Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

What decisions will be made this week?


NewColtsFan

Recommended Posts

So,  it appears this has to be the week we decide on three players....

 

-- Cherilus

-- Cribbs

-- Thomas

 

I'm expecting Thomas and Cribbs to be cut,  but without knowing the latest medicals on Cherilus, I don't know....

 

And the question remains,  will we press guys like Redding and Wayne for an answer on their future this week?   Or, will we let them take their time and make-up their mind when they're ready?    I think we'd like both to come back,  but only at a reasonable price.   And is a pay-cut worth it to them?

 

Lastly,  we could get an answer on TRich this week,  but without knowing all the behind-the-scenes legal maneuvering going on,  I don't know what happens....    A decision might not come this week, but that doesn't mean we won't cut him later in the spring or summer.    Just too little publicly known now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of those decisions has to be made this week. The sooner the better, but there are no deadlines tied to any of those decisions, unless I'm overlooking something.

 

As for Wayne and Redding, I would think that if the staff does want them back, they'll wait for them to make those decisions in due time. Someone reported something about Jeff Fisher telling guys who were thinking about retiring to go away, think about what they want, and get back to him in June. I think that's too long, but I don't think there's any firm time frame from the team. If either of those guys comes back, I assume it will be in a lesser role anyways, so I don't think their decisions are crucial to the way the team wants to proceed. If there IS a date in mind, it's probably March 10, which is the start of the new league year. Money could be gone after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see all three gone...But like Super mentioned, No hurry. As for Richardson..I expect he gets a shot in TC and pre season......Why waste your time suspending a guy if you know your already going to cut him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of those decisions has to be made this week. The sooner the better, but there are no deadlines tied to any of those decisions, unless I'm overlooking something.

 

As for Wayne and Redding, I would think that if the staff does want them back, they'll wait for them to make those decisions in due time. Someone reported something about Jeff Fisher telling guys who were thinking about retiring to go away, think about what they want, and get back to him in June. I think that's too long, but I don't think there's any firm time frame from the team. If either of those guys comes back, I assume it will be in a lesser role anyways, so I don't think their decisions are crucial to the way the team wants to proceed. If there IS a date in mind, it's probably March 10, which is the start of the new league year. Money could be gone after that.

 

Huh?!?

 

Did I miss something or isn't free agency starting in the middle of the following week?   Like March 10 or so?

 

Doesn't that mean we want to cut Thomas and Cribbs in the next 10 days (likely this week) in order to get more cap space?

 

And what's the point of cutting Cherilus after the free agency period when the money gained from cap relief won't be able to be used in FA?

 

What am I missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why so many on this board want to cut Cherilus. He proved to be really reliable the first year he was with us but had a down year last year because he was injured. I feel like a lot of people on this board do not feel like he can bounce back and I am not sure why. 

 

I think it would be prudent to just hold on to him and see if he can have another solid year this year. 

 

Plus didn't we make his contract to where we would have a lot of dead money if we cut him before year 3? Seems like if it's not going to really save us that much anyways and we can't use that money for free agency, we would be better off just keeping him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why so many on this board want to cut Cherilus. He proved to be really reliable the first year he was with us but had a down year last year because he was injured. I feel like a lot of people on this board do not feel like he can bounce back and I am not sure why. 

 

I think it would be prudent to just hold on to him and see if he can have another solid year this year. 

 

Plus didn't we make his contract to where we would have a lot of dead money if we cut him before year 3? Seems like if it's not going to really save us that much anyways and we can't use that money for free agency, we would be better off just keeping him. 

 

The reason to consider Cherilus is that he has a bad knee...   degenerative...  has already had one micro-fracture surgery on it...  and he added a bad shoulder to that...

 

While he's a good solid player when healthy,  the question becomes, what are the odds of Cherilus remaining healthy for a 16 game season?    If you don't think they're very good,  then you consider cutting him before you have to eat his salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?!?

 

Did I miss something or isn't free agency starting in the middle of the following week?   Like March 10 or so?

 

Doesn't that mean we want to cut Thomas and Cribbs in the next 10 days (likely this week) in order to get more cap space?

 

And what's the point of cutting Cherilus after the free agency period when the money gained from cap relief won't be able to be used in FA?

 

What am I missing here?

 

You're not missing anything, But the Colts are not strapped for cap space. Per Spotrac, we're looking at $42m to use, with a cap of $142m, and that's including all of our draft picks.

 

Get rid of Thomas, and that goes to about $45m. Sources conflict on Cribbs; some report him as a free agent already, while others say he's still under contract for 2016. I'm sure that will be clarified in coming days, but let's say he is on the payroll; that's an extra $1m. 

 

There's nothing we can do with $45-46m that we can't do with $42m. And if the cap is more like $145m, like some project, then it's moot anyways. So those aren't decisions that are critical for the team prior to free agency, which officially begins March 10.

 

As for Cherilus, we only get cap relief from his contract in 2015 if he's designated as a post-June 1 release, and in that event, we can't actually use that cap space until after June 1. It's future accounting for NFL cap purposes, and still a good move, IMO, but not something that has to be done now. 

Edited by Superman
added "not" to second sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not missing anything, But the Colts are strapped for cap space. Per Spotrac, we're looking at $42m to use, with a cap of $142m, and that's including all of our draft picks.

 

Get rid of Thomas, and that goes to about $45m. Sources conflict on Cribbs; some report him as a free agent already, while others say he's still under contract for 2016. I'm sure that will be clarified in coming days, but let's say he is on the payroll; that's an extra $1m. 

 

There's nothing we can do with $45-46m that we can't do with $42m. And if the cap is more like $145m, like some project, then it's moot anyways. So those aren't decisions that are critical for the team prior to free agency, which officially begins March 10.

 

As for Cherilus, we only get cap relief from his contract in 2015 if he's designated as a post-June 1 release, and in that event, we can't actually use that cap space until after June 1. It's future accounting for NFL cap purposes, and still a good move, IMO, but not something that has to be done now. 

 

Thanks for explaining Cherilus...   that now makes sense to me.

 

And, for discussion sake,  let's call Cribbs a FA now and we get no relief at all.

 

Now, apologies in advance for this as I don't mean it to be argumentative,  but I'm at a loss over the idea that there's nothing we can do at $45 mill that we can't do at $42.     Of course there is.    That's $3 million more to spend.

 

It's $3 million more to be spent on the 4-5 players I anticipate us buying, or it's one addition player to buy at a price of $3 mill.

 

That doesn't seem insignificant to me.   Sometimes when you're in a bidding war, an extra million here or there makes the difference in getting your man and losing him to another team.   Seattle lost Golden Tate over $1 Mill.

 

Perhaps we don't want the money to spend now and we're saving it for the summer when perhaps we start on new contracts for some of the 2012 class?    Dunno?     But $3 Mill to me sure feels like serious money and not loose pocket change that fell in between the sofa cushions....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining Cherilus...   that now makes sense to me.

 

And, for discussion sake,  let's call Cribbs a FA now and we get no relief at all.

 

Now, apologies in advance for this as I don't mean it to be argumentative,  but I'm at a loss over the idea that there's nothing we can do at $45 mill that we can't do at $42.     Of course there is.    That's $3 million more to spend.

 

It's $3 million more to be spent on the 4-5 players I anticipate us buying, or it's one addition player to buy at a price of $3 mill.

 

That doesn't seem insignificant to me.   Sometimes when you're in a bidding war, an extra million here or there makes the difference in getting your man and losing him to another team.   Seattle lost Golden Tate over $1 Mill.

 

Perhaps we don't want the money to spend now and we're saving it for the summer when perhaps we start on new contracts for some of the 2012 class?    Dunno?     But $3 Mill to me sure feels like serious money and not loose pocket change that fell in between the sofa cushions....

 

Not argumentative at all.

 

Seattle lost Tate over their unwillingness to give him an extra $1m/year. That extra money didn't have to be reflected on their 2014 salary cap. It's not like they simply couldn't manage giving him the extra money he wanted because they had no cap space. As it stands, they're rolling forward almost $5m from 2014. That was a personnel and value decision, not a cap decision.

 

Look at the Saints last year. Terrible cap situation, and still managed to sign Jairus Byrd at $9m/year. His 2014 cap hit was only $3m. Grigson has stayed away from unbalanced contracts like that one, but the point is that cap accounting allows teams to do a lot of things.

 

That extra $3m that might come from releasing Thomas can be viewed as future accounting as well, just like Cherilus. I don't think the team needs it right now, so I don't think it's a decision that has to be made this week. If they decide on him later, even after the draft, they add that $3m to their projected regular season buffer.

 

From a cap management standpoint, if there's a guy they want, I don't think they'll lose out on him because they didn't cut Thomas this week. They aren't going to spend up to the cap in March anyways; again, they'll keep a buffer for the regular season, probably $5-10m. And if they absolutely did need that cap space to get a deal done -- which I don't see happening -- they can send Thomas' release paperwork to the league right along with their new contract paperwork, and everything will balance out.

 

We're mostly on the same page, by the way. I expect Thomas gone, or reduced to veteran minimum. I just don't think it matters whether it happens before or after or even during free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not argumentative at all.

 

Seattle lost Tate over their unwillingness to give him an extra $1m/year. That extra money didn't have to be reflected on their 2014 salary cap. It's not like they simply couldn't manage giving him the extra money he wanted because they had no cap space. As it stands, they're rolling forward almost $5m from 2014. That was a personnel and value decision, not a cap decision.

 

Look at the Saints last year. Terrible cap situation, and still managed to sign Jairus Byrd at $9m/year. His 2014 cap hit was only $3m. Grigson has stayed away from unbalanced contracts like that one, but the point is that cap accounting allows teams to do a lot of things.

 

That extra $3m that might come from releasing Thomas can be viewed as future accounting as well, just like Cherilus. I don't think the team needs it right now, so I don't think it's a decision that has to be made this week. If they decide on him later, even after the draft, they add that $3m to their projected regular season buffer.

 

From a cap management standpoint, if there's a guy they want, I don't think they'll lose out on him because they didn't cut Thomas this week. They aren't going to spend up to the cap in March anyways; again, they'll keep a buffer for the regular season, probably $5-10m. And if they absolutely did need that cap space to get a deal done -- which I don't see happening -- they can send Thomas' release paperwork to the league right along with their new contract paperwork, and everything will balance out.

 

We're mostly on the same page, by the way. I expect Thomas gone, or reduced to veteran minimum. I just don't think it matters whether it happens before or after or even during free agency.

Question -  If Grigson don't spend all of the cap money does it roll over to next year?  I think Grigson has done a good job at signing team friendly contracts. Some complain about a few of the contracts signed last season but there were team friendly IMO so it's not as bad as some are making it out to be. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question -  If Grigson don't spend all of the cap money does it roll over to next year?  I think Grigson has done a good job at signing team friendly contracts. Some complain about a few of the contracts signed last season but there were team friendly IMO so it's not as bad as some are making it out to be. Thoughts?

 

Agreed on the contracts Grigson has done. None of those contracts from 2013 were "big," all things considered. Cherilus' was big for his position, and the structure was an outlier from the rest of them, but those players and contracts were mostly middle of the road.

 

To answer your question, yes, teams can roll forward unused cap space each year. But they don't have to. They can choose how much to roll forward. We're all working under the assumption that the Colts are rolling forward all of their unused cap from 2014. The deadline for teams to notify the league how much they would roll forward was a couple days ago. I haven't seen any reports about how much each team actually rolled forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a weird feeling that we'll end up keeping Cherilus this year. I hope La'el Collins is still on the draft board at 29 though so we can release Cherilus next year. 

 

Cherilus has always been up one year, down the next his entire career. So, if history repeats itself, he should be alright this year........here's hoping. 

 

 

I hope we let Thomas and Cribbs go (if Cribbs isn't a FA already). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see all three gone...But like Super mentioned, No hurry. As for Richardson..I expect he gets a shot in TC and pre season......Why waste your time suspending a guy if you know your already going to cut him?

Because the suspension would activate a claus in his contact meaning we wouldnt have to pay him if we cut him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherilus needs to be resigned!  As I and many others on here have said, When he was healthy he was very strong and we have enough other needs to worry about on the line (Center and Right Guard)

 

Mewhort, Costonzo and Cherilus are quite good. We need a beast right guard and center.  If we somehow get those two our offense got much better than last year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherilus needs to be resigned! As I and many others on here have said, When he was healthy he was very strong and we have enough other needs to worry about on the line (Center and Right Guard)

Mewhort, Costonzo and Cherilus are quite good. We need a beast right guard and center. If we somehow get those two our offense got much better than last year

I agree. Cherilus needs to resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CG has to stay. at least until we have another option on the roster.  RT is not a position that we can afford to let our best player go and see how it works out later in FA and the draft.

 

im not a fan of cribbs, i think we can do better there.  maybe we can draft a corner or WR late

 

i think thomas is going to stay on board until camp starts at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a team choose to not roll all of their cap space over to the next year?

 

No good reason I can think of. It's a commodity. People usually hang on to those as long as they can. It would be like forfeiting a late round draft pick just because you don't think you need it.

 

But the roll forward provision is designed so teams don't feel they have to spend up to the 89% salary cap floor every year. They can be frugal this year, then spend big next year, using the extra cap space. If a team is already well on their way to meeting the 89% requirement, then there's no reason they HAVE to roll unused space forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?!?

 

Did I miss something or isn't free agency starting in the middle of the following week?   Like March 10 or so?

 

Doesn't that mean we want to cut Thomas and Cribbs in the next 10 days (likely this week) in order to get more cap space?

 

And what's the point of cutting Cherilus after the free agency period when the money gained from cap relief won't be able to be used in FA?

 

What am I missing here?

 

 You are missing that we have Huge Cap Space and likely less than half of it will be spent on New Free Agents.

 The rest will be saved for OUR OWN Players contracts that often happen closer to training camp.

 Cutting Thomas and Cribbs makes sense whenever they think it wise.

 Funny how teams are still signing free agents Months AFTER FA starts. You know, like post June 1 cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt we cut Cherilus without some kind of replacement.

And I mean a solid replacement, not a Winston justice bandaid. Solidifying the o-line is a real need the we seem to intend to fix (you know, for like the last 8 year now) so cutting Cherilus for an unproven tackle or a mediocre one is just taking from the left hand to put in the right hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I agree. I cannot recall who else he drafted in 2015 but I could not understand why he drafted the WR out of Miami at #29 that year.
    • If I may….    I’ll share some information that I’ve had for about 4 months.   It may or may not surprise you.  This is what I tried to send you the other night but somehow screwed up.      These are the big signing bonuses the Colts have given out over the years when the players 2nd contract came around:  this is from Spotrac.    Nelson:   $31m Leonard:  $20m Smith:      $15m Taylor:      $10.24m Stewart:    $5m      BUT…..    I also found this….   *** When Ballard signed Buckner to 4/84 his SB was 0. *** When Ballard signed Kelly to 4/50 his signing bonus was 0. *** When Ballard signed Moore to 4/33 his signing bonus was 0.  *** When Ballard signed MAC to 3/19 his SB was 0.    To be clear, no agent lets their client sign a deal like this out of the goodness of their heart to help the team.  I think it stands to reason they get something in return.  And I think it’s a higher amount of guaranteed money.  That’s money the player would get even if the team cut the player before the contract was done.   Guaranteeing a higher percentage of money doesn’t cost the Colts anything if the team is confident the player will be in the roster for the life of the contract.    I view this as a sign of a small market team.   The Colts wanted to do this.  It’s to their advantage.  I’m not blaming the Colts for doing this, I think it’s smart business.  But I think it’s a sign that from time to time, Irsay needs a little help so he doesn’t have to write a large check.     This is my view.   I welcome input from all.    @w87r   @Superman  @GoColts8818  
    • Actually they can’t without some restructuring which as has been pointed out the Colts could do but don’t seem interested in it.  When you account for rookies and Flacco they have something like $13 or $14 left and Sneed wants $22 million a year.  That’s also just this year.  The Colts will have more free agents they will want to sign next year like Buckner perhaps that may want a raise and you can’t count on another $30 million cap increase like this year.  
    • Yes but if the average team is worth 5.1 billion dollars and the league makes almost 20 billion a year in revenue and they have revenue sharing like the NFL does even the smallest team in the NFL isn’t hard up for cash.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...