Hassleback's cap number is 3mil this yr?

[Superman]

 

I find it a little funny many of our fans think all of our signings are all low risk and good value, but all of the other teams overpay for all of their signing.   ;)

 

Just for some perspective:

 

Pending details on base salaries for Toler and Landry in 2014, and pending draft pick signings and additional free agent signings, the Colts have a total cap number of $82m in 2014.  If the cap stays at $123m, the team would have about $41m in cap space.

 

Other 2012 playoff teams that don't have top five paid quarterbacks:

Texans have a projected 2014 cap number of $106m, projecting $17m in cap space.

Falcons have a projected 2014 cap number of $95m, projecting $28m in cap space.

Packers have a projected 2014 cap number of $84m, projecting $39m in cap space.

Vikings have a projected 2014 cap number of $98m, projecting $25m in cap space.

Niners have a projected 2014 cap number of $97m, projecting $26m in cap space.

Redskins have a projected 2014 cap number of $87m, projecting $36m in cap space.

 

All these numbers are from Spotrac. All are somewhat incomplete, pending further details on existing contracts, and excluding any future contracts from the draft, free agency, or extensions for players still under contract. They can all change.

 

But it shows that we're as prudent as -- if not more prudent than -- any other team in the NFL when it comes to the structure of our contracts, at least in the immediate future. Even a team that doesn't do free agency very much, the Packers, have slightly less projected cap space than the Colts.

 

The point is that, even if you think certain players are overpaid -- Hasselbeck, Toler, Walden, RJF, Cherilus, whoever -- those contracts aren't going to hurt the team moving forward. Even if you think we paid twice as much for those players as we should have, and even if you're convinced those players won't work out moving forward, we're still not in cap trouble due to any of them.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Yes, most of my observation comments about FS signings are taken from many posts in general overall, and not specific to any individual(s).

 

I just compare this (Hasselbeck / Campbell) to getting a nice set of wheels, then later seeing someone else get one as nice or possibly newer and nicer and found out they paid less than I did.  And I also had a chance to get same vehicle/price.  We both might have plenty still left in the bank after all is said and done, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the whole ordeal.  You just accept it move on and hope it works out in the end.

 

Quoted- "Even if you think we paid twice as much for those players as we should have, and even if you're convinced those players won't work out moving forward, we're still not in cap trouble due to any of them."

 

True, but if it doesn't work out, it casts doubt on the FO ability to assess talent/pay  balance and put together a good team with depth on the field, whether financially prudent or not.  But at least those guys will get a chance to hit the field and earn their contracts.  There's a great chance MH won't. And if he does, I don't think he may be dwindling in the talent area each passing month and hit(s) from the D.

[Stephen]

campbell is a terrible qb he was captain check down when he came in for cutler last year if he was looking down the field he might have seen a couple wide open receivers. hasselbeck is much better

[Superman]

Yes, most of my observation comments about FS signings are taken from many posts in general overall, and not specific to any individual(s).

 

I just compare this (Hasselbeck / Campbell) to getting a nice set of wheels, then later seeing someone else get one as nice or possibly newer and nicer and found out they paid less than I did.  And I also had a chance to get same vehicle/price.  We both might have plenty still left in the bank after all is said and done, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the whole ordeal.  You just accept it move on and hope it works out in the end.

 

That's actually happened to me before. Matter of fact, I think it happens every time I get a new car. It sucks. Like you said, you have to just accept that you got what you wanted and that you're happy with your terms. And I usually am; it's not like I get robbed when I make a purchase.

 

But there's a big difference between buying a car and signing a backup quarterback. First, it's much harder to judge the worth of one guy relative to another, as compared to judging two cars, where the metrics are mostly spelled out. Secondly, assuming Luck plays every snap like last year, there are intangibles that add value. It's not like comparing the lease terms on your 5 Series to the lease terms on my A6.

 

Quoted- "Even if you think we paid twice as much for those players as we should have, and even if you're convinced those players won't work out moving forward, we're still not in cap trouble due to any of them."

 

True, but if it doesn't work out, it casts doubt on the FO ability to assess talent/pay  balance and put together a good team with depth on the field, whether financially prudent or not.  But at least those guys will get a chance to hit the field and earn their contracts.  There's a great chance MH won't. And if he does, I don't think he may be dwindling in the talent area each passing month and hit(s) from the D.

 

I'm willing to assume three things about our decisions makers: 1) They don't want Matt Hasselbeck to play any meaningful snaps for this team, ever; 2) they think his intangibles off the field can help Luck develop; 3) they believe that he gives us a solid chance to win if he is pressed into service.

 

Those things all line up to justify the signing, in my mind. I think $3-4m for a veteran backup quarterback is reasonable, if slightly above average. So the only real criticism is that Hasselbeck is basically a glorified QB coach, probably making more than any coach on the team, including Pagano. And I get that. If you're saying "he's never going to play, and he's getting paid more than most backup quarterbacks," then it's more about his value to our team specifically. I think I'm just looking at it from a different angle.

[ColtsBlueFL]

That's actually happened to me before. Matter of fact, I think it happens every time I get a new car. It sucks. Like you said, you have to just accept that you got what you wanted and that you're happy with your terms. And I usually am; it's not like I get robbed when I make a purchase.

 

But there's a big difference between buying a car and signing a backup quarterback. First, it's much harder to judge the worth of one guy relative to another, as compared to judging two cars, where the metrics are mostly spelled out. Secondly, assuming Luck plays every snap like last year, there are intangibles that add value. It's not like comparing the lease terms on your 5 Series to the lease terms on my A6.

 

True

I'm willing to assume three things about our decisions makers: 1) They don't want Matt Hasselbeck to play any meaningful snaps for this team, ever; 2) they think his intangibles off the field can help Luck develop; 3) they believe that he gives us a solid chance to win if he is pressed into service.

 

Those things all line up to justify the signing, in my mind. I think $3-4m for a veteran backup quarterback is reasonable, if slightly above average. So the only real criticism is that Hasselbeck is basically a glorified QB coach, probably making more than any coach on the team, including Pagano. And I get that. If you're saying "he's never going to play, and he's getting paid more than most backup quarterbacks," then it's more about his value to our team specifically. I think I'm just looking at it from a different angle.

 

I'm coming to grips with it.  I am hoping he doesn't see the field and it was worth either the 5 million (this year) or 8 million (over 2). It'd done, it is what it is.  We move on and hope MH mentoring works.