How Seattle's Payroll can be a blueprint for the Colts.....

[NewColtsFan]

It might be the one thing that makes fans here freak out.

 

Paying Andrew Luck roughly 25Mill a year is going to prevent the Colts from putting a good team around him.     If we all had a dollar for every time someone posted that we'd be rich.

 

Now,  TYH gets his mega deal.     And yet the Colts have plenty of room for Anthony Castonzo.

 

The Colts now have one player (Hilton) who makes more than 10 MIll a year.

 

They have 8 players making 4.475 to 9 Mill per. 

 

Seattle has 6 players (six!) who make 10 mill per year or more including Russell Wilson at 21.9 per.

 

They also have 7 other players making 5 Mill per to 9.      That's their 13 best players.

 

In short,  if Seattle can pay their best,   so can the Colts.   

 

Simply click on this link and check out Seattle's payroll....   scroll up and down.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/

 

And here is the Colts payroll....    simply click and compare to Seattle.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/

 

Grigson and his staff have done a beautiful job preparing the Colts for this eventual day.   We're in a very good spot payroll wise.    We can sign and keep almost all the players we want.

 

Nobody can keep everyone.    Difficult choices have to be made.   But on balance,  the Colts are in a very, very good place to be payroll speaking.......

[TKnight24]

I don't think Kam Chancellor is getting his cut, so their "stars" aren't all gonna get paid

And they let go of McDaniels. Had a huge role in making those LB's who they are today.

[Valpo2004]

Lets see how Seattle does now that they have to start paying everyone before we decided to model ourselves on them.

 

Ultimately this comes down to good drafting.  It's that simple.

[Smonroe]

Lets see how Seattle does now that they have to start paying everyone before we decided to model ourselves on them.

 

Ultimately this comes down to good drafting.  It's that simple.

 

The problem isn't that they're paying them now, they're the same players (in general).  It's what happens when those high paid players don't produce.  We had that towards the end of Peyton's era.

 

The salary cap will continue to go up.  As NCF stated above, this regime is doing a great job with the cap and preparing for the future.

[RealityIsLuck]

Overall, the way we'll keep everyone is structuring deals in different ways. We'll basically take up all of our cap until 2020 so it's small FA's and draft picks from here.

[UKCOLT17]

I don't think Kam Chancellor is getting his cut, so their "stars" aren't all gonna get paid

And they let go of McDaniels. Had a huge role in making those LB's who they are today.

 

hopefully he does colts can get him then

[NewColtsFan]

Lets see how Seattle does now that they have to start paying everyone before we decided to model ourselves on them.

 

Ultimately this comes down to good drafting.  It's that simple.

 

I'm not saying "model"....   I'm simply showing that paying your best players can be done with proper planning.

 

And all those threads and posts about who we can keep and who we can't keep are ridiculous and wrong.

 

Grigson has been planning this for years.    And now Irsay is prepared to write big checks.    Good for him.    Good for us.

 

The Colts payroll is being managed very well.     We're in very good shape.

[bababooey]

Lets see how Seattle does now that they have to start paying everyone before we decided to model ourselves on them.

 

Ultimately this comes down to good drafting.  It's that simple.

 

Exactly, they had impeccable drafting in their defense, the emergence of Marshawn Lynch from his dark days in Buffalo and Russell Wilson being one of the best draft picks ever. They won't be able to keep this up forever but they still have an open window.

[bap1331]

The problem will be if dorsett, moncrief and carter all work out well. I personally think we need carter as a physical and big receiver like Calvin.

[NewColtsFan]

The problem will be if dorsett, moncrief and carter all work out well. I personally think we need carter as a physical and big receiver like Calvin.

 

All teams would LOVE to have this kind of problem!

 

How is this is a problem?

[Superman]

I'd just like to point out again that, aside from Wilson and Luck being draft classmates, the Seahawks are two or three years ahead of the Colts. That's why they've already been paying their best players. Oddly enough, most of their best drafted players are on defense. They just haven't drafted well at offensive skill positions, which is why they made trades for Graham and Harvin, and Lynch before then.

 

Because they've paid so many players already, and the cap has only started to shoot up (the big increases just started in 2015; they should get bigger over the next couple of seasons), they're actually going to be up against the cap in coming seasons. Right now, they only have about $5m in cap space for 2015; they have $140m committed in 2016, against a cap that will be $150-155m. 

 

They've already let go of major contributors. In 2016, they have 5-8 contributors who will be free agents. They'll have to sign their draft class. They have some issues with their cap, and they've fostered an environment where they have a major player holding out for more money every offseason. 

 

The Colts will have increasing cap obligations, but those obligations should increase in tandem with the cap going up. Right now, they're doing Hilton and likely AC, then next year they'll do Luck and probably one of the two TEs. We'll see who from the 2013 draft class has made a case to get a new contract at that point; as of right now, I'm thinking they'll let that class play out their contracts. In the meantime, Mathis, Toler, Walden, Johnson, Cole, Gore, Jackson, Hasselbeck, Vinatieri, etc., all expire or will be released. We go into 2016 with $120m committed, plus new money for Hilton and AC (TBD), minus the likely releases of Thomas, Jackson, etc. Call it $130m committed.

 

Long story short, because we're a couple years behind Seattle in terms of contracts, and at least one year behind them before our QB gets big money, and because a lot of our major contributors will be coming off the books as a matter of course over the next 2-3 years, we won't have the cap issues they're having right now. We're in better shape than them, cap-wise, and should remain in better shape as the cap continues to increase.

 

However, NCF is right. Their model is the same as the Steelers, Patriots, Ravens, Giants, Packers, and other teams that are consistently good and consistently compete in the postseason -- draft well year after year, retain your own players when you can, supplement with free agency in moderation, continue to draft well, wash, rinse, repeat. Once you have the QB, if you keep drafting well, you'll be okay. The cap kind of takes care of itself, even if you make a mistake here and there.

[AntonMcG]

I'd just like to point out again that, aside from Wilson and Luck being draft classmates, the Seahawks are two or three years ahead of the Colts. That's why they've already been paying their best players. Oddly enough, most of their best drafted players are on defense. They just haven't drafted well at offensive skill positions, which is why they made trades for Graham and Harvin, and Lynch before then.

 

Because they've paid so many players already, and the cap has only started to shoot up (the big increases just started in 2015; they should get bigger over the next couple of seasons), they're actually going to be up against the cap in coming seasons. Right now, they only have about $5m in cap space for 2015; they have $140m committed in 2016, against a cap that will be $150-155m. 

 

They've already let go of major contributors. In 2016, they have 5-8 contributors who will be free agents. They'll have to sign their draft class. They have some issues with their cap, and they've fostered an environment where they have a major player holding out for more money every offseason. 

 

The Colts will have increasing cap obligations, but those obligations should increase in tandem with the cap going up. Right now, they're doing Hilton and likely AC, then next year they'll do Luck and probably one of the two TEs. We'll see who from the 2013 draft class has made a case to get a new contract at that point; as of right now, I'm thinking they'll let that class play out their contracts. In the meantime, Mathis, Toler, Walden, Johnson, Cole, Gore, Jackson, Hasselbeck, Vinatieri, etc., all expire or will be released. We go into 2016 with $120m committed, plus new money for Hilton and AC (TBD), minus the likely releases of Thomas, Jackson, etc. Call it $130m committed.

 

Long story short, because we're a couple years behind Seattle in terms of contracts, and at least one year behind them before our QB gets big money, and because a lot of our major contributors will be coming off the books as a matter of course over the next 2-3 years, we won't have the cap issues they're having right now. We're in better shape than them, cap-wise, and should remain in better shape as the cap continues to increase.

 

However, NCF is right. Their model is the same as the Steelers, Patriots, Ravens, Giants, Packers, and other teams that are consistently good and consistently compete in the postseason -- draft well year after year, retain your own players when you can, supplement with free agency in moderation, continue to draft well, wash, rinse, repeat. Once you have the QB, if you keep drafting well, you'll be okay. The cap kind of takes care of itself, even if you make a mistake here and there.

 

The flip side of this is that the cap rise and contract market rates are not mutually exclusive. As the cap rises, so will the market price, although other factors come into play as well of course. So, we may well be signing players at inopportune times.

 

As an anecdotal example, if the cap rose $20 million for 2016 (It won't, but lets say it will), then Luck's yearly average will more than likely extend beyond the generally accepted $25 million upper-threshold. So really it is the percentage of the cap that matters.

 

This is why I would like to see Costanzo, Fleener, Allen and Luck sorted out sooner rather than later, even if we have to absorb the hit short-term.

 

It is a constant balancing act.

[GoColts8818]

It's all about how you set up the contracts. Polian was a master at it. Now up to Grigson and his team to prove they do the same.

[AntonMcG]

It's all about how you set up the contracts. Polian was a master at it. Now up to Grigson and his team to prove they do the same.

 

The Colt's financial accountants during the Polian era were the masters, not Polian himself.

 

Nor is Grigson a 'master of the cap' as has been proclaimed.

 

Just thought I would make this point - not to you - but in general, because no GM has a CPA.

[schwamm]

I'd just like to point out again that, aside from Wilson and Luck being draft classmates, the Seahawks are two or three years ahead of the Colts. That's why they've already been paying their best players. Oddly enough, most of their best drafted players are on defense. They just haven't drafted well at offensive skill positions, which is why they made trades for Graham and Harvin, and Lynch before then.

Because they've paid so many players already, and the cap has only started to shoot up (the big increases just started in 2015; they should get bigger over the next couple of seasons), they're actually going to be up against the cap in coming seasons. Right now, they only have about $5m in cap space for 2015; they have $140m committed in 2016, against a cap that will be $150-155m.

They've already let go of major contributors. In 2016, they have 5-8 contributors who will be free agents. They'll have to sign their draft class. They have some issues with their cap, and they've fostered an environment where they have a major player holding out for more money every offseason.

The Colts will have increasing cap obligations, but those obligations should increase in tandem with the cap going up. Right now, they're doing Hilton and likely AC, then next year they'll do Luck and probably one of the two TEs. We'll see who from the 2013 draft class has made a case to get a new contract at that point; as of right now, I'm thinking they'll let that class play out their contracts. In the meantime, Mathis, Toler, Walden, Johnson, Cole, Gore, Jackson, Hasselbeck, Vinatieri, etc., all expire or will be released. We go into 2016 with $120m committed, plus new money for Hilton and AC (TBD), minus the likely releases of Thomas, Jackson, etc. Call it $130m committed.

Long story short, because we're a couple years behind Seattle in terms of contracts, and at least one year behind them before our QB gets big money, and because a lot of our major contributors will be coming off the books as a matter of course over the next 2-3 years, we won't have the cap issues they're having right now. We're in better shape than them, cap-wise, and should remain in better shape as the cap continues to increase.

However, NCF is right. Their model is the same as the Steelers, Patriots, Ravens, Giants, Packers, and other teams that are consistently good and consistently compete in the postseason -- draft well year after year, retain your own players when you can, supplement with free agency in moderation, continue to draft well, wash, rinse, repeat. Once you have the QB, if you keep drafting well, you'll be okay. The cap kind of takes care of itself, even if you make a mistake here and there.

just curious...

I keep hearing rumblings that the growing trend of cable-cutting is throwing ESPN into a significant downward spiral. The word is that their contracts for providing exclusive coverage of professional sports are quickly becoming an albatross around their proverbial neck, as their once golden cable income egg shrivels.

So... If ESPN becomes unable to honor its contract with the NFL (the most pessimistic projection I've seen suggests it could happen as early as around 24 months), and it causes a substantial chunk of NFL income to evaporate... I would think that would cause a significant corresponding contraction in the salary cap, no?

My fear is that mega deals in the next couple years might end up sinking some teams. Or am I just blowing that way out of proportion?

[Superman]

The flip side of this is that the cap rise and contract market rates are not mutually exclusive. As the cap rises, so will the market price, although other factors come into play as well of course. So, we may well be signing players at inopportune times.

 

As an anecdotal example, if the cap rose $20 million for 2016 (It won't, but lets say it will), then Luck's yearly average will more than likely extend beyond the generally accepted $25 million upper-threshold. So really it is the percentage of the cap that matters.

 

This is why I would like to see Costanzo, Fleener, Allen and Luck sorted out sooner rather than later, even if we have to absorb the hit short-term.

 

It is a constant balancing act.

 

While it's true that market values will go up with the cap, that will mostly apply to upper echelon players. Once we have our young core locked up, we're mostly shielded from that rise in values. What Grigson has done in free agency is grabbed rental level players, maybe at a premium sometimes, but he's certainly not shopping on the top shelf. I assume that will continue. So once Luck is done, it's really just going to be a couple of our keepers here and there, as they come off rookie contracts.

 

As for the other receivers, when Moncrief is up in two years, and when Dorsett is up in four or five years, our roster will hopefully be more stable than it is now. Letting a big time contributor walk won't be as upsetting to the team's trajectory as it would be now, as we'll have more momentum and hopefully be more balanced overall. Not saying that we'll just let those guys walk, but that there's no need to earmark money for them, especially not top tier money.

 

I think everything will fall in line nicely. We get a reprieve with the 2013 class, because none of them are going to command big money to stay. Then there's no first rounder in 2014, so no costly fifth year option in 2018, which makes it easier to keep Vontae. 

 

In the meantime, AC should get done in the next couple weeks, then next year Luck, Allen and/or Fleener, and maybe Freeman get done. All the other free agents after 2015 are expendable -- Toler, Hasselbeck, AV, Herremans, Chapman, Ballard, Lowery.. Boom and Doyle are RFAs, no one else is worth mentioning. I wouldn't rush on the TEs, because this year, we'll probably see one make a better case than the other, and then we'll choose between them. 

 

Last thing, on Luck, the only QBs that might get done are Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, and a possible extension for Brees. I don't think any of them are going to get anywhere near $25m, so I don't think it's even going to take $25m to get Luck done, no matter what happens to the cap going into 2016. And if we do give him that kind of yearly average, I expect it to be a 7-8 year deal, which makes it easier to keep the cap hits in check, while they gradually increase with the cap. 

[ztboiler]

It's all about how you set up the contracts. Polian was a master at it. Now up to Grigson and his team to prove they do the same.

Polian was a master at retaining an expanding core of system players for their contributions to the greatest decade of regular season winning that the league has ever seen.  That is a level of mastery that deserves the beautiful honor he just received.  

 

However, my recollection of his cap mastery was making it work today by borrowing from tomorrow - not by retaining flexibility should tomorrow be another day or should tomorrow present options that might make your team better.  There are different ways to manage the cap than Polian used, and I hope we'll employ them (to date, Grigson is).

[AntonMcG]

While it's true that market values will go up with the cap, that will mostly apply to upper echelon players. Once we have our young core locked up, we're mostly shielded from that rise in values. What Grigson has done in free agency is grabbed rental level players, maybe at a premium sometimes, but he's certainly not shopping on the top shelf. I assume that will continue. So once Luck is done, it's really just going to be a couple of our keepers here and there, as they come off rookie contracts.

 

As for the other receivers, when Moncrief is up in two years, and when Dorsett is up in four or five years, our roster will hopefully be more stable than it is now. Letting a big time contributor walk won't be as upsetting to the team's trajectory as it would be now, as we'll have more momentum and hopefully be more balanced overall. Not saying that we'll just let those guys walk, but that there's no need to earmark money for them, especially not top tier money.

 

I think everything will fall in line nicely. We get a reprieve with the 2013 class, because none of them are going to command big money to stay. Then there's no first rounder in 2014, so no costly fifth year option in 2018, which makes it easier to keep Vontae. 

 

In the meantime, AC should get done in the next couple weeks, then next year Luck, Allen and/or Fleener, and maybe Freeman get done. All the other free agents after 2015 are expendable -- Toler, Hasselbeck, AV, Herremans, Chapman, Ballard, Lowery.. Boom and Doyle are RFAs, no one else is worth mentioning. I wouldn't rush on the TEs, because this year, we'll probably see one make a better case than the other, and then we'll choose between them. 

 

Last thing, on Luck, the only QBs that might get done are Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, and a possible extension for Brees. I don't think any of them are going to get anywhere near $25m, so I don't think it's even going to take $25m to get Luck done, no matter what happens to the cap going into 2016. And if we do give him that kind of yearly average, I expect it to be a 7-8 year deal, which makes it easier to keep the cap hits in check, while they gradually increase with the cap. 

 

The upper echelon players will pull the mid-market guys up with them, it is the lower-end that won't feel the ripple effect, unless they raise the vet-minimum year-on-year in-line with the cap increases. That is mostly because the lower-market guys are playing for a job or for a future contract.

 

We should be looking at a 8-year deal for Luck, as that represents most value. You can be sure, regardless of Luck's career trajectory, he will not be the highest paid player in the league in 5 years time. The longer we get him at the rate of his next contract, the better.

[Superman]

just curious...

I keep hearing rumblings that the growing trend of cable-cutting is throwing ESPN into a significant downward spiral. The word is that their contracts for providing exclusive coverage of professional sports are quickly becoming an albatross around their proverbial neck, as their once golden cable income egg shrivels.

So... If ESPN becomes unable to honor its contract with the NFL (the most pessimistic projection I've seen suggests it could happen as early as around 24 months), and it causes a substantial chunk of NFL income to evaporate... I would think that would cause a significant corresponding contraction in the salary cap, no?

My fear is that mega deals in the next couple years might end up sinking some teams. Or am I just blowing that way out of proportion?

 

I highly doubt that ESPN would suddenly be unable to honor their deal. If there's one thing keeping people tied to cable, it's sports programming; the NFL is more popular than any other sports league, and ESPN has more NFL programming than any cable network aside from NFL Network. HBO and other networks are offering standalone packages that don't require cable subscriptions, and while ESPN isn't in any hurry to do so themselves, the day will come, and likely before ESPN's NFL deal expires in 2019.

 

ABC/Disney can also put their NFL games back on their over the air channel, if necessary. They won't suddenly stop paying the NFL.

 

And then, if ESPN loses their contract after 2019, another network will eagerly replace them. Or the NFL will cut out the middle man and do MNF on NFL Network, negotiate their own contracts with the cable companies, and keep the ad revenue for themselves. And the present labor deal expires in 2020, so they'll renegotiate after that. I find it hard to believe that there will be some sudden contraction of the salary cap.

 

Bad contracts will sink some teams; they always do. I find it hard to believe the Dolphins will get their money's worth out of Suh, for instance. But I don't think it will be because the cap shrinks.

[Superman]

The upper echelon players will pull the mid-market guys up with them, it is the lower-end that won't feel the ripple effect, unless they raise the vet-minimum year-on-year in-line with the cap increases. That is mostly because the lower-market guys are playing for a job or for a future contract.

 

We should be looking at a 8-year deal for Luck, as that represents most value. You can be sure, regardless of Luck's career trajectory, he will not be the highest paid player in the league in 5 years time. The longer we get him at the rate of his next contract, the better.

 

Lots of moving parts over the next five years. TV contracts expire, the CBA expires... I would expect any Luck contract that goes longer than 5 years to have a player void at some point. 

 

As for the mid-market guys, I don't see Grigson continuing to sign those guys moving forward. He has four draft classes under his belt now. He's stopped taking chances on risky players who can't stay out of trouble (Purifoy, A. Jackson, Brazill, etc., players that should still be on our roster if not for being knuckleheads). I think he'll be more prone to roll with youth that's already in the system than grabbing mid-level guys like Jackson, RJF, Walden, etc. Maybe here and there for someone the staff really likes, but still with the team friendly rental structures they've been using. Mostly, I think we'll see Lowery/Adams level deals more than anything else.

[AntonMcG]

Lots of moving parts over the next five years. TV contracts expire, the CBA expires... I would expect any Luck contract that goes longer than 5 years to have a player void at some point. 

 

As for the mid-market guys, I don't see Grigson continuing to sign those guys moving forward. He has four draft classes under his belt now. He's stopped taking chances on risky players who can't stay out of trouble (Purifoy, A. Jackson, Brazill, etc., players that should still be on our roster if not for being knuckleheads). I think he'll be more prone to roll with youth that's already in the system than grabbing mid-level guys like Jackson, RJF, Walden, etc. Maybe here and there for someone the staff really likes, but still with the team friendly rental structures they've been using. Mostly, I think we'll see Lowery/Adams level deals more than anything else.

 

In the context of Luck, I don't see the point in a contract lasting longer than 5 years if a player void comes into place at that stage. Perhaps you are mitigating against him turning out to be a good-not-great player, but that is highly unlikely.

[Superman]

In the context of Luck, I don't see the point in a contract lasting longer than 5 years if a player void comes into place at that stage. Perhaps you are mitigating against him turning out to be a good-not-great player, but that is highly unlikely.

 

It would come at his insistence, only. If I were Luck, I don't think I'd want an 8 year contract when all indications are that the market will be significantly higher five years from now, when I'm in my prime. I'd rather be re-signing at 30 than at 33.

 

The team will void his contract whenever they get ready. Greater length doesn't really offer him any security, because the guarantees are still going to be reasonably limited. Eight years only benefits the Colts, while undermining Luck's ability to get what he's worth in his prime.

[AntonMcG]

It would come at his insistence, only. If I were Luck, I don't think I'd want an 8 year contract when all indications are that the market will be significantly higher five years from now, when I'm in my prime. I'd rather be re-signing at 30 than at 33.

 

The team will void his contract whenever they get ready. Greater length doesn't really offer him any security, because the guarantees are still going to be reasonably limited. Eight years only benefits the Colts, while undermining Luck's ability to get what he's worth in his prime.

 

Of course not, but I am looking at value from the Colts' side, not from Luck's.

 

What I am saying is it would be much more beneficial for us to sign Luck to a 8 year $25mill p/a contract (without any player voids) than a 5 year $21mill p/a contract.

 

Whether that happens or not, is another story.

[Superman]

Of course not, but I am looking at value from the Colts' side, not from Luck's.

 

What I am saying is it would be much more beneficial for us to sign Luck to a 8 year $25mill p/a contract (without any player voids) than a 5 year $21mill p/a contract.

 

Whether that happens or not, is another story.

 

I agree with all that. I'm just trying to acknowledge that Luck's side will have demands also.

[NewColtsFan]

It would come at his insistence, only. If I were Luck, I don't think I'd want an 8 year contract when all indications are that the market will be significantly higher five years from now, when I'm in my prime. I'd rather be re-signing at 30 than at 33.

 

The team will void his contract whenever they get ready. Greater length doesn't really offer him any security, because the guarantees are still going to be reasonably limited. Eight years only benefits the Colts, while undermining Luck's ability to get what he's worth in his prime.

 

Yes....   my question was might Luck and his team prefer to go a shorter route?

 

Instead of 6/150, I was wondering if Luck would be interested in  4/100 with 70 guaranteed,  which would put him in position of another very big deal before 30?

 

The team would likely prefer 6/150.

 

Do they meet in the middle?    

 

Just thinking out loud.....