06-09-2019, 10:17 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,773
Thanks: 1,748
Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,080 Posts
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
Hybrid Mode
