Is Manning Coming Back?

[deedub75]

Hmmm strange, didn't know you can sue for damages unless damages are sufferred, which no player under a current contract negotiated under the terms of a cba, can demonstrate. Also, how can the suit be about a cba when the union is decertified and thus, the NFLPA cannot negotiate a cba? Of course, it's all a sham really, but whatever. I'm not going to get into an argument about "legal standing".

I agree with you 100%. One of the elements of breach of contract would be damages being suffered by the plaintiff. I think this whole lawsuit should be dropped. These 10 named plaintiffs are really being selfish. They are holding up the whole process for 1800 people. Really selfish IMO.

[Superman]

I agree with you 100%. One of the elements of breach of contract would be damages being suffered by the plaintiff. I think this whole lawsuit should be dropped. These 10 named plaintiffs are really being selfish. They are holding up the whole process for 1800 people. Really selfish IMO.

They're not holding anything up. The lawsuit must be settled, and that's what's happening as we speak. It's just a formality.

Also, you're acting like these ten guys are sitting in the office right now holding all the pens behind their back, until they get what they want. It's just red tape.

[jskinnz]

It's unclear whether that's true or not. There have been some reports that put the Colts up against the cap, and others that show them with tens of millions in cap space.

Clayton was just on ESPN and he said the Colts were approx $2.7 under the cap. Also stated that they needed to get Manning done long term to do their other business. In other news, water has been reported as being wet.

[everybodysgotone]

Settlements in no way establish precedent. In every case, they are reached merely in consideration of potential outcome if taken to ruling/verdict (rolling the dice) and/or various cost offsets associated with protracted litigation. Personal reasons (untangibles such as absolution, vindication, etc.) can also figure in. Many of the reasons for settling the subject matters are exacerbated by the uncharted legal waters and certainly even more so in connection with the rapidly approaching start of the pending NFL season. Clearly, some of the plaintiff's (especially Mankins considering his malcontent with his team) are nothing more than common opportunists.....a low, cowardly post. The APP court has already indicated which side it will come down on in this dispute (no surpise) and I believe if the owners wished to press matters and all of it wound up with the SC, the high court would also favor the NFL. But the bottom line is settlment is worthwile to the owners as long as they are getting what they need to maintain the league as we know it into future years while satisfying the fan base. That's where the value is.

No matter how you look at it, it's a legal and political bonanza. If all of the plaintiffs were on the same page and simply wanted the suit to go away (without being compensated) in order to move forward quicker, a voluntary dismissal could be filed. Since there's no consensus (and never will be), individual settlement demands may in fact be correctly viewed as greed and holding back other parties to the suit and/or or players in the league who are not party to the action. Some of it is for individual gain (Mankins) and some of it is geared toward framing the CBA (Brees). As far as Manning is concerned, it could be both. Frankly, if Manning is gonna require more than the 35M he got in year one of his 100M deal.....I view it as an anvil around the team's neck. If he truly cares more about winning and loyalty than maxing out his paycheck, he'll stay with the Colts and not incapacitate the team. If he is going to incapacitate the team I say let him walk to the highest bidder. A lot of talent could be bought for 35M front-loaded.

[Superman]

Clayton was just on ESPN and he said the Colts were approx $2.7 under the cap. Also stated that they needed to get Manning done long term to do their other business. In other news, water has been reported as being wet.

John Clayton has said that many times, but what cap figures is that based off of? Nothing I've seen that breaks down the Colts cap obligations totals anywhere near that high. Clayton isn't above second-guessing.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/yearly/

[Superman]

Settlements in no way establish precedent. In every case, they are reached merely in consideration of potential outcome if taken to ruling/verdict (rolling the dice) and/or various cost offsets associated with protracted litigation. Personal reasons (untangibles such as absolution, vindication, etc.) can also figure in. Many of the reasons for settling the subject matters are exacerbated by the uncharted legal waters and certainly even more so in connection with the rapidly approaching start of the pending NFL season. Clearly, some of the plaintiff's (especially Mankins considering his malcontent with his team) are nothing more than common opportunists.....a low, cowardly post. The APP court has already indicated which side it will come down on in this dispute (no surpise) and I believe if the owners wished to press matters and all of it wound up with the SC, the high court would also favor the NFL. But the bottom line is settlment is worthwile to the owners as long as they are getting what they need to maintain the league as we know it into future years while satisfying the fan base. That's where the value is.

No matter how you look at it, it's a legal and political bonanza. If all of the plaintiffs were on the same page and simply wanted the suit to go away (without being compensated) in order to move forward quicker, a voluntary dismissal could be filed. Since there's no consensus (and never will be), individual settlement demands may in fact be correctly viewed as greed and holding back other parties to the suit and/or or players in the league who are not party to the action. Some of it is for individual gain (Mankins) and some of it is geared toward framing the CBA (Brees). As far as Manning is concerned, it could be both. Frankly, if Manning is gonna require more than the 35M he got in year one of his 100M deal.....I view it as an anvil around the team's neck. If he truly cares more about winning and loyalty than maxing out his paycheck, he'll stay with the Colts and not incapacitate the team. If he is going to incapacitate the team I say let him walk to the highest bidder. A lot of talent could be bought for 35M front-loaded.

Manning's $35 million cap hit was the result of him restructuring his deal so as to provide cap flexibility for the team. Depending on what the CBA looks like any the front-loaded rules, and what our payroll actually is this year, it might be smart to drastically front-load his deal so as to provide flexibility in the future. It might also result in Manning have a relatively low cap hit as a 39 year old, making it easier for us to add talent around him.

[everybodysgotone]

Manning's $35 million cap hit was the result of him restructuring his deal so as to provide cap flexibility for the team. Depending on what the CBA looks like any the front-loaded rules, and what our payroll actually is this year, it might be smart to drastically front-load his deal so as to provide flexibility in the future. It might also result in Manning have a relatively low cap hit as a 39 year old, making it easier for us to add talent around him.

I'm aware of his old deal's structure & reasoning. Matter of fact, on the old board I said his new deal might look very similar in both dollar amount and framework. Question is.....with all these what-ifs & maybes floating around in the here-and-now, is it doable while remaining competitive. We'll see.

[Superman]

I'm aware of his old deal's structure & reasoning. Matter of fact, on the old board I said his new deal might look very similar in both dollar amount and framework. Question is.....with all these what-ifs & maybes floating around in the here-and-now, is it doable while remaining competitive. We'll see.

I'm just pointing out that it wasn't due to his contract demands that he wound up with a cap-strangling $35 million hit in one season, and it's not like he's asking for $35 million this time either. The $35 million was totally irrelevant to the topic, but if we can structure his contract to be insanely front-loaded, it might be the best way to do it.

[Peyton and Eli fan]

Just tweeted

Chris Mortensen

"Tom Condon, agent for Brees and Manning: Drew and Peyton haven't asked for anything individually and continue to be 100 percent behind the players' efforts to resolve the negotiations."

Also, Brees has tweeted that reports are false that they are asking for something. Manning doesn't tweet.

[jskinnz]

John Clayton has said that many times, but what cap figures is that based off of? Nothing I've seen that breaks down the Colts cap obligations totals anywhere near that high. Clayton isn't above second-guessing.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/yearly/

Just telling you what I saw not five minutes before I read your post.

Not saying that he isn't above second guessing but I would think that a senior reporter from ESPN has some pretty solid information.

[Superman]

Just telling you what I saw not five minutes before I read your post.

Not saying that he isn't above second guessing but I would think that a senior reporter from ESPN has some pretty solid information.

I would, too. He's usually at least in the ball park, which I why I'm wondering what's missing here. Every source I see with actual cap figures shows us with about $55 million committed, plus Manning's tag and the RFA tenders. I just don't see how that could possibly add up to almost $120 million. I'm looking for some sort of meaningful corroboration one way or the other, but I guess I'll just have to wait.

[shakedownstreet]

Manning doesn't tweet.

lol

[everybodysgotone]

I'm just pointing out that it wasn't due to his contract demands that he wound up with a cap-strangling $35 million hit in one season, and it's not like he's asking for $35 million this time either. The $35 million was totally irrelevant to the topic, but if we can structure his contract to be insanely front-loaded, it might be the best way to do it.

Actually, 35M or 45M frontloaded on another 100M+ deal might not be that far off considering Irsay's desire to make him the highest paid player. Could be even more. Brady has said he wants to play until age 40 and if Manning's deal takes him to age 40....another deal for Brady (that could be worth more than Manning's) after his current contract expires would be setting the bar pretty high on Irsay's part. I think that's completely within the framework of Irsay's thoughts and is part of what he wants to accomplish because he's all about building legacy and not being outdone (Sanders paid more than Polamolu at the time, Freeney richest D contract in history at the time). And we haven't even seen what a Manning on the FA market would look like. So....would it be worth it to have 1/3 or more of a salary cap going toward Manning under the circumstances? We'll see how it pans out. I want the guy to be a Colt but not if it means mortgaging even more than what has been done in the past. I'd think the team has about maxed out the QB debit card. There isn't another team in the league that's worked a bigger have/have nots gap than the Colts....yet others have had more success when it counts - postseason.

[Susie Q]

Just tweeted

Chris Mortensen

"Tom Condon, agent for Brees and Manning: Drew and Peyton haven't asked for anything individually and continue to be 100 percent behind the players' efforts to resolve the negotiations."

Also, Brees has tweeted that reports are false that they are asking for something. Manning doesn't tweet.

I also believe Brees tweet and think that the media is testing the waters with all this. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. I personally don't see Peyton going anywhere. :FBundecided:

[everybodysgotone]

I don't want to see Manning leave, and don't expect that to happen. Love the guy. But.....if it came down to it I'd rather see another TEAM shot being taken like the PITT AFC title game (Harbaugh/Marchibroda) than I would a potentially less balanced and/or more financially handicapped Manning lead team going one & out.

[21isSuperman]

I can't see Peyton playing for any team other than the Colts. I think he retires a Colt.

[Superman]

Actually, 35M or 45M frontloaded on another 100M+ deal might not be that far off considering Irsay's desire to make him the highest paid player. Could be even more. Brady has said he wants to play until age 40 and if Manning's deal takes him to age 40....another deal for Brady (that could be worth more than Manning's) after his current contract expires would be setting the bar pretty high on Irsay's part. I think that's completely within the framework of Irsay's thoughts and is part of what he wants to accomplish because he's all about building legacy and not being outdone (Sanders paid more than Polamolu at the time, Freeney richest D contract in history at the time). And we haven't even seen what a Manning on the FA market would look like. So....would it be worth it to have 1/3 or more of a salary cap going toward Manning under the circumstances? We'll see how it pans out. I want the guy to be a Colt but not if it means mortgaging even more than what has been done in the past. I'd think the team has about maxed out the QB debit card. There isn't another team in the league that's worked a bigger have/have nots gap than the Colts....yet others have had more success when it counts - postseason.

I think the team we have now, if healthy, is good enough to contend for the next couple of seasons. If he did five years, $100 million, and $65 million was paid in the next two seasons, he could have a cap hit of about $12 million for the final three years of his deal. That way, when he's actually slowing down and not able to throw for 4500 yards every season and keep us at the top of the division with the rest of the team in the sick bay, we have the flexibility to pay other players to carry more of the load.

Again, there are CBA and cap considerations that I can't wrap my head around yet, so I don't know what we're going to be looking at, or what will even be possible.

[everybodysgotone]

I think the team we have now, if healthy, is good enough to contend for the next couple of seasons. If he did five years, $100 million, and $65 million was paid in the next two seasons, he could have a cap hit of about $12 million for the final three years of his deal. That way, when he's actually slowing down and not able to throw for 4500 yards every season and keep us at the top of the division with the rest of the team in the sick bay, we have the flexibility to pay other players to carry more of the load.

Again, there are CBA and cap considerations that I can't wrap my head around yet, so I don't know what we're going to be looking at, or what will even be possible.

The Colts are going to continue to build around Manning. Of course. Yes, we have a SB title during the Manning era which is awesome, and I think we could possibly have a couple more shots at the yellow cake before he retires....but considering what his salary will be it's going to take even more shrewd front office decisions than years past to make it happen. It's certainly not gonna make it any easier.

The reglar season wins have been great....but with a sub .500 postseason record under the current Colts success formula while other dominant teams have fared much better in the playoffs and in terms of winning titles (while not mortgaging so much for one player)....the proof is in the method/results. Period. The results are in - we can do it but probability is lower than other more balanced teams. A lot of that has to do with money, which also dictates approach. But whatever. We get what we get. I just hope there are enough pieces to pull it off instead of seeing more of what we're accustomed to when the games count most. This offseason has been encouraging, I can definitely say that. Attention to the trenches and addition of Delone Carter + healthy starters will hopefuly help in 3rd & shorts which has been one of our biggest needs areas.

[Superman]

The Colts are going to continue to build around Manning. Of course. Yes, we have a SB title during the Manning era which is awesome, and I think we could possibly have a couple more shots at the yellow cake before he retires....but considering what his salary will be it's going to take even more shrewd front office decisions than years past to make it happen. It's certainly not gonna make it any easier.

The reglar season wins have been great....but with a sub .500 postseason record under the current Colts success formula while other dominant teams have fared much better in the playoffs and in terms of winning titles (while not mortgaging so much for one player)....the proof is in the method/results. Period. The results are in - we can do it but probability is lower than other more balanced teams. A lot of that has to do with money, which also dictates approach. But whatever. We get what we get. I just hope there are enough pieces to pull it off instead of seeing more of what we're accustomed to when the games count most. This offseason has been encouraging, I can definitely say that. Attention to the trenches and addition of Delone Carter + healthy starters will hopefuly help in 3rd & shorts which has been one of our biggest needs areas.

I don't see very many teams doing more in the playoffs than us. I don't like our postseason record since 2003 either (I'm not concerned with too much before that year, as we weren't really in contention yet), but we've been in the playoffs every year since then, which is something no other team in the NFL can say. Not even teams with great quarterbacks, or with great defenses, or with a combination of both. Only two teams have had more postseason success than the Colts in those years, and one of them hasn't won a title since 2004, while the other has missed the playoffs three times in that span. People talk like the Colts have been a massive failure in the playoffs, and again, I'm not content with what has been accomplished, but I appreciate where they are in the hierarchy over the past decade. Could and should be better, but it's not the worst set of playoff accomplishments I've seen from a good team.

Also, if you compare what the Colts have done to support Manning, compared to what the Patriots have done to support Brady, the difference is clear: Even though Manning has been paid way more than Brady, the Colts have paid their other top players with much more consistency than the Patriots have. We retain our own guys, for better or worse, while the Patriots let players walk or trade them for draft picks. Brady took less money, restructured his deal for the good of the team, and the Pats still didn't pay auxiliary players to come or to stay. It wasn't until he made a fuss after the 2006 season about them getting rid of his BFF Deion Branch that they made significant moves to give him some top notch receivers, and they still didn't spend significant money doing that.

I bring this up to challenge the theory that these other so-called "more balanced" and more successful teams than the Colts are that way by virtue of the fact that they've spent less on their quarterbacks. I don't believe that, nor has our team traditionally been hamstrung by Manning's high cap hit. If you want to point to the Polian Philosophy and his allergy to free agents, then that's one thing, but I think it's overly simplistic to say that the Colts can't afford to surround Manning with premium talent because of how much money he makes.

And I'll conclude by saying that I'd love to see him sign a five year, $40 million contract, and then see us take off and sign a couple three blue chip players to address our thin spots. But I don't think he should, and I'd bet my left pinky (my scratching finger) that he won't.

[everybodysgotone]

I don't see very many teams doing more in the playoffs than us. I don't like our postseason record since 2003 either (I'm not concerned with too much before that year, as we weren't really in contention yet), but we've been in the playoffs every year since then, which is something no other team in the NFL can say. Not even teams with great quarterbacks, or with great defenses, or with a combination of both. Only two teams have had more postseason success than the Colts in those years, and one of them hasn't won a title since 2004, while the other has missed the playoffs three times in that span. People talk like the Colts have been a massive failure in the playoffs, and again, I'm not content with what has been accomplished, but I appreciate where they are in the hierarchy over the past decade. Could and should be better, but it's not the worst set of playoff accomplishments I've seen from a good team.

Also, if you compare what the Colts have done to support Manning, compared to what the Patriots have done to support Brady, the difference is clear: Even though Manning has been paid way more than Brady, the Colts have paid their other top players with much more consistency than the Patriots have. We retain our own guys, for better or worse, while the Patriots let players walk or trade them for draft picks. Brady took less money, restructured his deal for the good of the team, and the Pats still didn't pay auxiliary players to come or to stay. It wasn't until he made a fuss after the 2006 season about them getting rid of his BFF Deion Branch that they made significant moves to give him some top notch receivers, and they still didn't spend significant money doing that.

I bring this up to challenge the theory that these other so-called "more balanced" and more successful teams than the Colts are that way by virtue of the fact that they've spent less on their quarterbacks. I don't believe that, nor has our team traditionally been hamstrung by Manning's high cap hit. If you want to point to the Polian Philosophy and his allergy to free agents, then that's one thing, but I think it's overly simplistic to say that the Colts can't afford to surround Manning with premium talent because of how much money he makes.

And I'll conclude by saying that I'd love to see him sign a five year, $40 million contract, and then see us take off and sign a couple three blue chip players to address our thin spots. But I don't think he should, and I'd bet my left pinky (my scratching finger) that he won't.

Over history, other dominant teams have better postseason records than us. It's that simple. That's what counts most in the W column. Search for the guilty, etc. could go on indefinitely and opinions vary....but we live & die with Peyton Manning by a landslide margin. Looking back over his era it's not very often we've been able to say we could fall back on an unbreakable D or rolling run game to get it done. That's just how things are. That's Colt M.O. When our formula for a win works it looks awesome, but the best teams have gotten the better of us when all the chips are on the table. That's an historic fact.

But....what you said here ^ brings us full circle to the Colt way, which transcends conventional NFL wisdom. That's one thing you'll never hear me complain about & the reason I've been a diehard fan all these years, most particularly after Jim Irsay took over. The Colts do things right when it comes to honorable actions. I'll take that every day of the week over other situations. Just part of the way I derive satisfaction.

[Peyton and Eli fan]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since Peyton isn't under contract does that make him currently a free agent? Or does that franchise tag stick and he's not? Just saw that FAs can't sign until Friday and can't join team until 8/4.

[Superman]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since Peyton isn't under contract does that make him currently a free agent? Or does that franchise tag stick and he's not? Just saw that FAs can't sign until Friday and can't join team until 8/4.

The franchise tag stays in full effect, so Manning is officially NOT a free agent. He hasn't signed the franchise tender, as far as I know, but he can't sign with anyone else either.

[Peyton and Eli fan]

Thanks! If I'm understanding, Peyton could sign his contract at any point starting tomorrow and doesn't have to wait until Friday.

[21isSuperman]

I think you're right, he can sign a new deal at any point now since the CBA is done. I'm guessing the Polians already have most of the deal figured out, just need to work out some details to fit the CBA