Andrew Brandt clarifies the recent analysis of Peyton Manning's contract and confirms that the cap savings in 2012 were Manning released is indeed $1 million. He believes the cash aspect of the deal however is not tenable:
Again, if somehow, contrary to all indications, the Colts exercise the option on Manning and draft Luck, the combined cash to the two players – who play the same position – would be close to $51 million paid in 2012. Paying $51 million for two players at the same position, only one of which will play, is untenable.
To be clear Brandt is saying that the 2012 cap isn't the issue but rather the $51 million cash outlay for two quarterbacks is a position most teams would not entertain. Given Brandt's experience structuring Brett Favre's contract you can trust that he understands how a scenario like this generally plays out.
Damn, and how much does Freeney cost against the cap? 19 mill next year..and if we cut him we save 14 million correct?
Cut Freeney, re-sign Mathis, keep Peyton for 2 more years while Luck "learns" from the bench.
My arguement is while yeah, we may not win another Super Bowl while keeping both of them..at least we wont be going thru 2 str8 years of 5-11, 6-10 records while Luck learns the position and we "re-build"
@Dezznutz1001 Except keeping Peyton for two more years and then releasing him would result in a monster cap hit (around $20M). If you truly believe we're not going to the Super Bowl during that time anyway, why on earth would you keep Manning? Better to reload with young talent and let them play and learn. Fans will happily suffer through a bad season or two, as long as they see progress with the team.
@18to88 $17M charge if kept vs. $10.4 if released is greater than $1M.
So it is "Damned if you do and Damned if you don't!" It seems that if Manning is healthy you keep him for the remainder of his contract, don't draft Luck or RG3, get a good backup QB and draft a defensive crew and hope like hell a good QB comes along when Manning's contract is over.
Reading this, I would say the the firing of the Polians might have as much to do with the structure of this contract as it did their bad behavior and failure to have an adequate backup. The contract seems really bad in the sense that even if Manning is cut, the Colts STILL take a $10MM salary cap hit. So, no backup to Manning was in place, and, when faced with moving onward, you have to pay a hefty cap hit. I contrast that to how the article describes Favre's cap hit. If you believe Brandt, that was intentional (Favre's low dead money). Wish the Colts situation was more similar. Paul
I think Brandt is tooting his own horn a bit more than it needs to be. I can't find exact details, but from what I gather, Favre's contract was signed in 2001. So the reason there was so little dead money is simply because all his prorations had already occurred by 2006.
I would love to see the actual contract(s) though. If he was doing clever things that extend beyond that, I want to learn what they were.
You may have hit the nail squarley on the head right thee.
I dotn know if its smoke screen or not, but listening to Peyton AND Irsay talk, they have menitoned thye could re-structure the contract if they both agree to it