SI, Andrew Brandt: Elite QBs should not take less money to help their team

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,849
Reaction score
47,667
I think Brandt is talking in generalities. Tom Brady obviously took less money for a long time allowing NE to keep their defense stocked and give him some weapons. He left NE frustrated b/c NE stopped getting him weapons with the discount he gave them.

I also disagree that saving cash helps owners. As Brandt himself stated in this piece, owners are already multi-billionaires. They don't need cash. So, that argument holds no water. Owners like Jerry Jones would spend far more than the cap allows, if he could.

The fact is that there is a finite amount of money teams can use to sign players and they are obligated to spend it by the CBA. So, if Dak decided to sign a contract worth 40M a year instead of 50M, that 10M savings doesn't go into the owners pocket. It goes to another player.
Takes a real simpleton not to understand this.
 

diamonddelts

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,845
Reaction score
3,945
That's a dreamworld viewpoint.

You're asking the the owners should simply dump valuable assets just because the said asset wants to leave. Very strange viewpoint.
Well personally I don't like the word owner or assets for obvious reasons. These are flesh and blood human beings. I'm simply saying I support a free market economy.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,730
Reaction score
17,998
You are incorrect. There is a salary minimum. If the player doesn't get it, it goes to other players.

Gawdawmighty where do you guys get these screwball ideas from?
I did mention in another comments that there is a salary cap floor. cap floor does not equal cap max.
but if an owner decides not to pay out a lot of up front cash and get to the maximum cap space, then that money stays in his pockets. its all about when you pay out. cash up front is worth a lot more than cash later.

basic accounting and finance son. take a course. you will understand then.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,849
Reaction score
47,667
Well personally I don't like the word owner or assets for obvious reasons. These are flesh and blood human beings. I'm simply saying I support a free market economy.
All employees are assets.

Free market comes w/ rules. The freedom comes from any player having the freedom to play football or not. You have to follow the rules of any place you work.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,730
Reaction score
17,998
No, it doesn't.
so last year the cowboys had 20M in cap space left at the end of the year. they could have signed a player and paid him 20M. they didn't. where did that money go?

there is a cap floor. it doesn't equal cap max. there is lies the difference in money that's either spent, or not spent. per the NFLPA/Owners contract Teams must spend at least 89% of the cap over a four-year period. not 100%. that includes bonuses and salaries paid over the period that counts against that cap year. simple accounting son. simple accounting. I suggest you take a finance/accounting course in your local community college so you can get better understanding. not for the sake of this debate, but for life management.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,849
Reaction score
47,667
I did mention in another comments that there is a salary cap floor. cap floor does not equal cap max.
but if an owner decides not to pay out a lot of up front cash and get to the maximum cap space, then that money stays in his pockets. its all about when you pay out. cash up front is worth a lot more than cash later.

basic accounting and finance son. take a course. you will understand then.
Might want to get someone else to explain then, son, because it's quite obvious that you have no idea!!!!!!
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,849
Reaction score
47,667
so last year the cowboys had 20M in cap space left at the end of the year. they could have signed a player and paid him 20M. they didn't. where did that money go?

there is a cap floor. it doesn't equal cap max. there is lies the difference in money that's either spent, or not spent. per the NFLPA/Owners contract Teams must spend at least 89% of the cap over a four-year period. not 100%. that includes bonuses and salaries paid over the period that counts against that cap year. simple accounting son. simple accounting. I suggest you take a finance/accounting course in your local community college so you can get better understanding. not for the sake of this debate, but for life management.
To the next season.

I suggest you go back to school, as it's obvious you didn't take much from what you did get, son.
 

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,158
Reaction score
11,101
Yet you have none of that vitriol for the owners who take part in the same salary negotiations. Funny how that works.
There's one of your problems. You're seeing "vitriol" where there is none.

Your next problem is you are making this simply about owner vs player and completely ignoring the salary cap and how that affects the team and the fans.

In my perfect world there would be no cap and I wouldn't care one bit how much a player could milk an owner for.

You've also drifted from my point, which was that the league, or society, doesn't owe the player the ability to set himself and future generations up for life based on a short career that is over by 30-35 years old. The fact that the massive revenue generated by the NFL allows these players to set themselves up for life in such a short time is great for them and I don't begrudge them in any way. They should get their share. However, turning down very fair offers which would set them and future generation up for life, to get the absolute biggest bag they can, at the expense of the team and fans, is greedy and shortsighted.

If you were handed 80 million dollars you couldn't make that work to set yourself and future generations up for life? You would need another 20 million and then another 100 million in four or five years? If so... I'm going to have to question your business acumen. lol
 

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,158
Reaction score
11,101
well, if a owner decides not to pay out full cap (although there is a cap floor), the money does go to the owner. also, owners can decide not to pay out more cash up front, deferring cap hit to future years, which means the cash goes to his pocket. its money management. simple.
This is just wrong.

The only thing an owner can decide is what he offers. Once the contract is agreed upon there is no deciding of anything by a single party. It often happens that agreements are made in which cash is paid out ahead of the original contract terms as a CAP management tool but I challenge you to give me one example of an owner "deciding to not pay out more cash" which resulted in a deferred cap hit and cash going into the owners pocket.
 

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
67,075
Reaction score
84,671
You guys need to stop using Brady........he was an exception to the rule, everyone knows that. He and Belichick will probably go down as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, QB and coach combinations ever. As we all know, money was never an issue with Brady coz of his former wife. In fact, I'm not sure we can find/name more than two other QBs over the last 50 years who signed career contracts for less than their full value. Wonder why ...........

Brady’s wife had 0 to do with it lol.

He was winning before her.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,557
Reaction score
15,595
What players did the Patriots go out and pay with the money save from Brady? They didn't and Brady started to see it.
Well this is why I say if I was a qb and took less $ I would want to spend that $ on the players I want.
Otherwise they can not spend it and let it roll into next year, or get players that you dont approve of.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,730
Reaction score
17,998
This is just wrong.

The only thing an owner can decide is what he offers. Once the contract is agreed upon there is no deciding of anything by a single party. It often happens that agreements are made in which cash is paid out ahead of the original contract terms as a CAP management tool but I challenge you to give me one example of an owner "deciding to not pay out more cash" which resulted in a deferred cap hit and cash going into the owners pocket.
huh? never argued against that. but the owner doesn't have to spend a penny over the cap floor over a 4 year span. some owner spend a 100%..... that 11% difference stays in the owners pocket. i.e. Cowboys had 20M on the cap last year. and decided not to sign a player, which they could have....that 20M stayed in Jone's pocket.
 

CowboyoWales

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,050
Reaction score
4,405
huh? never argued against that. but the owner doesn't have to spend a penny over the cap floor over a 4 year span. some owner spend a 100%..... that 11% difference stays in the owners pocket. i.e. Cowboys had 20M on the cap last year. and decided not to sign a player, which they could have....that 20M stayed in Jone's pocket.
You're still confusing CAP with spending...
 

Dre11

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,686
Reaction score
11,450
BS. Pats always signed a plethora of D players every year w/ the money they saved from Brady, not to mention some OL's. Think before you speak.
Name a player they spent money on. They cut high price vets. Name them
 

TheMarathonContinues

Well-Known Member
Messages
75,612
Reaction score
70,038
BS. Pats always signed a plethora of D players every year w/ the money they saved from Brady, not to mention some OL's. Think before you speak.
I actually don't remember then signing anyone to a big deal. What players are you referencing?
 

Toro9

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
1,771
Why not? Why is anyone's business but their own if they wanna help their team? I know Brady took less. Won a couple more SBs with NE for it.
 
Top