Should Brady have to haggle?

E-mail this article

To:

Invalid email address

Add a personal message: Your e-mail:

Invalid email address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

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.

• Tweet
• E-mail

E-mail this article
To:
Invalid E-mail address
Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail:
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article
Your article has been sent.