Okay, Maybe This Has Been Covered and I just Missed It but...

[Bill from Schoolhouse Rock]

I have been away from the board for a while. Ever since Grigson traded the second round pick to upgrade the cornerback position I have been trying to remember...

1) Won't the Colts get a compensatory pick for Garcon?

2) If they do isn't it based on the offer they tendered to him?

3) If so, does anyone know where the offer he refused would slate the pick?

I was wondering if the front office was a little more willing to deal the number two pick knowing they had a decent compensatory pick waiting in the wings.

I know, a little "out of the box" for cut down day and this topic may have been discussed at the time of the trade but this has been gnawing at me ever since the trade went down.

Thanks for any info

[Jackie Daytona]

Dunno, it's a weird formula including who you lose, who you sign, size of their respective deals, and the production they put up this year...... no one knows exactly how compensatory picks are determined.

[21isSuperman]

It's based on his performance this year, I believe. It's some complicated formula that takes into account the players you lost and how they performed as well as the players you picked up and how they performed.

[FireJimCaldwell]

There is an unpublished formula.

So the compensation will depend on the net gain/loss among other things.The highest it can be is a 3, so it's not likely they traded a 2 in hopes receiving a 2 for Garcon.

At first glance I would say Garcon might garner a 3, but more likely would be a 4.

This past season Asomugha resulted in a 3 for Oakland.

[Bill from Schoolhouse Rock]

This is great info...thanks to you all. The prospect of a 3 or a 4 helps the outlook a little anyway doesn't it?

[StewieG]

This is great info...thanks to you all. The prospect of a 3 or a 4 helps the outlook a little anyway doesn't it?

It gives us another pick, which we need because we don't have a whole lot this draft.

[FireJimCaldwell]

This is great info...thanks to you all. The prospect of a 3 or a 4 helps the outlook a little anyway doesn't it?

It does, but it could come down to the net loss/gain.

Lost

Saturday

Tamme

Pollack

Garcon

Painter

Gonzalez? Does he even count at this point since he was cut?

Manning/Clark/Addai/Brackett/Bullitt aren't included in the equation.

Gains:

Redding

Zbikowski

Avery

Mckinney

McGlynn

Satele.

Any others?

[lollygagger8]

It does, but it could come down to the net loss/gain.

Lost

Saturday

Tamme

Pollack

Garcon

Painter

Gonzalez? Does he even count at this point since he was cut?

Manning/Clark/Addai/Brackett/Bullitt aren't included in the equation.

Gains:

Redding

Zbikowski

Avery

Mckinney

McGlynn

Satele.

Any others?

I wouldn't consider Painter not being here a "loss". I'd put that in the "gain" column.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I wouldn't consider Painter not being here a "loss". I'd put that in the "gain" column.

In theory you are 10∞% correct

[GAColt]

Since it is a net loss/gain, I doubt we get much, maybe a late round.

[ztboiler]

It does, but it could come down to the net loss/gain.

Lost

Saturday

Tamme

Pollack

Garcon

Painter

Gonzalez? Does he even count at this point since he was cut?

Manning/Clark/Addai/Brackett/Bullitt aren't included in the equation.

Gains:

Redding

Zbikowski

Avery

Mckinney

McGlynn

Satele.

Any others?

You'd think Satele would nearly offset Saturday and Redding offsets Tamme. Garcon is the only other loss or signing of consequence - so you'd think that all potential compensation hinges on how he runs through the formula. Zbikowski is noticeably over minimum contract, but still a small signing, and you have to wonder how much of a factor the smaller contracts are.

[FireJimCaldwell]

You'd think Satele would nearly offset Saturday and Redding offsets Tamme. Garcon is the only other loss or signing of consequence - so you'd think that all potential compensation hinges on how he runs through the formula. Zbikowski is noticeably over minimum contract, but still a small signing, and you have to wonder how much of a factor the smaller contracts are.

5 signings and 5 players leaving via free agency = There isn't a net change.

So there would have to be a net loss for the equation to even come into play. That's my take on it. I think I read somewhere that players signed to minimal deals aren't included.

[Hans Moleman]

We may get something back because the teams signing our guys spent a lot more than we spent on our FA's. I don't know the exact formula, but if we're expecting to get a comp pick or two, it could explain why we've been dealing our lower picks like we have.

[ztboiler]

5 signings and 5 players leaving via free agency = There isn't a net change.

So there would have to be a net loss for the equation to even come into play. That's my take on it. I think I read somewhere that players signed to minimal deals aren't included.

Squarely on Garcon then.