Gerald McCoy

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

This is why people on here are disagreeing with you. You seem to think that signing 1-2 higher tier FAs to short term, reasonable contracts with kill us cap-wise which just isn't the case. After the supposedly cap killing Houston signing we're at $55M under the cap which is $14M more than any other team, and if we had signed McCoy to a similar deal as Carolina we would still be $6M more under than any other team.

You also never take into account (maybe you're unaware) that per the CBA NFL teams have to spend a certain percentage of the salary cap within a given period of time. Did some googling on the details of this and the short version is that teams have to spend at least 89% of their base salary cap between '17-'20 in total cash on players. To be compliant with this the Colts have to spend an additional ~$64M between now and the end of the '20 season, so we can't just simply horde cap space until '21 or '22 as you suggest.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so the rules on rolling cap space YoY could change. If I was in the NFLPA I would certainly push for that in an attempt to increase current player salaries.

I totally understand what you are saying Norm, and I am well aware of the rules regarding minimum cap spending (I've even discussed it in prior posts if I'm not mistaken). I'm not sure you're fully understanding my position - I never said that signing a McCoy or Houston will kill us cap wise, or that McCoy or Houston would weaken our team in any way, or that they won't improve us somewhat. It's just that I don't think that's the best use of our money. As a general principle, I think we should strive to put our available money to the highest use possible. If we have better ways to spend our money (for example, in house free agents), we should do that instead of spending it on players who won't bring back a great return.

This isn't to say that no players over 30 should be signed - that's way too simplistic. It's just that the stats show that once a player hits a certain age, their performance declines. That age is different for different positions. Yet they tend to get paid well for a few years later based upon reputation and name recognition. Add to that the inherent uncertainty in a player switching teams/systems, and it just doesn't seem like a good bet to me. For example, setting aside his personal issues, Le'veon Bell is past his "best by" date so I was against signing him to a multi-year contract. Houston is the same. Those guys undoubtedly have value, but I thought they were both overpaid.

I much preferred signings like Matt Slauson, who was an older player with value but signed at a reasonable price. He didn't work out so well, I guess, but I like the strategy better.

Further, this analysis is primarily confined to outside free agents. I am not as concerned about signing older in-house free agents because (1) we know them and their condition so well, (2) they are not switching systems, and (3) it creates continuity and a team identity.

As far as the minimum spending requirements, it doesn’t concern me too much. There are ways to meet that minimum that don't require us to spend tons on outside free agents immediately. As you mentioned in your later post, you can resign players like Ryan Kelly or Costanzo and give them large up front signing bonuses. Or perhaps you could convert some of Luck’s salary into a signing bonus, and perhaps add a year or two to his contract while you're doing it. My guess is that the NFLPA would be perfectly fine with that since they are looking out for all players, not just those who are free agents.

As far as possible changes to the CBA, you make a fair point but it’s anyone’s guess how that will play out. Negotiations will be ongoing long before the current CBA expires, so I have to think that the owners/GMs will have a good idea of the likelihood of any changes before then.

I’ll concede this to those complaining about us carrying so much open cap space: if Ballard lets the Colts get fined or penalized for not using the cap minimum, then I’ll agree that your criticisms are valid. I just don’t think that’s what will happen though.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Colt Classic

$64 million?! That makes it even more absurd. To add to your facts, here are next years free agents that the Colts will have. Castonzo, and...hmm. Not a lot of need for hording nickels and dimes for the immediate future. Ebron...Doyle will be over the hill according to Chaka, so he may be shown the door.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-age...napolis-colts/

See above post.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Sheesh...

1. I know, the cap is the only thing you talk about, because you can’t talk about anything else. Wait... here it comes... another explanation of Ballard’s vision.

I can talk about a lot of things, but I don't pretend to be who I'm not. So I don't hold myself out as an expert on player evaluation or on field X's and O's.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

2. Funchess has some red flags. I would go over them, but they have been hashed out in the Funchess thread and they involve talk about football not the cap so...

3. Yeah ok, see above.

So nothing...that's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

4. It was a joke, I was saying you can spare me your lectures on sound management. Wow pushed a button there. This kind of comes back to the ‘understanding what people are posting thing’. Keeping it simple. Building a winning team and running a business don’t really align because they have two different objectives ultimately. You build a roster to win games, but that takes investment in players. A business wants to make as much profit as possible while spending as little as possible. If the team adopted those goals we would be like one of those perennial losing baseball teams who spend no money on the roster and are just there to make as much money as possible while keeping costs low.

A joke? Really? Your comedy needs some work. And the irony of you saying I need to "understand what people are posting" while you somehow read my "run it like a business" analogy to mean that I'm saying the Colts should try to make more money...

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

5. I’m usually on my phone and my big fingers make mistakes. I should probably proof, but its a sports board. I will simplify it. Ballard waits longer than I like to fix obvious issues. Once he does decide to fix it he gets after it yo. I just wish he would get after it sooner, like before the season started. Otherwise I think he’s doing a bang up job.

You're fingers are to blame for your repeated incorrect use of terms, and then your arguments with me about that? ok...

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

You really like Ballard, are you guys related? Now I’m going out, no more responses for you.

Ok by me. And yes, I like Ballard a lot, but he's not above criticism. His management of team resources appeals to me, as I've set forth in countless prior posts, long before the success we had last year.

[Oldcolt]

Bottom line for me is Ballard/Reich are doing a better job in rebuilding this team than I could have hoped for. Perfect? Obviously nobody is, but this is the best combination of gm/coach that this team has ever had. That's a lot to say after one year but right now I'll stick to it.

[IndyNorm]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I totally understand what you are saying Norm, and I am well aware of the rules regarding minimum cap spending (I've even discussed it in prior posts if I'm not mistaken). I'm not sure you're fully understanding my position - I never said that signing a McCoy or Houston will kill us cap wise, or that McCoy or Houston would weaken our team in any way, or that they won't improve us somewhat. It's just that I don't think that's the best use of our money. As a general principle, I think we should strive to put our available money to the highest use possible. If we have better ways to spend our money (for example, in house free agents), we should do that instead of spending it on players who won't bring back a great return.

This isn't to say that no players over 30 should be signed - that's way too simplistic. It's just that the stats show that once a player hits a certain age, their performance declines. That age is different for different positions. Yet they tend to get paid well for a few years later based upon reputation and name recognition. Add to that the inherent uncertainty in a player switching teams/systems, and it just doesn't seem like a good bet to me. For example, setting aside his personal issues, Le'veon Bell is past his "best by" date so I was against signing him to a multi-year contract. Houston is the same. Those guys undoubtedly have value, but I thought they were both overpaid.

I much preferred signings like Matt Slauson, who was an older player with value but signed at a reasonable price. He didn't work out so well, I guess, but I like the strategy better.

Further, this analysis is primarily confined to outside free agents. I am not as concerned about signing older in-house free agents because (1) we know them and their condition so well, (2) they are not switching systems, and (3) it creates continuity and a team identity.

As far as the minimum spending requirements, it doesn’t concern me too much. There are ways to meet that minimum that don't require us to spend tons on outside free agents immediately. As you mentioned in your later post, you can resign players like Ryan Kelly or Costanzo and give them large up front signing bonuses. Or perhaps you could convert some of Luck’s salary into a signing bonus, and perhaps add a year or two to his contract while you're doing it. My guess is that the NFLPA would be perfectly fine with that since they are looking out for all players, not just those who are free agents.

As far as possible changes to the CBA, you make a fair point but it’s anyone’s guess how that will play out. Negotiations will be ongoing long before the current CBA expires, so I have to think that the owners/GMs will have a good idea of the likelihood of any changes before then.

I’ll concede this to those complaining about us carrying so much open cap space: if Ballard lets the Colts get fined or penalized for not using the cap minimum, then I’ll agree that your criticisms are valid. I just don’t think that’s what will happen though.

I get what you're saying, and if we were in a position where that salary cap space was needed to re-sign our own in the next season or 2 then that would be a different story. Same goes for if Ballard decided to go all Grigson and blow through all of our cap space. But since neither of those are the case there isn't anything wrong with bringing in productive vets at short term, reasonable contracts to improve the team.

Also since you brought up overpaying, I'm surprised you're so on board with the Funchess signing. His production has been below average at best, and in a contract year he led the league in drop rate and was benched. Seems like we could have gotten him much closer to a min contract rather than the $10M we paid him.

[GoBigBlue88]

My only thing: if this team is going to have boatloads of cap space and not sign new FAs, at least use it to advance cap hits on current players or front your extensions.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I’ll concede this to those complaining about us carrying so much open cap space: if Ballard lets the Colts get fined or penalized for not using the cap minimum, then I’ll agree that your criticisms are valid. I just don’t think that’s what will happen though.

I’m not at all concerned about them getting fined or penalized for that. I’m concerned that they will consistently make the “smart” business decision over the “best” football decision. As a fan I only care about the salary cap and players salaries to the degree it affects the teams ability to win. Certainly being irresponsible with contracts can have that effect, but so can going to far the other way. IMO Ballard is at least flirting with being to far that way. And you are well past that point.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I can talk about a lot of things, but I don't pretend to be who I'm not. So I don't hold myself out as an expert on player evaluation or on field X's and O's.

Doesn't stop you from pontificating about the cap and drawing bad analogies.

Originally Posted by Chaka

So nothing...that's what I thought.

Umm what, I just told you where to find it? It's not my job to educate you. Fine, he's the most perfect FA WR signing since Ryan Grant. You nailed it.

Originally Posted by Chaka

A joke? Really? Your comedy needs some work. And the irony of you saying I need to "understand what people are posting" while you somehow read my "run it like a business" analogy to mean that I'm saying the Colts should try to make more money...

I am so sad to hear that, I willl cancel my stand-up career now. That is true, it was silly of me to interpret your thorough description of 'run it like a business' for an organization that prioritizes profit. I mean there are all those businesses out there that don't care about profit, the majority really.

Originally Posted by Chaka

You're fingers are to blame for your repeated incorrect use of terms, and then your arguments with me about that? ok...

Well I was more talking about typos/mispellings which you mentioned, but I can see where you would extrapolate that large fingers are responsible for grammar issues. That happens all the time to people. Incidentally, I didn't do anything wrong. It would only be contradictory if I said Ballard was both at the same time, which I did not. Yet you seem determined to say I did even though I have explained it three times.

Originally Posted by Chaka

Ok by me. And yes, I like Ballard a lot, but he's not above criticism. His management of team resources appeals to me, as I've set forth in countless prior posts, long before the success we had last year.

And here I just thought it was because of his dick lodged into your anal cavity.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by IndyNorm

I get what you're saying, and if we were in a position where that salary cap space was needed to re-sign our own in the next season or 2 then that would be a different story. Same goes for if Ballard decided to go all Grigson and blow through all of our cap space. But since neither of those are the case there isn't anything wrong with bringing in productive vets at short term, reasonable contracts to improve the team.

Also since you brought up overpaying, I'm surprised you're so on board with the Funchess signing. His production has been below average at best, and in a contract year he led the league in drop rate and was benched. Seems like we could have gotten him much closer to a min contract rather than the $10M we paid him.

I absolutely agree that there’s nothing wrong with bringing in vets to supplement the home grown players. But I guess it comes down to our personal definitions of “short term, reasonable contracts” then. I thought Houston’s two-year, largely guaranteed deal was a little rich for a guy who (1) is past his prime, (2) is changing teams after being cut by the team that knows him best, (3) is changing positions, and (4) has had some injury problems in recent years. That said, I am excited to have him, and truly I hope he plays well and outperforms his contract. I just think the chances aren’t that great that he will. I’m hoping that Ballard’s familiarity with him from his time in KC will reduce some of the risks.

On Funchess, I like the strategy of signing guys heading into their prime, and if the team’s talent evaluators think this guy has a chance to break out I’m onboard with the risk at $7-$10 million for one year. Reminds me a little of the Ebron signing - another guy who came in with a bad hands rep, and who's signing was widely panned at the time. The one year deal tells me that the team isn’t quite so confident Funchess will perform well. That's fine, but I don’t like that our upside on the deal is limited to this year. Again, the ideal solution would have been an option year or two.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88

My only thing: if this team is going to have boatloads of cap space and not sign new FAs, at least use it to advance cap hits on current players or front your extensions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but what's the rush?