Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

[WoolMagnet]

4 hours ago, FalseStart said:

Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

This thread is a "FalseStart"

[richard pallo]

58 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thanks,  GC8818....

 

I just scrolled through this entire silly thread and you're the ONLY poster who got the right answer!

 

This is a lose-lose trade for both sides.

 

1.    No team would trade for Luck right now.    They don't know how healthy (or not) he is.    And no team is giving up a huge haul to get Luck.    Certainly NOT three #1's and a top defensive player.       That's what you get for Luck when he's healthy.      You don't get that when he's NOT healthy. 

 

2.    The Colts can't trade him for the next two years, at least.     His Dead Cap Hit to the team is huge.   $22.2 next year.    And $12.8 Mill the year after that.      So, for the Colts,  Andrew Luck is NOT tradable.    Oh, and the hit in 2020 is over $6 MIll.

 

It's not happening.     Not in anyone's imaginary world.     Luck and the Colts are MARRIED to each other.    At least two more years      Deal with it.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/andrew-luck-9811/

 

And we're not getting a #1 from anyone for Jacoby Brissett.      That's not happening either.

 

As a means of clarification I thought I read where we will have a huge cap availability this year.  Something like 72M. That is with Lucks contract.  So how can we not absorb a dead cap hit of 22.2m?   Wouldn't we still have 50m before any other moves?   I'm not a cap guy so please explain how a dead cap hit works against our current cap. 

[ColtsBlitz]

1 hour ago, FalseStart said:

No. This is what 18-20 looks like. Go Colts!

What deal would suffice for a trade involving Luck? To me, there is no price tag on a franchise QB like him. Just my perspective on the matter. 

[NewColtsFan]

38 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

As a means of clarification I thought I read where we will have a huge cap availability this year.  Something like 72M. That is with Lucks contract.  So how can we not absorb a dead cap hit of 22.2m?   Wouldn't we still have 50m before any other moves?   I'm not a cap guy so please explain how a dead cap hit works against our current cap. 

 

Technically,  I suppose we could.     But I don't think a team with a lot of cap money wants to use up a large chunk of it to trade a player who is not going to bring back much in return.

 

So even if we were willing to take the hit (and I seriously doubt we are)  I doubt we'd get much in return.

 

That's why I called this deal a lose-lose for the Colts and any team that would consider it.

 

[SaturdayAllDay]

6 hours ago, richard pallo said:

As a means of clarification I thought I read where we will have a huge cap availability this year.  Something like 72M. That is with Lucks contract.  So how can we not absorb a dead cap hit of 22.2m?   Wouldn't we still have 50m before any other moves?   I'm not a cap guy so please explain how a dead cap hit works against our current cap. 

The answer is yes and no. We do have the cap to absorb the hit, but it comes at a serious cost. Now bear with me, as I am not exactly Superman when it comes to this kind of stuff, but I like to think I have a decent grasp on it. I am sure (and I hope) someone will correct me if I have messed something up.

 

We have ~70M in cap for next year (~50M after Lucks hypothetical cap hit), but we also have 31 players with contracts expiring. While we probably wont resign most of them, they still have to be replaced for the most part (id say 25 players would need to be brought in at a minimum). Looking at their current cap hits, they account for ~35M of our cap this year. A handful of those players are also under their current market value, and if you take into account the rising salary cap/ extra cost of additional 1st round draft picks (3.5-5m per top 10 pick), there is no way we can replace those players at the same cost. Even if we got the same number of players of the same skill level for 40M (which would take some serious work by Ballard), we have upgraded -1 positions (as we have no franchise QB) and are sitting with ~10M in cap. Not going to make major improvements with 10M. We would only be able to rely on our draft class to improve the team and replace Luck, which puts us behind the ball for 2018.

 

That is not even mentioning the ridiculously small window we would have to actually make that trade with Luck. We cant trade Luck until the 1st day of the new league year (in March), and he has a roster bonus that is guaranteed as of the 5th day of the league year. That would add another 3M to his cap hit. That gives other teams leverage as we are the ones to lose out by waiting for them to up their bid, which would lead to us either losing another 3M in cap or possibly taking a lower offer for Luck, which is already going to be lower than usual due to the long term outlook of his injury not being entirely clear.

 

Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. If needed I can probably go into it a little deeper or take a swing at anything you need clarification on.

[csmopar]

14 hours ago, FalseStart said:

Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

[UKColt13]

At this point I wouldn't rule it out. Although I would only do it if we ended up with a top 2 pick this year.

 

If we can get 2 1st rounders, 2 2nd rounders and maybe 2 3rd rounders (similar to what the Rams gave up to get Goff, adjusted for the fact that Luck is a proven player in the bigs) for Luck. We also lose his contract from our books, which frees up roughly 20-25mil per year from our cap which gives us more FA money to play with.

 

If we managed to get a rookie QB with our top 2 pick with a cheap contract. We'd have another high pick in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd this year along with our existing low picks. That is a good way to build a team. Especially since Ballard seems to know what he's doing when it comes to the draft.

 

I'm not advocating it, just an interesting thing to think through.    

[King Colt]

15 hours ago, FalseStart said:

Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

Change the lock on the door.

[richard pallo]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Technically,  I suppose we could.     But I don't think a team with a lot of cap money wants to use up a large chunk of it to trade a player who is not going to bring back much in return.

 

So even if we were willing to take the hit (and I seriously doubt we are)  I doubt we'd get much in return.

 

That's why I called this deal a lose-lose for the Colts and any team that would consider it.

 

Thanks you for the information.  I thought it was doable but making sense is another story. 

[krunk]

Unbelievable.   Trade him for what?   Because he's experiencing soreness in his shoulder.   Soreness that the doctors have said is totally normal for the process.

You guys need to get a grip.

[superrep1967]

Hell no these threads get started by people who think too much and have a way to much time on their hands.Luck is going to be great when he comes back probably next year. I mean Brissett is okay but he's far from an Andrew Luck. I mean it's ludicrous to even think such a thing.  

[richard pallo]

3 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

The answer is yes and no. We do have the cap to absorb the hit, but it comes at a serious cost. Now bear with me, as I am not exactly Superman when it comes to this kind of stuff, but I like to think I have a decent grasp on it. I am sure (and I hope) someone will correct me if I have messed something up.

 

We have ~70M in cap for next year (~50M after Lucks hypothetical cap hit), but we also have 31 players with contracts expiring. While we probably wont resign most of them, they still have to be replaced for the most part (id say 25 players would need to be brought in at a minimum). Looking at their current cap hits, they account for ~35M of our cap this year. A handful of those players are also under their current market value, and if you take into account the rising salary cap/ extra cost of additional 1st round draft picks (3.5-5m per top 10 pick), there is no way we can replace those players at the same cost. Even if we got the same number of players of the same skill level for 40M (which would take some serious work by Ballard), we have upgraded -1 positions (as we have no franchise QB) and are sitting with ~10M in cap. Not going to make major improvements with 10M. We would only be able to rely on our draft class to improve the team and replace Luck, which puts us behind the ball for 2018.

 

That is not even mentioning the ridiculously small window we would have to actually make that trade with Luck. We cant trade Luck until the 1st day of the new league year (in March), and he has a roster bonus that is guaranteed as of the 5th day of the league year. That would add another 3M to his cap hit. That gives other teams leverage as we are the ones to lose out by waiting for them to up their bid, which would lead to us either losing another 3M in cap or possibly taking a lower offer for Luck, which is already going to be lower than usual due to the long term outlook of his injury not being entirely clear.

 

Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. If needed I can probably go into it a little deeper or take a swing at anything you need clarification on.

Thank you for your explanation.  I thought Lucks salary was already accounted for in the cap.  I thought the dead cap hit would be the only charge to the current cap.  That's why I thought we would have 50 to work with before cuts and or restructuring.   A cap hit of 50 for Luck would not work.  

[tfunky14]

Man our fan base is getting dumb and dumber as the season folds out.  Some of these post are ridiculous.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

[csmopar]

15 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

We should consider "tradiing" some of these fans.

anyone notice the creators of these "crazy threads" are from people that have no activity until there is a problem.

its true, some people are happier when they are miserable.

i was thinking the same thing.  Lucky im not the forum owner, ban hammer would be swinging ALOT

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

i was thinking the same thing.  Lucky im not the forum owner, ban hammer would be swinging ALOT

I am too nice so I probably would give most people the benefit of the doubt but some of these threads have me doing this

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am too nice so I probably would give most people the benefit of the doubt but some of these threads have me doing this

they need to just merge all these threads into one and call it "The Panick room"

[SteelCityColt]

15 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Madden has really cracked down on lopsided trades. That's an untrue myth now and has been for about 5 years of the video game.

 

No.. it’s trade logic is still wanting and unrealistic, but it’s an arcade game not a sim.

[TheMarine]

I'll trade Luck for every team's 1st round pick in the next 3 drafts. Let them fight over him in a death-match on a weekly basis, streamed live on Twitter. 

 

Then, sure. 

[csmopar]

8 minutes ago, TheMarine said:

I'll trade Luck for every team's 1st round pick in the next 3 drafts. Let them fight over him in a death-match on a weekly basis, streamed live on Twitter. 

 

Then, sure. 

I'd have to have a team's entire draft picks for the next 10 years to even consider it

[TheMarine]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

I'd have to have a team's entire draft picks for the next 10 years to even consider it

 

I thought that as well, but the idea of having a round-robin-death-match with each team on the line is just too juicy

[Jason_]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

I just scrolled through this entire silly thread and you're the ONLY poster who got the right answer!

 

 

then you missed a number of posts  Agree with everything else though

[The Fish]

13 hours ago, mahagga73 said:

He's very good but some of these people on here think he's in that class. 

As an individual talent, Luck is in fact on a very short list. Ideally, when healthy Luck is probably the second most individually talented guy at the position, behind only Rodgers. 

 

 

 

To the idea that he should be traded. The simple answer to that beyond it being logistically highly unlikely, is that it'd be a really, really dumb thing to do. I don't think Grigson would make that move.

[FalseStart]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So,  8-8 x2 is enough to get you to trade Luck?

 

Really?       Seriously?

 

No... 16-16 and missing ~20...30 games has to open the conversation to "considering" trading the player. Look I know you're a Stanford guy... been following the kid for a while, but as with all really good players in this league at some point $$$$ must be justified by production.

[FalseStart]

13 hours ago, ColtsBlitz said:

What deal would suffice for a trade involving Luck? To me, there is no price tag on a franchise QB like him. Just my perspective on the matter. 

Good question. 2 first rounder draft picks and a second...maybe a Player thrown in. Is he Phillip Rivers  or Eli-Big Ben? I think the debate is still out... Elite Defenses when championships as of late... not QBs minus TB in the second half of 2016 SB. Cheers

[DaColts85]

35 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

No... 16-16 and missing ~20...30 games has to open the conversation to "considering" trading the player. Look I know you're a Stanford guy... been following the kid for a while, but as with all really good players in this league at some point $$$$ must be justified by production.

This is honestly laughable.  As a team we would be dumb to trade him and have a massive amount of dead money.  Plus getting 2 first rounders (18 and 19) and a 2nd rounder plus MAYBE a player?  It would never happen regardless because what teams out there trade for a player who is hurt currently?  When he is healthy either this year or next this trade garbage will be gone because he will again show why he is seen as a solid QB.

 

So Houston should trade JJ Watt, correct?

[2006Coltsbestever]

33 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

No... 16-16 and missing ~20...30 games has to open the conversation to "considering" trading the player. Look I know you're a Stanford guy... been following the kid for a while, but as with all really good players in this league at some point $$$$ must be justified by production.

[throwing BBZ]

16 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

The cap hit alone from trading Andrew Luck makes trading him an unrealistic idea.

 

 Nice one. We would actually have $2.2M MORE to spend.
 Annnnnnnnnnd  we are #1 in projected cap space next year, by over $10M, at $67M.

Sooooooooo... cap is a non factor in moving him.
  If we could get a top 2 pick+ plus their 2nd rd and ohhhh a 2019 2nd BAM i would ship him EXPRESS!
 GO COLTS!    

[DaColts85]

5 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Nice one. We would actually have $2.2M MORE to spend.
 Annnnnnnnnnd  we are #1 in projected cap space next year, by over $10M, at $67M.

Sooooooooo... cap is a non factor in moving him.
  If we could get a top 2 pick+ plus their 2nd rd and ohhhh a 2019 2nd BAM i would ship him EXPRESS!
 GO COLTS!    

Wow...wrong!  The Dead money that would hit goes into account for the overall cap...re-do the math please!

[ColtsBlitz]

1 hour ago, FalseStart said:

Good question. 2 first rounder draft picks and a second...maybe a Player thrown in. Is he Phillip Rivers  or Eli-Big Ben? I think the debate is still out... Elite Defenses when championships as of late... not QBs minus TB in the second half of 2016 SB. Cheers

True about elite defenses, but it really comes down to the turnover battle, like what Ballard says. A QB that can score and not turn the ball over is what can win championships as well as a defense that can force those turnovers. 

[The Fish]

I really think our OP needs to really make a compelling argument that there's anything resembling equal value that could be traded for. Or that any team would take a guy who can't play at the moment on at that price.

 

His health situation is what it is- it's Irsay's checkbook that's taking that beating.

When he can play, his value will be determined or reestablished (he'll be fine, in the future, hopefully the near) and at that point as I said before, you'd have to be dumb to trade him- if he's playing well. I expect he will.

 

If he doesn't get totally healthy, then the team is up the creek without a paddle.

[The Fish]

There's an order to how this all would happen in anyt hypothetical, and most of it would be set into motion because Luck came back looking like Chad Pennington. The Colts aren't fleecing anyone- and that's what's kind of in a round about way being asked.

[RockThatBlue]

17 hours ago, FalseStart said:

Good information. But 8-8 is 8-8...x 2 years. (see both Houston Texans games 2016 for reference)  Also, GMs and contracts find a way.  Thanks for the input. Always appreciate your view.

Blaming Luck for the Colts going 8-8? Really?

[tikyle]

20 hours ago, Flash7 said:

You can't trade him unless he's healthy. If he's healthy, why would you want to trade him? He's just getting into his prime.

 

Why can't you?  The Celtics just did it with Isaiah Thomas and the Chargers did it with Drew Brees.  Many GMs would take that gamble.  Heck the Vikings gave up two 1st rounders for injury prone Sam Bradford.  And guess what, he's hurt again, shocker!

 

We should definitely consider it.  We botched this guys career so far.  If we end up with a high pick this season and can land a good young QB and then get two to three 1st rounders for Luck, we definitely should.  Every team in our division is built around top picks and just dropped a QB in.  This is the only team in our division that had the QB from the start and tried to build around him and failed miserably.  While the other 3 teams just kept taking the best guy (and some terrible QBs in the process) and have built up some talent all over.

[FalseStart]

9 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Blaming Luck for the Colts going 8-8? Really?

In part, absolutely... the highest paid QB or near the top... yep. Comes with the territory.

[RockThatBlue]

1 minute ago, FalseStart said:

In part, absolutely... the highest paid QB or near the top... yep. Comes with the territory.

No, it doesn't. Luck is not even close to being a reason the Colts went 8-8. 

 

Having a sub par coaching staff and a mostly bad team around him is to blame for 8-8.

[SaturdayAllDay]

6 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Thank you for your explanation.  I thought Lucks salary was already accounted for in the cap.  I thought the dead cap hit would be the only charge to the current cap.  That's why I thought we would have 50 to work with before cuts and or restructuring.   A cap hit of 50 for Luck would not work.  

Sorry there must be some confusion with what Ive said. We WOULD have 50M to work with if we traded for Luck, we just have so many holes to fill this offseason that we wouldnt really be able to make any significant upgrades to the roster. We need to spend AT LEAST 40M just to "break even", by which I mean wed be able to sign/draft the same talent level of players that are walking out the door. That doesn't give us any room to improve the roster, so we essentially end up a worse team in 2018 because we havent improved the roster while losing Luck. If we dont trade Luck, we have that 20M to use strictly towards upgrading the roster. Sign the same number of players, but sign better quality players. 

 

We have about 25-30 players to replace this offseason. 10-15 will be PS level and UDFA signings, which cost about the same as every year regardless. The other 10-15 players are where we would need to drop the extra money, getting us better depth and some key starting pcs. That extra 20M will go a long way. 

[sfergson727]

I don't think we should trade him, but should be aware he may never be as good as he was before the injury.  Therefore, we should be open to better opportunities should they come about.  Who knows, maybe Brissett might become our next starter long term.  He certainly has the job for the rest of the season most likely.

(besides, if we need to trade him, that means he is irreparably broken, what team is going to want a broken QB?)

[Coffeedrinker]

7 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

Hell no these threads get started by people who think too much and have a way to much time on their hands.Luck is going to be great when he comes back probably next year. I mean Brissett is okay but he's far from an Andrew Luck. I mean it's ludicrous to even think such a thing.  

I disagree with the bolded.  I don't think the people who start these threads think much at all.

[FalseStart]

4 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

This is honestly laughable.  As a team we would be dumb to trade him and have a massive amount of dead money.  Plus getting 2 first rounders (18 and 19) and a 2nd rounder plus MAYBE a player?  It would never happen regardless because what teams out there trade for a player who is hurt currently?  When he is healthy either this year or next this trade garbage will be gone because he will again show why he is seen as a solid QB.

 

So Houston should trade JJ Watt, correct?

Houston can clone him for all i care... if he or his clone is going to be injured year after year we don't have to worry about it. I will say JJ Watt is no longer The JJ Watt that we use to play against. Injuries and time have ruined many a great player