Colts agree to terms with TE Jack Doyle on 3-year deal

[Defjamz26]

6 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

No one would trade for Allen on his salary.  We made a huge mistake in extending him.  

 

We are probably going to live with that mistake for one more year before he's released.  

A team with a need at TE and a bunch of cap room would. The Browns come to mind. They have Barnidge but he had a down year. 

[Valpo2004]

1 minute ago, Defjamz26 said:

A team with a need at TE and a bunch of cap room would. The Browns come to mind. They have Barnidge but he had a down year. 

 

There are TE's in the draft, there are other FA TE's and Dwayne Allen's salary is way way too high for his skill set.  

 

Just cause a team has a bunch of cap room doesn't mean they are gonna want to overpay for low level players like Dwayne Allen. 

[Defjamz26]

34 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

There are TE's in the draft, there are other FA TE's and Dwayne Allen's salary is way way too high for his skill set.  

 

Just cause a team has a bunch of cap room doesn't mean they are gonna want to overpay for low level players like Dwayne Allen. 

Someone has got to want to take him lol. The Colts are probably begging teams to take him.

[COLTS449]

Now Butler for 2 years to be a full time roaming FS

 

[coltsfanatic24]

Doyle is the best TE on the roster. This is a great signing. 

[Dark Superman]

He should be making more than Allen IMO. I really hope Swoope emerges this year.

[Myles]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

A team with a need at TE and a bunch of cap room would. The Browns come to mind. They have Barnidge but he had a down year. 

Allen had a down year too.

 

[Myles]

49 minutes ago, Rick_Grimes said:

He should be making more than Allen IMO. I really hope Swoope emerges this year.

 

Are you suggesting that the Colts should have given him "Allen money"?

Or are you just saying Allen should be making much, much less?

[Virtuoso80]

 

[stitches]

Here's Doyle's contract details:

http://overthecap.com/player/jack-doyle/2520

[Andrew Luck fan club]

3 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

There are TE's in the draft, there are other FA TE's and Dwayne Allen's salary is way way too high for his skill set.  

 

Just cause a team has a bunch of cap room doesn't mean they are gonna want to overpay for low level players like Dwayne Allen. 

He isn't a low level player. 

[Superman]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I couldn't help but notice that you have yet to pass judgement on the quality of the signing.    You've said you want to wait to see the figures and I completely respect that.

 

So, as I'm sure you have,  I've tossed around some numbers in my head and this is my guess, my hunch for what it's going to show.....

 

3/19....

 

A 7 million signing bonus.  

 

1st year:   $2.5         SB and 1st year all guaranteed.     There's your 9.5 guaranteed money.

2nd year:    4 Mill

3rd year:    5.5  Mill.

 

I suspect I'm off a little here and there,  but I can't imagine I'm too far off.     Does this roughly match-up with your guess?

 

 

 

I like the overall value, and I think it's important to the franchise and the locker room to have rewarded Doyle and to keep him around. He's the kind of guy you should keep. All of that is a win.

 

But I was waiting on the details regarding the structure, and they're out now: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/jack-doyle-12994/

 

 

 

I hate this structure. I don't know why they've done it this way, which is similar to how they did Allen's structure, though in smaller amounts.

 

They're paying Doyle $8m this year, no SB, just a big roster bonus and a small salary. If they cut him after 2017 (which is unlikely), there's no dead money/cap penalty. There are common sense incentives (per Holder, these include Pro Bowl, receptions and TDs). His cap hits go $8m, $5.25m, and $5.65m. None of that is a problem, IMO, and that fact that there's no future cap penalties means everyone is going to love this structure.

 

My problem is they let their Year 1 cash get away from the yearly average, and I don't think they needed to do so. If -- and it's a big IF -- Doyle is cut after Year 1, you've given him $8m for one year, on a contract with a $6.3m yearly average. You're frontloading the contract, rather than sticking to a pay-go structure. 

 

It's a small frontload, so it's not a problem. I'm being dramatic; there's nothing to hate. I just don't know why they'd load Year 1 with cash/cap above the yearly average, rather than a steady and even structure. It's only a $1.6m difference in this case, but I hope they don't do this for bigger contracts. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I like the overall value, and I think it's important to the franchise and the locker room to have rewarded Doyle and to keep him around. He's the kind of guy you should keep. All of that is a win.

 

But I was waiting on the details regarding the structure, and they're out now: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/jack-doyle-12994/

 

 

 

I hate this structure. I don't know why they've done it this way, which is similar to how they did Allen's structure, though in smaller amounts.

 

They're paying Doyle $8m this year, no SB, just a big roster bonus and a small salary. If they cut him after 2017 (which is unlikely), there's no dead money/cap penalty. There are common sense incentives (per Holder, these include Pro Bowl, receptions and TDs). His cap hits go $8m, $5.25m, and $5.65m. None of that is a problem, IMO, and that fact that there's no future cap penalties means everyone is going to love this structure.

 

My problem is they let their Year 1 cash get away from the yearly average, and I don't think they needed to do so. If -- and it's a big IF -- Doyle is cut after Year 1, you've given him $8m for one year, on a contract with a $6.3m yearly average. You're frontloading the contract, rather than sticking to a pay-go structure. 

 

It's a small frontload, so it's not a problem. I'm being dramatic; there's nothing to hate. I just don't know why they'd load Year 1 with cash/cap above the yearly average, rather than a steady and even structure. It's only a $1.6m difference in this case, but I hope they don't do this for bigger contracts. 

 

Maybe they are getting a headstart on the Cash payments that count toward the 89%, but do not want to prorate a signing bonus over the life of the contract.  Or can you pro-rate a roster bonus like a signing bonus?  Besdies, doesn't the bonus money accelerate if cut in future but not as a June 1 type cut?

 

In the Grand Scheme of things, I think it matters little, yes?

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Maybe they are getting a headstart on the Cash payments that count toward the 89%, but do not want to prorate a signing bonus over the life of the contract.  Or can you pro-rate a roster bonus like a signing bonus?  Besdies, doesn't the bonus money accelerate if cut in future but not as a June 1 type cut?

 

In the Grand Scheme of things, I think it matters little, yes?

 

It does matter little. It's just a structure that they've done twice now, and I don't like it.

 

To answer your other two questions, no a roster bonus doesn't pro-rate like a signing bonus. An option bonus does. A roster bonus can be restructure as a signing or option bonus prior to being paid. And the bonus money doesn't need to accelerate in the future, it's all accounted for in 2017.

 

Also, I don't think it's getting a head start on the 89%, as this contract expires prior to 2020 when all teams need to be at 89% for the four year period of 2017-20. 

[Myles]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I like the overall value, and I think it's important to the franchise and the locker room to have rewarded Doyle and to keep him around. He's the kind of guy you should keep. All of that is a win.

 

But I was waiting on the details regarding the structure, and they're out now: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/jack-doyle-12994/

 

 

 

I hate this structure. I don't know why they've done it this way, which is similar to how they did Allen's structure, though in smaller amounts.

 

They're paying Doyle $8m this year, no SB, just a big roster bonus and a small salary. If they cut him after 2017 (which is unlikely), there's no dead money/cap penalty. There are common sense incentives (per Holder, these include Pro Bowl, receptions and TDs). His cap hits go $8m, $5.25m, and $5.65m. None of that is a problem, IMO, and that fact that there's no future cap penalties means everyone is going to love this structure.

 

My problem is they let their Year 1 cash get away from the yearly average, and I don't think they needed to do so. If -- and it's a big IF -- Doyle is cut after Year 1, you've given him $8m for one year, on a contract with a $6.3m yearly average. You're frontloading the contract, rather than sticking to a pay-go structure. 

 

It's a small frontload, so it's not a problem. I'm being dramatic; there's nothing to hate. I just don't know why they'd load Year 1 with cash/cap above the yearly average, rather than a steady and even structure. It's only a $1.6m difference in this case, but I hope they don't do this for bigger contracts. 

I like that won't leave us in a bad position in the next few years.  

[AKB]

16 hours ago, jbaron04 said:

I was making a joke why I type lol, 

But since we on the topic , I guess the market dictates player prices but out of that list let see who has under performed 

Walden

Mathis

Castanzo

But we don't have to go over grigson moves overall he wasn't good at drafting, free agents signing or retaining out own. 

 

Walden under performed?...

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I like the overall value, and I think it's important to the franchise and the locker room to have rewarded Doyle and to keep him around. He's the kind of guy you should keep. All of that is a win.

 

But I was waiting on the details regarding the structure, and they're out now: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/jack-doyle-12994/

 

 

 

I hate this structure. I don't know why they've done it this way, which is similar to how they did Allen's structure, though in smaller amounts.

 

They're paying Doyle $8m this year, no SB, just a big roster bonus and a small salary. If they cut him after 2017 (which is unlikely), there's no dead money/cap penalty. There are common sense incentives (per Holder, these include Pro Bowl, receptions and TDs). His cap hits go $8m, $5.25m, and $5.65m. None of that is a problem, IMO, and that fact that there's no future cap penalties means everyone is going to love this structure.

 

My problem is they let their Year 1 cash get away from the yearly average, and I don't think they needed to do so. If -- and it's a big IF -- Doyle is cut after Year 1, you've given him $8m for one year, on a contract with a $6.3m yearly average. You're frontloading the contract, rather than sticking to a pay-go structure. 

 

It's a small frontload, so it's not a problem. I'm being dramatic; there's nothing to hate. I just don't know why they'd load Year 1 with cash/cap above the yearly average, rather than a steady and even structure. It's only a $1.6m difference in this case, but I hope they don't do this for bigger contracts. 

They give him the money now, while they can(they have a ton of capspace). Next year they will have to give out contracts to the 2014 class(Moncrief, Mewhort). I like this type of contract actually. It's an insurance for making a mistake. If this last season was a fluke and he's not worth it, you cut him without ANY dead money on the cap. It gives you flexibility going forward and it gives you more money for following free agency periods. For example they might not think they can spend all the money now(it's a relatively bad FA class) and like next year's free agency class better. I prefer this than a more even spread of the money and having dead money on the cap next year or the year after.

[Virtuoso80]

 

[Finball]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I like the overall value, and I think it's important to the franchise and the locker room to have rewarded Doyle and to keep him around. He's the kind of guy you should keep. All of that is a win.

 

But I was waiting on the details regarding the structure, and they're out now: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/jack-doyle-12994/

 

 

 

I hate this structure. I don't know why they've done it this way, which is similar to how they did Allen's structure, though in smaller amounts.

 

They're paying Doyle $8m this year, no SB, just a big roster bonus and a small salary. If they cut him after 2017 (which is unlikely), there's no dead money/cap penalty. There are common sense incentives (per Holder, these include Pro Bowl, receptions and TDs). His cap hits go $8m, $5.25m, and $5.65m. None of that is a problem, IMO, and that fact that there's no future cap penalties means everyone is going to love this structure.

 

My problem is they let their Year 1 cash get away from the yearly average, and I don't think they needed to do so. If -- and it's a big IF -- Doyle is cut after Year 1, you've given him $8m for one year, on a contract with a $6.3m yearly average. You're frontloading the contract, rather than sticking to a pay-go structure. 

 

It's a small frontload, so it's not a problem. I'm being dramatic; there's nothing to hate. I just don't know why they'd load Year 1 with cash/cap above the yearly average, rather than a steady and even structure. It's only a $1.6m difference in this case, but I hope they don't do this for bigger contracts. 

 

With no SB, maybe Doyle wanted more money this year?

 

[Superman]

41 minutes ago, stitches said:

They give him the money now, while they can(they have a ton of capspace). Next year they will have to give out contracts to the 2014 class(Moncrief, Mewhort). I like this type of contract actually. It's an insurance for making a mistake. If this last season was a fluke and he's not worth it, you cut him without ANY dead money on the cap. It gives you flexibility going forward and it gives you more money for following free agency periods. For example they might not think they can spend all the money now(it's a relatively bad FA class) and like next year's free agency class better. I prefer this than a more even spread of the money and having dead money on the cap next year or the year after.

 

The importance of dead money is drastically overrated. What's important is cash, since that's what becomes dead money to begin with. If you give a guy $8m with an $8m cap hit in Year 1 and cut him in Year 2, it's exactly the same as giving him $8m in cash with a $5m cap hit, and cutting him in Year 2. The cash you gave him will hit the cap, now or later. The difference is that once you pay it, you can't get it back.

 

I'd rather a contract like this pay the player $6-7m in Year 1 and $6-7m in Year 2, than $8m in Year 1 and $5m in Year 2.

 

Minor issue for a lower value contract. I'm absolutely nitpicking. I just don't like frontloading cash. 

[jbaron04]

1 hour ago, AustinnKaine said:

Walden under performed?...

Well he was average not under performed to be honest, his 11 sacks doesn't show all the missed tackles and filling the wrong lanes and losing contain 

[Tmoney]

8 hours ago, Myles said:

Good signing I guess.   I don't see any team giving us anything for Allen.  

The Colts need to get some defensive help signed.   I'd be good with Bethea at a good price.

I didn't either dog! I can't believe it was the Patriots and for a 4th too that's good value for us!! Maybe the Pats gets things out of him we couldn't, but all we got was an on line blocker. And his contract is just trash I bet they're ganna make him restructure ASAP.

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I like the overall value, and I think it's important to the franchise and the locker room to have rewarded Doyle and to keep him around. He's the kind of guy you should keep. All of that is a win.

 

But I was waiting on the details regarding the structure, and they're out now: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/jack-doyle-12994/

 

 

 

I hate this structure. I don't know why they've done it this way, which is similar to how they did Allen's structure, though in smaller amounts.

 

They're paying Doyle $8m this year, no SB, just a big roster bonus and a small salary. If they cut him after 2017 (which is unlikely), there's no dead money/cap penalty. There are common sense incentives (per Holder, these include Pro Bowl, receptions and TDs). His cap hits go $8m, $5.25m, and $5.65m. None of that is a problem, IMO, and that fact that there's no future cap penalties means everyone is going to love this structure.

 

My problem is they let their Year 1 cash get away from the yearly average, and I don't think they needed to do so. If -- and it's a big IF -- Doyle is cut after Year 1, you've given him $8m for one year, on a contract with a $6.3m yearly average. You're frontloading the contract, rather than sticking to a pay-go structure. 

 

It's a small frontload, so it's not a problem. I'm being dramatic; there's nothing to hate. I just don't know why they'd load Year 1 with cash/cap above the yearly average, rather than a steady and even structure. It's only a $1.6m difference in this case, but I hope they don't do this for bigger contracts. 

 

Well....    the first thing that jumps out at me is that the numbers for each contractual year are different than the numbers listed for the "contract notes" section below.

 

The roster bonuses for 2017 and 18 are different.

 

But I'm not sure what benefits there are to the team and the player if the money is paid out as a signing bonus, or the money is paid out as a roster bonus if it's guaranteed and it is.      But there must be SOME difference because of the way we structured it.     I just don't know who it benefits more?     And I'm not sure that I care.

 

In the end,  the dollars roughly match up to what I predicted.    Even assuming that worst,  that this is better for the player and not the team,  the deal is so modestly sized that I don't know it's worthy of a Star Trek-like coughing up of a fur ball!    

 

Like you,  we may not want it in the bigger deals....   or maybe it's not a big deal either way?    But Irsay's team of negotiators are typically been very good,  so I'm willing to give them the benefit of any doubt at this point.

 

I'm just glad we signed him.....

 

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well....    the first thing that jumps out at me is that the numbers for each contractual year are different than the numbers listed for the "contract notes" section below.

 

The roster bonuses for 2017 and 18 are different.

 

But I'm not sure what benefits there are to the team and the player if the money is paid out as a signing bonus, or the money is paid out as a roster bonus if it's guaranteed and it is.      But there must be SOME difference because of the way we structured it.     I just don't know who it benefits more?     And I'm not sure that I care.

 

In the end,  the dollars roughly match up to what I predicted.    Even assuming that worst,  that this is better for the player and not the team,  the deal is so modestly sized that I don't know it's worthy of a Star Trek-like coughing up of a fur ball!    

 

Like you,  we may not want it in the bigger deals....   or maybe it's not a big deal either way?    But Irsay's team of negotiators are typically been very good,  so I'm willing to give them the benefit of any doubt at this point.

 

I'm just glad we signed him.....

 

 

There's two roster bonuses in 2018. One is $1.25m that gets paid the 5th day of the league year. The other is a weekly roster bonus, totaling $500k for the season, which is the same in all three years. 

 

The difference in a roster bonus and a signing bonus really doesn't matter for the player. It does hit the cap differently for the team (roster bonus is all in one year, signing bonus gets spread out evenly over the life of the contract, up to five years), but the team can choose which they want to do. 

 

I'm definitely exaggerating. I just don't like the structure, and I don't see the benefit to the team to do it this way. Bleum knows what he's doing, it's just not my preferred way of structuring a contract.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

There's two roster bonuses in 2018. One is $1.25m that gets paid the 5th day of the league year. The other is a weekly roster bonus, totaling $500k for the season, which is the same in all three years. 

 

The difference in a roster bonus and a signing bonus really doesn't matter for the player. It does hit the cap differently for the team (roster bonus is all in one year, signing bonus gets spread out evenly over the life of the contract, up to five years), but the team can choose which they want to do. 

 

I'm definitely exaggerating. I just don't like the structure, and I don't see the benefit to the team to do it this way. Bleum knows what he's doing, it's just not my preferred way of structuring a contract.

 

Not that it makes a huge difference but I'm wondering if the different in a SB vs. a Roster Bonus is that I'd assume a Signing Bonus would be paid now,  upon signing.     And a RB might be payable when the season starts,  in early September.  

 

Would the 6 month difference be the deciding factor for perhaps cash flow reasons?     I'm only thinking out loud?

 

Again,  not important,  I'm just the curious type.....

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Not that it makes a huge difference but I'm wondering if the different in a SB vs. a Roster Bonus is that I'd assume a Signing Bonus would be paid now,  upon signing.     And a RB might be payable when the season starts,  in early September.  

 

Would the 6 month difference be the deciding factor for perhaps cash flow reasons?     I'm only thinking out loud?

 

Again,  not important,  I'm just the curious type.....

 

 

Either one can be paid at a later date, it's a point of negotiation. Signing bonuses are sometimes deferred, we just don't hear about all the minutiae most of the time. But that was a sticking point in the Bosa negotiations. 

[Valpo2004]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 7:07 AM, Defjamz26 said:

This needed to happen. I would use Allen in a package deal to either move up or acquire another pick. No need for Doyle (the number 1 TE) and Allen both to be on the roster making number 1 money.

 

For the record I just wanted to come in and admit that I was wrong.  And I'm happy to have been wrong in this instance.  We dumped Allen and moved from the 6th to the bottom of the 4th. 

 

Good riddance.

[dw49]

On 3/7/2017 at 6:28 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I couldn't help but notice that you have yet to pass judgement on the quality of the signing.    You've said you want to wait to see the figures and I completely respect that.

 

So, as I'm sure you have,  I've tossed around some numbers in my head and this is my guess, my hunch for what it's going to show.....

 

3/19....

 

A 7 million signing bonus.  

 

1st year:   $2.5         SB and 1st year all guaranteed.     There's your 9.5 guaranteed money.

2nd year:    4 Mill

3rd year:    5.5  Mill.

 

I suspect I'm off a little here and there,  but I can't imagine I'm too far off.     Does this roughly match-up with your guess?

 

 

 

 

Did you see the contract ? Big roster bonus which makes his cap hit over 8 mill for this year and pretty cheap in last 2 years. I'm too lazy to try to find it but I'm wondering if they could turn around and quickly convert that 7 mill roster bonus into a signing bonus if they wanted to sign a couple of big ticket FA's this year. I'm pretty sure there's something that restricts teams from restructuring contracts that were just written ?

[dw49]

On 3/8/2017 at 5:38 PM, Superman said:

 

There's two roster bonuses in 2018. One is $1.25m that gets paid the 5th day of the league year. The other is a weekly roster bonus, totaling $500k for the season, which is the same in all three years. 

 

The difference in a roster bonus and a signing bonus really doesn't matter for the player. It does hit the cap differently for the team (roster bonus is all in one year, signing bonus gets spread out evenly over the life of the contract, up to five years), but the team can choose which they want to do. 

 

I'm definitely exaggerating. I just don't like the structure, and I don't see the benefit to the team to do it this way. Bleum knows what he's doing, it's just not my preferred way of structuring a contract.

 

 

I like the structure considering you have all this 2017 cap money .

 

BTW.. so far you have been right as Ballard is letting the big names go and seems to be looking at the second level guys. I'm hearing that NE is working on a Hightower deal , so probably scratch that one. Poe has back issues and wants to be paid like he doesn't . So buyer beware on that one.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Did you see the contract ? Big roster bonus which makes his cap hit over 8 mill for this year and pretty cheap in last 2 years. I'm too lazy to try to find it but I'm wondering if they could turn around and quickly convert that 7 mill roster bonus into a signing bonus if they wanted to sign a couple of big ticket FA's this year. I'm pretty sure there's something that restricts teams from restructuring contracts that were just written ?

 

Yeah,  the structure was....    different.    

 

But I'm not sure of the rules on re-writting.     That is Superman's area of expertise....    I'd page him....

 

 

 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, dw49 said:

I'm pretty sure there's something that restricts teams from restructuring contracts that were just written ?

 

I believe you can restructure right away, but you can only have one restructure per year. 

[Jesse Lafantaisie]

On 3/7/2017 at 7:40 PM, ricker182 said:

Hope we didn't overpay.  

Doyle is solid, but he's not a top tier paid player.

It's a great deal actually given his production last year and his blocking ability hes been solid all his career he was just given a chance to shine as the primary when allen was out last season. Hes only 26 if it turns out he can't handle #1 spot 3 yrs is not too long, but I am 100% confident by year 3 this deal will look like a steal.

[dw49]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I believe you can restructure right away, but you can only have one restructure per year. 

 

Cool..thanks