Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Report: Colts in talks for Alex Mack (mega-merge)

vitoaf27

By vitoaf27
in Colts Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

ColtStronger Walk On

ColtStronger

Posted
Posted

Grigson said the O-Line was one of the top priorities next to resigning Vontae.  He already filled the hole in the front 7 without breaking the bank, and addressed the WR position w/ Nicks cheap.  It scares me he signed Costa, but I think that was in case he couldn't bring in someone better.  I always thought Mack was a longshot but now EDS is now off the list by signing with Tampa.  Im very uneasy about the whole situation, but I have faith Grigson knows what he is doing.  Hopefully it ends soon cause I'm going to be stroking out here soon if the stress doesn't cease lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 960
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

BlueCollarColts Practice Squad

BlueCollarColts

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but say a team offers AM a contract and the Browns outbid them, he still has the option of signing with the other team correct? The transition tag was only for the opportunity to match the offer?

Nope, if Cleveland matches they get him. Mack has no choice if Cleveland matches
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaric Walk On

Jaric

Posted
Posted

Did they take that out?  I wasn't sure.  I remember the Hutchinson deal, just wasn't sure if they ever did anything about it.  Ah well, the NFL has to approve the contracts anyway, so it probably wouldn't have done anything anyway.

 

I believe the language is something to the effect of "we can't write a contract that would be one value for us, and another value for the Browns."

 

So that 100 million dollar bonus for playing 4 games in Cleveland is a no go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AgentOrange Walk On

AgentOrange

Posted
Posted

Well that's dumb, I thought this was a free country lol His contract is expiring... He shouldn't be forced back to Cleveland Brown slavery where he has no chance of winning.

Did you feel the same way when the Colts tagged Manning twice and he nearly took the NFL to court to get out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaric Walk On

Jaric

Posted
Posted

Now, what some of us believe we can do, is write a contract with a large roster bonus, that would be restructured into a signing bonus after Cleveland turns it down.

 

Roster bonuses hit the cap the same year they are collected.  Signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason_ Team Captain

Jason_

Posted
Posted

Now, what some of us believe we can do, is write a contract with a large roster bonus, that would be restructured into a signing bonus after Cleveland turns it down.

Roster bonuses hit the cap the same year they are collected. Signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract.

I believe they would gave to wait till the next league year before they'd be able to renegotiate the contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Now, what some of us believe we can do, is write a contract with a large roster bonus, that would be restructured into a signing bonus after Cleveland turns it down.

 

Roster bonuses hit the cap the same year they are collected.  Signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract.

 

Doesn't even have to be a roster bonus. It can be base salary; they're treated the same for cap purposes. And the restructure would be a separate transaction, one that ::winkwink:: can't be prearranged. 

 

I'm not sure the Browns would let him go, to be honest. Can't imagine that, if approached for a restructure, he'd refuse. If I were the Browns, I'd match and call his bluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaric Walk On

Jaric

Posted
Posted

I believe they would gave to wait till the next league year before they'd be able to renegotiate the contract

 

I think that's only the case if the amount of money that gets paid changes.  Bav had a post about it one of the other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaric Walk On

Jaric

Posted
Posted

Doesn't even have to be a roster bonus. It can be base salary; they're treated the same for cap purposes. And the restructure would be a separate transaction, one that ::winkwink:: can't be prearranged. 

 

I'm not sure the Browns would let him go, to be honest. Can't imagine that, if approached for a restructure, he'd refuse. If I were the Browns, I'd match and call his bluff.

 

For us, there's no reason he wouldn't.

 

But if he truly wants out of Cleveland, and he tells the Browns that...  I mean do you risk it?  Something like that actually gives him leverage against the transition tag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AgentOrange Walk On

AgentOrange

Posted
Posted

Now, what some of us believe we can do, is write a contract with a large roster bonus, that would be restructured into a signing bonus after Cleveland turns it down.

 

Roster bonuses hit the cap the same year they are collected.  Signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract.

 

Nothing about the contract can be changed for the first year. Any 'wink-wink' arrangements would have to be on blind faith.

Yeah, that's what happened...

That's exactly what happened.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/07/19/report-brees-manning-ask-for-franchise-tag-exempti

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaric Walk On

Jaric

Posted
Posted

Thats a huge cap hit when we have some very important fa's next year, I'd rather just have Bryan Stork in the 3rd or trade down to the 4th for him

Add a year, convert the base salary to a signing bonus which spreads that 30 million over the life of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

For us, there's no reason he wouldn't.

 

But if he truly wants out of Cleveland, and he tells the Browns that...  I mean do you risk it?  Something like that actually gives him leverage against the transition tag. 

 

Yes. If I were the Browns, him saying he wants out wouldn't create enough incentive for me to refuse to match. Worst case scenario, I think I'd match and then trade him to the highest bidder, rather than letting him walk for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AgentOrange Walk On

AgentOrange

Posted
Posted

We still weren't a team that has sucked for like 15 years so its not like we were wasting his career

So good teams should be allowed to force their players to stay, while bad teams should have to give theirs away, ensuring that they don't improve? Yeah, that seems fair...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Nothing about the contract can be changed for the first year. Any 'wink-wink' arrangements would have to be on blind faith.

That's exactly what happened.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/07/19/report-brees-manning-ask-for-franchise-tag-exempti

 

So you don't know how settlement negotiations work? The objective of the litigation was to weaken the hold of the franchise tag, which the new CBA does (albeit not by much).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AgentOrange Walk On

AgentOrange

Posted
Posted

So you don't know how settlement negotiations work? The objective of the litigation was to weaken the hold of the franchise tag, which the new CBA does (albeit not by much).

The point is, Manning didn't want to be tagged, but the Colts did it anyway. The Browns tagging Mack (with a far more lenient tag, btw) is no more 'slavery' than the Colts tagging Manning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaric Walk On

Jaric

Posted
Posted

The point is, Manning didn't want to be tagged, but the Colts did it anyway. The Browns tagging Mack (with a far more lenient tag, btw) is no more 'slavery' than the Colts tagging Manning.

 

I think the word you're looking for is "hyperbole."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OffensivelyPC Active Roster

OffensivelyPC

Posted
Posted

I believe the language is something to the effect of "we can't write a contract that would be one value for us, and another value for the Browns."

 

So that 100 million dollar bonus for playing 4 games in Cleveland is a no go.

That's a darn shame.  I agree with the policy, I really do.  But hey, if I can use it to my advantage, I'm going to every single time lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

The point is, Manning didn't want to be tagged, but the Colts did it anyway. The Browns tagging Mack (with a far more lenient tag, btw) is no more 'slavery' than the Colts tagging Manning.

 

I agree. You just completely misrepresented Manning, Brees, and the rest of the co-plaintiffs to that lawsuit, which is the reason I took issue with your post.

 

But the franchise tag, and other forms of restricted free agency, are somewhat oppressive. I don't in any way feel sorry for these guys, but tags and tenders really prevent the players who deserve it the most from getting true market value for their services.

 

As an aside, that doesn't seem to be Mack's problem with Cleveland. I think he was upset with the previous regime, and now he might be more comfortable with the new front office, but just like any other player, is kind of irritated with being tagged. I don't think he'd purposely try to stick it to the Browns, but I'm sure he'd prefer to be able to negotiate freely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dw49 Active Roster

dw49

Posted
Posted

Yes. If I were the Browns, him saying he wants out wouldn't create enough incentive for me to refuse to match. Worst case scenario, I think I'd match and then trade him to the highest bidder, rather than letting him walk for nothing.

 

 

I've said this before but worth repeating... the only way we sign him is to give Cleveland something in the 2015 draft. Or we would have to sign him to a contract that far exceeds his worth and that makes no sense. Don't know about the highest bidder thing. Lets say a team gave him a deal that averaged 8.5 mill with 20 mill guaranteed. Cleveland and the rest of the league could have him valued at 7 mill per. It would be pretty dangerous for them just to match a bad contract and hope to get anything close to the risk they might feel they were taking. 

 

Problem is Cleveland's interior line is bad and they probably will have a rookie QB. So they too have a big need for a solid C and they have cap money to match anything they feel like matching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...