< Back to front page Text size +

Should Brady have to haggle?

Posted by Albert Breer  July 23, 2010 11:32 AM

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Tom-Brady-053009L_0.jpg
With all the noise of a Tom Brady holdout (which I hear pretty strongly isn't happening ... and was never happening), it's worth asking this question: How could it really come to this?

Brady being the franchise quarterback, and having never been in this position before, we'll be covering this one pretty closely. And soon. But before all that, our esteemed wordsmith Christopher L. Gasper came with the thunder today in his column on No. 12's future ...

The only holdout involving Brady is not coming from him, but the Patriots. He shouldn't have to threaten not to show up to camp to get a new contract. That's not how it worked for Eli Manning or Philip Rivers or Jay Cutler, all of whom got lucrative extensions worth north of $15 million within the last 11 months.

The Patriots are playing a dangerous game here with their most valuable asset. He has never started a season in the final year of a contract. It should never get that far, and it shouldn't have gotten this far now. Brady's future should not even be a topic for discussion seven days before the start of the 2010 season. It's an unwelcome distraction that both Brady and a teetering team don't need, but are going to have to deal with until there is a deal keeping him safe and sound in Fort Foxborough.

The CBA has become a rather convenient bit of CYA for the Patriots not to cut Brady a big, fat check.
There are complexities, of course. But Chris does a nice job of cutting to the simplicity of this point -- It's too bad (for both the team and player) that something isn't done already.
News, analysis and commentary from Boston.com's staff writers and contributors, including Zuri Berry and Erik Frenz.

NFL video

Watch Patriots analysis and commentary by CineSport

browse this blog

by category
archives