Colts re-sign QB Matthew Hasselbeck for 1 year

[pgt_rob]

Can't help it. I'm just not a fan of spending 3 mill on something you pray to never see.

Insurance. And good source of info for Andrew. It shouldn't be a big deal.

[Warhorse]

Can't help it. I'm just not a fan of spending 3 mill on something you pray to never see.

Neither was Polian.

[Warhorse]

I think many fans are woefully unaware of just how much work and support a veteran QB can bring to a team. Andrew goes to him for advice probably far more than many would guess.

[dw49]

I think many fans are woefully unaware of just how much work and support a veteran QB can bring to a team. Andrew goes to him for advice probably far more than many would guess.

 

 

Yeah , some of us are so stupid and you are so smart. Maybe you should educate the GM's that don't spend 3 mill of the cap on a guy that probably can't play. If Luck needs that kind of help , just hire a QB that has retired.  I'm so woeful...

[esmort]

Can't help it. I'm just not a fan of spending 3 mill on something you pray to never see.

 

I am not a fan of paying any of the insurance premiums I have to pay, but its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.  I feel like if something minor was to happen to Luck (sprain, etc) that caused him to miss a couple games, that I would still feel like we had a fighting chance with Hasselbeck under center.  I would not feel nearly as confident with most of the back-ups out there that we would get from the "bargain bin". I am willing to pay $3 million for a top of the line insurance policy for a year when we are going to have plenty to spend.  I am sure a we will be looking for a potential back up late in the draft/UDFA this year for next season when the money may be a little tighter.

[Warhorse]

Yeah , some of us are so stupid and you are so smart. Maybe you should educate the GM's that don't spend 3 mill of the cap on a guy that probably can't play. If Luck needs that kind of help , just hire a QB that has retired.  I'm so woeful...

I don't know how you turned woefully unaware into you being stupid, and me being smart. For that matter, I was talking about fans in general.

 

Jump on people often?

[JPFolks]

I thought this as soon as I saw Hass MC'ing that 40 yard dash video.  I just didn't know the terms.  I am kicking myself for not posting that in response on that post now.  I said it to my wife while we watched the video.  I imagine many of you felt the same as well.  We don't see a lot of "retiring" or leaving FA's hanging out doing videos for the Colts charitable efforts this time of year do we?  

 

I think it is pricey, and I wonder if he could win our division if he had to for most of the season, but I would be relieved if Luck was out a couple weeks that we had him.  Maybe next time they will hire him as a Player/Coach and transition him, or do you think next stop for him is ESPN?  

 

Thanks for the post MTC! 

[dw49]

I am not a fan of paying any of the insurance premiums I have to pay, but its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.  I feel like if something minor was to happen to Luck (sprain, etc) that caused him to miss a couple games, that I would still feel like we had a fighting chance with Hasselbeck under center.  I would not feel nearly as confident with most of the back-ups out there that we would get from the "bargain bin". I am willing to pay $3 million for a top of the line insurance policy for a year when we are going to have plenty to spend.  I am sure a we will be looking for a potential back up late in the draft/UDFA this year for next season when the money may be a little tighter.

 

 

I can see the argument as I'm not stupid. I would just rather spent the extra 2 mill on something like upgrading the LG position. There are teams that spend on a back up ad those that don't. I'm not saying it's a stupid move it's just one that I don't like.

[Sting]

Best backup QB in the NFL. Very good news.

And 2nd best QB in the AFC South.

[dw49]

I thought this as soon as I saw Hass MC'ing that 40 yard dash video.  I just didn't know the terms.  I am kicking myself for not posting that in response on that post now.  I said it to my wife while we watched the video.  I imagine many of you felt the same as well.  We don't see a lot of "retiring" or leaving FA's hanging out doing videos for the Colts charitable efforts this time of year do we?  

 

I think it is pricey, and I wonder if he could win our division if he had to for most of the season, but I would be relieved if Luck was out a couple weeks that we had him.  Maybe next time they will hire him as a Player/Coach and transition him, or do you think next stop for him is ESPN?  

 

Thanks for the post MTC! 

 

40 year old QB's generally are washed up. He was horrible for Seattle in years 2008-2010. He was 35 when he left Seattle. He had a decent to good 2011 year with Tenn. Lost the job in 2012 and hasn't played any to speak of in two years . It's a total guess if he has anything left in the tank. If you go by past history of 40 year old QB's , the answer as to what's most likely would be obvious

[Bravo]

Can't help it. I'm just not a fan of spending 3 mill on something you pray to never see.

Well if it came down to it though we could still be a contender if it came down to it which in case would be worth the 3mil.

If we were in a tight position with cap right now I would understand complaints but we are okay for now! As long as we spend our money well and wisely this off season we should be in pretty good shape all while getting good players.

For now it's okay. Next year though... Paying 3 mil to a backup QB probably won't be an option.

Also we need to spend some dang money on good offensive lineman!!!!

[esmort]

I can see the argument as I'm not stupid. I would just rather spent the extra 2 mill on something like upgrading the LG position. There are teams that spend on a back up ad those that don't. I'm not saying it's a stupid move it's just one that I don't like.

 

If it were between signing the a specific guard we wanted and Hasselbeck I would totally agree, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive ... I don't think resigning Hasselbeck will have any bearing on who we sign for the other positions we are looking to fill in FA. This basically works out to be a $3 million cushion that will come off the books and be free cap space next year when we will likely have less cap space to work with. 

 

He also has added value as a willing mentor/teacher; not only to Luck but also to the young WRs who may not get many (or any) 1st team reps, but still get to work and learn from a good experienced QB.

[dw49]

If it were between signing the a specific guard we wanted and Hasselbeck I would totally agree, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive ... I don't think resigning Hasselbeck will have any bearing on who we sign for the other positions we are looking to fill in FA. This basically works out to be a $3 million cushion that will come off the books and be free cap space next year when we will likely have less cap space to work with. 

 

He also has added value as a willing mentor/teacher; not only to Luck but also to the young WRs who may not get many (or any) 1st team reps, but still get to work and learn from a good experienced QB.

 

 

No of coarse it doesn't mean we can't upgrade the LG position. I was just using that as an example. It will prevent us from spending around 2 to 2.3 mill on another position. I can live with it and see the value . Grigson is not stupid. I just happen to agree more with the teams that go cheap or use a middle round pick to draft a back up. 

[Bird dog]

40 year old QB's generally are washed up. He was horrible for Seattle in years 2008-2010. He was 35 when he left Seattle. He had a decent to good 2011 year with Tenn. Lost the job in 2012 and hasn't played any to speak of in two years . It's a total guess if he has anything left in the tank. If you go by past history of 40 year old QB's , the answer as to what's most likely would be obvious

i think you have totally lost the concept!

[Dr. Guildo]

Good news that Hasselbeck is back, and will have Andrew's back for another year.

[esmort]

No of coarse it doesn't mean we can't upgrade the LG position. I was just using that as an example. It will prevent us from spending around 2 to 2.3 mill on another position. I can live with it and see the value . Grigson is not stupid. I just happen to agree more with the teams that go cheap or use a middle round pick to draft a back up. 

 

No it won't ... paying Hasselbeck will have no effect on who we sign in FA ... we will get all the same FA players at every other position we would have gotten whether we signed Hasselbeck or not.

[braveheartcolt]

A pretty innocuous bit of news, yet we still manage to turn the thread into a dog fight. Don't you just love it.

OT, this is a sensible move.

[dw49]

No it won't ... paying Hasselbeck will have no effect on who we sign in FA ... we will get all the same FA players at every other position we would have gotten whether we signed Hasselbeck or not.

 

 

What crystal ball are you getting that from. It drops your cap by 3 mill minus what a cheap back up costs

[dw49]

i think you have totally lost the concept!

 

Thanks new guy . I'll keep that nugget in mind !

[dw49]

A pretty innocuous bit of news, yet we still manage to turn the thread into a dog fight. Don't you just love it.

OT, this is a sensible move.

 

 

OK.. I love the move.

[Happy2BeHere]

I too am very happy he is back-up you know what I'm sayin

[esmort]

What crystal ball are you getting that from

 

No magic involved .... just simple reasoning ... 1) I don't think Grigson would have have given Hasselbeck the contract if there were any chance it could cost him a possible FA he wanted or had his eye on. 2) There was always going to be a cushion going into next season which allows for flexibility this season as well. 3) The contracts we give out can be structured as to allow us more money this season if we see we might need it for this hypothetical player we can't afford.

 

Finding an extra $2 - $3 million is nothing when you are working with the amount of cap we are working with, and are able to utilize the "creative accounting methods" that are available to use under salary cap rules. 

[dw49]

No magic involved .... just simple reasoning ... 1) I don't think Grigson would have have given Hasselbeck the contract if there were any chance it could cost him a possible FA he wanted or had his eye on. 2) There was always going to be a cushion going into next season which allows for flexibility this season as well. 3) The contracts we give out can be structured as to allow us more money this season if we see we might need it for this hypothetical player we can't afford.

 

Finding an extra $2 - $3 million is nothing when you are working with the amount of cap we are working with, and are able to utilize the "creative accounting methods" that are available to use under salary cap rules. 

 

 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing along those lines. We have all kinds of pretty good players that are free agents. Freeman (RFA) , Brown , Butler , Adams , Reitz and Wayne and Redding if they don't retire. Then there's all the holes to fill. If you say spending 3 mill will have zero effect and give the reasons you give , I can't prove you wrong anymore than you can prove yourself right. It's a cap with 142 mill to use. You could have maybe put that money toward extending one of our guys like Hilton , Allen , Luck or Fleener a year early. There are plenty of ways to utilize cap money. What you have is spending 2-3 million means nothing. No it doesn't break the bank but you used that money and you could say that same thing about every player that Grigson may have over paid or wasted cap money on.  You can make a case that RJF was a nice rotational guy that was worth 3 mill a year. So why not keep him for just this year at the 5.5 mill he was due. Doesn't effect next year at all and you can find that 2-.5 mill someplace.

[esmort]

I'm not going to waste my time arguing along those lines. We have all kinds of pretty good players that are free agents. Freeman (RFA) , Brown , Butler , Adams , Reitz and Wayne and Redding if they don't retire. Then there's all the holes to fill. If you say spending 3 mill will have zero effect and give the reasons you give , I can't prove you wrong anymore than you can prove yourself right. It's a cap with 142 mill to use. You could have maybe put that money toward extending one of our guys like Hilton , Allen , Luck or Fleener a year early. There are plenty of ways to utilize cap money. What you have is spending 2-3 million means nothing. No it doesn't break the bank but you used that money and you could say that same thing about every player that Grigson may have over paid or wasted cap money on.  You can make a case that RJF was a nice rotational guy that was worth 3 mill a year. So why not keep him for just this year at the 5.5 mill he was due. Doesn't effect next year at all and you can find that 2-.5 mill someplace.

 

Never said the money couldn't have been used differently, I am sure it could have been used dozens of ways including those you listed. You seem to be looking at cap space like it is the same as cash in your wallet; a set amount that is gone once you spend it. The point you don't seem to get is that it's not an "either/or"/mutually exclusive situation spending the $3 million on Hasselbeck does not prevent us from re-signing our own FAs, getting new ones, etc ... We are not talking about some large muti-year contract with tons of guaranteed money that is hard to manipulate or get off the books .... $3 million now could conceivably be shifted around and manipulated until it's a totally different amount that doesn't even come into play until years down the road. It really has no effect on anything; the only thing that should bother you about this is if you think there was a better back up QB out there that we could get...not the money.

 

As far as RJF goes, I don't know the reasons they felt he was not worth the money or if they tried to get him for less. My guess is that they have a plan for the DL that does not include RJF ... but I strongly doubt there is any correlation between paying Hasselbeck and letting RJF go ... if they wanted both I suspect they could have easily had both.  

[Gavin]

Good, Hopefully that stops the talk of drafting a QB late in the draft that was going on a while back for the time being, More importantly Im glad we have a solid back up

[James]

I can see the argument as I'm not stupid. I would just rather spent the extra 2 mill on something like upgrading the LG position. There are teams that spend on a back up ad those that don't. I'm not saying it's a stupid move it's just one that I don't like.

You sound pretty stupid to me.

[antipatriot]

I like it.  So many teams drown if there QB goes down for a few games at least with Hasselbeck we might win one of 2 or 2 of 4 or more depending on the schedule. So depending on what your record is at the time that might mean the difference between making the playoffs or not.  We see the scenario every year.  Hopefully we never have to deal with that.

[AntonMcG]

Never said the money couldn't have been used differently, I am sure it could have been used dozens of ways including those you listed. You seem to be looking at cap space like it is the same as cash in your wallet; a set amount that is gone once you spend it. The point you don't seem to get is that it's not an "either/or"/mutually exclusive situation spending the $3 million on Hasselbeck does not prevent us from re-signing our own FAs, getting new ones, etc ... We are not talking about some large muti-year contract with tons of guaranteed money that is hard to manipulate or get off the books .... $3 million now could conceivably be shifted around and manipulated until it's a totally different amount that doesn't even come into play until years down the road. It really has no effect on anything; the only thing that should bother you about this is if you think there was a better back up QB out there that we could get...not the money.

 

As far as RJF goes, I don't know the reasons they felt he was not worth the money or if they tried to get him for less. My guess is that they have a plan for the DL that does not include RJF ... but I strongly doubt there is any correlation between paying Hasselbeck and letting RJF go ... if they wanted both I suspect they could have easily had both.  

 

For a one year deal?

 

No, it can't.

[csmopar]

Insurance. And good source of info for Andrew. It shouldn't be a big deal.

What's that saying again, the first check you write is for the mortgage and the 2nd is for the insurance.....something like that either way, I'm perfectly fine with giving Matt 3 million and I pray we never need him...

[TKnight24]

And 2nd best QB in the AFC South.

Which speaks volumes to the level of competition in the AFC South

So sad, but so true

[JColts72]

Not a good signing for 3 mil. Might as well have gotten a back-up QB ifrom waivers.3 Mil to mentor Luck, that's what it is. Don't we have assistant to the assitant to the assitant coaches for that.

[peytonmanning18]

Can't help it. I'm just not a fan of spending 3 mill on something you pray to never see.

If Luck were to go down for say 4 weeks, Hasselbeck has the ability to come in and maybe go 2-2, we saw what terrible backup QB's like Painter were able to do. It's a good investment and a smart thing to do.

[csmopar]

If Luck were to go down for say 4 weeks, Hasselbeck has the ability to come in and maybe go 2-2, we saw what terrible backup QB's like Painter were able to do. It's a good investment and a smart thing to do.

Agreed. We have a pro bowl and superbowl QB as our backup. And he's in good shape and not like he's a complete wash up.

[lollygagger8]

[Narcosys]

Grigson said 3 mill is a lot for a 40 year old QB but claims its cheaper than upgrading the O line.

Lol in other words, rather have a good backup for a hurt Luck than actually protecting him.

Hope that's not what he actually said.

[dw49]

Never said the money couldn't have been used differently, I am sure it could have been used dozens of ways including those you listed. You seem to be looking at cap space like it is the same as cash in your wallet; a set amount that is gone once you spend it. The point you don't seem to get is that it's not an "either/or"/mutually exclusive situation spending the $3 million on Hasselbeck does not prevent us from re-signing our own FAs, getting new ones, etc ... We are not talking about some large muti-year contract with tons of guaranteed money that is hard to manipulate or get off the books .... $3 million now could conceivably be shifted around and manipulated until it's a totally different amount that doesn't even come into play until years down the road. It really has no effect on anything; the only thing that should bother you about this is if you think there was a better back up QB out there that we could get...not the money.

 

As far as RJF goes, I don't know the reasons they felt he was not worth the money or if they tried to get him for less. My guess is that they have a plan for the DL that does not include RJF ... but I strongly doubt there is any correlation between paying Hasselbeck and letting RJF go ... if they wanted both I suspect they could have easily had both.  

 

 

Honest , I'm very good at math and I'm nota fan that doesn't understand the cap . I buy and sell income properties , so I work with leverage , cap rates , P/L's etc. I easily understand what you are saying. If they want player X , Y and Z and were hell bent on signing those 3 , they most certainly can. My point is it at some point takes away money from another position. If they structure a contract where they sign a player for an average of 5 mill per year , all they have to do is give him a bigger signing bonus , or a roster bonus in 2016 , or a guarantee 3 mill of his 2016 base. Tons of ways to do it. My point is that the 2016 cap will be affected by that 3 mill you "pushed into that year," I really don't care all that much about continuing this. I"m of the opinion that this is pricey for a guy that probably can't play at a decent level anymore. I really don't understand why everyone has to call me out on it, and make big issue. I have in no way been insistent that my point of view is right. All GM's don't seem to spend in this manner and I happen to side with them.

[dw49]

Lol in other words, rather have a good backup for a hurt Luck than actually protecting him.

Hope that's not what he actually said.

 

Tongue in cheek and no that not what he actually said.

 

Agreed. We have a pro bowl and superbowl QB as our backup. And he's in good shape and not like he's a complete wash up.

 

 

He was very bad in his last 3 years in Seattle. And he wasn't 40 years old when he had those years. More like 35. Had a decent year in Tenn 4 years ago. So maybe in the last 7 years of his career you have around 55 passes thrown in the past 2 years and one decent to good year in the preceding 5 years. You guys are just stating like a fact that he can still play the position at 40 years old . History says your wrong but hey if you guys like it it's your prerogative . I just don't think all these statements that he can win half our games if Luck goes down is anymore than rhetoric . But maybe he can... 

 

 

Opps.. didn't mean to run these together like that.

[Superman]

I can see the argument as I'm not stupid. I would just rather spent the extra 2 mill on something like upgrading the LG position. There are teams that spend on a back up ad those that don't. I'm not saying it's a stupid move it's just one that I don't like.

 

If it's a difference of $2m, we're talking about 1.4% of the projected cap. If we have $43m in cap space, we're talking about 4.7% of our available cap space.

 

It's a luxury we can afford. I don't mind it.

[Luthais]

I like this deal.

[dw49]

If it's a difference of $2m, we're talking about 1.4% of the projected cap. If we have $43m in cap space, we're talking about 4.7% of our available cap space.

 

It's a luxury we can afford. I don't mind it.

 

 

I can understand why some like it , some don't mind and also why some don't like it. All are valid opinions. The only thing I would argue is how well he can actually play. The limited time he's had in the 2 years here don't prove he still has it or nor does it prove he's washed up. So I kind of just skip over those claims that he's the second best QB in the division. If  can actually come in at 40 years old and play well enough to win games , then it's money well spent as he helps AL in other ways. I just happen to think that he's not a special player that can do that at 40 years old.