peyton manning coming to washington

[1niksder]

This from ESPN:

The trade will not change the Redskins' plans in pursuing Peyton Manning. They still intend to talk with and try to sign him, even if they are considered a long shot, a team official said.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76682 ... louis-rams

Hate to bring this thread back up but the Skins might have had a shot at Manning.

Midway through the evening Elway received a text telling him the Redskins had just pulled off a huge trade with St. Louis for the second pick in the draft, presumably to take prized Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III. Elway told Manning, "Whoa—Washington just traded for the second pick. Looks like they'll get RG3."

"What!?" Manning said, stunned.

From that reaction, Elway knew that the Redskins had been on Manning's list.

Manning slept at Stokley's house in suburban Castle Rock that night, and the next morning, Saturday, March 10, the two headed to a nearby field to get a throwing session in. When they found it in use by a lacrosse team, they switched to Plan B, a community park with a 40-yard-square field. As passers-by approached during the workout, Stokley would yell, "Jogger!" or "Cyclist!" and he and Manning would hide the football until the person passed.

That afternoon Manning had another appointment scheduled—with Redskins coach Mike Shanahan and his son Kyle, Washington's offensive coordinator. Though it made little sense after the Rams deal, the Shanahans wanted to keep the date, and Manning did. They discussed football for three hours at Shanahan's expansive house in Denver. Talk about strange connections. Shanahan had been Elway's coach for those two Super Bowls and was fired by the Broncos after the 2008 season. Now Elway ran the Broncos. As Shanahan talked with Manning, a text message popped up on the coach's phone. It was from Elway. "Hey, Mike, put in a good word for us with Peyton." All Shanahan could do was laugh.

[Deadskins]

Everyone knows that Peyton would never want to play in DC.

[DarthMonk]

Of course, but I was also talking about the payout odds (which you posted alongside the teams) in reference to the first post, where the favorites were paying out more than the field, which was even money. I didn't understand that. Get it?

PS. I was also a math major (and computer science too).

It seems very simple to me. Something in the language?

Tigers Woods is the "favorite" this week among all individuals. That does not mean he is better than 50-50 to win. It just means he's deemed more likely than any other individual. He is 4-1. If Vegas didn't want to make money they'd pay $400 on a $100 bet if he won. They're probably paying more like $350.

The field (as in anybody but Tiger) is better than even money (naturally). Of course betting Tiger and winning pays more than betting the field and winning.

The field (as in any but Tiger, McIlroy, or Mickelson) is 12/1. I think that's a decent bet.

Any successful worse-than-even-money, eg. 4-1, will pay out more than any successful even-money, eg. 1-1, or better-than-even-money, eg. 1-2, bet.



If this doesn't do it for you then you are asking something different from the way I'm reading it.

I've left out all nuance concerning what books really think. This all assumes they are just trying to balance the betting and are playing it safe. The odds on Tiger will probably get shorter as he draws a lot of action.

DarthMonk

[Deadskins]

Of course, but I was also talking about the payout odds (which you posted alongside the teams) in reference to the first post, where the favorites were paying out more than the field, which was even money. I didn't understand that. Get it?

PS. I was also a math major (and computer science too).

It seems very simple to me. Something in the language?

Tigers Woods is the "favorite" this week among all individuals. That does not mean he is better than 50-50 to win. It just means he's deemed more likely than any other individual. He is 4-1. If Vegas didn't want to make money they'd pay $400 on a $100 bet if he won. They're probably paying more like $350.

The field (as in anybody but Tiger) is better than even money (naturally). Of course betting Tiger and winning pays more than betting the field and winning.

The field (as in any but Tiger, McIlroy, or Mickelson) is 12/1. I think that's a decent bet.

Any successful worse-than-even-money, eg. 4-1, will pay out more than any successful even-money, eg. 1-1, or better-than-even-money, eg. 1-2, bet.



If this doesn't do it for you then you are asking something different from the way I'm reading it.

I've left out all nuance concerning what books really think. This all assumes they are just trying to balance the betting and are playing it safe. The odds on Tiger will probably get shorter as he draws a lot of action.

DarthMonk

Ay yi yi! Look at the two posts. With respect to the payout odds, in the first post, the field paid even money, while the favorites paid 2 to 1 or better. In the second post, the three favorites paid lower odds than the field, which was now paying 5 to 1. The two sets of odds don't jibe with common sense. If, as you say, the field is more likely by sheer weight of volume, then the payout should be lower for betting the field, as it was in the first post. But then, in the second post, the three favorites pay out less than the field. You can't have it both ways. And I don't think you would even be betting "the field." You would have to name a specific team, which was part of the field, to win. So that makes the volume argument moot on its face.

Besides, your analogy of Tiger Woods doesn't hold up, because there are multiple players in this game, and they are weighted differently depending on the information available at the time. It would be like saying, after they've played two rounds, and Tiger has a one stroke lead over Vijay Singh and Phil Mickelson, and the rest of the field was five more strokes off the pace, that someone not mentioned would win the tournament. I mean really, what were the odds that the Colts were going to land Peyton? Or the Steelers, or the Packers, or the Saints, or the Giants, etc? How many teams were realistically even in the hunt?

It would have been nice to put $100 on Denver in the second post, though.

[bigricky]

IMO Landry played only 12 good games the entire time he was here now when I say good games I'm referring to all pro level. Out of a possible 80 games he could have played in he only suited up for 64. I wish him luck if he can get his injure under control he still has a lot of football left to redeem himself into a true treasure of a player but for the 5 seasons with us it was pretty much loads of broken promises.

[1niksder]

Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach

That's not what breach of contract means. If it were breach, Peyton could sue...and win... He can't because the contract allows the team to not pay him the bonus and cut him.

If I worked out a deal that's worth $100M and pays me more than half of it in the first two years, with the other party knowing in advance that I was injuried. I might give them another crack at it. He didn't play a down last years and made $26M, why not let them try to get their money's worth?

I think Peyton knew what was coming when he worked out the deal last season, I don't think he thought he'd lose the whole year but he knew he'd be out for a good portion of the season. Take the $28M due and convert it into per week performance bonuses, that would equal about a million a week over two years, based on practice during the week and dressing for the games. Starting in consecutive games would allow the $16M portion of these per week bonuses that would be due during the 2013 season to be converted into a delayed signing bonus due at the start of the 2013 NFL year (March 2013).

Peyton doesn't lose much if anything, Irsay doesn't give up as much now as he would had to give up and the sooner Manning is ready the more he'll be paid. It wouldn't really impact the Colts cap situation (it's on life support compared to the rest of their conference), other than to help in 2012 and 2013 (when the cash floor kicks in).

The main reason Peyton NEEDS to do this is.....







The FLN can stop running story after story about Peyton to the Skins.

I was just bumping this because some people are too stupid to let sleeping dogs sleep.

And I was wondering if Manning got a million a week and a base of $7M in 2012 from a re-worked deal would it be more than what the Broncos gave him.

That made wonder about the remaining $16M he would have gotten in 2013 plus his $8M base would have been more than what he MIGHT get in 2013 from Denver.

Then I remembered the second option that I put out of 25% of his option bonus being combined with 12' and 13' base as a signing bonus to restructure would have been more than what he got.


I kept coming up with more than $18M but that can't be right because the that other guy is always right(or at least always says he is) so it must be less than $18M.

somebody was WRONG, and would let me let it go, so here we are again. same sh_t different size shovel

[1niksder]

Peyton should not restructure with the Colts. He has a contract with the Colts. If they choose not to honor it, it is more than likely because they intend to move on and draft Luck. It would be the team breaking the contract, not the player--as if often is. Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach.

I thought you were a sports agent lawyer. No team is ever in breach when they cut a player. And the only way a player can be in breach is by holding out or retiring early. In fact, I can't think of a single case of a team ever being in breach of contract. Maybe in the early days when a team folded, but not in the modern era.

Maybe he was a sports agent lawyer in the early days and folded with one of those teams.

Maybe $18M is more than $23M too

[The Hogster]

You made up fantasy figures for a contract that didn't exist. You know there was no way the Colts were going to pay him $23M. But you're desperate so I understand why you're flailing about trying to save face. It's sad that you have to resort to making up a fake contract to compare because your argument was such an epic failure. I hear the Dollar Store has Clues for sale...

[Countertrey]

Oh, God... I think I'm going to be sick...

[DarthMonk]

Deadskins:

I hope you read this.

Of course, but I was also talking about the payout odds (which you posted alongside the teams) in reference to the first post, where the favorites were paying out more than the field, which was even money. I didn't understand that. Get it?

PS. I was also a math major (and computer science too).

It seems very simple to me. Something in the language?

Tigers Woods is the "favorite" this week among all individuals. That does not mean he is better than 50-50 to win. It just means he's deemed more likely than any other individual. He is 4-1. If Vegas didn't want to make money they'd pay $400 on a $100 bet if he won. They're probably paying more like $350.

The field (as in anybody but Tiger) is better than even money (naturally). Of course betting Tiger and winning pays more than betting the field and winning.

The field (as in any but Tiger, McIlroy, or Mickelson) is 12/1. I think that's a decent bet.

Any successful worse-than-even-money, eg. 4-1, will pay out more than any successful even-money, eg. 1-1, or better-than-even-money, eg. 1-2, bet.



If this doesn't do it for you then you are asking something different from the way I'm reading it.

I've left out all nuance concerning what books really think. This all assumes they are just trying to balance the betting and are playing it safe. The odds on Tiger will probably get shorter as he draws a lot of action.

DarthMonk

Ay yi yi! Look at the two posts. With respect to the payout odds, in the first post, the field paid even money, while the favorites paid 2 to 1 or better. In the second post, the three favorites paid lower odds than the field, which was now paying 5 to 1. The two sets of odds don't jibe with common sense. If, as you say, the field is more likely by sheer weight of volume, then the payout should be lower for betting the field, as it was in the first post. But then, in the second post, the three favorites pay out less than the field. You can't have it both ways. And I don't think you would even be betting "the field." You would have to name a specific team, which was part of the field, to win. So that makes the volume argument moot on its face.

Besides, your analogy of Tiger Woods doesn't hold up, because there are multiple players in this game, and they are weighted differently depending on the information available at the time. It would be like saying, after they've played two rounds, and Tiger has a one stroke lead over Vijay Singh and Phil Mickelson, and the rest of the field was five more strokes off the pace, that someone not mentioned would win the tournament. I mean really, what were the odds that the Colts were going to land Peyton? Or the Steelers, or the Packers, or the Saints, or the Giants, etc? How many teams were realistically even in the hunt?

It would have been nice to put $100 on Denver in the second post, though.

OK. My analogy does hold up but I think I see what you are saying now.

The analogy: It holds up. It just depends how "the field" is defined. There is a group of one (or more) golfers (or teams). All the others constitute the field. Everything else follows. BTW - I'm not a Tiger fan but there was actually a brief span of time where he was a better bet than the field (anyone but him). That is truly amazing. Usually, taking any guy against the field is a total sucker bet. Over his career it has been and will continue to be a sucker bet. But for a year or so ...

Now for the specific contradiction between 2 posts and the corresponding odds:

Odds I just saw from Vegas:

New York Jets +200 2/1 bet $100 to win $200
Miami Dolphins +300 3/1 bet $100 to win $300
Washington Redskins +400 4/1 bet $100 to win $400
Seattle Seahawks +500 5/1 bet $100 to win $500
Arizona Cardinals +600 6/1 bet $100 to win $600
Baltimore Ravens +700 7/1 bet $100 to win $700
Houston Texans +900 9/1 bet $100 to win $900
San Francisco 49ers +1000 10/1 bet $100 to win $1000
Field (any team not listed) +100 1/1 bet $100 to win $100

Converting all these to percentages shows the percent chance of Manning landing with a team from the group list is over 100% (about 140%). This clearly doesn't make sense until you realize Vegas does not want to give the longer odds - especially so early in the process. So even though Manning may have only really had a 10% chance of going to the Jets, Vegas was not going to give 9-1. They gave much shorter odds. The field is worse than even money too but again, Vegas is not giving odds early. Betting the field (or any team) is a "bad bet" if Vegas did a good job.

Where will Manning go?

Odds I just saw from Vegas:

New York Jets +200 2/1 bet $100 to win $200
Miami Dolphins +300 3/1 bet $100 to win $300
Washington Redskins +400 4/1 bet $100 to win $400
Seattle Seahawks +500 5/1 bet $100 to win $500
Arizona Cardinals +600 6/1 bet $100 to win $600
Baltimore Ravens +700 7/1 bet $100 to win $700
Houston Texans +900 9/1 bet $100 to win $900
San Francisco 49ers +1000 10/1 bet $100 to win $1000
Field (any team not listed) +100 1/1 bet $100 to win $100

The even money favorite is The Field which includes the Colts. I wonder about the Cowboys.

Why would the field be even money, but they are giving odds on what have to be the favorites?

Baisc math. Even in his prime Tiger was (of course) the favorite ... but not even money or better. Someone from the field is much more likely to win than the single best golfer in the world.

DarthMonk

I hope you see why this first objection to this lone post is senseless. There is clearly more chance of landing with a team outside the list than there is in landing with any single team on the list. You must understand this if you got a Math/CS degree.

Now the other "contradictory" post. Realize I just searched the Internet then did a cut and paste. Also, this was at a much later time.

Latest odds:

Cardinals: 19% ($100 wins $250)
Dolphins: 16.5% ($100 wins $300)
Redskins: 13% ($100 wins $400)
Jets: 9.5% ($100 wins $600)
Chiefs: 7.5% ($100 wins $800)
Retire: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Seahawks: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Texans: 4% ($100 wins $1,500)
49ers: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Broncos: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Titans: 1.5% ($100 wins $4,000)
Team Not Listed: 11% ($100 wins $500)

Changes since opening odds . . .
$100 on retiring started off paying only $250, now paying $1,000.
$100 on Cardinals started off paying $2,500, now pays only $250.
$100 on Chiefs started off paying $5,000, now pays only $800.

I still like the Jets and the Chiefs. Jets might qualify as "one QB away," they have a good D, they have a good running game, they have pretty good WRs, and their OC is Manning's old OC.

DarthMonk

Notice how all payout odds are worse than the odds from the percentages. The first team, Cards, is 19% which is about 1 in 5 or 4 to 1. They should pay over $400 on a $100 bet but Vegas is only paying $250. This is true on all the other teams as well.

The percentages for the teams listed add up to 89% giving the field and 11% chance. That's about 1 in 10 so the odds should be about 9-1 with a $900 payout. Vegas is always paying out less.

So there is no contradiction. In the first post all the percentages added to over 140% for the teams listed but Vegas was being careful early. They got more precise later. Note that even in the last odds post Vegas is paying out more on the field bet than on any single team listed at greater than 11% - of course.

PS - Bets on "the field" are on the field - not a specific team or player. It is about volume. Every now and then one guy (team) has a better chance than a group or even all the others combined.

DarthMonk

[Deadskins]

Bets on "the field" are on the field - not a specific team or player.

This is the only part you really needed to explain for me to accept the other parts. In the original post, you (or maybe it was cut and paste) said that the field was "any team not listed." I took that to mean that you would be putting your money on, say the Colts (for the sake of this point), and you would only be getting even money, while one of the favorites might be paying 4 to 1. That just made zero sense to me.

[The Hogster]

BUMP

Instead of arguing with 1niksder every time he wants to, I'm just going to bump his fail threads. The ones where asbolutely NOTHING he said was accurate.

[1niksder]

Next time you bump it explain how $18M is more than $23M. Or you can just keep convincing yourself you were right. I DON't CARE. You can't say that though can you?

[The Hogster]

Next time you bump it explain how $18M is more than $23M. Or you can just keep convincing yourself you were right. I DON't CARE. You can't say that though can you?

Or maybe you can let it go, and face the fact that was proven true. There was no way Peyton was going to stay in Indy. There was no reason for him to "restructure" to do so. There was no way they were going to pay him $18M or $23M to be a lameduck, figurehead, mentor on a scrap heap of a team. They are drafting Andrew Luck and are rebuilding around him.

In short, the Colts moved on. You should too.

[1niksder]

Why should I move on you obviously still don't know the discussion was about. Maybe you should re-read the thread and get a clue

[The Hogster]

Why should I move on

Because, It's over. You're done.

[1niksder]

When did 18 become more than 23, other than in you're world.

They never talked so you can't say what he would have gotten. You can't comprehend what I was saying and I get that. But how can you say he wouldn't have gotten more than $18M for 16 weeks from a team that paid him $26M for Zero weeks. I gave a example of what he might have gotten way before you quoted what the pontifs said he was likely to get.

I had a opinion and you still don't... you still don't get it and have no capacity to get it.

You had nothing then and you got nothing now even though we waited for the deal to be done you still got nothing, nada zelch.

[The Hogster]

When did 18 become more than 23, other than in you're world.

They never talked so you can't say what he would have gotten. You can't comprehend what I was saying and I get that. But how can you say he wouldn't have gotten more than $18M for 16 weeks from a team that paid him $26M for Zero weeks. I gave a example of what he might have gotten way before you quoted what the pontifs said he was likely to get.

I had a opinion and you still don't... you still don't get it and have no capacity to get it.

You had nothing then and you got nothing now even though we waited for the deal to be done you still got nothing, nada zelch.

You: Peyton should go to the Colts to restructure his deal and stay there.
Me: No he shouldn't. That's dumb.
Reality: Peyton did not restructure to stay in Indy.

You: Peyton has no leverage with the Colts before he was cut.
Me: Peyton has all the leverage because he's going to become a Free Agent.
Reality: Peyton became a Free Agent.

You: Peyton won't have options who will pay him anything close to his old deal. He's old, injured, and will be shopping at the Dollar Store.
Me: You're nuts to say that. Peyton will be sought after in FA and will get PAID.
Reality: Peyton had several teams vying for his services and he signed a 5 Year $96M deal.

Dude. You're done. Sit down and spend your time learning rather than whining and crying over spilled milk. I'm getting tired of schooling you. Take off the training wheels. Check please.

[1niksder]

I said he should talk to them and see what they offered, I bet they would have offered more than $18M and a neck exam. 5 years $96M, that's like Albert Haynesworth's $100M. Nothing like it sounds. He got a year, no signing bonus and needs to stay healthy to have a chance at having a job next year.

[1niksder]

Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach

That's not what breach of contract means. If it were breach, Peyton could sue...and win... He can't because the contract allows the team to not pay him the bonus and cut him.

If I worked out a deal that's worth $100M and pays me more than half of it in the first two years, with the other party knowing in advance that I was injuried. I might give them another crack at it. He didn't play a down last years and made $26M, why not let them try to get their money's worth?

I think Peyton knew what was coming when he worked out the deal last season, I don't think he thought he'd lose the whole year but he knew he'd be out for a good portion of the season. Take the $28M due and convert it into per week performance bonuses, that would equal about a million a week over two years, based on practice during the week and dressing for the games. Starting in consecutive games would allow the $16M portion of these per week bonuses that would be due during the 2013 season to be converted into a delayed signing bonus due at the start of the 2013 NFL year (March 2013).

Peyton doesn't lose much if anything, Irsay doesn't give up as much now as he would had to give up and the sooner Manning is ready the more he'll be paid. It wouldn't really impact the Colts cap situation (it's on life support compared to the rest of their conference), other than to help in 2012 and 2013 (when the cash floor kicks in).

The main reason Peyton NEEDS to do this is.....







The FLN can stop running story after story about Peyton to the Skins.

I was just bumping this because some people are too stupid to let sleeping dogs sleep.

And I was wondering if Manning got a million a week and a base of $7M in 2012 from a re-worked deal would it be more than what the Broncos gave him.

That made wonder about the remaining $16M he would have gotten in 2013 plus his $8M base would have been more than what he MIGHT get in 2013 from Denver.

Then I remembered the second option that I put out of 25% of his option bonus being combined with 12' and 13' base as a signing bonus to restructure would have been more than what he got.


I kept coming up with more than $18M but that can't be right because the that other guy is always right(or at least always says he is) so it must be less than $18M.

somebody was WRONG, and would let me let it go, so here we are again. same sh_t different size shovel

[Deadskins]

You: Peyton should go to the Colts to restructure his deal and stay there.
Me: No he shouldn't. That's dumb.
Reality: Peyton did not restructure to stay in Indy.

You: Peyton has no leverage with the Colts before he was cut.
Me: Peyton has all the leverage because he's going to become a Free Agent.
Reality: Peyton became a Free Agent.

You: Peyton won't have options who will pay him anything close to his old deal. He's old, injured, and will be shopping at the Dollar Store.
Me: You're nuts to say that. Peyton will be sought after in FA and will get PAID.
Reality: Peyton had several teams vying for his services and he signed a 5 Year $96M deal.

Even if the arguments you lay out above were the arguments that were actually made, your reality tag lines do not prove you right in any of the three instances.
The third is the closest, but still misses, because we all know that reported contracts never show the real money.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You: Peyton should go to the Colts to restructure his deal and stay there.
Me: No he shouldn't. That's dumb.
Reality: Peyton did not restructure to stay in Indy.

You: Peyton has no leverage with the Colts before he was cut.
Me: Peyton has all the leverage because he's going to become a Free Agent.
Reality: Peyton became a Free Agent.

You: Peyton won't have options who will pay him anything close to his old deal. He's old, injured, and will be shopping at the Dollar Store.
Me: You're nuts to say that. Peyton will be sought after in FA and will get PAID.
Reality: Peyton had several teams vying for his services and he signed a 5 Year $96M deal.

Even if the arguments you lay out above were the arguments that were actually made, your reality tag lines do not prove you right in any of the three instances.
The third is the closest, but still misses, because we all know that reported contracts never show the real money.

+1

[The Hogster]

+None


It's called reality. Giggle Girls in full effect.

[KazooSkinsFan]

+None


It's called reality. Giggle Girls in full effect.

He didn't say your "reality" wasn't true, he said it didn't prove your assertion. You seriously didn't get that? You're a lawyer? You took the LSAT?

[The Hogster]

+None


It's called reality. Giggle Girls in full effect.

He didn't say your "reality" wasn't true, he said it didn't prove your assertion. You seriously didn't get that? You're a lawyer? You took the LSAT?

168 on the LSAT.
Passed the Virginia Bar
Passed NFLPA Agent Certification
46 on the Wonderlic

Oh and easily destroy weak arguments on the THN by posters who don't know when to separate emotion from debate and go all in on a losing proposition just for the sake of disagreeing with me.

I suggest that you delete your profile and create another one.........AGAIN.