Leverage

[Irn-Bru]

You know, there are already threads in Smack where this back and forth really belongs . . . I recommend the whole non-football side of this thing gets taken there.

[The Hogster]

You know, there are already threads in Smack where this back and forth really belongs . . . I recommend the whole non-football side of this thing gets taken there.

Tell your fellow Staff Member to keep it there. He keeps PMing, creating new threads, and flaming others with this banter. I'm sure that's not something that THN endorses.

[1niksder]

You know, there are already threads in Smack where this back and forth really belongs . . . I recommend the whole non-football side of this thing gets taken there.

Tell your fellow Staff Member to keep it there. He keeps PMing, creating new threads, and flaming others with this banter. I'm sure that's not something that THN endorses.

Still got some growing to do I see

[Irn-Bru]

You know, there are already threads in Smack where this back and forth really belongs . . . I recommend the whole non-football side of this thing gets taken there.

Tell your fellow Staff Member to keep it there.

Who did you think I was telling with that post? Or do you often have solo back and forths on message boards?

I'm really not interested in whatever beef you guys have with each other. My only interest is that it's corralled in the right place.

[Deadskins]

he sure wasn't going to get 5 years $96M from the Colts.

And he sure isn't going to get it from the Broncos either.

[The Hogster]

he sure wasn't going to get 5 years $96M from the Colts.

And he sure isn't going to get it from the Broncos either.

Way to defend wrongness. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that you agreed with him then--right after you got all emotional in Smack and created the moniker "Squealster." It's there in black and white, and you guys would be surprised who reads this and tells the truth on what it says. Continue destroying your reputation. It's funny.

So, let's see how ignorant your post is. You think Peyton would have gotten the rest of his deal with Indy?? With Andrew Luck on the team? Just stop. Again, you're not even as sharp as 1niksder. He's covering up his argument because it obviously sucked. You should at least do the same.

[Deadskins]

You think Peyton would have gotten the rest of his deal with Indy??

No, and if you could read, you would have gotten that my point is that he won't get the rest of this deal with the Broncos either.

[The Hogster]

You think Peyton would have gotten the rest of his deal with Indy??

No, and if you could read, you would have gotten that my point is that he won't get the rest of this deal with the Broncos either.

That remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, he's on a team that can compete for a title, and which doesn't have a blue chip "once in a generation" prospect at QB. In fact, his chances of sticking around for 5 years is greater on the team that has no other option.
So, the underlying point remains clear. It made no sense for Peyton to try to restructure his deal to stay in Indy.

[Deadskins]

You think Peyton would have gotten the rest of his deal with Indy??

No, and if you could read, you would have gotten that my point is that he won't get the rest of this deal with the Broncos either.

That remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, he's on a team that can compete for a title, and which doesn't have a blue chip "once in a generation" prospect at QB. In fact, his chances of sticking around for 5 years is greater on the team that has no other option.
So, the underlying point remains clear. It made no sense for Peyton to try to restructure his deal to stay in Indy.

I don't agree that you can derive that conclusion from those points, especially if you are basing that conclusion on dollars alone.

Note: When I say "you" in the sentence above, I don't mean you in particular, Hogster.

[KazooSkinsFan]

That remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, he's on a team that can compete for a title, and which doesn't have a blue chip "once in a generation" prospect at QB

Ouch, so you're changing your story now that it wasn't about money? No one ever said he wouldn't leave for non-financial reasons. First blood drawn...

[Deadskins]

so you're changing your story now that it wasn't about money?

Yeah, this whole discussion originated over whether or not he could get more money by restructuring or going the FA route. At least, that was my understanding, and I think what most of us were arguing.

[1niksder]

You think Peyton would have gotten the rest of his deal with Indy??

No, and if you could read, you would have gotten that my point is that he won't get the rest of this deal with the Broncos either.

That remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, he's on a team that can compete for a title, and which doesn't have a blue chip "once in a generation" prospect at QB. In fact, his chances of sticking around for 5 years is greater on the team that has no other option.
So, the underlying point remains clear. It made no sense for Peyton to try to restructure his deal to stay in Indy.

He's on a team that gave him $18M in base salary in 2012, then guaranteed it. That's all he got, no workout bonuses, no signing bonus, no nothing to force the Broncos to hold on to him after this year.

The Broncos will have him come in on March 13th (why does that day sound familiar?) next year and have their doctors take a look at his neck.

That's what he got.. one year, $18M and we'll talk next year. If it works out, he'll get a $2M raise and a new date with the doctors in 2014.

At the same time the Broncos can decide a year's wear and tear on Manning's neck in 2012 is not worth risking $20M guaranteed (again ALL salary) in 2013 and Manning's back on the market.

Why would Manning sign such a deal with a team that had it's QB go worldwide simply because he was running for his life?

Where was the bidding war? He had a whole three teams to choose from, He had the Broncos, Cards, and Dolphins... That's a team in the desert, a team up in the thin air and a team with a owner worst than "the Danny" (Before Bruce and Mike came along "the Danny" would buy anybody, but nobody wants Ross' money).

After Ross made him look like O.J.II they were out and that left two until the Titans came calling... not with money but future ownership for the "Manning" brand, that would take league approval, and the market was getting ready to open. He had a week head start yet the Bears, ttiT, and the Jags all signed QBs when the market had been open less than 24 hrs. None of those teams called Peyton.

Cards dropped out when his home state jumped in and rumors that he worked out for the Niners started to float around. Still only three team (Broncos, 49ers, and Titans) The Titans wasn't really a option and neither were the Seahawks after Matt Flynn visited.

The only QBs to get one year deals were QBs like Jason Campbell and Rex Grossman Back ups take one year deals.... So why did the man with all the leverage take a deal structured in a way the team he signed with can do the same thing the Colts did except now he has zero options? Could it be because his replacement Dan Orlovsky found a new job before him? Or maybe the market just wasn't what you made it out to be.

Manning can't say what he'll make next year, he can say what he'll make if....

That's a one year deal for a man that had all the leverage, that's the best he could do. If he goes out and performs he'll gain leverage if not the test results will say what the Colts want them to say.

[1niksder]

so you're changing your story now that it wasn't about money?

Yeah, this whole discussion originated over whether or not he could get more money by restructuring or going the FA route. At least, that was my understanding, and I think what most of us were arguing.

Actually I just wanted the reports that he was coming to Washington to stop.

[1niksder]

That remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, he's on a team that can compete for a title, and which doesn't have a blue chip "once in a generation" prospect at QB

Ouch, so you're changing your story now that it wasn't about money? No one ever said he wouldn't leave for non-financial reasons. First blood drawn...

Sooooo

You're saying you didn't see that coming.






FTR: Hogster said early on it wasn't about money based on what Peyton had made for Irsay and the Colts, however he ties that in to what is being said now.

[The Hogster]

Yeah, that's exactly what this thread shows. That's exactly why it's called "Leverage" Leverage for how we could get the rumors of him coming to Washington to stop. Oh, got it now.

[1niksder]

Yeah, that's exactly what this thread shows. That's exactly why it's called "Leverage" Leverage for how we could get the rumors of him coming to Washington to stop. Oh, got it now.

This thread was started because someone wanted to have a discussion without being belittled by you,

You being you, you made this thread about the same thing all the other spin off threads are.

You're the one that brought up leverage it just took the rest of us a little while to figure out you didn't know the meaning of the word.


Here's a tweet you'll love

Phillip B Wilson
‏ @pwilson24

Manning said he hoped he could stay with #Colts, but understands the biz. He told me to pass along to the fans how much he appreciated them.

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

Here's a fact, I don't remember my LSAT score, but it was higher then the average of the incoming law class at #1 Yale and I only took it for fun. The wife of a bud I rented a room from during college was taking it to actually go to law school. I took a couple practice tests with her and it was fun, so I took the exam. You were in the bottom 25th percentile at Yale.

I turned down UVA for my MBA and went to Michigan where I graduated with high distinction, top 10% of the class. My GMAT also was above most of the incoming Yale class who are #1 in business scores as well.

Just the facts. Maybe that's why I only work for myself. Well, and my wife...

My post was SARCASM. Not an invitation to read your Resume. Nobody cares.

Sarcasm or lies... ?.

As he expressed as his farewell presser last month, he said, “Tell the fans I appreciated them, too.”

I reasoned that if I was going to pass along that message to his fans, well, you have to write about the call.

I told Manning I was late to change my position on keeping him, that I had held out hope for the longest time, but realized in the end that the money and the risk was too great. He didn’t hold it against me. He said he always had the same hope that he could stay.

I wished him well.

As he acknowledged, the Colts are moving in a new direction and it’s part of the business.

As someone who strives to be professional, I am human and will choose to be a bit sentimental about this. I’ll always remember the phone call.

As I said to him, it was a first-class way to say farewell.

Sounds like Mr Manning knew who had the leverage and who had to go find a new job

[The Hogster]

1niksder wrote:

Peyton priced himself out of Wal-Mart he's going to lower his price to even lower what Wal-Mart offered (had he talked to them to find out) and head over to the Dollar Store bobble heads in hand

Did you write this? What did you mean? Can you say that you were right with the benefit of hindsight?

What's the odds Peyton gets half of what he gave up for 2012 without even talking about a restructure?

Did you write this? What did you mean? Can you say that you were right with the benefit of hindsight?

He might get a few offers with a bunch of incentives but nothing like what he could have got from a team that gave him $26M last year for doing nothing, had he tried to work something with them.

Did you write this? What did you mean? Can you say that you were right with the benefit of hindsight?

Answer these

[1niksder]

1niksder wrote:

Peyton priced himself out of Wal-Mart he's going to lower his price to even lower what Wal-Mart offered (had he talked to them to find out) and head over to the Dollar Store bobble heads in hand

Did you write this? What did you mean? Can you say that you were right with the benefit of hindsight?

What's the odds Peyton gets half of what he gave up for 2012 without even talking about a restructure?

Did you write this? What did you mean? Can you say that you were right with the benefit of hindsight?

He might get a few offers with a bunch of incentives but nothing like what he could have got from a team that gave him $26M last year for doing nothing, had he tried to work something with them.

Did you write this? What did you mean? Can you say that you were right with the benefit of hindsight?

Answer these

I haven't shied away from anything I said, the bottom line is he got a one year deal until he can prove he can play in future years. A player with the leverage you said he had doesn't do that deal... event if you were their agent and had any leverage they don't do that deal.

You had no real opinion you just made statements, and until $18M becomes more than $23M you were wrong.

He went from a deal with 4 years and $63M left on it to one year $18M... let me know when that $18M becomes at least half of what he left on the table, because $18M is all he got.

You had the benefit of hindsight and you still don't get it.

[The Hogster]

More non-answers, thanks.

[The Hogster]

One basic concept you just ignore, don't grasp, or disagree with is that the Colts were not going to honor Peyton's old contract. You can't have it both ways. On one hand, you say he didn't get what he had on the old deal. On the other hand, you (i) admit that the Colts were not going to pay him the money owed on that deal which is why you believe he should have restructured.

So, let me ask it this way. Do you really think that (even if Peyton wanted to go back to Indy--which nobody thinks he did) that he and the Colts could have restructured the deal in such a way that paid him all of the money he was owed?? Or even $23M in 2012?

Better yet, do you think your proposed, restructure is something realistic?? Something that either party would want?? Why would the Colts want to have $23M tied up in a lameduck QB?? Why would Peyton want to play there with no talent, no coaching staff and his replacement breathing down his neck? Why would the Colts want to have a QB controversy if Peyton didn't play well, or if Luck didn't play well? Why would they want to have money tied up in 2 QBs on a team that's been blown up and has needs at basically every position?? Do you really think what you propose is realistic or even close to realistic?

If you believe that, then that is why this debate is pointless. It's unrealistic. I'm dealing in reality. It seems as if you're dealing with theory or made up figures. Anyone could say, he should have restructured his contract to get X--but give me a break. In order to have a man to man debate, we both have to be dealing with the circumstances that occurred here--in reality. If what you proposed was the smart thing to do, or the best thing for Peyton, Tom Condon would have done it.

But, dude. What you are saying redundantly ignores reality to the point of being downright implausible. Two things you continually ignore are: (i) Peyton has an injury, and (ii) the Colts wound up with the #1 pick the same year that the next Peyton Manning is in the draft. Given that, why would a restructure have been smart?

None of these circumstances apparently mean anything to you. You continue advocating a theoretical restructure that would not have been in the best interests of anyone. None of your suggestions were taken and Tom Condon is one of the best NFL agents there is. Is that a coincidence to you? Or are you genuinely convinced that the secret, intelligent solution is in your posts, but somehow didn't cross anyone else's mind?

[1niksder]

One basic concept you just ignore, don't grasp, or disagree with is that the Colts were not going to honor Peyton's old contract. You can't have it both ways. On one hand, you say he didn't get what he had on the old deal. On the other hand, you (i) admit that the Colts were not going to pay him the money owed on that deal which is why you believe he should have restructured.

So, let me ask it this way. Do you really think that (even if Peyton wanted to go back to Indy--which nobody thinks he did) that he and the Colts could have restructured the deal in such a way that paid him all of the money he was owed?? Or even $23M in 2012?

Better yet, do you think your proposed, restructure is something realistic?? Something that either party would want?? Why would the Colts want to have $23M tied up in a lameduck QB?? Why would Peyton want to play there with no talent, no coaching staff and his replacement breathing down his neck? Why would the Colts want to have a QB controversy if Peyton didn't play well, or if Luck didn't play well? Why would they want to have money tied up in 2 QBs on a team that's been blown up?? Do you really think what you propose is realistic or even close to realistic?

If you believe that, then that is why this debate is pointless. It's unrealistic. I'm dealing in reality. It seems as if you're dealing with theory or made up figures. Anyone could say, he should have restructured his contract to get X--but give me a break. In order to have a man to man debate, we both have to be dealing in reality.

But, dude. That ignores reality to the point of being downright implausible. Two big reasons why your manufactured, theoretical posts make no sense is because it ignores two things that occurred in real life (i) Peyton has an injury, and (ii) the Colts wound up with the #1 pick the same year that the next Peyton Manning is in the draft.

None of these circumstances apparently mean anything to you. You continue advocating a theoretical restructure that would not have been in the best interests of anyone. None of your suggestions were taken and Tom Condon is one of the best NFL agents there is. Is that a coincidence to you? Or are you genuinely convinced that the secret, intelligent solution is in your posts, but somehow didn't cross anyone else's mind?

If you had took the time to read what I posted before throwing the idea away sight unseen, you would have the answers to these questions. Questions others asked and had answered at the time I posted the idea of Manning talking the Colts.

You say it wouldn't have been in the best interest of anyone when, had you read the thread benefits for both parties were explained, Peyton's were obvious and many members asked why the Colts would even want to do it.

You say I took made up numbers, but as I stated in post you obviously didn't read the numbers came from the contract that was being re-negotiated, using made up numbers wouldn't have been a negotiation it would have been a new contract. His 5 years $96M is made up numbers.


If you missed all that, I'll be the last to re-explain it to you.

The questions you're asking explains why this is pointless. It's hard to say it was a debate when in the end you still don't know what the talking points were.

I can't even laugh at you... Wow

[The Hogster]

Exactly. Another non-answer. Another useless retort. Nothing to see here. Good Luck 1niksder.

[1niksder]

Exactly. Another non-answer. Another useless retort. Nothing to see here. Good Luck 1niksder.

You're asking questions that have already been asked and answered, what part of that is confusing you?

Had you read what you were responding to months ago, you wouldn't be asking these questions and getting frustrated because I won't answer them again.


There's plenty to see here, we see you for who you are again. You can't figure out where you went wrong... it's because you couldn't keep it civil.

It went from a thread in Hogwash to being split off and moving parts of the original thread to the smack forum. That wasn't enough so another member started a new thread in AtL to try to get a understanding of the discussion and you brought your opinion of other people's opinion of what Manning should do into this one. Still not enough for you, you started another thread in smack (totaling three in smack).

Now you make it obvious that you didn't even read what you were calling outrageous and simpleminded.


I can believe you went through all this and don't even know what my answers to these question were while we were going back and forth.

I'm definitely done with you on this topic.....

Now I have to run off to find stupid people to apologize to.

[The Hogster]

[1niksder]

We’ve now gotten to the truth. (We’ve determined that we indeed can handle the truth, and we think you can, too.)

It’s a surprisingly simple deal, based on a review of the information and communications with a source having direct knowledge of the negotiation process. Manning gets an $18 million fully guaranteed base salary for 2012. Though he doesn’t get a signing bonus, he’ll receive $6 million of the $18 million base salary as an advance.

Then, if Manning is on the Broncos’ roster on the final day of the 2012 league year, his base salaries of $20 million in 2013 and $20 million in 2014 become fully guaranteed.

In other words, the Broncos can cut Manning at any point after Super Bowl XLVII and before the last day before the start of the 2013 league year and limit the contract to a one-year, $18 million investment. And so, just as the Colts faced a $28 million decision in March 2012, the Broncos will face a $40 million decision in March of 2013.

Didn't get a signing bonus but he did pocket $6M upfront.