Mock Draft Browns snag Andrew Luck in trade, Colts own three top-5 picks

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, That Guy said:

My understanding was that you are entirely correct IF we were to cut Andrew Luck and the Browns signed him to a contract.  At that point, we take an accelerated CAP hit equal to his guaranteed money. 

 

I was under the impression that a trade worked differently.  I thought that, were we to trade Andrew Luck, the Browns would assume liability for his entire contract (and all CAP ramifications attached to it).  When they traded for Osweiler, did the Texans take a CAP hit, or did the Browns assume the whole contract?

 

That is where I may be wrong (that may even be part that's negotiable in the trade), but I think a trade would remove the entire contract from our books.  

 

TG...

 

Odds are you're correct and I'm wrong...   you were communicating with Superman and he understands this stuff better than anyone and he didn't correct you once at all.  

 

I'll reach out and see what he thinks...

 

Thanks for such a thoutful response...    appreciate it...  

 

[stitches]

According to overthecap:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/indianapolis-colts

 

if we trade Luck before june 1st, we save only $5,200,000 and we are on the hook for $19,200,000 dead money. I don't know if they are correct though.., 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

Winning a Superbowl is a long shot, even if you have one of the best QBs in the league. Winning a SB and going to another is a pretty good 15 years stretch with Peyton. Could you have done better? Sure, but there are teams in the league that don't even go to the playoffs for 10-15 years stretches because they don't have a QB and strike out on QBs year after year after year... 

 

Also - having a franchise QB doesn't absolve us from building the rest of the roster to be good enough to compete for championships. A QB can only do as much... because when you advance in the playoffs you meet other teams that have good QBs, but they also have great defenses and O-lines... and an amazing coach... unlike the Luck Colts have had so far.

 

The point is - yeah, you do need to surround the franchise QB with great pieces, but there is practically zero chance to have prolonged success without a great QB. This is really the keystone for long-term uninterrupted success in the league. To have 1 year with losing record in the span of 12-13 years is incredible! This is what a franchise QB gives you as a baseline. That was what Peyton brought. This is what Luck was bringing until he started to get injured and missing games. 

 

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I honestly wouldn't trade our time from 2002-2014 for almost anything. We hade a 13 season stretch there where we were Very Good to Great, only in 2011 we were Bad = the season Peyton didn't play. We had 9 seasons in a row where we won 10 games or more with Peyton + won a SB, then 3 seasons in a row we won 11 games with Luck + played in a Title Game with him. Yeah it would've been nice to have won more than 1 SB win but we won 1 and were one of the best teams in the league for 13 seasons straight (except 2011). Winning a SB is very tough to do, just ask the Bills from 1990-1993 with Jim Kelly, McNabb's Eagles from 2001-2004, Rivers and the Chargers from 2006-2009. All of those teams had Very Good to Great seasons in those time frames and the result = 0 SB wins. Dan Marino would love to have 1 SB win - he doesnt, how about the 80's Bears? - They only won 1 SB in 1985 and had all of that talent on Defense + Walter Payton. I think people get to hung up on what the Pats have accomplished so they just poo poo what our success has been. Hell Jacksonville wins the Division and people throw a parade, we win the Division and people are like MEH  

I don't think you understood my comment.

How many of those stretch of winning season would some trade in for 1 more super bowl? How about two?

Just maybe some cant forget how many one and done playoff games?

Watching a team just almost good enough year after year does make some have a different mindset.

I can see the truth in some saying a lot of Colt fans are spoiled.

Making all the points about how good we were does not cover the facts of how bad we were in the playoffs either.

Yes, it was a great run but a huge disappointment at the same time.

That is what I meant with some having a different mindset.

 

 

 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

I don't think you understood my comment.

How many of those stretch of winning season would some trade in for 1 more super bowl? How about two?

Just maybe some cant forget how many one and done playoff games?

Watching a team just almost good enough year after year does make some have a different mindset.

I can see the truth in some saying a lot of Colt fans are spoiled.

Making all the points about how good we were does not cover the facts of how bad we were in the playoffs either.

Yes, it was a great run but a huge disappointment at the same time.

That is what I meant with some having a different mindset.

 

 

 

You have to work with the counterfactual to understand what the alternative is. Because the alternative to 1 superbowl and a ton of first round exits might not be 2+ superbowls... it might be 10 years of not getting to the playoffs at all... 

 

How does one "trade" a winning stretch for a superbowl? If this is how it worked a lot of teams would do it, but it doesn't work like that. Chances are if you didn't have Peyton or if you trade Luck now you will be MUCH WORSE, not better. Chances are you don't get even a single SB win. 

 

I kind of am having hard time understanding what you are pointing to here...  is it that trading our franchise QB for 4 unknowns will give us better chance at a SB? I don't think that right. Not by a long shot. (this all of course assumes that Luck will be healthy, because that's the only way anyone would trade anything of value for him)

 

Or is the argument we are better off not making the playoffs at all if we are going to get disappointed 90% of the time when we make it? 

 

I really don't get what the argument is here? 

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

I don't think you understood my comment.

How many of those stretch of winning season would some trade in for 1 more super bowl? How about two?

Just maybe some cant forget how many one and done playoff games?

Watching a team just almost good enough year after year does make some have a different mindset.

I can see the truth in some saying a lot of Colt fans are spoiled.

Making all the points about how good we were does not cover the facts of how bad we were in the playoffs either.

Yes, it was a great run but a huge disappointment at the same time.

That is what I meant with some having a different mindset.

 

 

 

Yes we are spoiled I agree. Imagine being a Bills fan losing 4 straight SB's with 0 wins. Hell you have people in here wanting to trade Luck for cry an out loud because he didn't play last season. Colts fans are so spoiled that when we win the Division it's in afterthought, Jags fans partied when they won the Division. I have a friend that lives in Jacksonville and he said that city went nuts once they clinched the Division  

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

You have to work with the counterfactual to understand what the alternative is. Because the alternative to 1 superbowl and a ton of first round exits might not be 2+ superbowls... it might be 10 years of not getting to the playoffs at all... 

 

How does one "trade" a winning stretch for a superbowl? If this is how it worked a lot of teams would do it, but it doesn't work like that. Chances are if you didn't have Peyton or if you trade Luck now you will be MUCH WORSE, not better. Chances are you don't get even a single SB win. 

 

I kind of am having hard time understanding what you are pointing to here...  is it that trading our franchise QB for 4 unknowns will give us better chance at a SB? I don't think that right. Not by a long shot. (this all of course assumes that Luck will be healthy, because that's the only way anyone would trade anything of value for him)

 

Or is the argument we are better off not making the playoffs at all if we are going to get disappointed 90% of the time when we make it? 

 

I really don't get what the argument is here? 

The thing is you are looking at it in an argumentative way.

I said it was understandable why some have a different mindset.

There are things that are not up for argument and this is one. Your point of view is not the only one valid to those who don't share it.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The thing is you are looking at it in an argumentative way.

I said it was understandable why some have a different mindset.

There are things that are not up for argument and this is one. Your point of view is not the only one valid to those who don't share it.

My point of view is certainly not the only valid one. In the last two posts I was trying to pinpoint what the exact counter point is, rather than trying to be argumentative. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was being confrontational. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

18 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The thing is you are looking at it in an argumentative way.

I said it was understandable why some have a different mindset.

There are things that are not up for argument and this is one. Your point of view is not the only one valid to those who don't share it.

I get what you are saying as some think we have underachieved because we have only won 1 SB in the Peyton/Luck era's. Having said that what if we would've won 0 like the teams I posted above. So I am ok with it. If the Cubs never won another WS I wouldn't be happy but I would be ok with it as long as they are Good every year and fun to watch like the Colts were for basically 13 seasons. Just winning it all once means you are a Champion, everything else is gravy.

 

-I better add to this, in no way am I content because Andrew and the Colts now winning a SB is very important. I always want to win but it's not always in the cards.

[That Guy]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

TG...

 

Odds are you're correct and I'm wrong...   you were communicating with Superman and he understands this stuff better than anyone and he didn't correct you once at all.  

 

I'll reach out and see what he thinks...

 

Thanks for such a thoutful response...    appreciate it...  

 

 

I appreciate any clarifications you two may provide!  I fully admit that my responses were based entirely on assumptions.  It was late, and Superman may have just not wanted to get into a lengthy correction at that time.  I think we're both feeling some serious doubt at this point!

 

58 minutes ago, stitches said:

According to overthecap:

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/indianapolis-colts

 

if we trade Luck before june 1st, we save only $5,200,000 and we are on the hook for $19,200,000 dead money. I don't know if they are correct though.., 

 

Thank you very much for that info!  That may very well settle the discussion!

[crazycolt1]

36 minutes ago, stitches said:

My point of view is certainly not the only valid one. In the last two posts I was trying to pinpoint what the exact counter point is, rather than trying to be argumentative. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was being confrontational. 

There was no feeling at all you were being confrontational.

My only point was I understood why there could be negative thoughts on the history of the Indy Colts.

I am very happy for the good times but just as disappointed with those devastating losses just as well.

The emotional roller coaster of having a team with so much promise in regular season just to get beat so many times in the playoffs is taxing on all the Colt fans. 

 But that is what being a fan is I suppose.

[That Guy]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

let's starf witht he Colts having 80 Mill to spend.

 

  80    Mill

- 22    Luck Dead Cap hit

-----

  58 Mill

- 30 Mill for Kirk Cousins that you want

-----

  28 Mill

- 13 Mil for Norwell

-----

   15 Mill

 

I'm not sure how you hope to get Hitchens, Robinson, Gaines etc plus sign draft picks,  plus have money left over to conduct season long business?

 

 

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I wasn't accounting for getting rid of Luck's contract.

 

 

Alright NCF, I think I see how we were both part right and both part wrong here!

Superman, please let me know if I'm completely off here...

 

I'm going to use rounded numbers from overthecap here:

 

I was thinking we have 70, the Browns would take all of Luck's 25, and that would leave us with 95 for Cousins plus extras!

 

Your example started us at 80, and then subtracted a dead CAP hit of 22, leaving us with 58 for Cousins plus extras.

 

I NOW think that we start with 70.  Trading Luck to the Browns removes Luck's 25 and replaces it with a dead CAP hit of 19.  That only gains us 6 in CAP space, but it brings us up to 76.

 

You accounted for the dead CAP space, I accounted for the added CAP space, but neither of us accounted for BOTH!

 

So the question now becomes:

Is 76 enough to sign Cousins, Norwell, Hitchens, Robinson, and Gaines?  Probably not...

But we could probably get Cousins (30), Norwell (13), Hitchens (7?), and one of the others while still having enough for draft picks and in-season adjustments.

 

[NewColtsFan]

34 minutes ago, That Guy said:

 

 

 

Alright NCF, I think I see how we were both part right and both part wrong here!

Superman, please let me know if I'm completely off here...

 

I'm going to use rounded numbers from overthecap here:

 

I was thinking we have 70, the Browns would take all of Luck's 25, and that would leave us with 95 for Cousins plus extras!

 

Your example started us at 80, and then subtracted a dead CAP hit of 22, leaving us with 58 for Cousins plus extras.

 

I NOW think that we start with 70.  Trading Luck to the Browns removes Luck's 25 and replaces it with a dead CAP hit of 19.  That only gains us 6 in CAP space, but it brings us up to 76.

 

You accounted for the dead CAP space, I accounted for the added CAP space, but neither of us accounted for BOTH!

 

So the question now becomes:

Is 76 enough to sign Cousins, Norwell, Hitchens, Robinson, and Gaines?  Probably not...

But we could probably get Cousins (30), Norwell (13), Hitchens (7?), and one of the others while still having enough for draft picks and in-season adjustments.

 

 

You know what? 

 

When i I traded Luck, I didnt put his salary back in the available money column.   That's a big whoops!

 

Fortunately,  this is all a big hypothetical and we don't have to worry about it! 

 

[Superman]

27 minutes ago, That Guy said:

 

 

 

Alright NCF, I think I see how we were both part right and both part wrong here!

Superman, please let me know if I'm completely off here...

 

I'm going to use rounded numbers from overthecap here:

 

I was thinking we have 70, the Browns would take all of Luck's 25, and that would leave us with 95 for Cousins plus extras!

 

Your example started us at 80, and then subtracted a dead CAP hit of 22, leaving us with 58 for Cousins plus extras.

 

I NOW think that we start with 70.  Trading Luck to the Browns removes Luck's 25 and replaces it with a dead CAP hit of 19.  That only gains us 6 in CAP space, but it brings us up to 76.

 

You accounted for the dead CAP space, I accounted for the added CAP space, but neither of us accounted for BOTH!

 

So the question now becomes:

Is 76 enough to sign Cousins, Norwell, Hitchens, Robinson, and Gaines?  Probably not...

But we could probably get Cousins (30), Norwell (13), Hitchens (7?), and one of the others while still having enough for draft picks and in-season adjustments.

 

 

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You know what? 

 

When i I traded Luck, I didnt out his salary back in the available money column.   That's a big whoops!

 

Fortunately,  this is all a big hypothetical and we don't have to worry about it! 

 

 

I just did it on Overthecap, which is better for stuff like this. Trade Luck, sign Cousins with a $30m cap hit, and the Colts have approx $44m remaining in 2018. 

 

You can still sign Norwell or another big ticket guy. I don't think you can sign two, because you need at least $15m for draft picks and in-season buffer (and that's being conservative, should be more like $20m). And you have to sign other lower level guys -- WR2, some linebackers, probably another OL, etc. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, BProland85 said:

 

Chris strikes me as the type of GM who believes he could make it work even without an elite QB. And with the return you'd get by trading Luck, you'd have a much more loaded roster around whichever QB is starting. Adding Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, AND Garrett would go a long way to improving this talent deficient roster, and would give Indy a potentially elite defense with both Garrett and Chubb, along with Hooker and Wilson in the secondary for the future, and their running game would be great with both Barkley and Nelson at OG in the fold. 

 

I would be against trading Luck if I fully believed he will be back better than ever. I just am skeptical he will be better than before he was injured. I believe he will be about 80% of what he was going forward. 

 

For me, it's not about thinking you absolutely need an elite QB. It's about getting rid of an elite QB, which is, IMO, a non starter. You've committed to Luck for a reason. And setting aside the 'elite' discussion, some teams struggle to get an average QB, I don't even have to name those teams. Bad QBing is epidemic. Mike Zimmer just said if they don't get the QB position right, he'll probably get fired.

 

So why get rid of your guy? I wouldn't. A bird in the hand...

 

I agree, theoretically, it would be a nice haul. I'd rather have Luck.

 

As for your skepticism that he'll be healthy, agreed or not, I'll just say no one should make a decision like trading away a legit franchise QB because of a gut feeling. 

[That Guy]

23 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You know what? 

 

When i I traded Luck, I didnt out his salary back in the available money column.   That's a big whoops!

 

Fortunately,  this is all a big hypothetical and we don't have to worry about it! 

 

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I just did it on Overthecap, which is better for stuff like this. Trade Luck, sign Cousins with a $30m cap hit, and the Colts have approx $44m remaining in 2018. 

 

You can still sign Norwell or another big ticket guy. I don't think you can sign two, because you need at least $15m for draft picks and in-season buffer (and that's being conservative, should be more like $20m). And you have to sign other lower level guys -- WR2, some linebackers, probably another OL, etc. 

 

I appreciate the help from both of you!

 

Cousins, Norwell, plus another big-ticket guy would still have sports reporters crowning us as off-season champions!

 

Now that we have all of the details sorted out (and we all agree upon what is and isn't possible), do either of you think signing Cousins could possibly make this trade work in our favor?

 

If our off-season dealt Luck away, but had us getting Cousins, Norwell, Hitchens, Myles Garrett, Chubb, Nelson, Guice, Vander Esch ON TOP OF our current draft picks (we'll call it Minkah Fitzpatrick, Christian Kirk, Tyrell Crosby, etc...); would either of you complain?

 

Imagine Garrett and Chubb rushing the passer while we have a secondary of Wilson, Hooker, Geathers, and Fitzpatrick!

Imagine our offense with Cousins throwing to TY and Kirk, or Guice and Mack running behind our line fortified with Norwell and Nelson!

 

 

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, That Guy said:

 

I appreciate the help from both of you!

 

Cousins, Norwell, plus another big-ticket guy would still have sports reporters crowning us as off-season champions!

 

Now that we have all of the details sorted out (and we all agree upon what is and isn't possible), do either of you think signing Cousins could possibly make this trade work in our favor?

 

If our off-season dealt Luck away, but had us getting Cousins, Norwell, Hitchens, Myles Garrett, Chubb, Nelson, Guice, Vander Esch ON TOP OF our current draft picks (we'll call it Minkah Fitzpatrick, Christian Kirk, Tyrell Crosby, etc...); would either of you complain?

 

Imagine Garrett and Chubb rushing the passer while we have a secondary of Wilson, Hooker, Geathers, and Fitzpatrick!

Imagine our offense with Cousins throwing to TY and Kirk, or Guice and Mack running behind our line fortified with Norwell and Nelson!

 

It makes more sense if you get Cousins. There's a logistical problem (you have to sign Cousins on Day 1 of free agency and finalize the Luck trade all in the same day, without any of it leaking, otherwise you have an unmitigated disaster on your hands) but that's not the point of the discussion.

 

The difference is getting Garrett plus those four extra top 35 picks. You're already presumably getting two top free agents in any offseason mock, but now you're probably sacrificing another signing and some cap space flexibility in 2018. 

 

It's also kind of a pipe dream. Getting the picks is tough enough, adding in Garrett is probably a non starter. I wouldn't do it as the Browns, to be honest, not if Luck isn't proven to be 100% (which he won't be in the next two weeks), and if he was, the Colts don't do it. For the Browns, I'd rather go all out for Cousins, Norwell (or another guard), and Trumaine Johnson. They have $110m in cap space. 

[That Guy]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

It's also kind of a pipe dream. Getting the picks is tough enough, adding in Garrett is probably a non starter. I wouldn't do it as the Browns, to be honest, not if Luck isn't proven to be 100% (which he won't be in the next two weeks), and if he was, the Colts don't do it. For the Browns, I'd rather go all out for Cousins, Norwell (or another guard), and Trumaine Johnson. They have $110m in cap space. 

Ha!  I can explain all that in two words:

"Grigson"

and

"Irsay"

 

*Edit: Just found out Grigson no longer works for the Browns...  Who knew?

Edited March 1, 2018 by That Guy