Colts first UFA WR Devin Funchess

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

So highly he only rates a one year deal. I disliked the grant signing and I dislike this one. Ballard doesn’t see him as a fix, he sees him as a place holder. If he performs well he’ll be priced out of the colts range with Ballard. And if not he’ll go the way of Grant. Either way the chance of him being on the team for more than a year are slim. Place holder.

You're reading all of this based solely on the fact that its a one year deal? How do you know it was the Colts that proposed the deal? Maybe Funchess wanted a year away from the Panthers to show what he's capable of. Your argument on this was better with Grant. This is the first day of possible negotiations, after all, so its not like Funchess was floundering on the free agent market without a destination and had to accept the Colts proposal. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would sign a guy for $10-13M as a placeholder.

[Discflinger]

Originally Posted by Chaka

You're reading all of this based solely on the fact that its a one year deal? How do you know it was the Colts that proposed the deal? Maybe Funchess wanted a year away from the Panthers to show what he's capable of. Your argument on this was better with Grant. This is the first day of possible negotiations, after all, so its not like Funchess was floundering on the free agent market without a destination and had to accept the Colts proposal. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would sign a guy for $10-13M as a placeholder.

Yes, obviously he wanted to play with Andy.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

You're reading all of this based solely on the fact that its a one year deal? How do you know it was the Colts that proposed the deal? Maybe Funchess wanted a year away from the Panthers to show what he's capable of. Your argument on this was better with Grant. This is the first day of possible negotiations, after all, so its not like Funchess was floundering on the free agent market without a destination and had to accept the Colts proposal. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would sign a guy for $10-13M as a placeholder.

I absolutely believe Funches wants to prove his worth. That’s kinda my point.

Why wouldn’t he sign a guy to a one year incentive laden contract? He has to spend some money and this allows him to keep all that flexibility for next year. And he can wait on Cain, a rookie, or both.

There is nothing about the signing that says it’s a long term solution. Ballard constantly says he wants to build thru the draft. This fits perfectly with that. Could he be a long term solution? Possibly. But it requires him performing at a level that shows him as viable solution, but not so good that he gets priced out of the Colts range. That’s a pretty narrow window IMO. It’s way more likely that he either doesn’t perform well enough or he performs too well. In which case next year several of you will be asking who can blame Ballard for not giving crazy money to a WR after only one good year when he’s given way to much money by Washington or Oakland or Buffalo or the Jets.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I absolutely believe Funches wants to prove his worth. That’s kinda my point.

Why wouldn’t he sign a guy to a one year incentive laden contract? He has to spend some money and this allows him to keep all that flexibility for next year. And he can wait on Cain, a rookie, or both.

There is nothing about the signing that says it’s a long term solution. Ballard constantly says he wants to build thru the draft. This fits perfectly with that. Could he be a long term solution? Possibly. But it requires him performing at a level that shows him as viable solution, but not so good that he gets priced out of the Colts range. That’s a pretty narrow window IMO. It’s way more likely that he either doesn’t perform well enough or he performs too well. In which case next year several of you will be asking who can blame Ballard for not giving crazy money to a WR after only one good year when he’s given way to much money by Washington or Oakland or Buffalo or the Jets.

Understood, those are some reasonable points, and I’ll admit that I don’t feel I completely understand this signing. On the one hand, I don’t see it as a “placeholder” type signing as you described it, because (1) Funchess was signed on the first negotiating day, so we obviously targeted him, (2) the dollar amount of the contract is high, and (3) he fills a specific position of need (big bodied outside receiver)

On the other hand, it’s also curious because we haven’t committed to him long term, and we didn’t get any option years, so those items support your argument. The lack of option years is notable in particular and unusual for Ballard except, as I’m sure you’ll point out, for Grant last year (and Slauson if I recall). However, neither of those deals was nearly as high profile as this signing, and both of those players were signed deep in the free agent period when the Colts had much more leverage. This might also be the only one-year deal announced yesterday, so it's unusual in that sense as well.

So I can’t quite figure it out. My best guess is that the Colts are suspicious of free agent wide receivers, having been burned by several over the last few years (Grant, Andre Johnson, Kamar Aiken, etc) and thus feel that it would be better to bring someone in for one year to see if they fit before making a long term commitment. If they do, it will end up costing them a bit more, but if it doesn’t work out they don’t get stuck in a large, long term, unproductive contract. However, this one year strategy wouldn’t be appealing to the uppermost tier of free agents who have the leverage to secure a long term guaranteed deal, but might be attractive to a slightly lesser free agent like Funchess who could have the hope of getting a big time deal next year with a productive 2019.

So, while all of this is just a guess of course, it really doesn’t feel like a placeholder-type signing to me. And I’ll admit that it is a little perplexing. Regardless, I’m still excited about this signing following the relative success of last year’s free agent crop. Funchess is a big-bodied 25 year old receiver who is heading into (rather than out of) his prime years, and Ballard has proven to be a strong talent evaluator – both in the draft and free agency. So I think there’s reasonable grounds to expect Funchess to play well and prove to be an asset to our team.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Understood, those are some reasonable points, and I’ll admit that I don’t feel I completely understand this signing. On the one hand, I don’t see it as a “placeholder” type signing as you described it, because (1) Funchess was signed on the first negotiating day, so we obviously targeted him, (2) the dollar amount of the contract is high, and (3) he fills a specific position of need (big bodied outside receiver)

On the other hand, it’s also curious because we haven’t committed to him long term, and we didn’t get any option years, so those items support your argument. The lack of option years is notable in particular and unusual for Ballard except, as I’m sure you’ll point out, for Grant last year (and Slauson if I recall). However, neither of those deals was nearly as high profile as this signing, and both of those players were signed deep in the free agent period when the Colts had much more leverage. This might also be the only one-year deal announced yesterday, so it's unusual in that sense as well.

So I can’t quite figure it out. My best guess is that the Colts are suspicious of free agent wide receivers, having been burned by several over the last few years (Grant, Andre Johnson, Kamar Aiken, etc) and thus feel that it would be better to bring someone in for one year to see if they fit before making a long term commitment. If they do, it will end up costing them a bit more, but if it doesn’t work out they don’t get stuck in a large, long term, unproductive contract. However, this one year strategy wouldn’t be appealing to the uppermost tier of free agents who have the leverage to secure a long term guaranteed deal, but might be attractive to a slightly lesser free agent like Funchess who could have the hope of getting a big time deal next year with a productive 2019.

So, while all of this is just a guess of course, it really doesn’t feel like a placeholder-type signing to me. And I’ll admit that it is a little perplexing. Regardless, I’m still excited about this signing following the relative success of last year’s free agent crop. Funchess is a big-bodied 25 year old receiver who is heading into (rather than out of) his prime years, and Ballard has proven to be a strong talent evaluator – both in the draft and free agency. So I think there’s reasonable grounds to expect Funchess to play well and prove to be an asset to our team.

If they want to evaluate the fit that’s fine, but they should have required a 2nd year team option. Yes, I get that Funchess may not want that, but if he wouldn’t agree to a 2nd year at $13m that tells me he’s looking to get paid. That’s fine, but it doesn’t bode well for him being retained long term. Yes I admit it’s possible. However seeing the money being thrown around by teams how confident are you that if Ebron was on a one year deal that he would be retained after the season he had? After the things he went thru in Detroit he seems to be appreciate what he has here, but would he turn down being the highest paid TE in the league. It’s certainly possible he’d get that kind of offer. If not highest paid, then certainly top 3. Would Ballard be willing to commit that kind of money to Ebron after one year? I doubt it. The 2nd year on Ebron’s contract is huge right now.

Ballard should have required a 2nd year team option. If they are that high on him then they should have bought the 2nd year with more money this year or a partial gaurentee next year. This is a great deal for Funchess, but is very very likely a one year rental for the Colts.

[Oldcolt]

I respectfully disagree. Funchess has not had great success yet. If he gets it here both sides will be motivated to stay put. Ballard will sign him at what the market says his value is, something that cannot reasonably be determined right now. Funchess will sign because A)the Colts will pay him what he is worth and B) He will like being good. If he sucks it is a one year rental.

[Oldcolt]

I agree about Desir. Unless someone way overpays him he should be back with the Colts. If he isn't scratch what I've said about keeping Funchess long term.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

If they want to evaluate the fit that’s fine, but they should have required a 2nd year team option. Yes, I get that Funchess may not want that, but if he wouldn’t agree to a 2nd year at $13m that tells me he’s looking to get paid. That’s fine, but it doesn’t bode well for him being retained long term. Yes I admit it’s possible. However seeing the money being thrown around by teams how confident are you that if Ebron was on a one year deal that he would be retained after the season he had? After the things he went thru in Detroit he seems to be appreciate what he has here, but would he turn down being the highest paid TE in the league. It’s certainly possible he’d get that kind of offer. If not highest paid, then certainly top 3. Would Ballard be willing to commit that kind of money to Ebron after one year? I doubt it. The 2nd year on Ebron’s contract is huge right now.

Ballard should have required a 2nd year team option. If they are that high on him then they should have bought the 2nd year with more money this year or a partial gaurentee next year. This is a great deal for Funchess, but is very very likely a one year rental for the Colts.

Yep, agreed on the option - I'm surprised there weren't option years attached. That would have made a lot more sense to me. So, while I'm hopeful about this signing, I can't deny that it's puzzling.

As far as your Ebron comparison, I don't think it's really fair. Ballard hasn't really been faced with losing a star player (and yes I'll call Ebron a star - he's high profile, productive and likeable) during his Colts tenure, so we don't know how he'll treat the situation. He's emphasized that he wants to "keep our own" players, and certainly there are less unknowns when you sign one of your own players to an extension rather than bringing in an outside free agent on a big deal. So I think there's reason to think he'd do his best to keep such players around if they are a good fit.

I suppose you could point to Desir, but we don't know what kind of money he was asking for - if it's another Rashaan Melvin situation, it would be hard to fault Ballard in my view.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Yep, agreed on the option - I'm surprised there weren't option years attached. That would have made a lot more sense to me. So, while I'm hopeful about this signing, I can't deny that it's puzzling.

As far as your Ebron comparison, I don't think it's really fair. Ballard hasn't really been faced with losing a star player (and yes I'll call Ebron a star - he's high profile, productive and likeable) during his Colts tenure, so we don't know how he'll treat the situation. He's emphasized that he wants to "keep our own" players, and certainly there are less unknowns when you sign one of your own players to an extension rather than bringing in an outside free agent on a big deal. So I think there's reason to think he'd do his best to keep such players around if they are a good fit.

I suppose you could point to Desir, but we don't know what kind of money he was asking for - if it's another Rashaan Melvin situation, it would be hard to fault Ballard in my view.

Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

That tells me Funchess is trying to max out his value. Are you confident if he blows up and Washington, Buffalo, Oakland, etc start throwing money at him that Ballard will pay the necessary premium to keep him after only one year of that production?