IndyStar looks at the Colts $140M off-season spending spree.....

[NewColtsFan]

....  and analyzes the risks of all our spending....    we've talked about this before,  but it's the latest and longest look at our commitment to getting better this year....

 

Lots of interesting quotes....

 

Think you'll find it interesting....   

 

Enjoy!    

 

 

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130726/SPORTS03/307260066/Colts-140-million-free-agency-spending-spree-new-risky-team-building-approach-franchise

[CR91]

you can only do so much through the draft. I honestly think this could be the best defense we've had ever on paper

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Ehh not a lot of meat on the bone. Which is typical for the author. Still and all an okay read.

[GoColts8818]

The Colts went for guys who fill roles for them.  With that said I don't expect them all to work out there are probably going to be a couple of misses in there.  However, it's my understanding Grigson set up most of the contracts so that most are really two year deals that the Colts can then cut the guy if they want to and not take a huge cap hit to do so.  He had to spend a little more upfront to do that but all and all he gave himself an out if he needs it. 

[21isSuperman]

"The expectation is for Grigson to take a more conservative approach to free agency once he has stabilized the roster. Remember, he’s a former scout who trusts the evaluation process, and being able to develop his own players."

 

Good.  I prefer that.  I think Polian's approach was too conservative, but I also don't like trying to fill out all the holes with free agents.  You need guys to play with each other for some time to develop the chemistry.  There should be a good balance of the two.  I think most of your core players should come from the draft, then use free agency to add complementary pieces to fill the holes.  However, if the article is correct and Grigs is only doing this to stabilize the roster and get the core in place for the next few years and then become less aggressive in free agency, then I'm all for it.

 

In my opinion, the jury is still out on Grigson.  Many of his free agent signings last year didn't pan out (Zbi, Satele, etc.) and that's expected because no one is going to ace each signing.  And it's also easy to look good on offense when your QB is Andrew Luck, thus all the praise about guys like Hilton, Ballard, and Allen.  I think the jury is still out on him.

[stat2883]

just throwing this out there because I'm not overly familiar with the Colts' cap situation...but keep in mind that there is a pretty high salary floor they have to hit and a minimum amount of cash to be paid out. I would assume Grigson would like to build through the draft as well, but there are only so many draft picks and college free agents you can put on a roster before you have to spend some actual money. They'll continue to draft and the FAs they signed this year will either perform or be replaced when the time comes.

[Superman]

I'm happy with what Grigson did in free agency. He filled holes on the roster with good players. He didn't guarantee any money beyond this season. And rather than spending $35-40m on three or four guys, he addressed several spots and got us some depth at others. Several of the acquisitions were secondary free agency moves -- DHB, Bradshaw, Aubrayo, guys that only got one year deals later in the signing period. 

 

I don't think there's anything to worry about. Free agent spending doesn't guarantee you success, but if you have a roster that's as troubled as ours was, you're better off plugging those holes aggressively than trying to pull off another magical season. If the moves don't work, you can cut bait and hope that your drafting is producing some good second options. If RJF isn't a good signing, we still have Montori Hughes. If Donald Thomas isn't a good signing, we have Khaled Holmes and Hugh Thornton. And we still have plenty of cap space moving forward, so it's not like Grigson mortgaged the future for the present. I think we'll be fine.

[FastStarts]

I love what Grigs did this off-season. IMO you use FA to fill some of the gaps on the team, and the draft is for finding your playmaking superstars. 

 

My impression is that a lot of superstars switching to a different team, doesn't find the same success.

[TKnight24]

I think he did a good job last off-season. Sure we only got to see those guys play for one year, but they made the playoffs in that one year. For a rookie to make the playoffs is definitely a good thing as they now know what it feels like.

Free Agent signings were okay. Freeman & Redding were the best 2 pick ups.

Now let's just sit & watch what this year's draft & FA class bring to the table.

I think this FA class will top last year's. But this year's draft won't top last year's cause we took our franchise QB, TE's, & maybe WR (TY Hilton) in last year's draft. Imo

[stat2883]

But this year's draft won't top last year's cause we took our franchise QB, TE's, & maybe WR (TY Hilton) in last year's draft. Imo

...yeah that was a pretty good haul and I do like Hilton a lot myself. You'd have to draft Mike Singletary, Simeon Rice, and Albert Lewis or something on the defensive side to match the potential of what you grabbed last year on offense. ((key word being "potential"))

[MR. Blueblood]

"The expectation is for Grigson to take a more conservative approach to free agency once he has stabilized the roster. Remember, he’s a former scout who trusts the evaluation process, and being able to develop his own players."

 

Good.  I prefer that.  I think Polian's approach was too conservative, but I also don't like trying to fill out all the holes with free agents.  You need guys to play with each other for some time to develop the chemistry.  There should be a good balance of the two.  I think most of your core players should come from the draft, then use free agency to add complementary pieces to fill the holes.  However, if the article is correct and Grigs is only doing this to stabilize the roster and get the core in place for the next few years and then become less aggressive in free agency, then I'm all for it.

 

In my opinion, the jury is still out on Grigson.  Many of his free agent signings last year didn't pan out (Zbi, Satele, etc.) and that's expected because no one is going to ace each signing.  And it's also easy to look good on offense when your QB is Andrew Luck, thus all the praise about guys like Hilton, Ballard, and Allen.  I think the jury is still out on him.

We needed a Center and Satele was one of the better ones (if not one of the only ones) available last season to sign.  I don't think anybody wanted a rookie Center snapping to a rookie QB on an O-line that was downright pitiful at times.  Might not have been the best signing, but had to do what he had to do.  And I wonder how much of Zbi coming over was Pagano's influence and not just Grigson truly wanting the guy.  He was familiar with the defense, familiar with the coach, and I think most people thought he was going to be nothing more than a stop gap anyway.  He cut bait with him as soon as possible, no real big loss IMO.  While I'm not totally sold 100% on Grigson just yet, I'm definitely in the 90+%....it's hard to doubt a guy that is the reigning Exec of the Year.

[TKnight24]

^^^ I agree with blueblood. Zibs only came here cause of Pagano much like Redding. But Redding was way better than Zibs on field playing and as a vocal leader for defense. If Redding stays healthy all year this season, we could definitely see some much needed improvement on this defense

Redding the leader of the defensive line

Mathis leader of the LB core

And Bethea the leader of the secondary while Landry is the enforcer of the secondary

[Smonroe]

just throwing this out there because I'm not overly familiar with the Colts' cap situation...but keep in mind that there is a pretty high salary floor they have to hit and a minimum amount of cash to be paid out. I would assume Grigson would like to build through the draft as well, but there are only so many draft picks and college free agents you can put on a roster before you have to spend some actual money. They'll continue to draft and the FAs they signed this year will either perform or be replaced when the time comes.

Actually, that min/max is averaged over a number of years. Four, if I'm not mistaken. In effect, a team can stay way under the cap if they know they'll have a couple big contracts coming up. Capology is an art and a science.

I think Grigs did a great job, and value can only be determined by performance. That's why it irritated me when guys on the NFL Channel on Sirius said we overpaid. Heck, depending on how these guys fit into the system, we may have underpaid. No one is going to know until they play.

[CR91]

I doubt we will be doing much in fa next year other signing our own guys

[stat2883]

Actually, that min/max is averaged over a number of years. Four, if I'm not mistaken. In effect, a team can stay way under the cap if they know they'll have a couple big contracts coming up. Capology is an art and a science.

I think Grigs did a great job, and value can only be determined by performance. That's why it irritated me when guys on the NFL Channel on Sirius said we overpaid. Heck, depending on how these guys fit into the system, we may have underpaid. No one is going to know until they play.

oh yeah I know you can roll over unused cap space and all that stuff - I was just speculating that one of the reasons they might have gone that big was to meet the ceiling requirement. Even though you can roll over unused cap to an extent, you're still required to pay out a minimum amount of actual cash for the season, regardless of how it is reflected on the cap. At least that's my understanding. /shrug...dunno, you might be right

[dw49]

I'm happy with what Grigson did in free agency. He filled holes on the roster with good players. He didn't guarantee any money beyond this season. And rather than spending $35-40m on three or four guys, he addressed several spots and got us some depth at others. Several of the acquisitions were secondary free agency moves -- DHB, Bradshaw, Aubrayo, guys that only got one year deals later in the signing period. 

 

I don't think there's anything to worry about. Free agent spending doesn't guarantee you success, but if you have a roster that's as troubled as ours was, you're better off plugging those holes aggressively than trying to pull off another magical season. If the moves don't work, you can cut bait and hope that your drafting is producing some good second options. If RJF isn't a good signing, we still have Montori Hughes. If Donald Thomas isn't a good signing, we have Khaled Holmes and Hugh Thornton. And we still have plenty of cap space moving forward, so it's not like Grigson mortgaged the future for the present. I think we'll be fine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would agree with what you have and add to it , what were the options Grigson had ? He had tons of cap room , a horrible offensive line protecting a franchise QB and numerous other BAD holes. Is he supposed to just sit there and not try to get better ? I guess he could have extended Davis with some of the money but that's about all I can think of. IMO , this author has limited knowledge of how the cap and the NFL really works. It just was not that "risky" as he states. Other than Cherlius and Landry , there is hardly much risk going forward. 

 

Just anot

[Tark The Shark]

I feel like for the players we got, Grigs did a good job.

 

Not all of the guys this year will pan out. As long as more guys pan out well, then we can have a better season than last year.

[Superman]

Actually, that min/max is averaged over a number of years. Four, if I'm not mistaken. In effect, a team can stay way under the cap if they know they'll have a couple big contracts coming up. Capology is an art and a science.

 

 

oh yeah I know you can roll over unused cap space and all that stuff - I was just speculating that one of the reasons they might have gone that big was to meet the ceiling requirement. Even though you can roll over unused cap to an extent, you're still required to pay out a minimum amount of actual cash for the season, regardless of how it is reflected on the cap. At least that's my understanding. /shrug...dunno, you might be right

It's 89% of the cap in cash spending every year. Can't be rolled over year to year, but the penalty is that the team has to pay the difference to the players before September 15 of the next league year. As Irsay has made sure everyone knows, the Colts are well over the cap in cash spending for 2013. I'm not sure how far below that 89% the team was before free agency, but it's obvious that they weren't just spending to meet that threshold.

[stat2883]

It's 89% of the cap in cash spending every year. Can't be rolled over year to year, but the penalty is that the team has to pay the difference to the players before September 15 of the next league year. As Irsay has made sure everyone knows, the Colts are well over the cap in cash spending for 2013. I'm not sure how far below that 89% the team was before free agency, but it's obvious that they weren't just spending to meet that threshold.

I figured you would know I was under the impression the unused cap could be rolled into next year (not the cash spending limit) in some manner. Yeah I didn't know what the colts' cap situation was this offseason.

[Smonroe]

 

 

It's 89% of the cap in cash spending every year. Can't be rolled over year to year, but the penalty is that the team has to pay the difference to the players before September 15 of the next league year. As Irsay has made sure everyone knows, the Colts are well over the cap in cash spending for 2013. I'm not sure how far below that 89% the team was before free agency, but it's obvious that they weren't just spending to meet that threshold.

 

I'm pretty sure you're not reading it correctly.  I don't feel like digging through the CBA, but I remember reading that the Min/Max is averaged over 4 years.  In other words, there's no pressure to be above the floor or under the ceiling in one year.

 

It's not 'rolling over' cap space, it's just managing the contracts so you can spend more in one year if you were way under in other years.

 

If I have time later, I'll cite the CBA paragraph for you.

[Smonroe]

 

 

It's 89% of the cap in cash spending every year. Can't be rolled over year to year, but the penalty is that the team has to pay the difference to the players before September 15 of the next league year. As Irsay has made sure everyone knows, the Colts are well over the cap in cash spending for 2013. I'm not sure how far below that 89% the team was before free agency, but it's obvious that they weren't just spending to meet that threshold.

 

Okay, I did a little research and apparently you can "Carry Over" cap space  (from the CBA):

 

"(v) Carrying Over Room. A Club may “carry over” Room from one League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of the next League Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over. The NFL shall promptly provide a copy of any such notice to the NFLPA. The amount of Room carried over will be adjusted downward based on the final Room available after the year-end reconciliation."

 

Also, the minimum (and therefor maximum) cap is calculated over a 4 year period:

 

"Section 9. Minimum Team Cash Spending:

(a) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 2013–2016 and 2017–2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013–16 and 2017–2020 are $100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million))"

 

If I'm reading this wrong, someone please correct me.  But I'd rather get back to talking about football than money.

[Superman]

I figured you would know I was under the impression the unused cap could be rolled into next year (not the cash spending limit) in some manner. Yeah I didn't know what the colts' cap situation was this offseason.

 

 

I'm pretty sure you're not reading it correctly.  I don't feel like digging through the CBA, but I remember reading that the Min/Max is averaged over 4 years.  In other words, there's no pressure to be above the floor or under the ceiling in one year.

 

It's not 'rolling over' cap space, it's just managing the contracts so you can spend more in one year if you were way under in other years.

 

If I have time later, I'll cite the CBA paragraph for you.

 

 

Okay, I did a little research and apparently you can "Carry Over" cap space  (from the CBA):

 

"(v) Carrying Over Room. A Club may “carry over” Room from one League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of the next League Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over. The NFL shall promptly provide a copy of any such notice to the NFLPA. The amount of Room carried over will be adjusted downward based on the final Room available after the year-end reconciliation."

 

Also, the minimum (and therefor maximum) cap is calculated over a 4 year period:

 

"Section 9. Minimum Team Cash Spending:

(a) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 2013–2016 and 2017–2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013–16 and 2017–2020 are $100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million))"

 

If I'm reading this wrong, someone please correct me.  But I'd rather get back to talking about football than money.

Smonroe is right. I keep confusing myself on this because there are two closely related topics. There's the 95% league-wide cash spending, then there's the 89% team specific cash spending. Both of them are totals over four year periods, from 2013-2016, and from 2017-2020. So there's no year to year minimum threshold, and yes, cap space can be rolled over. There's no need to roll over cash spending or space, because there's no maximum cash spending in any league year or period.

I wrote a topic about this a couple months ago, but it was specific to cap spending, not cash spending.