Blog Entry

Read Irsay's comments carefully

Posted on: February 14, 2012 7:22 pm
Edited on: February 15, 2012 5:23 am
Jim Irsay's comments to the Indianapolis Star that he would "love" to have Peyton Manning are intriguing, but they're not exactly earth-shaking --  and that's because of what he had to say afterward. And what he said afterward is where we need to pay attention.

"I would love to have him back here if he can get healthy." he told the Star, "and we can look at doing a contract that reflects the uncertainty of the doing the healing process with the regeneration of the nerve."

Well, now that's always been the crux of the problem, hasn't it?

I mean the question has never been about anything but Manning's health. I mean, when I was at Super Bowl XLVI, a source close to Irsay told me the Colts' owner would have no problem paying Manning "if he believed he was healthy and could play again."

But, the source said, neither Irsay nor anyone else close to the situation could be certain of anything involving Manning's future, which complicated the situation. His point was: The Colts probably wouldn't know more about Manning's future by March 8 than they do now, and March 8 is when Manning is due to collect a $28 million bonus that activates the final four years of his $90 million contract.

So why would they pay it? They wouldn't ... not unless Manning were willing to come to an accomodation that protects the Colts against an unnecessary and potentially reckless risk.

And that's basically what Irsay said on Tuesday -- with the owner telling us that his unerring support of Manning hasn't waned and that he would welcome him back even if ... OK, when ... the Colts draft Andrew Luck.

But no smart businessman would pay an employee $28 million if he didn't think he could work which, basically, is what Irsay is saying.

He's also telling us that he's willing to work something out with Manning, and that's not exactly news, either. Anyone who knows Irsay knows how much he values and appreciates what Manning has done for his team and the city of Indianapolis. Irsay does not want to let him go.

So he's thrown the ball into Manning's court, notifying him that he wants him to stay if they can work out an agreement. If Manning insists on the $28 million payout, then he won't be playing for Indianapolis next season, simple as that.

If nothing else, it was a smart move by Irsay to go on record as wanting to keep Manning. The expectation has been that the Colts would let him walk because they wouldn't pay the bonus, and while Irsay's comments don't diminish the possibility of that happening what he is saying is that he wants to keep the guy if a compromise can be worked out.

It takes two to reach a compromise, though, which means the next move is Manning's.

Category: NFL

Since: Jul 31, 2008
Posted on: February 26, 2012 8:27 pm

Read Irsay's comments carefully

Im confused. I thought Manning signed a contract extension BEFORE last season to stay in Indy. If thats the case, then doesnt that put the onus on Irsay to make a simple choice? Either pay Manning the bonus to which they agreed to or cut him loose? Why should or would Manning offer anything less. Just to stay in Indy on a team that is defintiely rebuilding and spiraling out of control? I say play it out Peyton. Over the years I believe Peyton on several occasions offered to "redo" his contract in order to allow Indy to sign free agents or keep players they had so they would have a better chance at winning. Manning doesnt need the money. He can walk away now and never worry about paying the electric bill or college tuition for his children. So why give in the Irsays stupid idea that Manning owes Indy something? I say walk away and stick it up Irsays goal post. Besides, Im sure Miami will pay handsomely to have Peyton.

Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 15, 2012 1:45 pm

Read Irsay's comments carefully

There you go again, Teres Minor, making sense.

He is preparing the ground for his move, seeking to minimize the damages to himself. Aside from motivation, Irsay is doing exactly what Ted Thompson did with Brett Favre. The difference being that even an old political hand like Brett wasn't able to outmaneuver the box in which Ted so adroitly put him. Peyton, on the other hand, will not let this jumped-up ingrate clumsily make him the bad guy.

Meanwhile, it's an NGEO special. Vultures circle lazily above, avid eyes awaiting the inevitable, even as sharks range its scent. This time, I think, the prey will morph into Indiana Jones. He's not quite the flawed hero that Brett presented, nor any more the vulnerable sort than any other Manning.

Since: May 17, 2008
Posted on: February 15, 2012 1:04 pm

Read Irsay's comments carefully

I am sick and tired of reading yet another sports writer that is so pro-Irsay and anti-Manning.  I'm tired of the "spin" they are putting on it making Manning the bad guy.  I'd like to remind these writerrs that Manning, not Irsay, is putting his neck on the line (in this case literally).
Guess I did not read the article as "pro-Irsay" or "anti-Manning" -- it was just the facts, Irsay is making is what is probably a smart BUSINESS decision, saying they want Manning back IF he is healthy and/or they don't stand to pay Manning over $20million to NOT PLAY again.  You cant really blame Irsay for that.  Now Manning has to make a BUSINESS decision (1) do I play and "put my neck on the line" and (2) if so, at what price?  At this point Manning has to know he is not getting the $28million bonus, so he has to consider what other teams need a QB and what they might pay him if he became a FA as well as deciding "how much is enough" to stay in Indy as opposed to going to a new team.  It is not "pro" or "anti" anyone in my opinion, just business.

Since: Aug 29, 2006
Posted on: February 15, 2012 12:03 pm

Read Irsay's comments carefully

Not one of those redskins players has ever stayed healthy for more then a year. what nonsense r u talking???

Since: Sep 5, 2006
Posted on: February 15, 2012 11:48 am

Read Irsay's comments carefully

Irsay is gambling that Peyton makes a mistake by argeeing to a new contract.  Right now, Peyton holds the Irsay hostage because of the $28M bonus.  Pay or Peyton walks.  With a new contract, which means it is cap and Colts friendly, the Colts get to "test" Luck for a while to gauge his readyness.  With a new contract Peyton gets screwed, if Luck is ready, Peyton gets traded to a place of the Colts choosing or benched.  No team will trade anything of value knowing that Peyton will most likely be released.  Peyton will get to choose his next team under terms that he feels is reasonable and aligns with his goals and play style.

Since: Sep 22, 2006
Posted on: February 15, 2012 11:21 am

Read Irsay's comments carefully

It's not a matter of Manning turning down the bonus.  I wouldn't, and he shouldn't.  It's a matter of whether the Colts cough up the money.  The question is this:

you have the #1 pick in the draft, and will (you say) take a QB; even if you want to bring that QB along slowly, can you afford to pay out $28 million to a guy who may not even be able to play, much less tutor said pick?

The choice, the first choice, was the Colts.  They could have said: "we cannot afford this, so we're going to let Peyton go."  $28 million saved, icon (and fan base) likely a bit ticked.  So, they say: "we'd love to keep him, but not at that price.  we'll pay something, and we'll do it based on incentives--i.e., show us you can play, and we'll kick in a chunk of cash, but we simply cannot afford a $28 million bet."  Meaning, unless you take a pay cut, you're on your own.

Now it's Peyton's choice, because the alternatives are clear.  He's not getting the $28 million.  He can stay with Indy at a lesser price, or he can go elsewhere, again at a lesser price.  But he ain't getting the $28 million; he doesn't even have the option to turn it down.

Since: Sep 2, 2006
Posted on: February 15, 2012 10:50 am

Read Irsay's comments carefully

Why should Manning turn down the $28 mil bonus? He has more than earned it. I am sure he would be willing to rework the rest of the $90 contact to a more incentive based one, but no way he should give away the bonus. First of, he is much better off going somewhere else. He has zero chance of making the playoffs again in the next 3 years in Indy. They are missing so many pieces, it would take 3 to 4 drafts to even get back to being competitve. And since they are dead set on drafting Luck, that is just one other spot that they will need to wait to fill. Teams like Arizona and Miami may be only a top QB away from being a playoff team. Even the Redskins are closer. Before you laugh at that, the Redskins were in 9 of the 11 losses last year. If it was not for the fact they had no professional QB's on the roster, they could have gone at least 9-7. They have a much improving defense and are set at the RB position. They have a pair of promising young WR in Leonard Hankerson and Anthony Armstrong and willbe going after another top WR like Vincent Jackson or Mario Manningham. They are franchising a top notch TE in Davis and will also have a healthy Chris Cooley. He could do worse.

Since: Sep 10, 2007
Posted on: February 15, 2012 10:22 am

Read Irsay's comments carefully

Clark-Judge has an opportunity to be a quality journalist and tear Jim Irsay a new one, instead he does the opposite and basically tells everybody that Jim Irsay is smart.  Clark-Judge is wrong.

Was it really that long ago that Jim Irsay went public and said these quotes on January 26th? "He's a politician,"  in reference to Peyton Manning. ….. "I think one thing that he's always known, because he's been around it so long, is you keep it in the family. If you've got a problem, you talk to each other. It's not about campaigning or anything like that."

Jim Irsay, is a pure hypocrite. He is going to the press saying it is up to Peyton Manning to restructure the contract. Jim Irsay is being a politician and is NOT keeping it in the family.

I don’t expect Clark-Judge to say anything about this because, like most journalist they are scared of losing access to teams and are afraid of billionaires.  Their jobs seem to depend on them being yellow belly kiss-asses.  This clearly must be one of those cases.

Since: Jul 12, 2008
Posted on: February 15, 2012 10:09 am

Read Irsay's comments carefully

I am sick and tired of reading yet another sports writer that is so pro-Irsay and anti-Manning.  I'm tired of the "spin" they are putting on it making Manning the bad guy.  I'd like to remind these writerrs that Manning, not Irsay, is putting his neck on the line (in this case literally).  Yeah irsay stands to lose $28 million, Manning risked his life for that jerk and made him many times that in profits.  Manning deserves that contractual pay-out and deserves to have all of us stay OUT of his business. He risked his life in his job, he put it all on the line... his life and physical well-being.  Irsay isn't putting ANYTHING close to that on the line, he's just putting a few dollars.   I know $28 million is a boat-load to most of us but to a guy like Irsay that's NOTHING, that's what he's paying ONE employee!

Stop hatin' on Peyton, until you are willing to put your neck on the line clam it!

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: February 15, 2012 9:48 am

Read Irsay's comments carefully

I see nothing wrong with Irsay tossing it back to Manning. He IS taking the high road here. The Colts are a mess and in all likelyhood they are paying for the #1 draft pick this year. How can you put so much money into one position when you have no idea if one is even going to play? If Manning really wants to stay a Colt, he would restructure his contract that if he is healthy and plays he gets paid. I think anyone that is going to sign him if the Colts do cut him would make him pass a physical before paying him so what is the difference? I would love them to cut him and have the Jets pick him up but I think that is just a dream. Really hoping Miami does not get him because I think they will have a terrific team if they do. I already can't wait until September !!

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or