Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Cherilus to I.R.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I doubt Grigson would eat the 2.9 mil and 5.8 mil.

Plus, then it looks like he goofed up by signing Cherilus in the first place.

My money says he will be back next year.

You honestly think that Grigson is all that worried about someone thinking he goofed? I doubt it, it comes with the territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GC was pretty solid in his first season so I think we have to be hopeful here that he was dealt with a nagging injury most of the year and that its not the chronic knee condition keeping him from playing at his high watermark level. Having him back next year with his salary cap number and playing well only helps this team compete. If either his health fails or is cut, that hampers our fixing others areas of need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He already ate it. There's nothing anyone can do about the $2.9m and the $5.8m. It's already spent. If Grigson goofed, it happened in the past. 

 

By the way, I don't think Grigson is worried about looking like he made a mistake. I think he's worried about building a good roster. And with regard to Cherilus, he got a pretty big contract, but his problem is that he hasn't been healthy and so, hasn't played up to the contract. That doesn't mean Grigson was wrong to sign him. These are the risks of free agency.

 

I'm not guaranteeing anything. I just don't think you determine to pay a guy more money just because you already paid him a bunch of money. 

As you are suggesting - Grigson isn't wringing his hands about the financials of what to do with Cherilus.  He'll keep him or cut him for 2015 based purely on his projected performance.  This is the beauty of unspent cap.

 

Cherilus has been accruing a dead cap liability for the last 2 years - contributing significantly to the rollover we are carrying of $10-$12M.  Just so happens that Grigson, intentionally or not, treated that future cap obligation as though it was already spent.  Now he has the cushion to cut Cherilus without any negative impact to next years cap - he simply spends a chunk of the rollover.

 

If Cherilus had played out for 2015, and he still might, we could have used the rollover for some prepaid expenses on Luck's new deal - but now it looks like we'll have to pay the bill for the line item accrued.

 

This is a pretty easy business equation for Grigson.  He doesn't see a dead cap hit of $8.7M ($1.8M in excess of projected cap hit).  

He sees $18.5M in total cap savings if cut in 2015, $14.5M if cut in 2016.  

 

Since it was always a 3 yr. deal with Cherilus, Grigson expected the deal to cost him $20.5M over 3 years or $6.83M/yr. annualized.

Assuming a 2015 cut - 1 yr. premature - the deal will have cost $16.5M over 2 years or $8.25M annualized.

 

When we see the numbers as Grigs sees the numbers, we realize that it isn't a big deal to cut and replace him immediately and it has an actual cap savings of $4M to do so - regardless of what year that savings is counted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GC was pretty solid in his first season so I think we have to be hopeful here that he was dealt with a nagging injury most of the year and that its not the chronic knee condition keeping him from playing at his high watermark level. Having him back next year with his salary cap number and playing well only helps this team compete. If either his health fails or is cut, that hampers our fixing others areas of need.

 

He was much better than his predecessor, Winston Justice, during his first season with Indy.  I think Cherilus has been playing hurt, causing his production to slip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you are suggesting - Grigson isn't wringing his hands about the financials of what to do with Cherilus. He'll keep him or cut him for 2015 based purely on his projected performance. This is the beauty of unspent cap.

Cherilus has been accruing a dead cap liability for the last 2 years - contributing significantly to the rollover we are carrying of $10-$12M. Just so happens that Grigson, intentionally or not, treated that future cap obligation as though it was already spent. Now he has the cushion to cut Cherilus without any negative impact to next years cap - he simply spends a chunk of the rollover.

If Cherilus had played out for 2015, and he still might, we could have used the rollover for some prepaid expenses on Luck's new deal - but now it looks like we'll have to pay the bill for the line item accrued.

This is a pretty easy business equation for Grigson. He doesn't see a dead cap hit of $8.7M ($1.8M in excess of projected cap hit).

He sees $18.5M in total cap savings if cut in 2015, $14.5M if cut in 2016.

Since it was always a 3 yr. deal with Cherilus, Grigson expected the deal to cost him $20.5M over 3 years or $6.83M/yr. annualized.

Assuming a 2015 cut - 1 yr. premature - the deal will have cost $16.5M over 2 years or $8.25M annualized.

When we see the numbers as Grigs sees the numbers, we realize that it isn't a big deal to cut and replace him immediately and it has an actual cap savings of $4M to do so - regardless of what year that savings is counted.

Love or hate Grigson but you can't help but like how he structures contracts to be cut friendly

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you are suggesting - Grigson isn't wringing his hands about the financials of what to do with Cherilus.  He'll keep him or cut him for 2015 based purely on his projected performance.  This is the beauty of unspent cap.

 

Cherilus has been accruing a dead cap liability for the last 2 years - contributing significantly to the rollover we are carrying of $10-$12M.  Just so happens that Grigson, intentionally or not, treated that future cap obligation as though it was already spent.  Now he has the cushion to cut Cherilus without any negative impact to next years cap - he simply spends a chunk of the rollover.

 

If Cherilus had played out for 2015, and he still might, we could have used the rollover for some prepaid expenses on Luck's new deal - but now it looks like we'll have to pay the bill for the line item accrued.

 

This is a pretty easy business equation for Grigson.  He doesn't see a dead cap hit of $8.7M ($1.8M in excess of projected cap hit).  

He sees $18.5M in total cap savings if cut in 2015, $14.5M if cut in 2016.  

 

Since it was always a 3 yr. deal with Cherilus, Grigson expected the deal to cost him $20.5M over 3 years or $6.83M/yr. annualized.

Assuming a 2015 cut - 1 yr. premature - the deal will have cost $16.5M over 2 years or $8.25M annualized.

 

When we see the numbers as Grigs sees the numbers, we realize that it isn't a big deal to cut and replace him immediately and it has an actual cap savings of $4M to do so - regardless of what year that savings is counted.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I keep saying. The potential dead money has already been spent. There's no point in wringing your hands over it. It's gone, and it's going to hit the cap eventually. You don't decide to spend more money just because you've already spent a bunch. If he's not worth it, you don't give him another dime. Once you start looking at the total money spent, rather than the potential cap penalty, I think it becomes pretty clear.

 

And if you really want to, you can split the cap penalty between 2015 and 2016, just to give yourself a little more flexibility.

 

I think Grigson's decision on Cherilus in 2015 should be performance-based, including a projection of his play next season. If they think he can come back and be an average to above average RT, it might be worth his $4m salary. But if they think the odds are long -- and we don't know if he needs surgery, what his rehab might be, how much more damage has been done to his degenerative knee, etc. -- then there's no reason to pay him another $4m just because you don't want to accelerate the unamortized bonus that he's already been paid. All that does is potentially add another $4m to the problem.

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...