PDA

View Full Version : Manning contract details


Jesterhole
03-22-2012, 07:56 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/inside-the-peyton-manning-contract/

"It’s a surprisingly simple deal, based on a review of the information and communications with a source having direct knowledge of the negotiation process. Manning gets an $18 million fully guaranteed base salary for 2012. Though he doesn’t get a signing bonus, he’ll receive $6 million of the $18 million base salary as an advance.

Then, if Manning is on the Broncos’ roster on the final day of the 2012 league year, his base salaries of $20 million in 2013 and $20 million in 2014 become fully guaranteed.

In other words, the Broncos can cut Manning at any point after Super Bowl XLVII and before the last day before the start of the 2013 league year and limit the contract to a one-year, $18 million investment. And so, just as the Colts faced a $28 million decision in March 2012, the Broncos will face a $40 million decision in March of 2013."

Lestat
03-22-2012, 08:01 PM
if Manning is healthy is not a decision. and i think he'll be healthy and back to his previous form.

Jesterhole
03-22-2012, 08:03 PM
Interesting that there is no signing bonus, but a guarantee for only the first year. Lucky for us, the deal is as safe as we could have hoped for.

baja
03-22-2012, 08:04 PM
That is one sweet contract for the Broncos.

DenverBrit
03-22-2012, 09:05 PM
That is one sweet contract for the Broncos.

It can't be, EFX are clueless and have no idea how to run an NFL franchise. ;D

Navy Broncos Fan
03-22-2012, 09:08 PM
So if he stays healthy and plays great this year, but gets hurts in pre season next year we get boned?

DenverBrit
03-22-2012, 09:12 PM
So if he stays healthy and plays great this year, but gets hurts in pre season next year we get boned?

I believe the 'injury' clause goes into effect after the first season

Taco John
03-22-2012, 09:15 PM
Hard not to be impressed. I would have guessed that we'd have gotten away with nothing less than a $30 million dollar first year.

baja
03-22-2012, 09:32 PM
It can't be, EFX are clueless and have no idea how to run an NFL franchise. ;D

Maybe it was printed on the pizza box and X happened to notice it and plagiarized it.

baja
03-22-2012, 09:33 PM
I believe the 'injury' clause goes into effect after the first season

Yep appears so, it's an 18 million dollar roll of the dice.

OBF1
03-22-2012, 09:53 PM
cut the bum, bring back Plummer

ZachKC
03-22-2012, 11:02 PM
Way favorable for you guys.

jerseyguy4
03-22-2012, 11:19 PM
I love the fact that the 1st year of this contract is its own thing...meaning not bonus based. This is big and Manning lived up to his word that he didn't want to bind teams in case his injury causes issues

But I am confused about the guarantee of years 2 and 3 together. He's putting himself in a position where he can be cut if there's any doubt about his future (whether it relates to the prior surgery or not). Is it not possible that EFX could see a hangnail or dandruff as potentially dangerous and cut him? If they split every contract year into its own entity, that would be less risk for Denver, and therefore less of a temptation to cut him for a fear of something unknown.

Am I missing something?

Taco John
03-22-2012, 11:38 PM
I love the fact that the 1st year of this contract is its own thing...meaning not bonus based. This is big and Manning lived up to his word that he didn't want to bind teams in case his injury causes issues

But I am confused about the guarantee of years 2 and 3 together. He's putting himself in a position where he can be cut if there's any doubt about his future (whether it relates to the prior surgery or not). Is it not possible that EFX could see a hangnail or dandruff as potentially dangerous and cut him? If they split every contract year into its own entity, that would be less risk for Denver, and therefore less of a temptation to cut him for a fear of something unknown.

Am I missing something?

Basically saying that he's a rental the first year, but once you hit the second year, you either take him or leave him. It's only fair for him to get security at that point if he's proven that he's indeed, back and healed.

baja
03-22-2012, 11:43 PM
Curious about what Tenn. offered.

baja
03-22-2012, 11:44 PM
I think we got the John Elway deal.

Shananahan
03-22-2012, 11:44 PM
I'm having a hard time seeing how this is such a great deal based purely on the first year. If you're not keeping him for the other $40 million of the contract, what's the real upside? 'Renting' Manning for one year at $18 million would suck.

baja
03-22-2012, 11:56 PM
I'm having a hard time seeing how this is such a great deal based purely on the first year. If you're not keeping him for the other $40 million of the contract, what's the real upside? 'Renting' Manning for one year at $18 million would suck.

takes a lot of the risk out for denver given the question marks.

basically pm is betting on himself being the same player. He could have gotten a way better deal from ten. with lots more guaranteed money.

Shananahan
03-23-2012, 01:05 AM
I realize that it minimizes the risk, but it's still a lousy deal unless he plays at least the first three years. Completely revamping the offense around the guy, missing out on free agents to sign him, etc necessitates that he play more than a season to make it worth it.

I don't foresee him leaving after a year, but it's silly to see people talking about it in those terms.

baja
03-23-2012, 01:25 AM
I realize that it minimizes the risk, but it's still a lousy deal unless he plays at least the first three years. Completely revamping the offense around the guy, missing out on free agents to sign him, etc necessitates that he play more than a season to make it worth it.

I don't foresee him leaving after a year, but it's silly to see people talking about it in those terms.

If you don't think that is a good deal for denver what would be that PM would sign

Shananahan
03-23-2012, 01:28 AM
You're not hearing me. The deal's fine with me and seems like fair market value (though I don't like '13 and '14 being guaranteed at the same time).

I'm saying it's stupid to suggest the deal is great merely because they can cut ties with him if he gets hurt or isn't on the team next year. Protected or not, it would be a failure of a move if that happened.

baja
03-23-2012, 01:31 AM
You're not hearing me. The deal's fine with me and seems like fair market value (though I don't like '13 and '14 being guaranteed at the same time).

I'm saying it's stupid to suggest the deal is great merely because they can cut ties with him if he gets hurt or isn't on the team next year. Protected or not, it would be a failure of a move if that happened.


If that were the case than signing him in the first place would be the mistake not the contract.

Shananahan
03-23-2012, 02:40 AM
I just don't get what's so special about being able to drop the guy after a year. Wouldn't that be the worst-case scenario?

"Good news, we can cut Manning for nothing! What a great contract!"

The Joker
03-23-2012, 05:00 AM
Obviously if we had to cut Manning after a year it would be terrible.

I think the point is that it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad a disaster as it could have been if we had to offer him guaranteed money for 2013 and 2014, which I expected we probably would have to.

At least this way we can cut our losses and won't be hamstrung by it moving on.

It's a great sign that Manning was comfortable with this, means he must be very confident that he'll have recovered fully.

Drek
03-23-2012, 05:26 AM
I'd rather have the rumored $30M guaranteed format. At $18M guaranteed in year one, adding another $43M guaranteed after year two we're really putting a lot of weight on him in no way declining significantly in years 2 and 3. When he'll be 37 and 38.

Otherwise this is effectively a $61M guaranteed deal. Manning could have a pretty rough year and as long as there is hope he'd be better in 2013 we'll give him the $43M, as we no longer have another other options at QB.

If it was the $30M guaranteed up front at least we'd be a bit more agile in years 2 and 3 if something goes wrong then. This is a short term safety net in exchange for larger long term risk.

bendog
03-23-2012, 08:52 AM
You're not hearing me. The deal's fine with me and seems like fair market value (though I don't like '13 and '14 being guaranteed at the same time).

I'm saying it's stupid to suggest the deal is great merely because they can cut ties with him if he gets hurt or isn't on the team next year. Protected or not, it would be a failure of a move if that happened.

Not necessarily. If Elway and Fox had little hope that Teebs could become the guy, it'd still be a good deal if Manning's health doesn't hold out this year because the team could move on to find a young qb. though, there is the risk that Manning's health goes south after the 13 and 14 years lock in. Then, the team's in for a rough two years .... though sucking for luck worked out for Indy.

gyldenlove
03-23-2012, 08:59 AM
I realize that it minimizes the risk, but it's still a lousy deal unless he plays at least the first three years. Completely revamping the offense around the guy, missing out on free agents to sign him, etc necessitates that he play more than a season to make it worth it.

I don't foresee him leaving after a year, but it's silly to see people talking about it in those terms.

The first year opt out will only come into play if his neck falls apart again. If say in week 15 his neck goes pop and he is going to be sitting out at least another year and maybe never play again, this leaves us with no dead money at all and not owing him any money at all. If we had given him a signing bonus or guarantees we would be left with him on salary cap or be left owing him money for not playing if something catastrophic happens.

The goal of this contract is to have him play at least the first 3 years if he is healthy.

bendog
03-23-2012, 09:02 AM
At least three. If the team is close and he's healthy ....

baja
03-23-2012, 09:08 AM
I'd rather have the rumored $30M guaranteed format. At $18M guaranteed in year one, adding another $43M guaranteed after year two we're really putting a lot of weight on him in no way declining significantly in years 2 and 3. When he'll be 37 and 38.

Otherwise this is effectively a $61M guaranteed deal. Manning could have a pretty rough year and as long as there is hope he'd be better in 2013 we'll give him the $43M, as we no longer have another other options at QB.

If it was the $30M guaranteed up front at least we'd be a bit more agile in years 2 and 3 if something goes wrong then. This is a short term safety net in exchange for larger long term risk.

Yes but the neck injury threat will be put to rest if he is able to play at a high level for a whole season and that is the number one concern about Peyton Manning.

If not for that he'd still be a Colt.

Steve Sewell
03-23-2012, 10:11 AM
You're not hearing me. The deal's fine with me and seems like fair market value (though I don't like '13 and '14 being guaranteed at the same time).

I'm saying it's stupid to suggest the deal is great merely because they can cut ties with him if he gets hurt or isn't on the team next year. Protected or not, it would be a failure of a move if that happened.

What will the Broncos have lost in that case to be deemed a failure?

Bronco Yoda
03-23-2012, 10:20 AM
Are there any billboard clauses built in?

Just like Elway said fair to both sides. Let's just hope Mannings strength get's back as close to 100% as possible.

bendog
03-23-2012, 10:20 AM
What will the Broncos have lost in that case to be deemed a failure?

I don't like terming it "failure." Imo it's more like making a bet or an investment. It's a gamble. If Manning's heath goes south, Den could be on the hook for worst case 40 million and have him injured. But its not just the money. Den's not going with a qbof. But, I havn't seen any logical argument that even suggests this is a bad risk to take. Instead of hoping Teebs or a Tannyhill will work out in a couple of years, fans should be hoping to get into the third playoff round or beyond.

Shananahan
03-23-2012, 10:56 AM
What will the Broncos have lost in that case to be deemed a failure?
Well... everything they spent this entire offseason working to build? $18 million dollars? Tim Tebow's potential future and cash cow capabilities?

How could anyone feel good about the 'protection' provided by this one-year setup? This is either a tidy $60 million deal or an $18 million lost gamble.

orangeatheist
03-23-2012, 11:01 AM
.

BroncoBeavis
03-23-2012, 11:06 AM
Well... everything they spent this entire offseason working to build? $18 million dollars? Tim Tebow's potential future and cash cow capabilities?

How could anyone feel good about the 'protection' provided by this one-year setup? This is either a tidy $60 million deal or an $18 million lost gamble.

It really all comes down to whether you think it more likely for Manning to be done after this year or done after 2 years. The way this deal is structured, if he makes it through 1 year, we pay for 3. I would've rather guaranteed the money for 2 years and then had the 3rd year bonus after that.

It's far more likely Manning will have health issues after two more years than after 1. And let's face it, if Manning can't make it into year 2, this team will be ****ed. Regardless of whether Manning is still getting paid one more year or not.

Shananahan
03-23-2012, 11:15 AM
This is a short term safety net in exchange for larger long term risk.
What Drek said.

ayjackson
03-23-2012, 11:30 AM
The structure might increase the chancethey draft a QB by the 88 pick and get a good look at him over the course of the year. IF Manning is good, but not great, and we have a guy in the system for a year who looks good, we may opt out of the contract and Manning watch will start all over again.

Not saying it's likely, but it is a possibility.

Jekyll15Hyde
03-23-2012, 11:43 AM
That is one sweet contract for the Broncos.

beavis says otherwise

ayjackson
03-23-2012, 11:45 AM
beavis says otherwise

That's because he's a contrarian.

BroncoBeavis
03-23-2012, 11:53 AM
That's because he's a contrarian.

Just part of a pattern where everything that Manning touches is rainbows and unicorns.

The guy gets a contract that'll pay him 50% more than Tom Brady this year, and so long as he makes it through one season, pays $20 million more than Brady gets over 5 years, with more guaranteed money to boot.

And the fanbois jump up and down about how good it is for the Broncos.