSSpam]

With the level Brady is currently playing at I'd give him even odds to still be playing at 41.



You're right but he didn't have to sign such low base salaries if all they were looking to do was spread out guaranteed money. He could have agreed to large base salaries that would have forced a renegotiation in 2 years but supplied the Pats with cap room now.



They've only added $3 million more in "new" guaranteed money. They haven't taken on any additional large amount of guaranteed dollars. They've just spread it out much more evenly and locked in a HOF QB at a discount at ages 39, 40 and 41 if he's still playing well.

What discount?

39 year old quarterbacks do not have markets. They certainly do not have $20 million dollar a year markets. There has been 1 effective 39 year old quarterback in the Super Bowl era, and he made $12 million a year in 2009 and 2010. This is not a below market deal. Geeeez