The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Yeah, real comical.

“We’ve talked more in recent weeks than we have in most Februarys,” he said. “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us. It’s a difficult thing because sometimes circumstances are thrown at you. You take your hands out of the deck that you’re dealt, and you deal with them.”

During Super Bowl week Peyton said they hadn't talked about his situation yet because Isay was busy as the host of the Super Bowl. He said they would probably talk sometime after that.

Does Irsay's say they talked about his contract? How do we know what they talked about from that chopped up statement?

The Hogster wrote:From Manning’s perspective, however, what is there to negotiate? Irsay owes Manning $28 million by March 8. The only negotiation would be for Manning to agree to delay or reduce that bonus payment, and the Manning camp has indicated that’s not going to happen. The reality is that Manning wants to be the undisputed starter for a team with playoff aspirations, while the Colts want to rebuild around the No. 1 pick in the draft, probably Andrew Luck. There’s not going to be a solution that makes sense for both parties, other than going their separate ways.

That a statement from the writer and it's his assumption, it's not some that Manning told him. He says the Manning camp has indicated they won't be any negotiations. He does not say who in Manning's camp indicated that they won't.

The Hogster wrote:It's not arrogance when you're right.

It's stupidity when you everyone knows you're wrong accept you.

Where have you posted anything that says they've talked about Manning excepting a new deal . You post a part of a story that says Manning and Irsay have talked in recent weeks.... That don't make you right. because you didn't take the time to see what was behind his statement. You read apart of something (no surprising) and thought "I knew I was right", then posted it here to show how smart you are.

Nice try but again you've proved nothing....You did teach me something though. Here's the full statement Irsay make before the writer chopped it up to fit his (and your) agenda.

"We've talked a lot this month, probably more than most Februarys, and it's probably not what most people think we talk about" he said. "Very recently, we got into a debate about will Tiger Woods win more majors than Jack Nicklaus or not."

I learned they talked about golf. Thanks for enlightening me.

But you're no where near proving you're right, if anything I proved he has more to lose by not talking about a new deal than he does standing his ground on a $28M option bonus. But nice try.

Let's just agree to disagree then dude. The only thing all of us have in common is the passion we have for the Redskins. Other than that, we are passing strangers (in most cases). This would be a boring place if we always agreed. It's a sad place when people get angry with each other when we don't.

PulpExposure wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Yeah, real comical.

What makes it comical, is that your attitude stops people from really reading whatever it is your posting. Your "efforts" to enlighten others and rid yourself of dealing with their incompetence are failing..., because of you. Don't mind me though, I'm just a huge fan of irony.

I learned early on in my legal career when I moved in-house to a company that it's not just the message, often times it's more how you deliver it.

Your message gets lost if you act like a jerk.

Truer words have never been spoken. For me, it's not an act though. I'm a jerk in real life. And, not on purpose.

The Hogster wrote:Yeah, real comical.

“We’ve talked more in recent weeks than we have in most Februarys,” he said. “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us. It’s a difficult thing because sometimes circumstances are thrown at you. You take your hands out of the deck that you’re dealt, and you deal with them.”

From Manning’s perspective, however, what is there to negotiate? Irsay owes Manning $28 million by March 8. The only negotiation would be for Manning to agree to delay or reduce that bonus payment, and the Manning camp has indicated that’s not going to happen. The reality is that Manning wants to be the undisputed starter for a team with playoff aspirations, while the Colts want to rebuild around the No. 1 pick in the draft, probably Andrew Luck. There’s not going to be a solution that makes sense for both parties, other than going their separate ways.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... otiations/

It's not arrogance when you're right.

Here' the follow up to what PFT posted and you quoted

It’s not unreasonable to assume that Irsay was claiming that negotiations occurred, given that Irsay has spoken openly just three days ago about paying Peyton something less than $28 million on March 28. Given the context, Irsay definitely sounded like he was referring to negotiations when he said this: “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us.”

Regardless, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that, to the extent Irsay contends that negotiations have occurred regarding the money that Peyton would be paid on a reduced contract, no such negotiations have occurred. “Numbers aren’t being discussed,” the source said.

1niksder wrote:Here' the follow up to what PFT posted and you quoted

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Yeah, real comical.

“We’ve talked more in recent weeks than we have in most Februarys,” he said. “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us. It’s a difficult thing because sometimes circumstances are thrown at you. You take your hands out of the deck that you’re dealt, and you deal with them.”

From Manning’s perspective, however, what is there to negotiate? Irsay owes Manning $28 million by March 8. The only negotiation would be for Manning to agree to delay or reduce that bonus payment, and the Manning camp has indicated that’s not going to happen. The reality is that Manning wants to be the undisputed starter for a team with playoff aspirations, while the Colts want to rebuild around the No. 1 pick in the draft, probably Andrew Luck. There’s not going to be a solution that makes sense for both parties, other than going their separate ways.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... otiations/

It's not arrogance when you're right.

Here' the follow up to what PFT posted and you quoted

It’s not unreasonable to assume that Irsay was claiming that negotiations occurred, given that Irsay has spoken openly just three days ago about paying Peyton something less than $28 million on March 28. Given the context, Irsay definitely sounded like he was referring to negotiations when he said this: “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us.”

Regardless, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that, to the extent Irsay contends that negotiations have occurred regarding the money that Peyton would be paid on a reduced contract, no such negotiations have occurred. “Numbers aren’t being discussed,” the source said.

Exactly what I have been saying. Only a fool would discuss "money that Peyton would be paid on a reduced contract." Why would he? Of course, Tom Condon--(i) an 11 year NFL Player, (ii) Two Year Head of NFLPA, and (iii) 30 Year Sports agent, knows less than you---a lifelong ....well.



This is so lame!! SMH

The Hogster wrote:

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Yeah, real comical.

“We’ve talked more in recent weeks than we have in most Februarys,” he said. “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us. It’s a difficult thing because sometimes circumstances are thrown at you. You take your hands out of the deck that you’re dealt, and you deal with them.”

From Manning’s perspective, however, what is there to negotiate? Irsay owes Manning $28 million by March 8. The only negotiation would be for Manning to agree to delay or reduce that bonus payment, and the Manning camp has indicated that’s not going to happen. The reality is that Manning wants to be the undisputed starter for a team with playoff aspirations, while the Colts want to rebuild around the No. 1 pick in the draft, probably Andrew Luck. There’s not going to be a solution that makes sense for both parties, other than going their separate ways.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... otiations/

It's not arrogance when you're right.

Here' the follow up to what PFT posted and you quoted

It’s not unreasonable to assume that Irsay was claiming that negotiations occurred, given that Irsay has spoken openly just three days ago about paying Peyton something less than $28 million on March 28. Given the context, Irsay definitely sounded like he was referring to negotiations when he said this: “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us.”

Regardless, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that, to the extent Irsay contends that negotiations have occurred regarding the money that Peyton would be paid on a reduced contract, no such negotiations have occurred. “Numbers aren’t being discussed,” the source said.

Exactly what I have been saying. Only a fool would discuss "money that Peyton would be paid on a reduced contract." Why would he? Of course, Tom Condon--(i) an 11 year NFL Player, (ii) Two Year Head of NFLPA, and (iii) 30 Year Sports agent, knows less than you---a lifelong ....well.



This is so lame!! SMH

Yesterday you were saying that I didn't know weather or not they had already talked, today you beat your chest about being right about them talking after you found something that said they did... until I proved that what you found proved nothing.

Next you want to agree to disagree... now you're back on your high horse.


On March 8th he won't have a penny coming from the $63M left on his current deal. At this point the only thing preventing him from getting paid is a $28M option bonus. Only a fool throws away the other $35M because they don't want to take less than what the option bonus would have been without finding out what the $28M could become.

Lame ain't the word for it...

You know it's all over, not because he said "You know what? I was wrong; you are right," but because he's saying "let's agree to disagree" and "hey, this is just an internet board where people go to write their own opinions; nothing that gets said here really matters in the scheme of things . . ." That's always the last bastion of someone without a leg to stand on. I call it "meta-disagreement."

On THN, it's as close as you'll get to people of a certain type admitting that they were overstating their case, or misrepresenting evidence, or were just plain mistaken. But you can take it to the bank that when you see those words, both parties know the battle is over, and one side clearly won.

On March 8th he won't have a penny coming from the $63M left on his current deal. At this point the only thing preventing him from getting paid is a $28M option bonus. Only a fool throws away the other $35M because they don't want to take less than what the option bonus would have been without finding out what the $28M could become.

Lame ain't the word for it...

You can't run from what you've written, and neither can I. Mitt Romney, state your argument and how I'm "wrong."



You've posted links that prove my point. Peyton is a goner. He's not getting the $28M or the remaining contract money. He's not dumb enough to renegotiate a deal to stay in Indy when all indications are that they're moving on. If you state a concise argument, then it would be easier for you to get out of this without having to contradict yourself. You haven't made a reasonable argument for why Peyton should restructure now. He shouldn't. Your posts tell the story. I've seen the pics on here and on Twitter of some of you---trust me, being accepted in this circle is not something I aspire to. Football talk---that's it.

< 1niksder

Irn-Bru wrote:You know it's all over, not because he said "You know what? I was wrong; you are right," but because he's saying "let's agree to disagree" and "hey, this is just an internet board where people go to write their own opinions; nothing that gets said here really matters in the scheme of things . . ." That's always the last bastion of someone without a leg to stand on. I call it "meta-disagreement."

+1

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:You know it's all over, not because he said "You know what? I was wrong; you are right," but because he's saying "let's agree to disagree" and "hey, this is just an internet board where people go to write their own opinions; nothing that gets said here really matters in the scheme of things . . ." That's always the last bastion of someone without a leg to stand on. I call it "meta-disagreement."

+1

Jeeez, you know it's bad when Momon86 is laughing. LOL

Me and Tom Condon - Zero

THN Gaggle - 100

Got it.

LOL

BTW - Your post quoted a "SOURCE" Mine quoted Irsay. Nonetheless, the point has been proven, Condon and Manning need not negotiate a reduced salary. They have the most leverage they could ever have right now. You've stated nothing to support your belief that restructuring is in anyone's best interest. Nothing. Not that I expected you to. But you haven't. Carry on.

The Hogster wrote:

On March 8th he won't have a penny coming from the $63M left on his current deal. At this point the only thing preventing him from getting paid is a $28M option bonus. Only a fool throws away the other $35M because they don't want to take less than what the option bonus would have been without finding out what the $28M could become.

Lame ain't the word for it...

You can't run from what you've written, and neither can I. Mitt Romney, state your argument and how I'm "wrong."



You've posted links that prove my point. Peyton is a goner. He's not getting the $28M or the remaining contract money. He's not dumb enough to renegotiate a deal to stay in Indy when all indications are that they're moving on. If you state a concise argument, then it would be easier for you to get out of this without having to contradict yourself. You haven't made a reasonable argument for why Peyton should restructure now. He shouldn't. Your posts tell the story. I've seen the pics on here and on Twitter of some of you---trust me, being accepted in this circle is not something I aspire to. Football talk---that's it.

Let's not resort to pictures or you'll lose your leverage in the Smack forum...

Speaking of what has been written (that can't be run from)

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:What does Peyton have to lose?

$28M and a LOT of leverage duh. As of right now, if the contract remains as-is, he gets $28M from the Colts, or the ability to negotiate with all 32 teams. If he restructures into an incentive based deal now, he (i) only gets whatever he can and (ii) he has to deal with Andrew Luck, a new offense, and a rebuilding team next year. So, the question you should be asking is what does he GAIN by restructuring now that he won't have on March 9th??

I asked what he had to lose, you say $28M and a lot of leverage... and then asked what he has to gain.

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:So all he has right now is the ability to talk to 32 teams after March 8th or when the Colts say he can talk to those 32 teams or which ever come first. That the Colts with all the leverage if you ask me.

The team always has leverage because--as mentioned prior--the team can terminate the contract at will, while the bargained for rules prohibit the player from simply saying I quit--as a route to free agency. But, Peyton knows this, he will either (i) become a free agent on March 9th, or (ii) be cashing a $28M check on March 8th. That is leverage for an NFL player.

Restructuring by definition is to rearrange, in this case restructuring his remaining contract or base salaries in 2012: $7.4 million, 2013: $8.4 million, 2014: $9.4 million, and 2015: $10.4 million, + the $28 million option bonus. With the Colts you're talking about $35M+ over the next four years and the bonus, with the base salaries as the starting point.
On the open market he's starting with nothing, zero, zelch. He only has leverage if he talks, because if not they're going to tell him to walk.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you--like everyone else--don't believe the Colts intend to pay Peyton what he's owed under the contract. But, here you're arguing that he's "giving up" the money owed on his deal by not restructuring?? Yet more nonsense.

Tom Condon and Peyton (like everyone else) likely has the indication that the Colts will release Peyton. They are comfortable with that option. As a result, he has no power over whether or not he gets the money due under this deal, because all signs point to the obvious--the Colts will tear it up because they don't want to pay the $28M bonus. Read that a few times, then refer to the definition of leverage. If you try, you'll get it sooner or later.

So what YOU wrote tells us Peyton Manning stands to lose his leverage if he talks to the Colts about a restructure because the always has the leverage?

You even said I should look up the word leverage... If one of us had we both would have known a option bonus gives the payer the leverage not the payee as the payee can't say he doesn't want it but the payer can say they aren't paying.

You should stop getting back on that high horse of yours because you keep falling off.

You might want to follow some of the advise that you are always trying to put out there. It might help prevent all this time you're wasting trying to get the egg off your face.

Irn-Bru wrote:You know it's all over, not because he said "You know what? I was wrong; you are right," but because he's saying "let's agree to disagree" and "hey, this is just an internet board where people go to write their own opinions; nothing that gets said here really matters in the scheme of things . . ." That's always the last bastion of someone without a leg to stand on. I call it "meta-disagreement."

On THN, it's as close as you'll get to people of a certain type admitting that they were overstating their case, or misrepresenting evidence, or were just plain mistaken. But you can take it to the bank that when you see those words, both parties know the battle is over, and one side clearly won.

But they will continue to keep digging that hole until someone comes along and starts filling it in. Some people have to be condescending because that's all they know. If they knew anything the topic, they'd be able to say it without throwing out a bunch of BS about how their life experiences gives them more insight on what's being discussed.

The Hogster wrote:Me and Tom Condon - Zero

THN Gaggle - 100

Got it.

LOL

BTW - Your post quoted a "SOURCE" Mine quoted Irsay. Nonetheless, the point has been proven, Condon and Manning need not negotiate a reduced salary. They have the most leverage they could ever have right now. You've stated nothing to support your belief that restructuring is in anyone's best interest. Nothing. Not that I expected you to. But you haven't. Carry on.

You don't get it and never will, but I knew that when you make your original comment about Peyton having leverage.

I've made my point, you've aligned yourself with a guy that's about to miss out on his commission come March 8th.


You quoted part off what Irsay said.... I posted the complete sentence. Two different things. Your partial statement made you think you were correct. When you read the full statement, you wanted to agree to disagree.

But you can't leave it alone... So post away, sooner or later you'e bound to get something right. Good look with that.

1niksder wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:You know it's all over, not because he said "You know what? I was wrong; you are right," but because he's saying "let's agree to disagree" and "hey, this is just an internet board where people go to write their own opinions; nothing that gets said here really matters in the scheme of things . . ." That's always the last bastion of someone without a leg to stand on. I call it "meta-disagreement."

On THN, it's as close as you'll get to people of a certain type admitting that they were overstating their case, or misrepresenting evidence, or were just plain mistaken. But you can take it to the bank that when you see those words, both parties know the battle is over, and one side clearly won.

But they will continue to keep digging that hole until someone comes along and starts filling it in. Some people have to be condescending because that's all they know. If they knew anything the topic, they'd be able to say it without throwing out a bunch of BS about how their life experiences gives them more insight on what's being discussed.

So you're saying that I'm wrong because they aren't discussing the numbers on a restructured contract? How does that make any sense, when my position has always been that Peyton should not do that?

I've always said--in plain English--that the Colts are in a corner because they either have to (i) cut Peyton or (ii) pay him. Peyton has leverage because that's a win win for him. He's either paid or cut--and free to sign elsewhere.

Your position has been that Peyton needs his agent to "make it look like he's giving something back." That's total BS. You never clarified what that meant. Then you fumbled into saying that Peyton stands a better chance of getting the remaining money on his current deal, by restructuring that deal. That's just ridiculous. Bill Polian is fired. The coaching staff is fired. The Colts have the golden ticket--the #1 pick and the ability to draft Andrew Luck--I've asked you to tell me why Peyton should restructure to stay in that situation--you can't.

Instead, you want to declare victory by posting a quote from an unnamed source that says that the parties have not discussed a restructured contract. Well duh genius. That's what I've been saying all along. They shouldn't be discussing a restructured deal because that would be dumb. Peyton has a contract that the Colts don't intend to honor. As a result, Peyton & Condon are in the driver's seat. We're just waiting for the rubber to meet road--the delayed inevitable. We're just waiting for the Colts to release him so he can go about his business.

Tom Condon is one of the best at this, and he's doing exactly what I've said he should in this thread---NOTHING. He owes the Colts no favors. He represents Peyton, not the Colts, not the fans, not you, not me. His client is not getting $28M from the Colts because the Colts are moving on--you should too.

BTW - 1niksder - I've always given you credit for your contributions to the site especially with respect to the salary cap. Respect to you for that. But, seriously dude, you're way to sensitive and defensive when it comes to your opinions.

Two people can have differing opinions. Just understand your flaws and stay in your lane. You're like Bruce Allen to me. You're good when it comes to looking at numbers, but you're not exactly the go-to guy for everything. You act like Jerry Jones bro. You think you're good at everything, but you're not.

This thread, the Adam Archuletta thread, the Brandon Banks thread are all filled with you throwing a tantrum when someone calls BS on something you say. Get a grip. Am I a jerk? Yes. Are you too sensitive? Yes. You won't change me, and I won't change you. Isn't that the point though??

Exchange ideas, and opinions and leave it there. The rest of this is wayy too touchy feely.

The Hogster wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:You know it's all over, not because he said "You know what? I was wrong; you are right," but because he's saying "let's agree to disagree" and "hey, this is just an internet board where people go to write their own opinions; nothing that gets said here really matters in the scheme of things . . ." That's always the last bastion of someone without a leg to stand on. I call it "meta-disagreement."

On THN, it's as close as you'll get to people of a certain type admitting that they were overstating their case, or misrepresenting evidence, or were just plain mistaken. But you can take it to the bank that when you see those words, both parties know the battle is over, and one side clearly won.

But they will continue to keep digging that hole until someone comes along and starts filling it in. Some people have to be condescending because that's all they know. If they knew anything the topic, they'd be able to say it without throwing out a bunch of BS about how their life experiences gives them more insight on what's being discussed.

So you're saying that I'm wrong because they aren't discussing the numbers on a restructured contract? How does that make any sense, when my position has always been that Peyton should not do that?

I said your post that states you're not arrogant when you're right was wrong. You posted that because you said I didn't know that Condon hadn't already talked to the Colts, and I replied that you didn't know that he did. After reading the whole Irsay statement it proved they hadn't talked about it.

The Hogster wrote:I've always said--in plain English--that the Colts are in a corner because they either have to (i) cut Peyton or (ii) pay him. Peyton has leverage because that's a win win for him. He's either paid or cut--and free to sign elsewhere.

Now I've said in plain English that you're wrong on this point. The option bonus give the team all the leverage. Today Peyton Manning is under contract with $63M due over the next 4 years. Until the deadline comes he's Colts property. Where is this leverage you say Peyton and Tom has?

The Hogster wrote:Your position has been that Peyton needs his agent to "make it look like he's giving something back." That's total BS. You never clarified what that meant. Then you fumbled into saying that Peyton stands a better chance of getting the remaining money on his current deal, by restructuring that deal. That's just ridiculous.

I said I think they should talk, I haven't once said he should give anything back, to say I said anything else is what is total BS. I clarified exactly what I meant, but way up there on your self imposed pedestal you must have missed it, (you must have missed it when DS pointed it out to you too). It's ridiculous that you could be this slow.

The Hogster wrote:Bill Polian is fired. The coaching staff is fired. The Colts have the golden ticket--the #1 pick and the ability to draft Andrew Luck--I've asked you to tell me why Peyton should restructure to stay in that situation--you can't.

I guess you missed that part too. Why do always tell people to read when you obviously don't. I'm not going to re-post it considering you've quoted from that post

The Hogster wrote:Instead, you want to declare victory by posting a quote from an unnamed source that says that the parties have not discussed a restructured contract. Well duh genius.

Declaring victory is your thing. I guess comparing what I'm posting to what you post some might thing I'm a genius, but I'm not and you using it to constantly try and degrade other posters, got old a long time ago

The Hogster wrote: That's what I've been saying all along. They shouldn't be discussing a restructured deal because that would be dumb. Peyton has a contract that the Colts don't intend to honor. As a result, Peyton & Condon are in the driver's seat.

Peyton is looking at going from $63M over four year with a bad neck and no velocity on his passes to looking for a job. They might want to let somebody else drive

The Hogster wrote: We're just waiting for the rubber to meet road--the delayed inevitable. We're just waiting for the Colts to release him so he can go about his business.

Tom Condon is one of the best at this, and he's doing exactly what I've said he should in this thread---NOTHING. He owes the Colts no favors. He represents Peyton, not the Colts, not the fans, not you, not me. His client is not getting $28M from the Colts because the Colts are moving on--you should too.

You still haven't said what he has to lose by talking to them. He doesn't have any leverage and he doesn't heve $28M coming, so what does he have to lose.... other than he current job?

That was my original question, give Tom a call an get back with me on that.

1niksder wrote:

Now I've said in plain English that you're wrong on this point. The option bonus give the team all the leverage. Today Peyton Manning is under contract with $63M due over the next 4 years. Until the deadline comes he's Colts property. Where is this leverage you say Peyton and Tom has?

The team doesn't have leverage right now. Maybe you have your own definition of what leverage is, but let's be clear. The Colts have 2 options. Pay him. Or cut him.

You're suggesting that Peyton give them a third option---pay him less and keep him around. That would be awesome for the Colts and borderline retarded for Peyton. That option would be precisely what the Colts want. But they can't have that unless Peyton does them that favor.

You think he should, I think Condon is spot on by not doing that. The Colts are trying to win the PR battle while simultaneously making not-so-subtle plans to move on from Peyton. Peyton is standing firm as he should. Right now he's under contract. Period. The Colts are not going to pay him --the classiest thing would be for Irsay to say something to the effect of "Peyton Manning has singlehandedly brought this franchise from obscurity to perenial relevance. Unfortunately, his injury made this tough decision one that we had to make. Peyton Manning will always be a Colt and we wish him the best. As of right now, the Colts have to prepare for success whether Peyton is our QB or not."

The classy thing would be to just release him now rather than on March 7th. But no. You want Peyton (whose had his throat cut open 3-4 times to repair a spine for the TEAM) to give them yet another concession by taking an incentive based deal to remain with a team that's MOVING ON. That's like asking your wife of 13 years to stick around while you play around with a college girl. Sure, that would be a win win, but only for one party.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of being a zealous advocate for your client. Condon is doing the smart thing. He's acting in Peyton's best interest. You're doing what you do best--judge with limited info. Condon's successful at what he does.

The Hogster wrote:BTW - 1niksder - I've always given you credit for your contributions to the site especially with respect to the salary cap. Respect to you for that. But, seriously dude, you're way to sensitive and defensive when it comes to your opinions.

Where did I get defensive? Where was I sensitive? You're the on that HAS to be right even when you're not sure that you are. We all add something to this site, that's why I like it so much.

The Hogster wrote:Two people can have differing opinions. Just understand your flaws and stay in your lane. You're like Bruce Allen to me. You're good when it comes to looking at numbers, but you're not exactly the go-to guy for everything. You act like Jerry Jones bro. You think you're good at everything, but you're not.

That's your opinion of me? WOW... you rarely give us you're opinion around here. Normally we get how great you are and why our opinions are wrong.

The Hogster wrote:This thread, the Adam Archuletta thread, the Brandon Banks thread are all filled with you throwing a tantrum when someone calls BS on something you say. Get a grip. Am I a jerk? Yes. Are you too sensitive? Yes. You won't change me, and I won't change you. Isn't that the point though??

How does one throw a tantrum on a message board? What would that look like? I forgot all about the AA and BB threads, I guess those little debates still get to you, that's funny you should get over them

You don't have a clue about me and this statement proves how full of yourself you really are. I thought you were conceded but I don't want to insult conceded people by grouping them with you. One of us should get a grip.

The Hogster wrote:Exchange ideas, and opinions and leave it there. The rest of this is wayy too touchy feely.

No it's not unless you take it personal and I don't. Bringing up discussions that happened years ago pretty much tells everyone who takes his stuff personal

The Hogster wrote:1niksder wrote:

Now I've said in plain English that you're wrong on this point. The option bonus give the team all the leverage. Today Peyton Manning is under contract with $63M due over the next 4 years. Until the deadline comes he's Colts property. Where is this leverage you say Peyton and Tom has?

The team doesn't have leverage right now. Maybe you have your own definition of what leverage is, but let's be clear. The Colts have 2 options. Pay him. Or cut him.

What are Peyton's options? He has NONE. He can wait to see what the Colts do or he can wait and see what the Colts do.

So tell me how the Colts don't have the leverage

The Hogster wrote:Apparently you don't understand the concept of being a zealous advocate for your client. Condon is doing the smart thing. He's acting in Peyton's best interest. You're doing what you do best--judge with limited info. Condon's successful at what he does.

There you goagain trying to talk down to people again. Condon is doing nothing while he waits on his client to lose the remaining $63M on a one year old deal.

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:1niksder wrote:

Now I've said in plain English that you're wrong on this point. The option bonus give the team all the leverage. Today Peyton Manning is under contract with $63M due over the next 4 years. Until the deadline comes he's Colts property. Where is this leverage you say Peyton and Tom has?

The team doesn't have leverage right now. Maybe you have your own definition of what leverage is, but let's be clear. The Colts have 2 options. Pay him. Or cut him.

What are Peyton's options? He has NONE. He can wait to see what the Colts do or he can wait and see what the Colts do.

So tell me how the Colts don't have the leverage

The Hogster wrote:Apparently you don't understand the concept of being a zealous advocate for your client. Condon is doing the smart thing. He's acting in Peyton's best interest. You're doing what you do best--judge with limited info. Condon's successful at what he does.

There you goagain trying to talk down to people again. Condon is doing nothing while he waits on his client to lose the remaining $63M on a one year old deal.

Sometimes doing nothing is the strongest move you can make. Like I said before, Peyton should do nothing because that's his strongest move. He has a contract right now, and the Colts have to act--not him. You seem to want Peyton to make a move--by restructuring. I think that's a losing option.

Have you ever played Poker? Do you know what calling a bluff means? If you do, then simply apply that logic here.

Players rarely have leverage. That's just the way it is, and that's fair. In this case, the circumstances--in total--favor Peyton. If the Colts had say the 15th pick in the draft, this wouldn't even be a discussion. If they released him, they'd have to roll with who--Curtis Painter, or Orlovsky??

BUT, the Colts have the #1 Pick. And the "once in a lifetime QB who most compare to Manning" just so happens to be the consensus #1. So, Peyton can sit back and wait for the Colts to release him--and that's what he's doing.

Peyton doesn't have to make any moves. That's what is great for him. Either he gets paid, or gets cut, then chooses where he goes and gets paid.

Now, T.O. Moss, and Clinton Portis? Those guys have no leverage. There are plenty of guys who have no leverage, which means, no good options to force a situation that is a win for you. Tell me how Peyton loses by not restructurin?

You can argue a losing point until you're blue in the face. I couldn't care less. In reality, this is what is going on in Indy. And, your position is that Peyton should go back to the table, negotiate a lesser deal to be a part of this reality??? Good Luck with that.



Redskin in Canada was right. Just like me! My confidence + your insecurity = My Arrogance. got it.

The Hogster wrote:Sometimes doing nothing is the strongest move you can make. Like I said before, Peyton should do nothing because that's his strongest move. He has a contract right now, and the Colts have to act--not him. You seem to want Peyton to make a move--by restructuring. I think that's a losing option.

That's your opinion as to what you think Manning should do. My opinion is he should try to work something out. We have different opinions. But it doesn't make one of us right and one of us wrong.

With that out the way lets try this again.... Here why I disagree with your opinion (note: I still have not said you're wrong...)

Restructuring could result in a $10M signing bonus with his 2012 and 2013 Base salaries being guaranteed with roster bonuses of $4M in 2013-2015. That would be $25.8M guaranteed versus not getting $28M at all. I that taking less? No in the end his $63M turns into $65M with no additional years added. Why would the Colts do it? Because the option bonus will cost them $28M in cap space + the 2012 base this year, and the restructure would cost the Colts about $9.9M this year. Again his other option is unemployment with a bad arm. What's the odds that he'll get $17M+ this season and $11M+ next year from one of the other 31 teams?

You keep saying the Colts have to act, but they come out ahead by doing nothing but waiting to cut him. Peyton $35.4M in cap space would be freed up by not paying Manning anything.

Does Peyton lose anything by doing this?

The Hogster wrote:Have you ever played Poker? Do you know what calling a bluff means? If you do, then simply apply that logic here.

OK now we are playing poker

Irsay said he wants Peyton to stay in Indy, but the $28M bonus is too much to pay (even if Peyton had played all 16 games last season). <--- this is the bluff

Option bonuses are due the year they are paid. Signing bonuses are spread out over the length of the contract.

If Peyton proposed the deal above (this would be Manning calling Irsay's bluff), and Irsay passes. At this point everyone knows Irsay is bluffing.

I gotta ask again.... What does Peyton lose by doing this?

The Hogster wrote:Players rarely have leverage. That's just the way it is, and that's fair. In this case, the circumstances--in total--favor Peyton. If the Colts had say the 15th pick in the draft, this wouldn't even be a discussion. If they released him, they'd have to roll with who--Curtis Painter, or Orlovsky??

I still don't get you on this. How can you say Peyton has the leverage? The day this deal was signed everyone involved knew the $28M wouldn't be paid. The Colts only have $6.5M in cap space including carry over. Regardless of what the Colts did last year this would be discussed because at the very least Peyton would have had to convert the $28M into a signing bonus, which would required a new deal to be worked out. The Colts never mentioned a new deal until recently and I say Peyton should talk to them to see what they have to say.

The Hogster wrote:BUT, the Colts have the #1 Pick. And the "once in a lifetime QB who most compare to Manning" just so happens to be the consensus #1. So, Peyton can sit back and wait for the Colts to release him--and that's what he's doing.

Peyton doesn't have to make any moves. That's what is great for him. Either he gets paid, or gets cut, then chooses where he goes and gets paid.

Now, T.O. Moss, and Clinton Portis? Those guys have no leverage. There are plenty of guys who have no leverage, which means, no good options to force a situation that is a win for you. Tell me how Peyton loses by not restructurin?

T.O. Moss and Portis, will be joined by Peyton Manning NLT March 8th only diffrence is today they can talk to all 32 teams about employment. Peyton can only talk to one. The one you say he shouldn't talk to

The Hogster wrote:Then you fumbled into saying that Peyton stands a better chance of getting the remaining money on his current deal, by restructuring that deal. That's just ridiculous. Bill Polian is fired. The coaching staff is fired. The Colts have the golden ticket--the #1 pick and the ability to draft Andrew Luck--I've asked you to tell me why Peyton should restructure to stay in that situation--you can't.

See this is what you still fail to understand. If he restructures (meaning move the money around, but the overall value stays the same), he stands to make $63 million plus whatever new signing bonuses there are. If he hits the FA market he will never make that much. Now, money may not be what's important to Peyton at this point in his career, so he may not be interested in staying in Indy even if he could restructure. Also, I don't think the Colts would restructure anyway. They want to cut him so they don't have to pay that $63 million to a player who has seen his best days. They'd much rather go with Luck and start the whole process over again. Trouble is, the fan base knows what Peyton meant to the Colts, so Irsay can't just come out and say "See ya." He has to make it look like he's open to negotiating, when in truth, that's the furthest thing from his mind.

The Hogster wrote:Tom Condon is one of the best at this, and he's doing exactly what I've said he should in this thread---NOTHING. He owes the Colts no favors. He represents Peyton, not the Colts, not the fans, not you, not me. His client is not getting $28M from the Colts because the Colts are moving on--you should too.

Yes, but by doing nothing he is willingly giving up on that $63 million to take less from someone else. Condon is doing his client a disservice by not at least exploring the restructuring angle.

The Hogster wrote:You're suggesting that Peyton give them a third option---pay him less and keep him around. That would be awesome for the Colts and borderline retarded for Peyton. That option would be precisely what the Colts want. But they can't have that unless Peyton does them that favor.

This is where your reading comprehension has failed you. 1niksder never said any such thing. He said he should restructure, not renegotiate. Two totally separate concepts. Restructuring means Peyton would still get all the money from his current contract, plus any new signing bonuses to move the money around so that the team can more easily manage his cap hit.