2020 TB12: The Decision 2020

[EvilEmpire]

Quick question for the more knowledgeable football minds on the board. How many coaches were successful head coaches in their 70s. Quicl look shows Shula was 9-7 at age 65, Tom Landry was considered out of touch by age 65.

Another way how comparable is 70 for a head coach to 43 for a QB?

I have always thought TB and BB will go at the same time, not out of love, but timing.

BB is the NFL coaching GOAT, and that job isn't dependent on physical attributes that sharply decline with age. So I don't think it is comparable to Brady at all. Comparing him to other coaches is fine, but when you acknowledge that he is better than all of them, using them as a baseline to predict how long he'll be effective is tough.

 

[RSN Diaspora]

The Pats really need to move on. We saw this movie before when the Celtics waited too long to move on from Bird. It probably set them back a decade.

No, they were forward-thinking in this. Alas, there are some contingencies you can't always plan for...

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Quick question for the more knowledgeable football minds on the board. How many coaches were successful head coaches in their 70s. Quicl look shows Shula was 9-7 at age 65, Tom Landry was considered out of touch by age 65.

Another way how comparable is 70 for a head coach to 43 for a QB?

I have always thought TB and BB will go at the same time, not out of love, but timing.

Pete Carroll is currently 68 (will be 69 in September) and they are still playing this year, and don't look to be disappearing from contention anytime in the near future.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

No, they were forward-thinking in this. Alas, there are some contingencies you can't always plan for...

View attachment 27948

Hello There!!!

 

[Shelterdog]

I agree, this team does not need a rebuild. It has good players all over and excellent players under contract in the secondary.

I would love to know how Brady would do in a new offense. Could he get on the same page with new teammates quickly in a whole new system?

If Brady does switch teams I'll bet his new team adopts the NE playbook--that's what the Broncos did when Peyton moved there.

Incidentally if he doe smove we also might get some interesting answers to the question of whether the NE system is particularly hard for some players to master, etc.--if Brady goes somewhere and players who were very productive under another system drop way down that suggests that the Pats system is unusual, and if players kind of perform the same way that suggests that NE's system isn't unusual.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Where is the option for "leaves to become part owner as well as starting
QB and player/coach for the Los Angeles Wildcats"? I would like to change my vote.

 

[djbayko]

BB is the NFL coaching GOAT, and that job isn't dependent on physical attributes that sharply decline with age. So I don't think it is comparable to Brady at all. Comparing him to other coaches is fine, but when you acknowledge that he is better than all of them, using them as a baseline to predict how long he'll be effective is tough.

I didn’t see him comparing Brady to Belichick at all. Of course that would be absurd. I think he was just pointing out where he thought two lines might intersect.

 

[nattysez]

FWIW, Curran believes that there is no way Brady stays if he doesn't sign by March 18 because his overall cap hit would be too big at that point.

The team has until free agency begins on March 18 to give Brady a new contract; otherwise, the $13.5M will count against their 2020 salary cap. And that’s regardless of whether or not he re-signs here after free agency begins.

So if Brady goes out, tests the waters and gets a one-year offer from someone for $25M, matching that would mean Brady carries a $38.5 million cap hit in 2020. That’s 19.25 percent of the projected $200M salary cap for 2020. [Curran earlier wrote that Kraft previously said that one player accounting for "18 to 20% of the cap" would be unacceptable]

If the Patriots sign Brady to a one-year deal for $25M on, say, March 17, half of the $13.5M in prorated money hits the cap so the cap hit is $31.75M — 15.875 percent of the cap.

***

For Brady to remain a Patriot and not take up an unacceptable amount of cap room he first HAS to re-sign before March 18 to avoid the $13.5M cap charge. So the idea I’ve bandied about that Brady will go take a free agent tour then come back to the Patriots is faulty.

 

[axx]

Avoiding that $13M cap charge is probably not happening. After all, that money has already been given to Brady, right?

It does sort of make it clear it would need to be another kick-the-can type deal.

 

[lexrageorge]

Avoiding that $13M cap charge is probably not happening. After all, that money has already been given to Brady, right?

It does sort of make it clear it would need to be another kick-the-can type deal.

The charge is an accounting charge from the bonuses Brady received in the deal he signed in August. The money has been paid out already. However, if Brady signs a deal before his current one voids on 3/18, the $13M cap hit from his voided deal can be spread out over the term of the new deal. There is some misinformation about this out there, but I'm fairly certain this is the case.

 

[Harry Hooper]

FWIW, Curran believes that there is no way Brady stays if he doesn't sign by March 18 because his overall cap hit would be too big at that point.

Curran pulling quotes from circa 2011 is pretty much a meaningless exercise at this point. His anticipating Brady fielding only 1-year offers now also seems off the mark as well.

 

[BigJimEd]

Avoiding that $13M cap charge is probably not happening. After all, that money has already been given to Brady, right?

It does sort of make it clear it would need to be another kick-the-can type deal.

Yeah, Curran makes some big assumptions. He's been beating this drum for a while and seems to ignore that many NFL contracts push cap charges down the road including the one he's talking about.

That one year example could be easily structured to push $6M or more into future years.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Peter King is on the Andy Dalton Bridge, should the Patriots need to build one

 

[Seels]

Andy Dalton is garbage and if he's the bridge I'm jumping.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Avoiding that $13M cap charge is probably not happening. After all, that money has already been given to Brady, right?

It does sort of make it clear it would need to be another kick-the-can type deal.

There is no avoiding the cap charge. He doesn't get that money. It's the price of voiding the years left on the deal. If they sign him before the void day, they can spread the cap charge over 2 years.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

FWIW, Curran believes that there is no way Brady stays if he doesn't sign by March 18 because his overall cap hit would be too big at that point.

It seems to me that:

1. There is an obvious way to sign Brady that avoids near term cap concerns.
2. It involves sacrificing the future.

They just give him a long term (past his playing days) guaranteed deal. Because it has extra years on it that Brady will be getting paid to do nothing, there short-term cap hit won't be so bad.

Of course, once he walks away, the Pats will have a dead-money hangover.

Assuming Brady is set on getting paid... if Kraft is set on keeping him, that's how it happens.

Brady has talked about playing until 45: 3 more years. So, maybe: guaranteed 5 year, $75 million. That's a better deal than he likely gets elsewhere given his age. More financial risk to the Pats than to Brady. But it gets him paid, and it keeps his cap number low.

 

[steveluck7]

There is no avoiding the cap charge. He doesn't get that money. It's the price of voiding the years left on the deal. If they sign him before the void day, they can spread the cap charge over 2 years.

Is it only 2 or over the life of the extension (up to 5 years, which he’s not getting)?
I wonder if a 3 year deal can be structured that makes year 3 voidable and doesn’t completely destroy their cap situation in that year.
Or, If he wants to play as a 45 year old, a 4 year deal that accomplishes the same

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Curran is discounting that the Patriots could structure a new deal with Brady after 3/18 in a way that makes up for the fact that they had to take the whole $13.5m in 2020. His general premise is correct that it gets harder after 3/18, but not impossible by any means.

I think the easiest way to think about it is that the Patriots have a day of reckoning coming for Brady. Right now, that day of reckoning means they are going to have to pay $13.5 million for nothing. (I'm using "pay" here to mean take a cap charge.) In one year, or two. If they sign him again they will structure it to move more of the 2020 money into future years so that number will go up, but the reckoning day will be postponed.

I'm a broken record on this, but I still have no idea why they tacked on $8.5 million to Brady's cap by restructuring. They were in a great spot with him. He was all paid up, basically. Why did they just borrow from next year to give extra money to a player already under contract? He wasn't going to hold out. It would really be ironic if making a gift to Brady last year is the thing that makes it so that he can't play here any longer.

 

[NomarsFool]

If Brady goes somewhere else the Pats get a $13.5 million cap hit.
If Brady re-signs with the Pats after March 18th, the Pats get a $13.5 million cap hit.
Are those two statements correct?

So, while it is of course better for the Patriots for them to resign him before 3/18 than afterwards, I still don't quite follow the logic that if he is not signed by 3/18 he is gone for sure. I can certainly imagine a scenario that plays out like this:

1) Brady says "If you want to sign me before I become a FA, it will take 3/75
2) Patriots say "Okay, Tom, you can get that - good luck to you and thanks"
3) Brady is unable to get that (I realize it is of course possible he does), then comes back to the Patriots and signs for something less

 

[steveluck7]

I think the general premise that everyone is operating under is that Bill has no appetite to carry Tom with a cap hit near $35 million.
That’s the only “logical” reason I can see why there is so much doom and gloom among mediots.
Well, that and Jay effing Glazer saying Tom “won’t take a home town discount this time.”

 

[axx]

I'm a broken record on this, but I still have no idea why they tacked on $8.5 million to Brady's cap by restructuring.

Because he was threatning to hold out/retire. I agree that it doesn't make sense otherwise.

 

[mcpickl]

Yeah, Curran makes some big assumptions. He's been beating this drum for a while and seems to ignore that many NFL contracts push cap charges down the road including the one he's talking about.

That one year example could be easily structured to push $6M or more into future years.

Agreed. This storyline being pushed is meaningless.

Say they agree to pay Brady 25M for next year, and they want his cap hit in the same neighborhood.

If they sign him before his current contract voids, they could pay him 25M in cash next year structured as 10.5M in salary and a 14.5M bonus and keep the 2021 year on his contract as a void year and his cap hit is 24.5M and they'd take a 14M cap hit in 2021 if he left after the season.

If they sign him after his contract voids and they have to take that 13.5M hit in 2020, they could pay him 25M in cash next year structured as a 4M salary and 21M bonus with two void years added to the deal, his cap hit would be 24.5M and they'd take a 14M cap hit in 2021 if he left after the season.

It's really a non-story. If they agree on a deal, it's easy to structure the cap hits to be the same no matter when he signs.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I think the general premise that everyone is operating under is that Bill has no appetite to carry Tom with a cap hit near $35 million.
That’s the only “logical” reason I can see why there is so much doom and gloom among mediots.
Well, that and Jay effing Glazer saying Tom “won’t take a home town discount this time.”

Media views vary. The likes of Ordway are suggesting a 1-year deal in the $15-20 million dollar range. Someone like Bedard is suggesting Brees' most recent {effective} 2-year $50m deal as a floor.

 

[steveluck7]

Media views vary. The likes of Ordway are suggesting a 1-year deal in the $15-20 million dollar range. Someone like Bedard is suggesting Brees' most recent {effective} 2-year $50m deal as a floor.

Yeah... I’m in the “he’s more concerned with years than dollars boat” so I don’t think 1 year is gonna get it done.
Maybe that’s what they offer, but I think he wants certainty for at least 2 years

 

[axx]

Yeah... I’m in the “he’s more concerned with years than dollars boat” so I don’t think 1 year is gonna get it done.
Maybe that’s what they offer, but I think he wants certainty for at least 2 years

Guys, he's only getting a real one year deal. Now that one year might be 30 mill. I would be impressed if he got 2/50 fully guaranteed.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

If Brady goes somewhere else the Pats get a $13.5 million cap hit.
If Brady re-signs with the Pats after March 18th, the Pats get a $13.5 million cap hit.
Are those two statements correct?

So, while it is of course better for the Patriots for them to resign him before 3/18 than afterwards, I still don't quite follow the logic that if he is not signed by 3/18 he is gone for sure. I can certainly imagine a scenario that plays out like this:

1) Brady says "If you want to sign me before I become a FA, it will take 3/75
2) Patriots say "Okay, Tom, you can get that - good luck to you and thanks"
3) Brady is unable to get that (I realize it is of course possible he does), then comes back to the Patriots and signs for something less

I've been saying all along, it's the years that matter. They can sign him to 3/75, with 50 guaranteed. Then he walks after year 2.

With the 13.5 dead money, his cap hits look like this:

29.5mil in 2020
29.5mil in 2021
4.5mil in 2022 (when he's not here).

If they cut him, or wait until after 3/18 to sign him, it's 13.5mil in 2020. Period. So, that's how you commit to him for 2 years and not really kill your cap. If they want to sign a FA QB, they would have to pay the new QB less than 16mil in order to have a cap hit that would be less than what they would have with Brady here.

Is there a QB out there that would cost less than 16mil in 2020 that folks would rather have over Tom Brady? I say no.

That's why, IMO, there are only two options here. Re-sign Brady for a contract that looks something like this, or let him walk (along with guys like DMC, Hightower, etc.), roll with Stidham, win 4-5 games at most, and then roll your dice on free agents and the draft and see if you can rebuild something.

I'd personally rather take the first approach, sign Tom, put some talent around him, and make a couple more runs at it. Then he walks/retires after 2021, and you barely have any cap issues in 2022.

 

[tims4wins]

A few years ago, I would have figured that 99.9% of fans would want to see Brady go out on his own terms. But what do we think of that now? The reason I ask is that Kraft does not want to alienate the fan base. If Brady wants 2 years and the Pats only offer 1, they know there is a real chance he leaves (retirement seems doubtful). So if this came to pass, would the majority of the fan base back Kraft or Brady? I’m really not sure of the answer. Personally I’m torn. I want to see that dude try to play two more years. I want to win another ring. I want to see him run down the field and yell let’s go 16-38 more times. But on the flip side if BB believes the Pats have a quicker path to contention by letting him walk (possibly by paying Stidham next to nothing for the next few years) then I can get behind that too.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Agreed. This storyline being pushed is meaningless.

Say they agree to pay Brady 25M for next year, and they want his cap hit in the same neighborhood.

If they sign him before his current contract voids, they could pay him 25M in cash next year structured as 10.5M in salary and a 14.5M bonus and keep the 2021 year on his contract as a void year and his cap hit is 24.5M and they'd take a 14M cap hit in 2021 if he left after the season.

If they sign him after his contract voids and they have to take that 13.5M hit in 2020, they could pay him 25M in cash next year structured as a 4M salary and 21M bonus with two void years added to the deal, his cap hit would be 24.5M and they'd take a 14M cap hit in 2021 if he left after the season.

It's really a non-story. If they agree on a deal, it's easy to structure the cap hits to be the same no matter when he signs.

You're better at figuring out the permutations than me, but I think the idea is that two 6.75m cap hits makes it easier to structure a two year deal that also gives them some cap relief next year to do other things with. Yes, if they are willing to take a $25 million cap hit next year, it's really no issue. If, instead, they'd like to kick more cap down the road -- they have more options with a pre-3/18 restructure.

To me, if you re-sign Brady, you might as well borrow more from future years. The bottom line is that the $13.5m already makes it so you're going to need a semi-reset year when he goes. Why not just go all in?

So, to me, that's really the question. Let's say that Patriots want to keep Brady for 2020 and 2021 at $25 million per year, and they want to use the restructure to free up $10 million in cap space in 2020 and delay the entire $23.5 million that they are borrowing to the year Brady leaves. Can they do that even with a $13.5m cap hit next year and get Brady the $50 million (say with a significant amount of it guaranteed)?

To me, in for a penny in for a pound. Restructure, save cap, use it on surrounding him with help for 2021 and 2022, enjoy the shit out of it, and then clear the books in 2023.

 

[Van Everyman]

Guys, we’re fucked:

View: https://twitter.com/therealoj32/status/1215336979493113856?s=21

 

[CouchsideSteve]

Quick question for the more knowledgeable football minds on the board. How many coaches were successful head coaches in their 70s. Quicl look shows Shula was 9-7 at age 65, Tom Landry was considered out of touch by age 65.

Another way how comparable is 70 for a head coach to 43 for a QB?

I have always thought TB and BB will go at the same time, not out of love, but timing.

This part of the dynamic fascinates me. And while there isn’t a ton of precedent for successful 70-something HCs in the NFL, there have been a few recently in college football. One that I’m very familiar with as an alum of Kansas State is Bill Snyder, who retired after the 2018 season at the age of 79. Unlike Paterno, who — even setting aside the scandal — seemed barely there by the end, Snyder was crafty and inventive late into his 70s. Had it not been for a throat cancer diagnosis and the challenges of modern recruiting (i.e., in-season travel and social media), he might still be coaching.

Like Belichick, Snyder had a son on staff who he really enjoyed working with and wanted to set up for success. Famously, Snyder also has no hobbies, which I don’t think applies to Belichick. But if you’re struggling to imagine what a 74-year-old Belichick would look like as HC, I think you might be surprised. If he has the desire, I think he could do it effectively for several more years, whereas Brady’s time is obviously more finite.

 

[Marceline]

I've been saying all along, it's the years that matter. They can sign him to 3/75, with 50 guaranteed. Then he walks after year 2.

With the 13.5 dead money, his cap hits look like this:

29.5mil in 2020
29.5mil in 2021
4.5mil in 2022 (when he's not here).

If they cut him, or wait until after 3/18 to sign him, it's 13.5mil in 2020. Period. So, that's how you commit to him for 2 years and not really kill your cap. If they want to sign a FA QB, they would have to pay the new QB less than 16mil in order to have a cap hit that would be less than what they would have with Brady here.

Is there a QB out there that would cost less than 16mil in 2020 that folks would rather have over Tom Brady? I say no.

That's why, IMO, there are only two options here. Re-sign Brady for a contract that looks something like this, or let him walk (along with guys like DMC, Hightower, etc.), roll with Stidham, win 4-5 games at most, and then roll your dice on free agents and the draft and see if you can rebuild something.

I'd personally rather take the first approach, sign Tom, put some talent around him, and make a couple more runs at it. Then he walks/retires after 2021, and you barely have any cap issues in 2022.

I'm just quibbling here, I agree with your overall point - but I think even if Stidham sucks the Pats still end up around 7-8 wins just based on the strength of their defense and coaching.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I'm just quibbling here, I agree with your overall point - but I think even if Stidham sucks the Pats still end up around 7-8 wins just based on the strength of their defense and coaching.

Have you seen next year's schedule? If they win 7-8 games with Stidham, they may as well just rename the coach of the year "the Belichick." The AFC East is getting much better, and they have the AFC and NFC West, plus Baltimore, etc. It's brutal. The travel alone is enough to cost them about 4 games.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Have you seen next year's schedule? If they win 7-8 games with Stidham, they may as well just rename the coach of the year "the Belichick." The AFC East is getting much better, and they have the AFC and NFC West, plus Baltimore, etc. It's brutal. The travel alone is enough to cost them about 4 games.

Agreed. The days of 6-0 or 5-1 in the division are gone. Wouldn't be surprised if they split with all three of them next year

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Agreed. The days of 6-0 or 5-1 in the division are gone. Wouldn't be surprised if they split with all three of them next year

With Stidham, I'd place the O/U on wins in the division at 3, and I wouldn't take the over. I don't think they beat Buffalo once, and at best, they split with Miami and the Jets.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Agreed. The days of 6-0 or 5-1 in the division are gone. Wouldn't be surprised if they split with all three of them next year

So...the AFCE is wide open?

 

[E5 Yaz]

So...the AFCE is wide open?

I'll tell you March 18

 

[Reverend]

He originally said he didn't ever see himself coaching past 70, but a recent interview he did contradicted that. I think we have another 5+ years with BB, which gives him time for a rebuild if he desires.

If you read the whole thing carefully, he throws the age number out in the context of saying he doesn’t want to stay on after the game has past him by.

So the number was an example of when it might happen. Anyone think that’s happened yet?

Does anyone really think Belichick emphasizes a semi-arbitrary number over a practical principle?

 

[camneely]

Have you seen next year's schedule? If they win 7-8 games with Stidham, they may as well just rename the coach of the year "the Belichick." The AFC East is getting much better, and they have the AFC and NFC West, plus Baltimore, etc. It's brutal. The travel alone is enough to cost them about 4 games.

Also, a number of key defensive players may decide to retire in the wake of a Brady exit. Including possible losses in free agency, they could conceivably be without Chung, McCourtys, High, Collins, and KVN. Wouldn’t blame any of those dudes for taking a pass on the chance to rack up some moral victories, to be honest.

 

[mcpickl]

You're better at figuring out the permutations than me, but I think the idea is that two 6.75m cap hits makes it easier to structure a two year deal that also gives them some cap relief next year to do other things with. Yes, if they are willing to take a $25 million cap hit next year, it's really no issue. If, instead, they'd like to kick more cap down the road -- they have more options with a pre-3/18 restructure.

To me, if you re-sign Brady, you might as well borrow more from future years. The bottom line is that the $13.5m already makes it so you're going to need a semi-reset year when he goes. Why not just go all in?

So, to me, that's really the question. Let's say that Patriots want to keep Brady for 2020 and 2021 at $25 million per year, and they want to use the restructure to free up $10 million in cap space in 2020 and delay the entire $23.5 million that they are borrowing to the year Brady leaves. Can they do that even with a $13.5m cap hit next year and get Brady the $50 million (say with a significant amount of it guaranteed)?

To me, in for a penny in for a pound. Restructure, save cap, use it on surrounding him with help for 2021 and 2022, enjoy the shit out of it, and then clear the books in 2023.

If you were giving Brady 50M for 2 years, the only way you could have a whopper charge like 23.5M when he leaves would be a crazy structure like a 4 year deal that voids after season 2, with 1.5M in salary in 2020 and 2021 and a 47M dollar signing bonus. If you did that as a restructure before his current contract voids, you'd still have cap hits of 20M in both 2020 and 2021. Then the 23.5M cap charge after his contract would void in 2022.

Though it's very unlikely the Patriots would structure this way anyway. They like to have the cash payouts be fairly consistent year to year if they can. I don't think they plan on going all in now and taking a massive hit the year after Brady would theoretically leave in this scenario. I think they plan to just keep competing and not have a fall off a cliff season after Brady leaves.

 

[Reverend]

Hello There!!!

View attachment 27949

 

[Harry Hooper]

Cough...check out the name at the top of the whiteboard in the Red pic.

 

[Reverend]

Cough...check out the name at the top of the whiteboard in the Red pic.

Fair point. Missed that. Got caught up in missing the cigar.

 

[Marceline]

Have you seen next year's schedule? If they win 7-8 games with Stidham, they may as well just rename the coach of the year "the Belichick." The AFC East is getting much better, and they have the AFC and NFC West, plus Baltimore, etc. It's brutal. The travel alone is enough to cost them about 4 games.

No I hadn't seen the schedule yet. Yikes, that is a tough one. I take it back and revise my estimate to 5-6 wins without Brady.

They should definitely rename the coach of the year The Belichick regardless, though.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

If you read the whole thing carefully, he throws the age number out in the context of saying he doesn’t want to stay on after the game has past him by.

So the number was an example of when it might happen. Anyone think that’s happened yet?

Does anyone really think Belichick emphasizes a semi-arbitrary number over a practical principle?

Dont know. Dont know the guy. Maybe? I think BB often states quite clearly his opinion, and if you read too deep into it, he scoffs.

"I won’t be like Marv Levy and coaching in my 70s, I know that.”

Then 3 years later: “When I said it, maybe I didn’t know what 70 felt like, So I’m not really sure if that’s an accurate statement today or not."

Seems pretty clear to me he meant the age and not a mindset. I think youre reading a little too deep into it.

 

[Cotillion]

There is a chance that the new TV deals could also help the Pats if they are strategic about getting the "killer" cap hits to slide into years where there will probably be a step change in the cap due to the latest TV deals. That would take a longer term deal to make it stretch far enough, but would allow for some of the structures people are putting forth up top to make sense.

It'll stil be a huge cap hit but the % of space can be smaller or comparable.

 

[DJnVa]

Have you seen next year's schedule? If they win 7-8 games with Stidham, they may as well just rename the coach of the year "the Belichick." The AFC East is getting much better, and they have the AFC and NFC West, plus Baltimore, etc. It's brutal. The travel alone is enough to cost them about 4 games.

On some levels it would be amazing if Brady leaves, Pats play a killer schedule, eke out 9-10 wins with Stidham and BB gets a coach of the year award that he could have received half a dozen times already.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Chris Gasper of the Globe is on 98.5. He is pretty plugged in to the Brady camp. He just said that Brady's stance has softened quite a bit in terms of leaving. Gasper previously said during the year that his first choice would be to leave but now he says he's hearing the first preference is to stay and work something out.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Chris Gasper of the Globe is on 98.5. He is pretty plugged in to the Brady camp. He just said that Brady's stance has softened quite a bit in terms of leaving. Gasper previously said during the year that his first choice would be to leave but now he says he's hearing the first preference is to stay and work something out.

Maybe the plan to join Josh elsewhere is a non-starter with Josh not leaving?

 

[djbayko]

Chris Gasper of the Globe is on 98.5. He is pretty plugged in to the Brady camp. He just said that Brady's stance has softened quite a bit in terms of leaving. Gasper previously said during the year that his first choice would be to leave but now he says he's hearing the first preference is to stay and work something out.

His FIRST choice was to leave? I don’t believe any of these bozos.

Edit: Also love how this report positions him to be right either way.

 

[Bernie Carbohydrate]

Fair point. Missed that. Got caught up in missing the cigar.

He was distracted -- is that former Dutch Basketball League star Tony Benford on that draft board?