husker61
-
Posts
1,512 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by husker61
-
-
I don't know if I would want to trade off picks from 2 drafts in a row, but I would definitely be open to the idea of trading down with the 2015 picks we had accumulated to pick up more picks in the 2016 draft.
that's what i was saying.
-
I don't think it will ever happen, but I think one could definitely make a legitimate argument for it. I know that I am tired of him trading off future draft picks. I think with a good mix of a big name or two, some good older stop gap players on 1-2 yr contracts, some cheap young guys who haven't really gotten a chance yet (but maybe flashed), and really working the UDFA's it could work out. If Grigson could pull it off correctly it would not hurt us in resigning the 2012 class, and set us up great for the 2015 draft.
having extra 2015 picks, i would even trade some 2015 picks and leverage them for more or better 2016 picks.
-
So let's give Player A a long term contract with a big signing bonus and backloaded salaries. He's a 26 year old defensive end. Five years, $60m, with a $15m signing bonus, Year 1 base salary guaranteed, for a total guarantee of $18m. His base salaries are $3m, $5m, $8m, $10m, $14m. His cap hits are $6m, $8m, $11m, $13m, $17m. If he gets cut after Year 1, he will have received $18m, and the dead cap hit for the team in Year 2 would be $12m. (Again, that is unlikely in any event.) If he gets cut after Year 2, he will have received $23m, and the dead cap hit for the team in Year 3 would be $9m.
Player B is also a 26 year old defensive end, and he also gets five years, $60m as well, but his contract has a smaller signing bonus of $5m and more evenly distributed salaries, with the first two years guaranteed. His base salaries are $7m, $8.5m, $9.5m, $10m, $10m. Total guaranteed money is $20.5m. His cap hits are $8m, $9.5m, $10.5m, $11m, $11m. If he gets cut after Year 1 -- which won't happen -- he still gets his Year 2 base salary of $8.5m, and the dead cap hit is $14.5m in Year 2. If he gets cut after Year 2, he will have received, $20.5m, and the dead cap hit is $3m.
i agree the 2nd contract structure is a better way to go.
-
Luck's will be HUGE....Hilton large and probably Allen and Fleener. You have to watch today's contracts or tomorrows will haunt you husker. See Ravens with Flacco's big pay day as the latest example.
that's why you pay them now with slightly higher 1st and 2nd year money, and i am not talking about big name free agents that are going to break the bank and get big signing bonuses. i have never suggested signing big money free agents. i was one of the few posters happy the colts didn't sign any of the big name free agents last year. guard, center, inside lb shouldn't be that expensive. davis is the one spot that is going to cost some money.
-
And a good chunk of that money is being saved for the 2nd contracts of the 2012 class.
Luck, Fleener, Allen, TYHilton, Chapman, Ballard and Brazil.
Grigson has already come out to caution fans that the Colts will NOT be as active on the FA market this year as they were last year.
this doesn't make any sense. their contracts are up in two years. they have nothing to do with this years cap. that's why you use fa money now and stockpile draft picks in future years when the colts will need cheap players from the draft.
-
Just to clarify, we don't have 40 million for free agents. We have 40 million in cap space, but some of that needs to go on draft picks and some to give us a cushion for emergencies.
i know all this. if the draft picks are traded for next years picks (like i said), almost no money is needed for draft picks.without a 1st and a low 2nd, it's minimal anyway. 2 million for emergencies, it's still a lot of cap room, you are net picking.
-
I'm a little up in the air on it. The guy has the physical ability. So at least he could be a suicide squad guy. But, is he teachable? It looks like the straight line rushing ability is there. But can he be taught to play in space? He may well can...but those questions are what earns personnel people millions or get's them fired.
I wish him the best. But I do not see him in a LB spot for us because as of right now, he cannot play in space. He is a pure pass rusher. No different than Jerry Hughes or Dwight Freeney. And if either one of those guys could've dropped back or stayed stout against the run, they'd still be here no matter what their projected costs might have been.
i don't like him in any defense. like i said, i wouldn't draft him.
-
i wouldn't draft him. i don't think he is a nfl player.
-
with so much being made of this year's draft being so deep. i would trade as many picks this year for much better and or more picks next year, taking advantage of this years hype. with 40 million to spend on free agents, the colts can address problems with free agents. they could probably have their pick of undrafted free agents since there will be less competition for them in training camp. the extra picks will come in handy in future years when luck and other young players contracts expire and the colts won't have cap space to fill needs.
-
And yes, those salaries can be guaranteed against injury, meaning if the player gets hurt, he still gets paid. Those guarantees are negotiable. In Jake Long's case, I believe Year 3 was always partially guaranteed for injury.
i'm not sure about this. if a player gets hurt, comes back, and is cut. is it because of the injury and does the guarantee kick in? who decides this? it seems like a mess that nether side would want to get involved in. private insurance would be a better solution.
-
So you can have a five year deal with a $15m signing bonus, and that bonus is guaranteed. But it is accounted for in $3m increments, year by year. So if the player is released after Year 2, the team has a $9m cap penalty. Or if you restructure, everything is added on top of the $3m a year that you already have to account for.
Let's say the team instead does a $5m signing bonus, but increases the base salaries in the first two years. You can still have the same amount of compensation in the first two years (or whatever timeframe, really), and it can still be guaranteed. But if the player is underperforming, the team has more leeway to restructure, because there's only a $1m bonus hit in each year of the contract.
So what I'm saying is that, to the player, it's the same money and the same guaranteed money. The only difference is that the team has more flexibility in the future, and that's mutually beneficial for both sides.
your example is meaningless without the base salary figures for each year. please show me the base salaries of this contract, because i don't believe it's the same money for the player if the he is cut after the first year. we have already established that you can't have a big discrepancy in yearly salaries.
-
I guess you're not understanding me. The player gets the money either way, whether it's signing bonus or guaranteed base salary. Dead cap hits after a player is released is all about accounting for money that's already been paid (or is guaranteed to be paid in the future). If releasing a player results in a $5m dead cap hit, the player doesn't get that $5m. They've already been paid that $5m.
Demanding a big signing bonus doesn't protect a player from being released later on. It makes it more painful for the team, but teams deal with that all the time, by choice.
i completely understand this.
when a player signs a contract, it's about how much money he is guaranteed. being cut only matters if there is no guaranteed money. that's why players demand guaranteed money in any form. you can't get around guaranteed money. it would be great if there was no guaranteed money in anything (not just sports). everyone would have to produce to get payed, but that's not reality.
-
There are also injury guarantees, etc., for future year's base salaries. Yeah, base salary can be guaranteed for injury only (meaning, if the player gets hurt, he still gets paid). Most high profile free agents have injury guarantees.
I'm not saying no guarantees, and I'm not saying no signing bonuses. I'm saying -- same as Brandt -- teams should avoid huge signing bonuses wherever possible. Jake Long was in demand last offseason, and received a big contract with a lot of guaranteed money: four years, $34m, $20m guaranteed. Only a $5m signing bonus. But Years 1 and 2 have fully guaranteed base salaries, and Year 3 went partially guaranteed at the end of Year 1. If the team approaches Long about a restructure prior to Year 3 or 4, they'll have plenty of room to navigate. There are many other examples as well.
how does a injury guarantee work against the cap? i haven't heard of this.
i agree teams should avoid signing bonuses, but the player has to agree to it also and i don't think it is in their best interest to do so. i don't see how a guaranteed base salary is that much different than a signing bonus, they both count against the cap if a player is cut. any kind of guaranteed money hurts the team and favors the player. that's why the nfl held the line in not doing them for a long time and it's hurting other sports.
top players are going to get guaranteed money of some kind and if teams make a mistake on a player it will cost them, however it is structured.
if you are lucky enough to have a top qb, you give him the money. all other players you have to be really careful about the guaranteed money or you get into trouble eventually. it wasn't a popular opinion, but i didn't like a lot of the contracts bp gave players while he was here and i thought it hurt the colts. i like the pats model of letting player that demand too much money walk.
-
Edit: Having large signing bonuses doesn't protect players from being cut, by the way. Teams bite the bullet on bad contracts all the time.
and the player gets the money. when i talk about protection, i am talking about financially, nothing else.
-
That's why you guarantee the first two years of the contract. Same money as a signing bonus.
I'm not talking about overloading Year 1. Just not backloading future years. What happened with Cherilus is that there was too much of a discrepancy between the base salaries, with Year 2 being lower than Year 1. So a portion of the Year 1 base was converted to bonus to comply. But that's not a point of negotiation. The deal was agreed to, then the league required the adjustment.
In any event, I'm talking about keeping the base salaries even, rather than sharply increasing. Teams do this all the time. Some contracts have little to no signing bonus, but big guaranteed base salaries. The Bucs did this to an extreme with Carl Nicks, then restructured the next year to create cap space. They aigned Revis with no bonus at all. There have been many other examples in recent years as well.
Like I said before, it actually improves the player's chance of finishing the contract or being extended, rather than released. He doesn't have a sharply increasing cap hit, and he doesn't have a lot of unamortized bonus on the back end, so working things out is easier for the team in the future.
but there is nothing protecting a player from a career threatening injury or being cut with even base salaries, the team holds all the cards. that's why players in demand don't do it . revis was payed a ridiculous amount of money to agree to that kind of deal. like i said, players that are in demand are going to get guaranteed money in the form of signing bonuses because they have leverage and it's in their best interest. i don't remember any top players signing contracts without guaranteed money.
-
well, another thread hijacked by the same old tr stuff. there is a thread for this stuff. the mods need to move it all to that thread when they see it start.
-
The team has the leverage anyways. It's up to them whether they want to deal with the cap penalty or not.
The trade off is that the player gets the same amount of money, just in the form of higher base salaries early on, rather than increasing salaries later on, which kind of force the team to do something. And with smaller prorated bonuses, it's easier for the team and player to restructure in the future, if necessary.
a player can freely shop himself to the highest bidder, so the team has absolutely no leverage to dictate contracts favorable to themselves. if the player gets hurt in the first year of the contract, he is screwed by a contract that you are talking about. that's why players want signing bonuses. a player that has several contract offers would never settle for a contract you are talking about. there are two sides to contract negotiations, not just the team. i believe there are rules that you can't overload the first years base salary. isn't this what happened with gosder cherilus's contract?
-
i am sure most gm's want to structure contracts the way he says, but players don't. why does he think a player would go along with his scenario and have no protection for injury, giving the team all the leverage over the life of the contract.
-
Wait! I got it!!
Couldn't we trade our first round pick for Revis?!? No?!? Darn!
no, we could trade richardson though.
i don't want him with that contract if he was free!
-
Mcafee was paid the 16th most money at position and he is easily a top 16 Punter http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/active/contract-value/punter/limit-25/
you are looking at a list of total money over the life of a contract, not what they are payed last year. did you really think then top punters are payed $20+million dollars?
-
Cornerbacks just aren't that important.
so i guess you don't want the colts to resign davis. he could be replaced by a rookie and save a lot of money without effecting the defense much.
-
Sounds like he is a likable, classy guy but not necessarily a force at the line. Apparently he was rated by PFF as the 7th worst ILB against the run last year. Most of his tackles came downfield and it sounds like he is better suited to a 4/3. Just what I'm reading from Cleveland fans.
you are talking about pat angerer???
-
i felt the colts should have let him walk last year (i may have been the only one), and i haven't changed my mind.
-
Pat did go out of his way to say he's not looking for money he's just looking for respect and I took the feeling out of that interview he doesn't feel respected by the Colts.
that's a bunch of horse poop! respect is code for money in professional sports plain and simple. what have the colts done to not respect him that doesn't involve money? has he said what the colts can do to give him respect after he signs for vet minimum? because it's not about the money, right?? i don't have any problem with anyone making as much money as they can, but be honest about it.
Transition Tag on Mack - Now What?
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
if i was mac, i would take the $10m and be very happy. clev is crazy! that's way too much money for a center. they have set the contract bar way too high for him this year. this is why the browns are still going to be bad for a long time, nothing changes. i still can't believe the colts got fleeced by them!!!!!!