-
Posts
43,971 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
570
Superman last won the day on March 7
Superman had the most liked content!
Uncategorized
-
Gender
Male
-
Interests
.
Profile Fields
-
About Me
<p>
.
</p>
Recent Profile Visitors
69,614 profile views
Superman's Achievements
-
I think this is probably deserving of it's own thread, but I'll leave this initial response here. I'm happy to continue the conversation in another thread. There are a couple of pertinent details that I don't think you're considering. First, signing bonuses are due upon signing. They aren't necessarily paid upon signing. This article suggests signing bonuses can be paid over the course of 12-18 months. Some signing bonuses are paid in installments. So just because a player contract includes a $20m signing bonus doesn't mean the team is paying the player $20m the day he signs; the player might not receive that $20m for several months, a year, or longer. The pay dates for signing bonuses are almost never reported. Second, a more comprehensive look at the contracts you mentioned would include roster bonuses. For example, while Buckner's contract did not include a signing bonus, it did include an $11m roster bonus. Spotrac shows the roster bonus was due to be paid on 3/20/2020, which was four days after Buckner's contract was signed. For cash flow purposes, there isn't necessarily a difference. (Ryan Kelly, $10m roster bonus; Kenny Moore, $8m; Mo Alie-Cox, $5.1m.) Take a closer look at this. Buckner signed a four year extension for $84m, on top of his 5th year option, for a total value of five years, $96.4m. No signing bonus, but the $11m roster bonus, plus a base salary of $12.4m in 2020. The total cash paid to Buckner in the first year was $23.4m. The same day the Colts signed Buckner, the Niners signed Arik Armstead. His contract was five years, $85m, and included a $17.5m signing bonus (no details on the pay dates of the signing bonus). His base salary in 2020 was $2.5m. So the cash paid to Armstead in the first year was $20m, and that's assuming all of his signing bonus was paid out in 2020. In both cases, the Year 1 cash was about 24% of the total value of the contract. Another example from the same year: Myles Garrett signed for five years, $125m, and his signing bonus and salary totaled $22m, less than 18% of the total value. The previous year, Frank Clark signed with the Chiefs for five years, $104m, with a $19m signing bonus, and a salary + incentives of $1.3m, totaling $20.3m in Year 1 cash, less than 20% of the total value. There's also the funding rule, which requires that deferred money and fully guaranteed money is placed in escrow when the contract is signed, minus $15m. So if the Colts were offsetting lower signing bonuses with a higher percentage of guaranteed money, they would still need to fund the guaranteed money upfront. So there's really no cash flow benefit to the team; in fact, it would potentially cost the team more to fund the larger guarantees. All of this put together, I don't think that the Colts are avoiding signing bonuses for cash flow reasons. I'm sure Irsay doesn't have the cash flow of the Rams or Broncos, etc., but I don't think the Colts are using contract structure to help cash flow.
-
And apparently he was still wrong. Colts probably had discussions days ago, and then moved on. Which is fine.
-
You seem really invested in Destin.
-
Assuming nothing happens, I think the final offer phase was probably several days ago, and everything else has been theatre. And that sounds like Ballard's MO. If something does happen, then it sounds like they've been crossing Ts and dotting Is for a few days. And that sounds a little messy for Ballard.
-
Was anyone actually claiming that Destin made things up? Your claim is that Ballard is using Holder. What if Sneed's agents are using Destin, and others?
-
Yes.
-
Did you consider the possibility that Destin has the same source as Russini, and they were both given the same information? If I'm questioning the validity of Destin's info, or the motive of the person offering the info, hearing the same thing from another person doesn't really change anything.
-
There's no reason a player can't complete a physical with the expected new team before the trade is official. I don't think it's common, but it can be done if both teams and the player agree.
-
I was just looking at that. They traded Pickett, a 2024 4th, and two 2025 7ths, for a 2024 3rd. Pickett's 2024 salary is about $1.9m. Then they traded a 2025 6th, which can wind up being a 4th, for Fields. His 2024 salary is $3.3m in 2024. We'll see what they do about the 5th year option. And they signed Wilson for minimum. I think he's cooked, but the price is right, and he's better than Pickett or Trubisky. I also think Fields is limited, but he's better than Pickett or Trubisky. They basically revamped their QB room and added a lot of upside, and moved up in this year's draft. And the net cost seems to be two 7th rounders, at worst. Good job, Steelers.
-
Yup. Even the JT contract, lots of speculation, but nobody had the inside track on that. It went from complete stalemate, to weird JT press conference, to new contract, basically overnight. At this point, I think the Colts looked into it, didn't like the price, and moved on. And it's in Sneed's best interest for his reps to keep portraying the Colts as still being in the mix. I obviously don't know anything, but that's how I see it.
-
He might not last, but there will probably be a couple of really good prospects still on the board at #15 that we didn't anticipate. That's why I'm personally not going to get too attached to any particular draft strategy.
-
I think he's a good player, and that's his market. But I don't see the Colts doing this. I think the reports are exaggerated, at best, to get other bidders to get serious and make a good offer. The reasons why: 1) Part of the attractiveness of a zone heavy defense is that you can find scheme fit corners on a lower price tier. This is how Ballard has handled the position since 2018. 2) I don't think Sneed's ability as a good coverage corner would be put to good use in the Colts defense, not as long as Gus Bradley is the DC. 3) Ballard does not like to trade away draft picks, even for veteran players; the only times he's done so was for a trench player -- his absolute fave -- and a QB. 4) Ballard's front office doesn't leak, partly because they don't get involved in protracted negotiations. The Buckner deal happened before anyone realized it was in the works, and was in place before the league year started. The Wentz deal was more obvious, the winds were blowing in that direction, but again, that was for a QB, and again, it was done before the league year started. The proactive nature of those deals prevented Ballard from being subjected to a bidding war. Speaking of... 5) Ballard doesn't do bidding wars. That's why being in the mix for a tagged player in the first place doesn't make sense. 6) The Colts have used most of their 2024 cap space already, so a big contract for Sneed would likely need to be backloaded. We also might need to restructure or extend guys like Buckner, Nelson, etc., to make it work. And those are also things that Ballard doesn't like to do. For those reasons, and probably others, this would be the single greatest departure from Ballard's mode of operation in eight years. So it's hard for me to see Ballard trading probably a 2nd+5th round pick, AND agreeing to a multi-year contract north of $22m/year, for a cornerback. Personally, I would welcome it. And I would cross my fingers and hope that it signals some adjustments in our approach to defensive coverage. But I sincerely do not think it's going to happen.
-
Live footage of Zach Wilson:
-
Taliese Fuaga is pretty good...
-
I watched him yesterday. I don't see it. Maybe I'll post my thoughts in another thread...