Superman

I don't think this is entirely true. They tried to lay a foundation that would reach a peak somewhere around 2019-2021. The 2018 class was really good, they had a specific free agency plan in 2019, and then Luck retired. They pivoted in 2020, but still made some aggressive moves, and had a pretty good roster. Not perfect, not necessarily my preferred roster construction, but good enough to win 11 games with Philip Rivers. We tied with the Titans, and split 1-1, but they had a tie breaker on us. River retired. In 2021, we were 9-6 with Carson Wentz, and then fell apart. I don't know if the Colts would have broken through into the top tier of the AFC during that stretch, but we didn't get to see the plan fully materialize. And then they started scrambling for veteran QBs. At some point around 2022 or 2023, even with Luck, the Colts probably would have needed a mini reset. My point is that the plan has not been the same for seven years. Ballard's methods haven't changed much, but the plan in 2019 was much different than it was in 2022. And it's different now.

We cut Leonard in Year 3, and he got paid all of his salaries for the first three years. We had a $19.8m cap hit for him in 2023 (about $6.5m of that was guaranteed salary after he was cut), and we have an $8m dead cap hit for him in 2024. It wasn't to our advantage, we just have to account for cash he was paid several years ago, whereas with the frontloaded structure we would have already accounted for that cash. Every dollar eventually hits the cap, your structure determines when it hits the cap. Yes. And it's even worse for New Orleans because they're compelled into continuing to pay and roster players that are obviously no longer living up to their contracts. They've dug themselves a deep hole, and they won't really be out of it until they go through another cost shedding process next year. And they have nothing to show for it.

I don't know... Baker Mayfield didn't have a strong 2022, and I think a big part of it is that he still wasn't 100% physically (big shoulder recovery at the end of 2021), but also partly because he wound up in dysfunctional Carolina with Matt Rhule. You're assuming we get 2023 Mayfield in 2022, with Reich, and I think that's a big leap. More likely, IMO, we get a substandard version of Mayfield in 2022, coached by a shell-shocked and chastened Frank Reich, and it looks similar to the dried out husk of Matt Ryan that we had anyway. It would have been cheaper, especially since the Browns paid most of Mayfield's 2022 salary. And Matt Ryan was bad enough that it's not hard to imagine Mayfield being better. But not that much better, and certainly not the version of Mayfield that just earned a big contract.

Agreed, except I don't think Buckner was an outlier. They did the same with Moore and Kelly, Doyle had a smaller bonus, etc. I think that's their preferred structure, and it was the backloaded structure they used later on that was the outlier. They've used the hybrid structure at various times over the years, but usually for shorter contracts. The other advantage of the frontloaded structure is that it gives the team greater flexibility to restructure in the future, if they want/need to. That's been rare with the Colts -- but they did restructure Buckner last year, and Ryan the year before. Compared to the backloaded structure, now if you restructure, you're making it even more backloaded, maybe need to use void years, etc. The frontloaded structure keeps more options on the table.

Yeah, I think the Rams made some flashy moves, but it gets exaggerated a little bit, especially when you look at how long some of those players stay on the roster. The Niners have kept their core together longer, mostly because they've a stable QB expense, then Garoppolo took a pay cut, and eventually he left. And last year, they played the rental game with Chase Young, only paid him $1m, and it cost them a 3rd rounder. And still, they got really good QB play this year.

I think the players who received the larger signing bonuses were all re-signed during a specific period in the Colts team building, when the cap situation was a little less flexible. They had to re-sign their 2018 draft class, and they were spending a lot of money on QBs (side point, but the Colts spent a lot of money on QBs between 2020 and 2022, despite no one sticking). Also, remember that the salary cap went down in 2021, and there was only a modest increase in 2022. So using the more typical signing bonus structure, they were able to have lower initial cap hits for those guys, while backloading higher cap hits -- particularly for Nelson, Leonard, and Smith. Nelson's cap hits went $10.2m, $12.2m, and in Year 3 goes up to $25.2m. Similar progression with the other two, with lower cap hits the first two years, and then a big increase in Year 3. Compare with Buckner's first three years: $23.4m, $17m, $16m. I think the Colts prefer the no/small signing bonus approach because it keeps the year cash outlay closer to the yearly cap figure, and that's a primary reason why the Colts are never in a salary cap pinch. They seem to only use larger signing bonuses when they have an immediate need for cap flexibility in the first couple years of a contract. For the player, it doesn't necessarily make a difference. His cash flow can be the same, and the team can use staggered/rolling guarantees to give the player some future security. The contracts for Taylor, Pittman, Moore, Franklin, Stewart, are kind of a hybrid between the two. They have signing bonuses, but not too big. However, the shorter length of these contracts makes it difficult to backload the cap hits even with the signing bonuses.

I didn't want to distract from the main point, but the other element was getting the HC right. The Rams had Goff as a rookie, he looked awful, they won four games. Then they hire McVay, suddenly Goff looks like an MVP candidate, and they win 11 games. And then, they got aggressive: traded a 5th for Talib; traded a 1st and 6th for Brandin Cooks and a 4th; signed Suh for one year, $14m. They went to the SB in 2018 and lost. And the following offseason, they got rid of those players. Traded Talib and a 5th to the Dolphins for a 7th; traded Cooks and a 4th to the Texans for a 2nd; and Suh went to the Bucs (after the draft, screwing the Rams out of what could have been a 4th round comp pick). There had been other players along the way -- Dante Fowler, Clay Matthews, etc. This is something that people don't pay attention to with those Rams -- they strategically dipped in and out of some of those bigger contracts, recouping some of their draft capital and freeing up cap space. I'd also push back on the idea that they were a legit contending team prior to 2021. They missed the playoffs in 2019, finished 2nd in the division in 2020 and lost in the divisional round, and then went back to the SB in 2021. They were basically a fringe playoff team those two years before they got Stafford, despite their aggression in other areas. They had laid a foundation as a solid team, but they weren't a legit contender every year. Pushing into that top tier is much harder than becoming a fringe playoff team. And winning the SB is another story. But I don't think that the way a team spends money -- whether free agency, trades, or retaining your own players -- has a meaningful correlation to overall success. What matters is the quality/production of the players on which you spend, which to a certain extent connects to the positions those players play.

Mostly agree. My point was just I think it's a red herring to focus on specific players who signed with other teams. I think the bigger point is that the Colts decided to spend their money to keep their core together, instead of restructuring the roster in a way that IMO better aligns with competing at the highest level.

To the bolded, I don't think that's true. They aggressively acquired two or three players, but most of their core was drafted or had been with the team for multiple seasons by 2021 -- Kupp, Donald, Whitworth (2017), Rapp, Higbee, Havenstein. In November 2021, they traded a 2nd and 3rd for Von Miller, paid him $722k for the remainder of the season, let him walk in free agency, and got back a 5th round comp pick. They signed OBJ for $1.25m (prorated) after he was waived by the Browns. And it didn't matter until they had the QB. For example, they got Ramsey in 2019, but they won the SB two seasons later, after the Stafford trade. I agree that it would be good to supplement the draft in other ways -- trades and free agency. But I think the correlation between winning and spending is overstated, especially after the Rams and Bucs won after being aggressive. And in both cases, they only had major success once they made significant upgrades at QB.

I think focusing in on specific players misses the point. Stone, Luvu, Huff, whoever... the Colts could have been in play for any of these guys, and got outbid by a million or two, or the player preferred to play in a different city, or has a connection to a position coach, or whatever. Free agency isn't grocery shopping, you can't just put a player in your shopping cart for a fixed price. For me, the bigger issue is -- and this has been my most used phrase for the last week -- resource allocation. I'm not frustrated because we didn't sign XYZ player in free agency. I think the Colts have doubled down on a roster structure that will struggle against premium competition, specifically by committing more money to defensive players who aren't good pass rushers and aren't good in pass coverage. I would have rather seen the Colts not sign any free agents and hold their cap space in reserve, than continue to pay guys who don't help the pass defense. It's not about whether or not they're spending money. It's about the way they're spending money, and what it indicates about the roster construction this year and moving forward.

Several other teams have gone crazy in free agency, with nothing to show for it. In fact, the Rams were trying to maximize a window and were aggressively spending for a couple years before they won. The big change was upgrading the QB position. They also didn't really spend in free agency. They traded premium draft picks for some big name players, and most times they rented that player for a season or two, and then traded the player away or let him walk in free agency. They traded for Jalen Ramsey, and then signed him to a new contract the following year. Still more aggressive than the Colts, but would qualify as 'keeping their own' more than 'spending in free agency.' And what gets missed is that the Rams spent less in cash and cap in 2021 -- the year they won the SB -- than they did in 2022 -- the year they went 5-12. Per Spotrac, cash spending in 2021 was $192m; cash spending in 2022 was $284m. Then they had to reset in 2023, and cash spending came back down to $183m, and they went 10-7. (There's a similar dynamic when you compare the 2020 Bucs with the 2021 Bucs.) So why do you correlate spending money with winning? I would argue there is no correlation. The Rams won the SB in the year they spent the least. If you want to say 'being aggressive can be a successful strategy,' I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but I would add that it only works if you have the right QB. I was going to chime in on this, because it's not that the Colts aren't spending money. As has been mentioned, they've spent plenty of money this offseason. I'm not thrilled about the way they've spent, so far, but to say they aren't spending money isn't true. If you compare the Colts' cash spending with pretty much any other team over any 3-4 year period, it's going to be about the same. But the Colts have been paying DT, LG, ILB, RT, RB, now a possession receiver, and at various points veteran QBs of varying quality that all turned out to be one year rentals (also a retired QB, a backup QB, and a cap penalty for Matt Ryan in 2023). Whereas other teams are paying dynamic WR, Edge, LT, CB, and mostly foundational QBs.

I think this is probably deserving of it's own thread, but I'll leave this initial response here. I'm happy to continue the conversation in another thread. There are a couple of pertinent details that I don't think you're considering. First, signing bonuses are due upon signing. They aren't necessarily paid upon signing. This article suggests signing bonuses can be paid over the course of 12-18 months. Some signing bonuses are paid in installments. So just because a player contract includes a $20m signing bonus doesn't mean the team is paying the player $20m the day he signs; the player might not receive that $20m for several months, a year, or longer. The pay dates for signing bonuses are almost never reported. Second, a more comprehensive look at the contracts you mentioned would include roster bonuses. For example, while Buckner's contract did not include a signing bonus, it did include an $11m roster bonus. Spotrac shows the roster bonus was due to be paid on 3/20/2020, which was four days after Buckner's contract was signed. For cash flow purposes, there isn't necessarily a difference. (Ryan Kelly, $10m roster bonus; Kenny Moore, $8m; Mo Alie-Cox, $5.1m.) Take a closer look at this. Buckner signed a four year extension for $84m, on top of his 5th year option, for a total value of five years, $96.4m. No signing bonus, but the $11m roster bonus, plus a base salary of $12.4m in 2020. The total cash paid to Buckner in the first year was $23.4m. The same day the Colts signed Buckner, the Niners signed Arik Armstead. His contract was five years, $85m, and included a $17.5m signing bonus (no details on the pay dates of the signing bonus). His base salary in 2020 was $2.5m. So the cash paid to Armstead in the first year was $20m, and that's assuming all of his signing bonus was paid out in 2020. In both cases, the Year 1 cash was about 24% of the total value of the contract. Another example from the same year: Myles Garrett signed for five years, $125m, and his signing bonus and salary totaled $22m, less than 18% of the total value. The previous year, Frank Clark signed with the Chiefs for five years, $104m, with a $19m signing bonus, and a salary + incentives of $1.3m, totaling $20.3m in Year 1 cash, less than 20% of the total value. There's also the funding rule, which requires that deferred money and fully guaranteed money is placed in escrow when the contract is signed, minus $15m. So if the Colts were offsetting lower signing bonuses with a higher percentage of guaranteed money, they would still need to fund the guaranteed money upfront. So there's really no cash flow benefit to the team; in fact, it would potentially cost the team more to fund the larger guarantees. All of this put together, I don't think that the Colts are avoiding signing bonuses for cash flow reasons. I'm sure Irsay doesn't have the cash flow of the Rams or Broncos, etc., but I don't think the Colts are using contract structure to help cash flow.

And apparently he was still wrong. Colts probably had discussions days ago, and then moved on. Which is fine.

You seem really invested in Destin.

Assuming nothing happens, I think the final offer phase was probably several days ago, and everything else has been theatre. And that sounds like Ballard's MO. If something does happen, then it sounds like they've been crossing Ts and dotting Is for a few days. And that sounds a little messy for Ballard.

Was anyone actually claiming that Destin made things up? Your claim is that Ballard is using Holder. What if Sneed's agents are using Destin, and others?

Yes.

Did you consider the possibility that Destin has the same source as Russini, and they were both given the same information? If I'm questioning the validity of Destin's info, or the motive of the person offering the info, hearing the same thing from another person doesn't really change anything.

There's no reason a player can't complete a physical with the expected new team before the trade is official. I don't think it's common, but it can be done if both teams and the player agree.

I was just looking at that. They traded Pickett, a 2024 4th, and two 2025 7ths, for a 2024 3rd. Pickett's 2024 salary is about $1.9m. Then they traded a 2025 6th, which can wind up being a 4th, for Fields. His 2024 salary is $3.3m in 2024. We'll see what they do about the 5th year option. And they signed Wilson for minimum. I think he's cooked, but the price is right, and he's better than Pickett or Trubisky. I also think Fields is limited, but he's better than Pickett or Trubisky. They basically revamped their QB room and added a lot of upside, and moved up in this year's draft. And the net cost seems to be two 7th rounders, at worst. Good job, Steelers.

Yup. Even the JT contract, lots of speculation, but nobody had the inside track on that. It went from complete stalemate, to weird JT press conference, to new contract, basically overnight. At this point, I think the Colts looked into it, didn't like the price, and moved on. And it's in Sneed's best interest for his reps to keep portraying the Colts as still being in the mix. I obviously don't know anything, but that's how I see it.

He might not last, but there will probably be a couple of really good prospects still on the board at #15 that we didn't anticipate. That's why I'm personally not going to get too attached to any particular draft strategy.

I think he's a good player, and that's his market. But I don't see the Colts doing this. I think the reports are exaggerated, at best, to get other bidders to get serious and make a good offer. The reasons why: 1) Part of the attractiveness of a zone heavy defense is that you can find scheme fit corners on a lower price tier. This is how Ballard has handled the position since 2018. 2) I don't think Sneed's ability as a good coverage corner would be put to good use in the Colts defense, not as long as Gus Bradley is the DC. 3) Ballard does not like to trade away draft picks, even for veteran players; the only times he's done so was for a trench player -- his absolute fave -- and a QB. 4) Ballard's front office doesn't leak, partly because they don't get involved in protracted negotiations. The Buckner deal happened before anyone realized it was in the works, and was in place before the league year started. The Wentz deal was more obvious, the winds were blowing in that direction, but again, that was for a QB, and again, it was done before the league year started. The proactive nature of those deals prevented Ballard from being subjected to a bidding war. Speaking of... 5) Ballard doesn't do bidding wars. That's why being in the mix for a tagged player in the first place doesn't make sense. 6) The Colts have used most of their 2024 cap space already, so a big contract for Sneed would likely need to be backloaded. We also might need to restructure or extend guys like Buckner, Nelson, etc., to make it work. And those are also things that Ballard doesn't like to do. For those reasons, and probably others, this would be the single greatest departure from Ballard's mode of operation in eight years. So it's hard for me to see Ballard trading probably a 2nd+5th round pick, AND agreeing to a multi-year contract north of $22m/year, for a cornerback. Personally, I would welcome it. And I would cross my fingers and hope that it signals some adjustments in our approach to defensive coverage. But I sincerely do not think it's going to happen.

Live footage of Zach Wilson:

Taliese Fuaga is pretty good...