Discussing Peyton Manning's Contract Situation with Andrew Brandt
Greg Cowan and Laura Calaway sit down for a conversation with National Football Post and ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt to discuss Peyton Manning's contract situation.
Listen to internet radio with Check it to Pancakes Colts on Blog Talk Radio
Greg and Laura are joined by National Football Post and ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt for a special edition of the podcast.
The conversation, which lasts approximately 25 minutes, focuses on Peyton Manning, his future with the Colts, and understanding the how, why, and what regarding his situation and the various outcomes.
Brandt mentioned something about how the usual rookie contracts are front loaded!
If Luck and Manning were to be on the team at the same time (i know unlikely), how likely/possible would it be for the Colts to ask Luck to sign a back loaded contract?
That way you're not taking as much of a cap/cash hit in the first years when Luck wouldn't be playing?
Two issues with this:
1- There's a 25% rule that applies in the rookie contracts. The rookie's cap number can only increase 25% year over year. This includes any proration in that calculation.
2- As with all contracts, deferred money means it's not as player-friendly, meaning the player is a bit less likely to sign it. The agent is almost certain to demand as much money up front as possible.
1 Like
Maybe this will help explain it:
http://thesarcasm.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/manningsalaryendallbeall.jpg
Very nice work. I think the biggest thing he said is that the 28 mil was already prorated into the 2011 cap, and so it would result in an additional 5.6 mil credit to the 2012 cap if Manning is cut on top of the the 5.6 wd get back in 2012.
1 Like
@CrizzleColts Yea, I was happy to hear him say this for selfish reasons. I'm pretty sure Joe Baker got this right when he wrote about it a month or so ago, but then some reports came out that his cap hit would be 16+million in 2012 even if he was cut, so it definitely created some confusion.
Here I go with semantics again, but the confusion is mostly over the wording. (I had the same initial thoughts.) Brandt described it as him counting $10.4 against 2012's cap if cut, but in this case it IS functionally the exact same thing as him counting $16m dead against 2012 and the cap being given a $5.6m credit. You can call it either/or, the amount of available cap space is unchanged.
(Boy, now would really be a great time for the cap FAQ I wrote to be totally HTML-ized and live on the internet instead of written but not formatted and taking up space on my hard drive...)
Right. Either way you phrase it, his release results in $10.4m of money that they cannot spend on other players.
(Which, when added to the wads of cash they still have to eat for Hayden and others, is what creates the cap difficulty everyone mentions, even though the actual salaries listed on your spreadsheet here don't add up to that much.)
That's what I was saying: it's the same either way. I wasn't trying to argue, only to say both ways of looking at it arrive at the same answer.
"So what is Manning’s 2012 Cap charge to the Colts if released?
$16 million (the amount of accelerated bonus proration) MINUS $5.6 million (the amount of credited option bonus proration) EQUALS $10.4 million.
Thus, if the Colts move on from Manning, the consequences of the contract signed five months ago will be $26.4 million in cash and $10.4 million in leftover "dead money" Cap charges. "
And this is my point, by the way: we arrive at the same answer: a 10.4 MM cap hit, but you are like, 'well no, it's a $16MM cap hit. And then a credit."
The Colts will owe 10.4MM against the cap if Manning is cut. Our purpose (obviously mistakenly) was to try to give people the facts they needed to understand the situation moving forward.
Maybe not. He's an agent now so he could be missing information. But in general he's still right: it only costs $1m more from the available 2012 cap space if he plays.
Maybe I missed something in both his writing and in our conversation, but I don't believe you're entirely accurate. I believe Brandt is reporting something different from Halsell, same team cap, but different hit for Manning. Do not believe Halsell was taking into account the credit.
Said a simpler way, in Halsell's $16m scenario, he counts $16m against a ~$121m Salary Cap. In Brandt's, he counts $10.4m against a ~$126.6m salary cap. The amount of available money to be spent on other players is the same in either situation.
Not following this sentence: "What comment did I make and what comment did you respond to, and, when you tell me that, tell me what his corresponding cap hit to that situation would be, thanks in advance!"
But the ADD question is kind of what I was referencing in the semantics statement above. Halsell isn't wrong; regardless of how you describe the application of that $5.6m from 2011, Manning would only cost the Colts $1m in additional cap space if they kept him around for next year.
But if they pay the $28m and he can't play, there's really no way around it: They're fucked. This is why Florio and others have said that the contract is effectively guaranteed. To cut him at any point after paying the bonus cripples the team.
As of right now, his cap hit is $4m of proration from his $20m signing bonus.
If the Option Bonus that triggers contract years 2012-2015 is exercised, there will also be $7.4m in Paragraph 5 salary added, as well as the $5.6m proration from the $28m bonus in question.
If he is cut, they will receive a credit of $5.6m to account for that amount having been counted in the 2011 cap, but $12m more will be accelerated for the $4m Signing Bonus prorations scheduled to occur in 2013-15.
@WillyDuer I'm sorry, I thought my comment was about his cap hit if he were cut, and I thought you responded to that comment. Thanks for correcting me again. What comment did I make and what comment did you respond to, and, when you tell me that, tell me what his corresponding cap hit to that situation would be, thanks in advance!
And since I have ADD, tell me how that cap hit might be at conflict with something like the following, which was picked up nationally: http://www.coltsauthority.com/links/articles/manning-wont-be-a-cap-casualty.html
His cap hit in 2012 will not be determined until action is taken with regards to the March 8 Option exercise clause in his contract.
@WillyDuer (I already know the answer, I'm just waiting for your reply so I can move this along)
Nice work. Andrew has been the most reliable guy when it comes to evaluating Manning's contract situation. A couple of key points that reiterates what most of us here have been saying:
1) There's no incentive for Manning to move the option bonus date and it's debatable that they could move it
2) Manning's cap number is manageable in 2012 but the cash situation is not
3) This contract is highly unusual due to it's relationship to the league year and forces Jim Irsay's hand; Manning has all the leverage and Irsay must decide if he wants to pay the $28M.
Very good discussion with Andrew Brandt.
@coltsauth_todd Thanks Todd. I honestly believe the cash situation is imminently manageable. If Peyton were healthy, I think Irsay would pay double or triple in cash.
1 Like
@LovinBlue I agree. The cap in the last three years of the deal gets tricky. It becomes particularly tough if you have any doubt whatsoever that he'll be able to play the remainder of the contract. Still it was Irsay who framed this as a discussion about the cap. He invited Manning to help him with the cap situation. In that context I would politely say that Irsay's argument lacks the kind of strength I'd need to walk away from a QB of Manning's caliber.
What Irsay should have done was clam up, only say that Manning is healing and that the team would keep an eye on the progress with hopes that he return to the team. If Manning's not ready then tell the fans that as much as he'd like to count on Manning the team had to make a tough choice and go with Luck. If Irsay simply prefers not to spend the money, then just say it. It's that simple.
1 Like
The cash situation IS manageable, or else they wouldn't have signed the deal. It's just stupid. It locks them into 4 more years and devotes a ton of money to one position, which weakens the team. But the deferrals make it manageable, cash-wise, if one really felt like doing it.
FWIW, Greg, he didn't correct you when you used the term "roster bonus" repeatedly; but there's a difference between Roster and Option bonuses. This is not a roster bonus. Roster bonuses only hit against one year of the cap.
@WillyDuer@coltsauth_todd Roster Bonuses are then converted to signing bonuses and prorated over the life of the contract.
@WillyDuer@GregC Please don't use trump and business in the same sentence, it makes you seem Douchey.
#1 is a good one. I'm guessing that the answer is "yes and no." You'd better believe that an owner like Irsay has emotions and feels an obligation to Manning. But the obligation to the franchise as a business has to (eventually) trump that.
I'm sure that some decisions have been (and will be in the future) made in which emotions lead the way. They're probably almost universally regarded as bad decisions, though.
(One of the reasons I generally root for the Packers is because I applauded Thompson and Murphy's ability to make the right decision, emotions be damned, and furthermore I wanted badly for Rodgers to outperform Favre and embarrass that drama queen. Also I selfishly wanted it to make me look smarter because I had tons of internet arguments about those two QBs. And I do love me a good internet argument!)
The answer to #2 isn't so well known and probably wouldn't make good radio. Articles 15 and 16 of the CBA cover some basics of the arbitration process, I know... but I don't know any details.
Anyway, I don't know... always liked your writing, wanted to hear the voice? Curious to see what else he might say? Bored? Can't get enough of cap and contract talk? Probably a little of each. I can't speak to why I included only that in the comment, though. I just know that I didn't mean anything by it.
@WillyDuer Seriously, I don't need my ego stroked. I have no "ego" regarding this, and as soon as the interview was over I harped on multiple things I could have done to make it better (some obvious questions missed:
1) does a franchise feel a sense of obligation to star players, and will emotions ever factor into the decisions.
2) I wanted to follow up on the arbitration process, even though it may only be interesting to me, I wasn't sure how that situation would work out)
So you already knew the information better than everyone, you didn't need the interview, so you listened and you commented, why?
Ugh. Fine. I apologize for not stroking your ego. Didn't realize that was required. I typed that while I was still listening and that was what was fresh in my mind. I didn't mean anything by it. Here:
Greg, as a first-time listener to your podcast (as I do not usually listen to these due to it requiring speakers to be on), I was impressed by the content you have added to this already-excellent site, which by the way is my favorite on the internet. As a participant in the discussions on Brandt's site and in his articles, I was impressed that you tracked down a noted authority to get 25 minutes of his time, and I liked that you guided him through a series of well-written questions. I enjoyed your demonstration of wit when teasing Laura about being in a conference room, and thank you for providing us all with a chance to hear Brandt describe the same things he already wrote about in his articles.
There. Douchey enough for you? If you're going to give me the label, I might as well live up to it.
1) addressed above.
2) If you don't see yourself as being overly defensive and provoking this, that's more of an issue with you than me. Go ahead and put it to a vote. I'm being a dick now, but I'd love to see who else out there thinks I started this.
3) Not relevant. Especially not relevant since the ability of Manning's contract to even be renegotiated is questioned in this case. (For the record, my interpretation of the CBA is that it is; a veteran contract may be re-negotiated at any time for the first time, and may then not be renegotiated for a year following the first reneg if it involves additional money being added. But I share Brandt's opinion that this doesn't really matter, and that's true whether or not changing a date technically counts as a renegotiation (which it likely would, given that it does change the terms of the original deal, even if the money doesn't change).
Other instances of players agreeing to or refusing to renegotiate have nothing to do with the fact that this bonus has already been pro-rated, and was at the time of signing, which thus means it is not, and never was at any point, a roster bonus.
Enough. I've even already apologized, which still wasn't good enough for you. I don't care. Call it whatever you want.
@WillyDuer There was a 25-minute interview done, and this is your only comment to one of the people conducting the interview:
"FWIW, Greg, he didn't correct you when you used the term "roster bonus" repeatedly; but there's a difference between Roster and Option bonuses. This is not a roster bonus. Roster bonuses only hit against one year of the cap."
1) if that's all you took away from the conversation, insert something witty here.
2) I'm open to being corrected, I'm open to back-and-forth conversations, when people can do it in a respectful manner. If you don't see how what you wrote is douchey, that's more an issue with you than me.
3) Please give me the list of players that have refused to renegotiate and have the roster bonus converted to signing bonus, especially larger ones, thanks.
Oh give me a break. I'm droning on about it because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today and accused me of something I didn't do and then attempted to argue with me about it. I initially posted one harmless clarification and now you're resorting to childish retorts and making yourself look immature. Did BBS hack your account or something?
But, since you've gone this far, I will continue. No, functionally they are not the same. If it was a Roster Bonus, the cap hit would NOT be prorated unless the contract was renegotiated and the bonus converted to signing bonus. Feel free to call Brandt back and ask him.
@WillyDuer And again, just for the record: the roster bonus and option bonus would function in the exact. same. way. If he's not on the roster on March 8th, he's not paid the money. If he is on the roster on March 8th, he's paid the money and the Colts would prorate his cap hit.
@WillyDuer Assuming you're right: Brandt didn't find the need to correct it, the fact that you're still droning on about it should tell you something. You (specifically) shouldn't bother reading or listening to my stuff in the future, I don't want to drag you (specifically) down. Thanks!
I don't see anything at all that's impolite about that statement. The only thing I find impolite about any of the comments in this post is you calling me douchey.
Look, I get that to most fans the distinction is meaningless and it's just semantics. But this site prides itself on being right about stuff, and that's what I like about it. Option bonuses prorate, this bonus prorates (at 5.6m per, including into 2011, which he pointed out). Roster bonuses don't, but you're correct, they are often converted (via a contract renegotiation) into signing bonuses, which do. None of it really matters because they're not going to pay it anyway, but some folks here are geeks like me and it can't hurt to make the distinction.
@WillyDuer You think,
"FWIW, Greg, he didn't correct you when you used the term "roster bonus" repeatedly; but there's a difference between Roster and Option bonuses."
Is politely stating a fact? Okay. It's not a big deal, because the situations are identical, you, however, think it's a big deal.
Seriously?
Since when is politely stating a fact douchey? Hell, I even included it in a reply to another post rather than as a top level reply because I didn't want it to seem like a big deal.
@WillyDuer@coltsauth_todd because what you said was douchey, and as much as you have a right to post it, I have a right to call it what it is.
I don't know why you're getting defensive. It's not a big deal.
But it's also not a roster bonus.
@WillyDuer@coltsauth_todd Brandt - who was very helpful and insightful - had no problem correcting us or pushing us in a different direction throughout the interview. I would say there are two reasons why he didn't correct my crime against humanity in referring to the March 8th bonus as a roster bonus:
1) Because it's a roster bonus
2) because the bonus on the 8th would operate in the same manner of a roster bonus, and therefore, he didn't think it was worth correcting someone over semantics (thankfully we have you here)
An option bonus, on the other hand, always pro-rates. It is functionally the same thing as a signing bonus for a new contract (as it turns on the future years in the contract, or in the alternative voids them and makes the player a free agent) so it is treated as such.
There are also reporting bonuses, which you just get for showing up. They're similar to roster bonuses but with different timing.
Not always. Look at Asomugha's payout when he signed last summer.
That's a means of freeing up space and getting flexibility, but sometimes it's better to eat it in one dose and free up the next 4 (or however many) years.
