RESPONSE: Manning has already rejected such an offer. The Colts offered to make him the highest paid player in the game during the season. Yet, Peyton rejected it...choosing instead to play out the season without an extension...and risking injury. Surely he sought Condon's advice before doing so. That's what lawyers do, Dog(gggg). Their paid to advise, as well as represent.
Do you think contracts just "happen". They are complicated and must be reviewed and understood completely before accepting. I am willing to believe that Manning gets significantly involved with his own contracts and a bye week is not really enough time to complete one. Further, Manning is the consumate player who spends considerable time preparing. Pats fans praise Belichick for not letting outside issues distract his work during the season. Why not praise Manning in the same way for not wanting to be distracted during the season in the same way? Must be those pats colored glasses you wear. LOL.
RESPONSE: Again, Condon is paid to advise...not just to negotiate. I didn't ask that, and you've already said this, see above. I asked, Do you think Manning controls his agent. Please answer the question. RESPONSE: I have answered your question. Unfortunately, you didn't like my answer. Again, lawyers are paid to advise. Condon has obviously strategised with Peyton over his worth. If Peyton knew what he wanted from the get go, and how to get it...why pay Condon?
Nonsense, You didn't answer it at all. Do you think Manning controls his agent? Its an easy answer. yes or no? Advising is one thing, but who controls the business relationship? Is it Manning or Condon? Who pays Condon?
RESPONSE: From Colt's management, who basically said that they'll do whatever it takes to sign him. "Basically" is not actually. You are being a little loose with your language TP. They never said they would "basically" do whatever it takes to sign Manning. They said they would make him the highest paid. That is very different from your interpretation.RESPONSE: 1.) Irsay has indicated that the Colts will "break the bank" to keep Manning:
2.) Jim Irsay says that the Colts will keep Manning, regardless of the cost: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Colts-owner-Jim-Irsay-ready-to-make-Peyton-Manning-highest-paid-player-0802103.) Colts have already made an offer which tops Brady's deal: www.stampedeblue.com/2011/1/23/1951718/colts-make-offer-to-peyton-manning">http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/1/23/1951718/colts-make-offer-to-peyton-manning
How does it feel to be proven wrong so often?
LOL - you've got some problem there with making assumptions from things not said. Nowhere did your articles say Manning was going to be given a blank check. Nowhere did your articles say the colts would do "basically whatever it takes to sign him". The colts said they would make Manning the highest paid player in the league. Doing that doesn't come close to meaning the colts would do "whatever it takes" or give him a "blank check". List TP, when you prove me wrong, we'll have a party.RESPONSE: Green Acres. Unlike you, I no longer read Dr. Suess books.
You must not have kids. You are missing out, my friend. Funny, the NFL thought enough of Indy (your Hooterville) to play a superbowl here. How's that working out in Boston. LOL!!!RESPONSE: Who's backpedaling? I'm not going to say that anything is 100% certain. But, I'd venture that Peyton going is better than 50/50. If he stays, it will only be because the Colts grossly overpaid him...and gave him the power that he seeks.
You have been backpedaling since I challenged you. You make big bold absolute statements until you are called on them, and then you use words like "observation and basically and phrases like 50/50." Clearly you are not quite as certain as your big mouth would like you to be. RESPONSE: Do you personally know Peyton...or would you just like to? Every opinion piece is based on deductions...an educated guess based on the facts known. Why do you think that Peyton chose to risk injury, and pass on a better deal Brady got? How does that fit in with your whines about him "wishing to remain a Colt...give the team a home town discount...and that he's happy in Indy?
So you really don't know whether or not Manning is happy? Just stop trying to present your speculation as fact, and we'll be just fine. RESPONSE: "Someone in the Brady posse"? Who is this "someone"? Where is it mentioned in Silver's article that "someone from Brady's posse" went to Silver?: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-trippinwednesday060210 Or, is this another of your exaggerations, lies, and misrepresentations that you are famous for?
Silver is a media hack, who is biased against the Pats...judging from his "spygate" coverage. Why hasn't Silver penned a similar article on Peyton's situation? Why hasn't anyone in the media done so?
Here - try these Read the mailbag pieces from silver. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-trippintuesday061510
or here: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-trippintuesday070610
or here: http://www.necn.com/08/12/10/Felger-Brady-exclusive-with-Michael-Silv/v1_landing_patriots.html?blockID=288608&feedID=3352RESPONSE: Here we go now, misdirecting the discussion. Answer my question, please. Why didn't Brady do what Manning has done, despite the alleged "growing disconnect" between he and the Pats? It would appear that there's a "growing disconnect" between Peyton and Colts' management?
And you've had my answer a number of times:
1) Brady gave a discount before and it netted him nothing in terms of championships.
2) Brady was only due 6.5 mill in 2010 vs. Manning's 20 mill. Brady wanted to be paid.
3) Brady was not going to play a final season without an extension given his season ending injury in 08.
4) not stated before - Brady knows the pats way of doing business. No one is sacred. If Brady were injured in 10 he could have been expected to get a cheap deal from the pats.
5) Manning on the other hand, made more money on his current deal, was due to be paid 20 mill in 2010, earned a championship on the contract, and had an assurance from the owner that he would be a colt and would be paid. Very different motivations. RESPONSE: The Pats had one stolen from them in 2006 by the refs in Indy. The officiating was so bad that the league felt it necessary to issue a "letter of apology". In 2007, the Pats went to the SB. In 2010, they finished with the league's best record. Their success was based in part on Brady giving a home town discount to help the team...unlike a certain prima-donna in Indy.
This is why pats fans get the spygate treatment. Their wins were stolen. LOL. Still whining. As for that letter, no one has seen it. did you know that? It was only reported by hobbs that he received a letter. Why would the NFL send a letter only to a player and not the team? The team never said they received a letter. You know what I believe? I believe there was no letter. Doesn't pass the smell test. Championships TPat. Championships. What championships did the pats win? Funny how in the wake of 2 one and dones that pats fans have now begun to temper the grandstanding that previously came so easy and now find success in winning regular seasons. RESPONSE: What? Where are you getting this from? Brady won three SBs in four years, between 2001-2004. Peyton won none...yet Peyton took every red cent he could get, while Brady worked with management. Brady's unselfishness and dedication to the team is the reason why he's been more successful that his horse-faced contemporary. Brady is more concerned with championships than individual stats, or MVP titles.
See above and see below. Since taking a discount Brady has won nothing whereas Manning didn't take a discount and won a championship and has been to 2 SB. Stay on point here Tpat. RESPONSE: What's your point? This thread, and this post, centered around the real possibility that Manning will walk. Stay on subject, please.
You were the one bringing up Brady, LOL!!!!!!!! I am only responding. If you want the subject centered on Manning only, then keep it there. TPat - Have you had your coffee yet? LOL!!!!!!!!RESPONSE: Again...misdirecting the conversation. Why? Where's your proof that "Manning has done better than Brady"? If not for considerable help from the zebras in 2006, Manning would be without a championship.
You don't think that Manning was interested in gaining maximum leverage? Then, why did he pass on a better deal than Brady got, and risk being derailed by injury?
Take him at his word? So...you buy that BS that Peyton didn't want the distraction during the season? I still have that Florida swamp land to show you, pal.
How am I misdirecting? You made an unprovable assumption that Manning wanted to gain Maximum leverage. I disagreed with that assumption and said I take him at his word (which was that he didn't want a distraction during the season). Since their last contracts, Manning has been to 2 SB's, won one, won an SB MVP, and 2 MVP's. Brady has been to one SB, lost, and won 2 MVP's. That tells me that Manning has been more successful. I don't think Manning's reason for not doing a contract during the season was about gaining maximum leverage. I've told you multiple times why I think Manning chose not to do a contract during the season. Your problem is you've got a case of amnesia. You keep asking the same question over and over and over and over again. Do you have any other information from Manning or the colts that suggests or proves that his Manning's motivations for not doing a contract during the season are different than the reasons he gave?RESPONSE: Yeah, umm, yeah...uh huh. uh huh...LOL!!!
Excellent response when you really have nothing better to say. LOL!!!!!RESPONSE: Several writers and former pro players thought that Manning had slipped some in 2010.
I know Reggie Wayne said he found out that Manning was mortal. Other than that, the colts fielded their worst oline (which was already suspect) in years and had to deal with injuries of every skill player including those that played. Given a little better health and hopefully a little better line play, I think you'll see Manning back to his MVP form next year. RESPONSE: And your point is?? What do you expect the league to do...have the Rules Committee ordain that Peyton remain a Colt for life? Set aside a league fund to help the Colts pay him whatever he seeks? LOL!!!
No, simply put, the league understands that there are players that transcend the league Manning and Brady are a couple of them. Not having Manning under contract does not help the league's bargaining position, imo. RESPONSE: The Pats chose to sign him. The Colts have also chosen to pay Peyton, and assume such risks. But, Peyton is playing hard ball...as he's already rejected an offer greater than what Brady got. Why?
As I noted, I believe the team did not make Manning an offer until the season and manning said he didn't want to be distracted by a complicated contract negotiation. Timing is important if not everything. As I noted in a previous post, I believe the colts did not make an offer during the offseason due to them being more financially concerned about the CBA issues than the pats. RESPONSE: In your dreams. Wherever he signs, Peyton will be paid more than Brady. There's a reason why Peyton has chosen his course. He wants to squeeze management, and/or be able to force a trade.
In my dreams? LOL. In my dreams, I could not have come up with the outlandish scenarios you have tpat. maybe lay off the acid and your mind will work its way back to more reasonable and logical thinking. Yes, Manning will be paid more than brady. Do you have any proof that Manning chose not to sign during the season because, as you say, he wants to squeeze mgmt and/or force a trade? RESPONSE: Only idiots like you deal in absolutes...such as "the Colts have had more injuries to more key players than any other team in NFL history"...LOL!!
LOL, In this thread, you only write in absolutes until you are called on it. Guess your memory is selective LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
If you believe 50/50 then you have to at least accept that when he said he didn't want the distraction he may have been sincere.RESPONSE: No, I do not. I maintain that he wanted maximum leverage on Indy to get the money he wants, and the power within the organization that he seeks. It's possible that the Colts would be foolish enough to bow to his demands. If they don't, Peyton will force his way out of Hooterville.
Sure you do. You can "maintain" all you like, but again it is just speculation on your part that you have admitted is only 50/50. At the very least you have to accept that its possible Manning was sincere and didn't want to be distracted with complicated contract negotiations during a very difficult season. RESPONSE: What nonsense! LOL!!! Following your warped logic, if he's set for life and cares nothing about the money, why doesn't he take less money than Brady, to help the team?
Nonsense, how? Who said he didn't care about Money. I said he was already in the midst of earning 20 mill. that's alot of money. He had assurances from the team that he would be paid. he didn't want to be distracted. he said so. TP, no matter how you spin it. no matter what you acid infused, caffeineless brain may conjur up, there is no way for you to dispute that Manning said he didn't want to be distracted during the season. You can speculate all you like about the whys, but in the end you are left only his own comment. That must really gnaw at you. You so badly want trash Manning and the colts on this subject, but there are no facts to support your desire, so you wildly and irresponsibly speculate. Shame on you TP. RESPONSE: Indeed we have. Obviously, Peyton has no interest in taking this route. Don't you agree?
I don't know what route Manning will take, but I think the contract the colts offer will be the highest. I think the colts desire is to structure it favorably so that other players may be signed. That may mean a back-loaded or level contract. RESPONSE: How simplistic you are. That's like a defense attorney arguing to a jury to forget about the evidence produced, and find his client not guilty, because his client said he didn't do it!
But TP, you don't have any evidence. You only have speculation. I have Manning's words which are irrefutable and have yet to be contradicted. an opposing attorney would never let a jury forget that very very very simple fact. Simple is always better than complex when simple does its intended job. RESPONSE: No...that's my opinion based on his lack of production.
I'd say that has something to do with his team as well. Regardless, I'd still compare Manning and Brady vs. Manning and Palmer. Of course, most of this discussion has been about Manning and Brady, but since Brady came back successfully from his surgery you really can't use him in this arguement so you bring a 3rd party. pathetic. RESPONSE: Again, misdirecting the conversation. What's your point? Is it that because Manning has never been seriously hurt before, that he can't possibly take a shot to his shoulder, or knee...that would end his career? Again, how simplistic you are!
Not at all. You brought in palmer from outer space because you could not use Brady as an example. Who's misdirecting? People die every day in cars. Does that mean you should never drive. Why speculate about the injury that hasn't happened? Did the pats do their deal with Brady based his possibility of getting seriously hurt again? I doubt it our he would not be an 18 mill per year player. RESPONSE: What are you babbling about now?
About your stupid comparison and speculations? You suck on this thread TP. RESPONSE: Where one sees a better economy and increase investment in the market, then it'sd reasonable to assume that the Dow will go up...isn't it? Where Peyton has acted as he has, it's like-wise reasonable to assume that he wants to leave Indy, or play hardball to gain his demands...don't you think? It's called deductive reasoning.
Acted? he said he didn't want the distraction of a complicated contract negotiation. Have you lost your mind TP? Reasonableness and your thoughts couldn't be further apart on this thread. RESPONSE: If you were negotiating Peyton's deal, and had an offer making him the games' highest paid player, why would you turn it down...and risk an injury? Obviously...because you seek more in money and/or power, or want to force a trade. Wouldn't you agree?
Oh jeez - contracts are complicated. Now who's being simplistic? You are probably one of those that believes a 5 year 100 million contract is good and should be signed without consideration. What if the contract paid Manning 5 million per year for 4 years then 80 million in the last year and no signing bonus? Is that a good deal for Manning? No. NFL contracts are not guaranteed. Enough of the nonsense.