I wish the search was more robust, so we could go back and see when the concept of a "Brady Window" first became a common idea. I guess it was around 2009?
2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma
- Thread starter bakahump
- Start date
How do you even begin the negotiation for that extension?
'Um, yeah, so The GOAT has three years left, we're talking extension with him as well, so what we want to do, we know you're gonna be 26 when your contract runs out, but we'd like to give you an extension so that you presumably can be the successor to TB when he finally gets hurt or retires. It very well might not happen until you're in your thirties, but we'll pay you a little better than most back ups and instead of you going and, ya know, actually playing and making enough money to set you for the rest of your life, you just hold a clipboard and every once in a while, when Tom allows it, you can take some snaps at the end of blowouts. Cool?'
'Um, yeah, so The GOAT has three years left, we're talking extension with him as well, so what we want to do, we know you're gonna be 26 when your contract runs out, but we'd like to give you an extension so that you presumably can be the successor to TB when he finally gets hurt or retires. It very well might not happen until you're in your thirties, but we'll pay you a little better than most back ups and instead of you going and, ya know, actually playing and making enough money to set you for the rest of your life, you just hold a clipboard and every once in a while, when Tom allows it, you can take some snaps at the end of blowouts. Cool?'
For the same reason that anyone signs an extension - to get money now. Garoppolo has made about $2.2M at this point - an extension at medium money is a lifechanging event for him.
Yes, he'd be sacrificing future earnings, but guys do that all the time. Its all about what those actual numbers are.
The "Brady has 3 years left" is a huge assumption that relies on a whole bunch of other assumptions.
Right. I addressed that. The discount is likely to be pretty small given he is unlikely have an opportunity to play in New England, the Pats will have to pay him like $25MM of guaranteed money to stay here for 2018 in 12 months, and the QB free agency market is stupid.
Osweiller got $37MM guaranteed for four years. So maybe if the Pats offered something like four years $65MM with $32MM of guaranteed money or something like that Jimmy G would listen if he was cool with not starting until he's 30/an 8 year vet (now Im skeptical Brady can play until 45, but he has to be cool with that potential outcome to sign a new deal.
But even then his contract would expire one year past Brady's and Brady and the team are discussing an extension. So the Pats would be paying something like 8-10% of the salary cap on average over the life of the contract for an insurance policy and the right to pay another giant contract out in 2020.
Seems like a stretch to me.
Osweiller got $37MM guaranteed for four years. So maybe if the Pats offered something like four years $65MM with $32MM of guaranteed money or something like that Jimmy G would listen if he was cool with not starting until he's 30/an 8 year vet (now Im skeptical Brady can play until 45, but he has to be cool with that potential outcome to sign a new deal.
But even then his contract would expire one year past Brady's and Brady and the team are discussing an extension. So the Pats would be paying something like 8-10% of the salary cap on average over the life of the contract for an insurance policy and the right to pay another giant contract out in 2020.
Seems like a stretch to me.
There's a big difference between "cashing in all your chips" and "maximizing your potential to win".
Do people really think that trading JG (for a good return) is "cashing in all your chips"?
He's not even a major chip right now. He might be, down the road. We don't really know that.
But, a "might be, down the road" chip might not be as valuable as a first round draft pick.
That pick could easily turn into a great pass rusher, or O-line pickups, or whatever. Would having that asset in the near term help or hinder the ability of the ability of the Patriots to win?
(I do take issue with what heavyde050 said: it would not be a failure if the Pats don't win an additional Super Bowl title. That's too high a bar.)
Unless BB thinks JG has the potential to be irreplaceably good (I don't know, top 1/4 or 1/3 of league QB's?), then he's replaceable.
Will BB sacrifice the very good potential to win in the next few years (using current assets, in a responsible way, to bolster the apocryphal "Brady Window") based on the assumption that JG is so certain to be good that BB thinks he can't groom a real replacement in the next couple of years?
What would happen if they traded JG, Brady goes down next year, and JB is terrible (bottom third or worse)?
Would BB be able to take on a veteran for a couple of years? Is the performance upside of JG so much higher than some other adequate veteran?
Don't forget: JG might not prove to be as open to long term contract deals as Brady has been. If he's good, and demands to get paid top dollar, does that then negatively impact BB's ability to put together a winner as BB has to either pay huge sums for that position, or seek out a replacement down the road anyway?
This is where I stand too. An extension isn't likely but it's not a ridiculous idea at all. Locking in security is a huge priority for all NFL players and JG isn't an exception. Many bad things could happen to him between now and next offseason that could hurt his market.
I agree. It's just basic negotiating. "Hey, are you interested in selling me X?"
Answer Option 1: "Hell, yeah. I'd love to get something for it since I really have no use for it."
Answer Option 2: "Nah. I'm going to hold on to it, I think."
Option 2 has the risk of signaling that you would never sell.
Option 1 has the risk of downsizing your return.
If you're the Patriots, why would you be saying anything differently right now? There's no rush to move JG, there's no roster moves that need to be made or bonuses to be paid out. The Pats are going to keep saying this until someone gives them an offer they actually like. If CLE or SF or whoever doesn't step up by the draft, the Pats have the best backup QB in the league to protect their 40 yr old GOAT on cheap money.
As has been said ad nauseam, he'd also sacrifice actually playing football.
Do people think that JG doesn't actually want to, ya know, play? That he wants to hold a clipboard until he's 30?
TB staying at this pace is debatable, clearly, but he's going to get to play as long as he wants to. Right now, that's three more years, minimum. Short of career ending injury, JG is never seeing the field and if he plans his future otherwise, then Don Yee will have filled slot #2 on piss poor advice he's given his QBs.
And they aren't going to pay him the kind of dollars it would take. He could easily get Osweiller level money and the Pats aren't spending that on a backup for a guy who outside one season has never missed a game, no matter how old he is.
TB staying at this pace is debatable, clearly, but he's going to get to play as long as he wants to. Right now, that's three more years, minimum. Short of career ending injury, JG is never seeing the field and if he plans his future otherwise, then Don Yee will have filled slot #2 on piss poor advice he's given his QBs.
And they aren't going to pay him the kind of dollars it would take. He could easily get Osweiller level money and the Pats aren't spending that on a backup for a guy who outside one season has never missed a game, no matter how old he is.
But realistically, there is a "window".
The fact that Brady has exceeded all expectations of that window doesn't mean there isn't one. He has singularly outperformed everyone else in this regard. How much longer will that work?
"There's no such thing as a "Brady Window", so shouldn't trade assets to capitalize on Brady now. He needs to hold on to JG because we need a QB for the future".
huh?
if there's no "Brady Window", then you HAVE to trade JG for good draft picks, otherwise you're totally wasting your assets.
Trading Garoppolo is not at all antithetical to the way BB has run the team. He franchised and traded Cassell. He's traded away other in-demand assets up to and including future-HOFers like Seymour and Mankins. Exchanging 1 year of Garoppolo for 4+ years of (say) a 1st-round draft pick would be exactly the sort of thing he does to extend the team's success into the future.
Let's not forget that it took Jimmy all of six QUARTERS of playing before he suffered an injury that knocked him out for a month or however long it was. Signing a 3 or 4 year extension with say $20M guaranteed IS a life changing event for him. And while I concede that he is likely a supremely competitive guy and wants a crack at starting, he probably very much enjoys being a part of the Patriots success, and may very well also realize his best chance for long term success is to stay right in New England. Not all that dissimilar to the McDaniels situation.
Well no shit.
There are two questions here -
Is it worth giving up another year (or more) of playing to set up your career to be played with the best run franchise the sport (and maybe any sport) has ever seen? What do people think Aaron Rodgers' career would look like if he'd shot his way out of town when Favre was still waffling and had ended up on the Browns?
And - How much time does Brady actually have left?
I'd be astounded if Brady is a top third quarterback in 2019. Absolutely astounded. I'd be very surprised if he was in 2018. If you think Brady is still going to be a viable QB in 2020, then of course we're going to have different conclusions.
Aaron Rodgers wasn't waiting. They traded Favre. Other than that, good comparison.
Your post was probably a million times better than mine and basically said what I meant to say about the trading of Jimmy in relation to maximizing the possibility of winning now.
Again I am pretty sure BB will do the right thing and it will all work out.
Isn't the real question whether or not Brady is still going to be better than Jimmy G in 2018 or 2019?
Isn't that what the Pats need to decide?
It may be safe to assume Jimmy will be better than Brady in 2020, but I am not sure the team's choice between the two can wait that long based on many factors already addressed.
One majors point is that I do think TB12 starts in 2017 unless something really crazy happens.
And Aaron Rodgers probably should have been the first pick in his draft (even at the time), but was still a first round pick nonetheless.
If Jimmy ends up even 85% as good as Rodgers I would be amazed. Even though I think the media over hyped Rodgers he will go down as top 10 QB of all time easily. Possibly even top 5.
Id have a hard time arguing against this, but this is the one spot where it kind of doesnt matter.
If the Patriots think Jimmy G is going to be a top-level starter and this was a video game, trading Brady after this year and extending JimmyG makes a lot of sense and is completely in line with how the Patriots have operated for the last 17 years.
But Brady is going to start at quarterback until he decides he doesnt want to play quarterback anymore and that's probably going to be at least 2-3 more seasons and Im cool with that.
And you forgot to add the whole time BB will still be drafting QB's to try to find a better one so you aren't guaranteed to even eventually get the job when Brady retires.
You know what's even more lifechanging than a 3-4 year deal with $20 million guaranteed? A 1 year deal with $24 million guaranteed, followed by another $24 million guaranteed. He gets to keep forcing the Pats to franchise him or let him go. He doesn't have to sign any extension.
The Pats really don't have a lot of leverage to exert on Garoppolo. What's their biggest threat? Sign this extension or we'll cut you? Sign this extension or you won't play a single snap next season? etc...
Yes, once he hits free agency next year, then the Pats won't have any leverage. But right now they could offer him $20M guaranteed (or $30M or whatever a reasonable figure would be) and he would have that money right now, not a year from now when anything could happen - he could tear an ACL in practice. Who knows. You are correct though that once the 2017 season is over Jimmy will be in complete control.
This may be true, but it is really the point of the debate. Do the Pats carry just two QBs into 2018, and if so, which two...if they truly love JG as much as Lombardi and all seem to indicate, the unthinkable could happen.
Its pretty dissimilar. McDaniels can coach for 25-30 more years, is going to run the offense this year, and will have the option to pursue head coaching openings next offseason. Jimmy G has, if he's fortunate, like 10 more seasons to play football, will take himself off the market for like four years through an extension, and will likely be spending most of the current year holding a clipboard.
$20MM guaranteed is way too much of a discount to expect. If he was cool waiting as heir apparent, not guaranteed, something like $32 MM guaranteed/4 years $65MM seems like a reasonable contract. Since the idea is to have JimmyG on the team when Brady retires, all of that money would eventually appear on the cap. So, Jimmy G will account for about 9% of the salary cap over the life of his extension.
I dont really see it happening.
And keeping JG isn't antithetical either.
BB has always placed a premium on this position. So draft day game threads here were replete with *wasted pick* when BB drafted JG and then JB. Interestingly, the Pats won SBs in JG's and JB's rookie years. How are those picks looking now?
The Cassell deal is apples and oranges. Brady was 32 years old when the trigger was pulled on that.
Well, for starters, he's 39 with three years left on his deal, but they are talking about an extension with him. Short of catastrophic injury, do you really think they'd be doing that if they thought there was any chance they'd bench him?
Another reason why the Cassel deal is different is that he was a 7th round pick with no pedigree with whom they had to revamp the offense to help him run it efficiently. I don't know whether or not they thought he was a viable NFL starter, but given how he performed after the trade, getting the 33rd pick for him was actually a great trade, even though we hated it when it happened and thought the Pats should have gotten more. Evidence suggests they like Jimmy a lot more.
What is your basis for this assertion?
Mostly common sense based on how Kraft and BB act/speak about Brady, but the team signing Brady through his age 42 season and the parties discussing a further contract extension seem like pretty good signals as well. I cant prove that they wont just treat Brady like any other player but....I really dont think they are going to treat Brady like any other player.
Mostly common sense based on how Kraft and BB act/speak about Brady, but the team signing Brady through his age 42 season and the parties discussing a further contract extension seem like pretty good signals as well. I cant prove that they wont just treat Brady like any other player but....I really dont think they are going to treat Brady like any other player.
I don't think this is right. Alex Smith generally regarded as the better prospect coming out of college. Rodgers was seen as undersized, less athletic and played in a system that was QB friendly. If evaluators thought he was worth the #1 pick, there would be no way he would have lasted to #24.
It's a wise move is to keep JG. The easy comparison is Montana and Young, but even that pales to this situation. Montana was five years older than Young when the Niners let him go prior to the 1993 season (during which Montana was 37 and Young was 32). Next year, Tom will be 40 and Jimmy will be 26. God bless Brady and all his work on his body, but time eventually comes for everyone. Until or unless the Pats are sure about Jacoby Brissett's ability to run the team full-time should Brady fall off the same cliff that took Peyton Manning's skills, they need to keep Garoppolo on the roster.
When have they placed a premium on the position?
Early in Brady's career, they spent the money on vets like Testaverde and Flutie. Since then, they've filled the spot with journeymen and rookies. I don't see why they would be any less comfortable with Brisset there than they were with Jimmy to begin with, or Hoyer or Mallet or Cassell.
Things change. Do you really think if Brady's performance significantly declines, BB is going to continue starting him?
In 2000, when they had 4 quarterbacks on the week one roster, preserving room for you-know-who.
By spending a second rounder on JG and a third rounder on JB, leading to chants of "wasted pick".
We don't know their thought process, obviously, but I find it highly doubtful they would be equally comfortable with JB or JG as the back-up next season.
EDIT -- and I forgot KOC, taken in the 3rd round in 2008.
Yes.
He's certainly not benching him in the middle of a season. As Stitch noted, if you've paid attention to Kraft and BB, Brady is the exception. He will dictate when he stops being the QB for the Patriots. Short of career ending injury, it's his call, or else they wouldn't be talking about extending him past his age 42 season. Peyton Manning and his spinal fusions are not an apt comparison here. They watch him every day at practice, if he was starting to decline they wouldn't be extending him. People talk all the time about QBs falling off a cliff and yes, it happens, but no, it doesn't happen overnight. Signs start showing themselves before we see them on the field.
How many times have we seen new QB starters (be they rookies or younger vets) crash and burn, only to analyze that they had little chance for success because the rest of the team was so bad?
Maybe BB and the Pats BEST strategy for preparing for life after TB12 is to keep a deep and talented team around that person who takes over.
We saw Matt Cassel manage an 11-5 season. We saw JG and JB combine to go 3-1.
Think about all the supposed "failures" or "mediocrities" we have seen suffer thru shitty seasons in Cleveland, Jax, Detroit, etc. Think about how HOF-level QB's like Drew Brees or borderline guys like Philip Rivers have been unable to right the ships when the team around them sucks.
So maybe trading JG for future assets is not even a "Win NOW" strategy, but rather a "Win LATER" (i.e. post-TB12) strategy.
Maybe BB and the Pats BEST strategy for preparing for life after TB12 is to keep a deep and talented team around that person who takes over.
We saw Matt Cassel manage an 11-5 season. We saw JG and JB combine to go 3-1.
Think about all the supposed "failures" or "mediocrities" we have seen suffer thru shitty seasons in Cleveland, Jax, Detroit, etc. Think about how HOF-level QB's like Drew Brees or borderline guys like Philip Rivers have been unable to right the ships when the team around them sucks.
So maybe trading JG for future assets is not even a "Win NOW" strategy, but rather a "Win LATER" (i.e. post-TB12) strategy.
In 2000, keeping 4 had nothing to do with placing a premium on the backup QB position. BB liked what he saw.
The draft picks, BB has spent draft picks on QBs every 3-4 years. That he spent a 2nd on JG is nothing more than he was the BPA when their slot came up.
Saying they place a premium on the position - to the point they'd pay enough to get JG to stay and wait - is just inaccurate. It's in fact the complete opposite of how they work. They don't chew up cap room for players that don't contribute on game day.
On balance, they have to trade him, and I think we're at a standoff with other teams because they know that too.
One year of Brady injury insurance (which if you look at past backups, they've never really had - the effectively gambled that Brady wouldn't go down like he did Week 1 2008) is not worth the risk to them of 1) giving up a tremendous asset for absolutely nothing one year hence, and 2) the risk that Jimmy G signs with another team in the division - even considering Tannehill, they all need QBs. That would be the worst outcome possible. Brady goes off into the sunset and the replacement you trained is a divisional opponent.
They need to trade him to the NFC to offset the two above-noted downsize risks of keeping him.
One year of Brady injury insurance (which if you look at past backups, they've never really had - the effectively gambled that Brady wouldn't go down like he did Week 1 2008) is not worth the risk to them of 1) giving up a tremendous asset for absolutely nothing one year hence, and 2) the risk that Jimmy G signs with another team in the division - even considering Tannehill, they all need QBs. That would be the worst outcome possible. Brady goes off into the sunset and the replacement you trained is a divisional opponent.
They need to trade him to the NFC to offset the two above-noted downsize risks of keeping him.
I never, ever said they would do what is underlined. Others may have.
I do believe that keeping JG through the end of 2017 and assessing at that point is BB like. Because they do not want to get caught short at the position, and their draft record is entirely consistent with that.
The goal here is not to maximize JG's value, though one might be mistaken that that is so from this thread. the goal is to be consistently excellent.
I think it'd be decidedly un-BB like to let a valuable asset expire like that and I think the drafting of JB signaled exactly what his intentions were regarding JG. That he improved his value by playing well is a bonus. Letting him sit another year and tagging him in order to trade him drops his value significantly. And I think anyone who believes he'll resign a long term deal to hold a clipboard until TB finally hangs up the cleats is kidding themselves.
I think some are misinterpreting "placing a premium on the position". I think all that was meant by this is that BB has made it quite clear in the past that he will not allow an injury to his starting QB derail an entire season, Colts-2011 style. In 17 years, we have seen the starting QB go down 3 times for various reasons. In those 3 seasons the team went 14-3, 11-5, and 3-1 with the next QB.
We'll all know soon enough.
FWIW, and it may be very little, Werder and Schefter were at odds on this mid-February. Schefter has now moved to Werder's side.
And a team hoping to acquire JG is not getting it out there that the Pats are not likely to deal him.
FWIW, and it may be very little, Werder and Schefter were at odds on this mid-February. Schefter has now moved to Werder's side.
And a team hoping to acquire JG is not getting it out there that the Pats are not likely to deal him.
I have paid a lot of attention. I've never seen BB say that he'd continue to let Brady play after his performance declines. Do you have a quote that says otherwise?
What kind of comp pick do they get if JG walks? If it's a 3rd, then maybe other teams are only offering 2nd round picks, and the Pats think:
1 yr of JG + 2018 3rd rd comp pick > 2017 2nd rd pick.
Or if teams have other offers, the Pats view 1 yr of JG as larger than the difference between those offers and a 3rd rd pick. Whatever the offers are now they might not view it as comparable value.
This latest "news" just advances the football another 10 yards. All it takes is one team to offer what BB&Co want and today's lack of inclination to deal becomes tomorrow's transaction.
Also, look at the timing: This comes a day after Cousins gets tagged -- which, for some teams thinking they could swing a trade with Washington for him, might take them out of that market.
I'll believe they aren't trading Garoppolo when its Opening Night and he's still on the Patriots.
Also, look at the timing: This comes a day after Cousins gets tagged -- which, for some teams thinking they could swing a trade with Washington for him, might take them out of that market.
I'll believe they aren't trading Garoppolo when its Opening Night and he's still on the Patriots.
Agreed---there is no reason for Pats to say anything other than that they plan to keep him. It doesn't change the trade dynamics at all.
What if the Pats offered to tear up his current contract and offer him 2/20M fully guaranteed right now (for the 2017-2018 seasons)? So JG's options would come to the following:
1. Play out his current deal for peanuts, running the risk of injury or playing poorly if he does get a chance. If Brady stays healthy, he goes into the 2018 offseason having not played meaningful competitive football for 18 months and having played six quarters total in a four year career, both of which represent a big difference from Osweiler. Pats either give him the non-exclusive franchise tag (probably around 20M) or he hits free agency but in a far worse position than Osweiler (hard to tell but the 2018 QB class in the draft also looks really good, which hurts too).
2. Lock in the $20M upfront with no risk (more or less the same amount he'd get paid over 2017-18 in the first scenario with the non-exclusive tag), with the downside being that he'll either be a backup for one more year if he plays out his contract with the Patriots or that he'll get traded in the 2018 offseason and have slightly less financial leverage in negotiating a long term deal with the new team than he would had he been traded under the non-exclusive franchise tag designation.
Maybe JG is so competitive that its all about starting as quickly as possible. But I don't option two is all that unreasonable. The single most important thing for many of these guys is locking in a level of financial security that sets them up for life. I also think its completely wrong to assume that he goes into 2018 with the Osweiler deal as some kind of minimum expectation.
He sees Mike Glennon get a similar amount or more of guaranteed money this offseason and says thanks but no thanks. If they believe in Jimmy G and wanted a bridge they might have been able to do a heavily discounted contract last offseason, but its too late now, that discount is going to be pretty small and the market for free agent quarterbacks is going to be pretty lucrative because the vast majority of competent young quarterback supply doesnt hit the free agent market.
Make it 2/28 or 2/30 and I dont think its unreasonable, but not sure the Pats really want to go there.
Make it 2/28 or 2/30 and I dont think its unreasonable, but not sure the Pats really want to go there.
Last edited:
This is a good point. There is no doubt that, if Jimmy were an unrestricted free agent right now, that a team would give him at least a Brock-sized contract, and maybe higher.
But if he doesn't play meaningful snaps in 2017, his value will likely decrease: he will be one year older, and nearly two full seasons removed from significant game action. Under this scenario, I don't think teams will be lining up to offer him $20M a year. But I may be wrong.