Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

25 Feb 2013

Pats, Brady Agree to Three-Year Extension

Per Peter King, Brady gets three years, $27 million, but a lot of his salary is fully guaranteed going forward. Well, you can't accuse him of not putting the team before himself. Or of having a bigger contract than Mark Sanchez.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 25 Feb 2013

91 comments, Last at 28 Feb 2013, 10:18pm by Anonymousse


by Theo :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 6:13pm

Good for him.
I hope he buys a lot of cars and kitchens for his linemen.

by Silm (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:01pm

Taking "less" money at age 35 after already getting his paydays and when his wife is making $45M a year? Boy where do I sign up to heap praise on him?

Oh whats that, his deal still amounts to 5 years, 60 million dollars, the same guaranteed money that Brees got?

Oh nevermind.

The shilling FO does for King and the lameness that is MMQB strikes again.

And here comes the uninformed brady praise from the masses. I like Brady because he plays well and competes the same way today as he did in 1999, not because he's getting a fully guaranteed deal on the level of Drew Brees that also makes it basically impossible for NE to cut him (his main goal) while already being financially set for life long ago.

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:10pm

Congratulations on finding a way not to come down on the side of the guy who could have pursued a contract for twice as much money. And gotten it.

Because leaving money on the table is such a hallowed American tradition that all of our financial leaders regularly do that.

by Theo :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 9:26pm

Are you reading something else than I typed?

by TomC :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:29am

removed due to irrelevance

by LionInAZ :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 5:21pm


by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 1:06pm

Brees got 60M guaranteed, 100M total.

Brady got 30M guaranteed, 60M total. Brady's contract is not guaranteed for performance, only for injury, so they can cut him and that 27M extension just goes away.

by Guido Merkens :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 6:52pm

Hey guys, what does this say about Brady vis a vis Peyton Manning's $19M/year average?

Just wondering if anyone had any opinions on the matter.

by JonFrum :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 7:08pm

Thanks for contributing.

by duh :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 7:24pm

It says Brady's wife makes more than Manning's does.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 7:38pm

It says Brady and the Pats think Manning is a 27% more valuable QB than Brady is.

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:12pm

No, it says nothing about how the Pats value Manning. The Broncos value Manning 27% more than the Patriots value Brady.

You could say that.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:47pm

Why? It was more fun to say what I said and stir up the NE fans.

by Cro-Mags :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 8:14pm

Manning probably makes more than Brady in pizza endorsements alone.

by clark :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 8:27pm

Peyton's contract is structured so that the Bronco's can move on from him if he isn't Peyton Manning anymore. Brady's contract has less money overall but more guaranteed money.

by Theo :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 9:27pm


by fb29 :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 8:16pm

I heard the pats threw in over 200 torn-off hoodie sleeves to seal the deal

by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 9:57pm

Belichick somehow negotiated a poorly-reported "One Night With Gisele Bundchen" clause.

by dbostedo :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:30am

I doubt that was necessary... I've always assumed that as Lord of the Patriots, Belichick has "prima nocte" rights...

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:13pm

(insert joke about Brady/Bridget Moynahan breakup here)

by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Mon, 02/25/2013 - 10:13pm

his is mostly about giving Brady more up front guaranteed and the Pats a lower cap figure. They will renegotiate in two years.

by Jimmy :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 10:57am

Agreed, lets see if he ever actually plays the 'cheap' years of his deal before everyone begins the beatification process.

by Bobman :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 2:56pm

Agreed-squared. Looks like a good deal for both parties and probably is... unless Brady fractures a femur and the Pats are stuck with $57M in dead money. That's a pretty big guarantee for a guy that age, but I guess all parties are confident that he'll continue to be Tom Brady until he's 40. Or just desperate to free up cap room now and they'll deal with the future in the future.

Very easy for media and casual fans to compare "average annual salaries" or even guaranteed money, but the whole package is a risk/reward investment for each side. Pats took on a lot more risk and Brady reduced his--in the investment world, that means Pats expect more reward and Brady less. Neither is being noble, generous, selfless, or greedy. Each side made a calculated business decision that could well benefit both. But if anything goes really wrong, the side that will hurt more financially is the Pats due to that big guarantee.

Still, that won't stop the "Saint Tom" headlines....

by JonFrum :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 3:51pm

You don't need to play the saint card, but how often to players take significantly less than they could to increase their guarantees? Typically, top level players go for the biggest paper total they can. What you left out is that if Brady gets two more rings, he'll be grossly underpaid. If Brady and the team made the same calculated decision, then the risk is equal on both sides.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:19pm

There have never been many players of Brady's age in the NFL. Considering it consists almost entirely of kickers, linemen with the Gordie Howe gene, or non-running QBs, he's probably on the upper end of the payscale for a player of his advanced years.

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:18pm

This isn't the first time Brady has signed a contract for below market value. You don't have to be cynical. You could look at his own history. He was underpaid from 2005-2010, earned the big bucks from 2011 through the prior end of this contract, and will be underpaid again. He never demanded that the previous discount be renegotiated.

The prior discount is arguably more impressive, since this one will likely cover a few years when his abilities will be in decline.

by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 6:23pm

It wasn't a discount in 2006, it just looked like it relative to Manning and so media hacks/idiots failed to account for the two players being in very different situations.

by Guest789 :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 2:44am

Now if only Rodgers will do something similar, I'll be happy.


“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”

by komakom (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 10:24am

Seriously? Rodgers has been one of the lowest-paid starters in the league over the last 5 years.

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 12:53pm

Rodgers is scheduled to make 9.75 mil in 2013 (and that will be his cap number too). He's under contract till the end of 2014, and those numbers will climb but not by much. It was a 6 year 65 million deal (I think). Of course that was signed after he made like 7 starts and looks really good for the Packers. It's the $8.25 million (and $8.75 cap number) that Finley has for 2013 that needs to be looked at. With Woodson released, Rodgers is back to the highest paid player on the team, Finley is 2nd, and then Tramon Williams has an 8.5 mil cap number and a 6.5 million salary.

I think Vandermause is the reporter who published all the Packers 2013 cap and salary numbers that I made a copy of. The other thing that sticks out at me. Mason Crosby 3.15 cap, 2.55 salary. Clay Matthews 2.67 cap, 1.53 salary. I realize rookie contracts and all that, but geez.

by Guest789 :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 4:08am

I know, and he deserves a big raise. I just hope he'll go for the hometown discount so the team is stronger around him, rather than the Manning/Brees "I want $25 million a year, team be damned" approach.


“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”

by Podge (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 5:43am

This seems like a pretty clever deal. Gives the Pats the option to turn his salary this year into a signing bonus to pro rate it across the next 5 years. Then they can do the same next year. And each future year that he keeps playing, until he chooses to retire and they never have to actually face the long term salary cap implications of a QB mega deal.

by RedDog (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 5:53am

Extension only to reduce his cap number. The numbers are irrelevant as can be. He had a 2013 cap number higher than 20 Mio before. The only way around that is to add years to the end of the contract, pay a bonus and have it prorate over three additional years. Both sides know Brady will never see these three years (if he plays @age 38, they will renegotiate).

Everyone who believes he will be playing at age 40 for 8 Mio is just plain stupid. Including the media turds who tell me he "takes less".

by dryheat :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 9:41am

The new contract in 2015 is certainly possible. So is the fact that he's made a hundred million in his career, bringing him within about 10% of his wife's career earnings, and it truly isn't about the money with him. We'll see. It certainly wouldn't be out of character for him to say "Pay Welker, Pay Vollmer, get some WR threats and defensive players, let's get back to the Super Bowl, and I'll make do on 8 million in my riding off into the sunset years." Brady has a huge ego, but it's not tied to his bank account.

by Jimmy :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 10:59am

It certainly wouldn't be out of character for him to say "Pay Welker, Pay Vollmer, get some WR threats and defensive players

He has never done that before. That would make it out of character.

by dryheat :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 11:03am

At the very least, he did it before the 2006 season. There were many reports (some of them no doubt exaggerated) then that Brady was furious because he signed for considerably less than market value with the understanding that the cap space would be used to get him weapons, and he ended up with Reche Caldwell as a #1 WR.

Unless you're being a strict literalist, in which case yeah, you win.

by Jimmy :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 11:17am

There were reports as such in 2006 and again, in 2006 Brady didn't give up a dime for other players on his team. He got a lot of foolish journalists writing about how he was such a great guy for accepting his yearly compensation as a big cheque at the start of the year rather than waiting for seventeen weekly payments.

If he plays any of the three years for $9m then I will come back here and eat my share of crow. I don't think that is going to happen though.

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:22pm

Brady didn't "give up a dime" in 2006 because he had already renegotiated his contract in 2005 to give the Pats the cap space to bring in receivers. For some reason, they didn't take that step until 2007 when they brought in Moss and Welker.

You should probably look more closely at Brady's actual salary history here.

by Jimmy :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 8:46am

I can remember exactly what happened. You seem to be missing what happens in contract negotiations. Manning had way more leverage than Brady. Tagging Manning would have been almost impossible for the Colts, the Pats could easily have tagged Brady. So Brady had less leverage and consequently got a smaller contract. Nothing to do with 'leaving room to sign defenders' at all. There were important differences between the two quarterbacks situations, Brady only looks munificent if you (willfully?) ignore them.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 10:21am

Tagging Manning would have been almost impossible for the Colts, the Pats could easily have tagged Brady.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I'm curious about the point, but other than relative cap positions of the two teams (which I really don't remember at this point, 5-8 years on) I don't know what would make it easy for one team to tag a player at a given position and nearly impossible for another team to tag a player at the same position.

by Jimmy :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 11:11am

It comes down to Manning being the first pick on the draft and having a salary comensurate to that. A 120% raise on the last year of his rookie contract would have torpedoed the Colts' cap. Pretty much any other Qb would have been taggable, Manning much less so; it wasn't the value of the other top five QBs that would have generated the frachise tag that would have been the problem it was the size of Manning's existing contract. Brady wasn't percieved as being the best QB (and therefore player) in football and was on a low value rookie contract. In reality neither player was going to go anywhere in the mid 2000s but Manning had the Colts over a barrel, they had to get him under contract because tagging him would have been catastrophic. It was either pay him through the nose or pay him through the nose for one year and then watching the best QB in the game walk away for a third round pick a year later. Brady on the other hand could have been tagged.

by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 1:32pm

Sure they could have tagged Brady, but he still would have gotten the average of the top 5 players at the position. If he had wanted the money, he could have easily taken the tag and increased his leverage for the next year. Eventually the Pats would've had to pay him.

FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!

by Jimmy :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 3:00pm

Yes but the point is that the Colts weren't in a position to tag Manning, it would have been too prohibitive. Not the case with Brady.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:22pm

"So is the fact that he's made a hundred million in his career, bringing him within about 10% of his wife's career earnings, and it truly isn't about the money with him."

If it wasn't about the money, he wouldn't have $100 million in career earnings. he probably also wouldn't have nearly as many promotional deals.

by dryheat :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 1:44pm

I realize your entire purpose here is to bait NE fans, but last I knew, Brady had exactly 4 endorsement deals over the course of his career - Movado, Stetson, Uggs, and I forget the other. He's turned down many, including Nike several times. Michael Jordan he ain't.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 2:11pm

That wasn't actually about baiting Patriots fans -- I just hate the use of that line in general.

No one plays for free. At some point, some part of it is about the money. It's just even more ludicrous when the line is spouted in reference to someone worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's easy to be magnanimous when the value is a relative pittance.

You know who plays and it's not about the money? Russell Wilson, and his 750k contract. Brady, who isn't playing for the money, has a contract worth 76 times that.

by SandyRiver :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 3:16pm

Lots more than Brady got in his 2nd year, though only about half (adjusted for inflation) of what SB MVP Brady got in his 3rd year. I don't think all this proves whether or not either player is "about the money".

by Go pats (not verified) :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 3:17pm

I would have to disagree, Wilson plays because ha has to, just like Brady did in his first year. Wilson was not a top draft pick so he plays under his current contract, it's not like he turned down Andrew luck's contract because he wanted to be paid much less and help the Seahawks out.

by Myran (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 9:43am

Renegotiate comment doesn't make sense to me as all years according to earlier reports are fully guaranteed and the only reason to renegotiate would be to extend the life of the contract. It's true he could play past 41, but it won't be for a higher salary.

This is the case of Brady wanting to win another Superbowl to cement his legacy as the greatest ever. He has no wont for more money as Giselle is reportedly raking in north of $40M per year and may end up being the first billionaire model (after another 15 yrs?). What is Brady going to do with an extra $20M-$30M when their net value is already a quarter of a billion? There is no other person in the NFL that has this kind of leverage to do what he wants.

by RedDog (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:28pm

Mmmh, lets just assume the following. Team and player ("agent") agree, that the player x will play in 2013 for 18 Mio. All you do is sign a contract with a guaranteed amount of 18 Mio. It doesn't matter, how many years the contract. They could give him a five year deal, small signing bonus, large option bonus, both guaranteed, veteran minimum base salary. et voila. cap number down. Player gets his money. If he does intend to come back, renegotiate. Otherwise retire (option bonus is earned and doesn't have to be paid back). Done.

Rule No. 1 ... no single NFL contract will ever be played out the way it was signed
Rule No. 2 ... guaranteed base salary always gets converted to option bonus, which will prorate over the remainder of the deal.

rule No. 3 ... call it the Brady rule if you want. To be able to prorate something, you need years in the contract. You can always tack on as many years as you want to the end. Doesn't matter if the player or the team really intends to play in that season. All you need is to have the contract extend to season x in order to massage the cap.

Remember Matt Light's extension for 2011. Well, was negotiated as 1 year, ~9 Mio )(don't shoot me for the actual value). But he signed a two year deal, 8 Mio bonus, 1 Mio base in year 2. Was as clear cut as it gets he never intended to play two years. Team just wanted to spread the money.

And yeah. The smart media guys from the boston area jumped at it ... yeah, Matt Light signed for not one but two years. Confetti!. Idiots.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:24pm

"This is the case of Brady wanting to win another Superbowl to cement his legacy as the greatest ever."

Under the rules of NFL Mythmaking, he has no shot at that. The NY Giants buried that dream somewhere in the pine barrens.

by Purds :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 10:51am

Not sure I agree that Tom is concerned with his "legacy." I am pretty sure he's concerned with winning, and this can certainly help the Pats do that. Good for him.

As a Colts fan who watched Peyton head off to Denver (for completely legitimate reasons on both sides), I am happy for Brady and Pats fans who will likely get to see him wear NE jerseys his entire career. Would have loved to have seen that with Peyton and Colts blue, but it was not to be. I think it's good for football for Brady to be in NE his whole career. A good contract all around.

by Bobman :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 3:02pm

Well said, as usual. Looks like a good deal for Pats and TB (as well as the league in general, I guess) unless Brady gets hurt badly early in the deal--then the Pats gambled big, got no return, and STILL have $57M to pay, limiting their upside in future years.

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:23pm

That's a risk with any contract, and at least the Pats are gambling on Brady's health, not on Mark Sanchez's ability to suddenly play a lot better.

by Purds :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 11:09am

Wow, Mike Florio is livid that Brady is being heralded. Do those two have a history? I can't link it, but here is some of it:

"If the angel in Tom Brady’s new contract arises from the cap savings over the next two years, the devil resides squarely in the details.

Though we’ve yet to get our eyes on the numbers, we’re confident in making this guarantee: There’s no way he took less in 2013 or 2014.

Yes, the cap numbers are lower by $15 million. But that doesn’t mean he reduced his base salary or other compensation.

Instead, it appears that Brady has actually picked up an extra $3 million via the signing bonus paid now as part of his three-year extension. He also has likely had a large amount of his base salary for the next two years converted to a guaranteed payment, which allows cap dollars to be pushed to future years.

So did he take less this year or next year? No way. Will he take less in 2015, 2016, or 2017? We’ll see."

by Jimmy :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 11:18am

There is a point to Florio when he calls out journalistic BS. This sort of thing is the stuff he is actually good at.

by Noah Arkadia :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:48pm

Florio is a good journalist. He's also a paranoid and/or cynic who believes there is dirt to be dug behind every good deed.

I frankly don't understand all the hating. Brady has a rep for taking bad contracts and I don't see how this contract can be construed as good for him. What his motivations are, I can't say, but he's certainly not grabbing as much money as he could.

FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!

by Silm (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:12pm

there's no history, he's just like the rest of the non gullible America that isn't so quick as Peter King to blindly heap praise on him without knowing any of the details (although I give the rest of gullible America more credit than I would King)

Players are highly discouraged for taking less than they're worth, especially stars, by the NFLPA because it harms the other players' salaries significantly especially the ones who haven't had the paydays that the Mannings and Bradys already got earlier in their career.

Second, the obvious truth is that the deal was extended so as to ease the cap number today, extend the proration of bonuses out, and make Brady's less old years (35,36) more competitive. If the Pats are eating up $10M+ of paying a retired brady in 3 years no one will care because they will already be non-competitive anyway. Brady is still getting his which is Florio's point that the details are not fully known and thats deliberately so.

by dryheat :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:31pm

The NFLPA point is a good one, and Brady has been involved in the Union in the past. However, in a salary capped system, Brady's response to accusations of bringing down the quarterback market should be that he's enabling lesser NFL players on his team to get paid, which is really the business of the Union.

by Purds :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:34pm

I am not being innocent of the numbers, here. I am a Colts fan for God's sake! I just don't have the details yet.

But, I happened to notice that Florio has already written three posts about his lack of believing in the Brady deal as one of an athlete taking less money. I get the concept. Does he usually harp on things like this?

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 3:47pm

"Does he usually harp on things like this?"

Actually, yes. Florio frequently dissects high-profile contracts and extensions. And usually, it's to point out that the media outlets are misrepresenting the contract. Most often, it's in the case of the "$100 million" contracts for guys like Albert Haynesworth, that are really more like $40 million with a bunch of fake years at the end that the player never gets. In this case, it's to point out that this hyped up extension Brady signed doesn't actually come into play until 2015.

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:27pm

The extra years don't come until 2015, but the cap relief is there now, right?

My take is that this is specifically to keep Welker in New England. Vollmer and Talib, too, to a lesser extent, but Welker has been Brady's favorite target since Moss left (and arguably before then) and I'm sure Brady would be upset to see him go.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 3:58pm

Oh, I agree that this contract "helps the team" in the sense that it shuffles the cap money around in a way which is immediately beneficial. What's being pointed out by Florio (and a whole bunch of other people) is that people hear "helping the team" and think "taking less money". He's not taking less money. He'll only be taking less money if 2015 comes around and he actually plays for $9 million.

I'll also note that I don't mean this to be a slam on Brady. I make no value judgment on whether a player should feel obligated to take less money to help his team. A player has an abbreviated window to make all the money they're ever going to make for playing football, and the teams have repeatedly shown that they'll play the "it's just business" card when it suits them.

by vcs (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 5:41pm

PFT also likes to run a lot of filler content to keep the page views rolling in.

"Still no Flacco contract"
"Reminder: next Super Bowl will be played outdoors in NJ."
"Would this thing happen?" (one hour later) "League sources say no."
"What's in Brady's contract?" (next day) "Here's what's in Brady's contract"

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 1:14pm

"because it harms the other players' salaries significantly especially the ones who haven't had the paydays that the Mannings and Bradys already got earlier in their career."

This is the biggest hunk of crap I've ever heard. The NFL has a tight salary cap and salary floor.

Every dollar that a superstar doesn't take, is a dollar that some younger player gets.

Its the super-agents that push this shit. It doesn't actually help the union.

Also, if Brady retires, they won't be paying him.

by mathesond :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:21pm

Apparently Brady's deal also lowers the average annual value of the top 5 QB contracts, which impacts franchise QBs such as Flacco

by dryheat :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:28pm

By a fraction, and Stafford may lower it a fraction more. It shouldn't really impact the decision the Ravens will make on Flacco.

by Nathan :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:52pm

What do you think this means for Mallett? Trade block?

by Purds :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 1:59pm

I am not sure why everyone thinks that. The Pats, like all teams, need a back up, and Mallett is on a cheap rookie contract, right? Are they going to get better than a 3rd for him (that's what they paid, right?)? If not, it seems like a waste of their coaching -- take a 3rd round pick, coach him up, get a third round pick for him and then need to look for another back up QB.

I know there are desperate teams out there, but would you really give a 2nd or first round pick for a guy with no proven NFL experience? Yeah, he's young, but other than Brady, it's not like the NE machine is churning out QB's who play well elsewhere (NB: Matt Cassell).

by RickD :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:31pm

Agree - for exactly the reasons you cite.

a) Brady hasn't actually played these years yet. And he may well get injured again. The Pats need a backup QB.

b) Mallett has almost no trade value. He's got no meaningful reps as an NFL QB.

My guess is that the Pats will keep Mallet through the remainder of his rookie contract, at which point we'll see where he ends up. He'll certainly want a shot at starting somewhere at that point.

I suspect Mallett will eventually be a better starter than Matt Cassell, but that's far from proven. And that's not a very high standard.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 12:46pm

Who would trade for Mallett, when Alex Smith will soon be available for pennies on the dollar?

by Go pats (not verified) :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 2:06pm

A second rounder this year plus a pick next year, does not sound like pennies to me?

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 2:12pm

I posted that before the Chiefs were announced as the loser of the Alex Smith silent auction.

by Go pats (not verified) :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 3:20pm

Well you are assuming they are the "loser". I think if they surround him with good talent and Reid coaches him well, I am sure he will do ok. He won't be elite I don't think but probably better than average. I wish him good luck.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 4:34pm

I do too, but had they waited 14 more days, they could have gotten him for free.

by LionInAZ :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 5:14pm

You're assuming tha Arizona, J-ville, and Buffalo weren't bidding for Smith, who would have been an upgrade for any of those teams. Hell, AZ needs a QB even more desperately than KC.

This move also says tons about how they felt about the current draft class of QBs.

by DisplacedPackerFan :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 5:59pm

Not only that, it's not a clear assumption they would release him. If you have a starter on a rookie contract having a back-up on a starters contract isn't the worst idea, assuming that back-up is competent, and Smith has proved to be capable of leading the 49'ers to at least the NFC Championship game if something were to happen to your running quarterback.

Every QB can get injured, but the scramblers and runners do seem to have a worse track record. Even going back to guys like Steve Young who only started 16 games 3 times in his 8 years as a primary starter. Even Favre who didn't miss games and was about as mobile as Rodgers is now in his prime was in danger of missing games or played with broken fingers, eye socket, knee brace, etc.

by SandyRiver :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 3:50pm

The one glaring exception was Tarkenton, who rarely missed playing time with injuries. Of course, he was NOT a runner, merely the quintessonal scrambler.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 4:26pm

I know. Any Dutch Auction requires the absence of another idiot, which is a difficult proposition in a league with those three teams.

I just don't think there's any chance SF would have kept Smith. He mostly kept his mouth shut during the playoff run, but clearly wasn't happy about being benched after the injury, and I think long-term, would have become the weekly bitter soundbite that would have undermined the 49ers locker-room.

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 1:16pm

Any team thats looking for a good QB?

Mallet's floor may be lower than Smith's, but his ceiling is a lot higher. Trading for Smith is only a good idea if you've got a terrific team evereywhere else and a terrible QB.

by commissionerleaf :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 7:54pm

Mallet's floor is underneath Ryan Leaf.

He is an unknown quantity to anyone outside the Patriots organization.

Alex Smith is an experienced-but-still-young starter who completed 70% of his passes last season, and got his team within one sack of Eli Manning of the Super Bowl the year before (albeit in a more limited offensive role).

Quarterbacks there is a case to be made for their being less valuable than Alex Smith:

Joe Flacco.
Colin Kaepernick.

Ryan Mallet is not an alternative to Smith. Ryan Mallet is an alternative to Brian Hoyer.

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 10:18pm

Alex Smith will never be a viable playoff quarterback without being surrounded by elite talent.

by Silm (not verified) :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 4:04pm

More details are out: Brady's signing bonus actually $30 million. Wherever $3M came from, call it a typo or bad reporting on PK's part (probably latter).

We now know what we really knew all along if we weren't kidding ourselves: Brady is still getting huge money. He went from $30M guranteed to $57M. The nuances of it helps the Pats cap situation in 2013 no doubt, but lets not pretend this is some good samaritan (cough Peter King, most irrelevant talking head in the NFL media). Again he has to keep making huge money because it impacts his fellow players and they're a brotherhood after all.

Now the fanboys can calm the hell down.

by Purds :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 5:00pm

$30 million today? Take that, Gisele!

by dryheat :: Tue, 02/26/2013 - 5:11pm

The 3 million will be paid this year as a bonus, apparently as an incentive/thank you for the simple restructure. The 30 million is a signing bonus over the 5 year contract, including the final three years averaging 9 million.

I don't think any "fanboys" claimed that Brady was going to give back the money that he was slated to per his last contract. The salary cap room is nice, but it's hardly a revolutionary tactic. It's the last three years at <50% market value that people are praising. As has been said, any praise is conditional on him actually playing those years on those salaries.

by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 1:36pm

If I understand correctly Brady is taking less money (than other top QBs) in exchange for a totally guaranteed contract, right?

FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!

by dryheat :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 1:45pm

This is correct.

by nat :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 2:13pm

Pretty much the size of it. The nice thing is the guarantee is something of value that the Patriots can give him that does not cost them cap space. So Brady has a better chance of having a strong team around him to end out his career.

Still, he could have waited until the contract ended and then gone for a big season-by-season compensation package from elsewhere on the market. If he were focused on self-aggrandizement or greed (or forced by circumstances a la P. Manning) that's what he might do. So this contract is a classy move.

by Noah Arkadia :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 8:00pm

Oh, I agree about that last part. No, he isn't playing for free, he's not taking less money than in his original contract, and he certainly doesn't qualify for canonization. But throughout his career Brady has signed contracts that are more beneficial to his team -by far- than those of any other comparable QB, and I admire him greatly for that.

And I'm a Dolphin fan.

I also like Belichick

by corrections (not verified) :: Wed, 02/27/2013 - 2:55pm

This just comes down to a great deal for both sides. The Pats get Cap relief and Brady get's extra guaranteed money. As others have pointed out that's likely to be lumped forward so he won't actually be taking less money in the next two years but he's helped his teams ability to spend money. This is not an act of taking a below market contract. This is an act of smart negotiation that benefits both sides.

by Ryan D. :: Thu, 02/28/2013 - 2:54pm

Here's what you need to know about the hidden clauses in Tom Brady's new contract extension: