Why Is Manning’S Replacement Such A Problem?

[FireJimCaldwell]

I read this when you posted it earlier. What I don't understand is if we trade for players, who takes the cap hit for the players we are RECEIVING?

I understand that WE will take the cap hit for Manning, but I don't understand why we would, somehow, be obligated the cap hit for all players in the trade, while the other team doesn't have anything counting against their cap.

It seems to me that the money we owe Manning may be a sunk cost. We're paying it no matter what.

If we take the 28 million cap hit but get players for no cap hit, it could still be worth it. Please explain to me how it works.

Thanks!

Trading players in the NFL is rare due to the dead cap space that the contracts generate.

In a way it is like sunk cost, but to an extent it's opposite, since it's "future cap dollars" accelerating into a current year as opposed to "old money"

Both sides can receive cap penalties, so it’s not like the Colts are the only being punished. It’s just a matter of both teams having the room to take on such salary cap losses, or simply have enough cap room to field a team while having the dead cap room on the books.

Since many people here think San Francisco would be a possible destination for a Manning trade, let’s hypothetically say we traded Manning to San Fran for Patrick Willis and a 2^nd round draft pick.

Since we would have to pay Manning the 28 million to trade him under his current contract terms, we would get a dead salary cap hit for 38.4 million out of the approximate 121 million 2012 salary cap.

San Francisco would take on an accelerated dead space cap hit of 18,650,000 for the unamortized cap dollars accelerating due to the trading of Willis. SF would be responsible for Manning’s future base salaries and the Colts would be responsible for Willis’ future base salaries.

For a player to realistically be traded in the NFL, they need to have minimal amounts of unamortized cap dollars remaining or towards the end of the contract.

Willis has base salaries of:

2012 (1.9), 2013 (2.4), 2014(5.3), 2015(7.1) 2016(7.9), 2017(4), so the Colts would be responsible for that while the 49ers would be responsible for Manning’s upcoming base salaries 2012(7.4), 2013(8.4), 2014(9.4), 2015(10.4).

The actual dollars would be extreme as well.

28 million option bonus for Manning to play elsewhere? Or 35.4 million for Manning to play here.

Approximately 15 million for Luck

Any combination of Wayne, Mathis, or Garcon will want cash money in the form of a signing bonus, as will any other free agent the new GM might be willing to bring in.

More on Manning

Manning signed a 5 year deal with a 20 million dollar signing bonus. Thus 4 million is allocated to each year for salary cap purposes. 2011, 12,13,14,15. 2011, is over so that 4 million is off the books. As protective salary cap measure, we took a future credit in 2011, of his option bonus(28milion/5) or 5.6 million in the 2011 salary cap. So if he is released, meaning option isn't picked up. that 16 million remaining accelerates into the 2012 cap, and we receive the credit of the 5.6, creating a dead cap space hit of 10.4 million in the 2012 cap.

If we pay him the option bonus, the remainder of the those 4 years at 5.6 million gets added to the books, with the remainder of those 4 years of 4 million.

So if he were to play in 2012, and then we decided to trade him/release him, 12 million from the first signing bonus, and 16.8 from the option bonus would accelerate into the cap for a total of 28.8 for the 2013 cap.

If we traded/released him after 2013, then it is 8 from the first signing bonus and 11.2 from the option bonus or a total of 19.2 in dead cap space accelerated into the 2014 cap.

If we traded/released him after 2014, then it is 4 from the first signing bonus and 5.6 from the option bonus or a total of 9.6 in dead cap space accelerated into the 2015 cap.

This is why if he receives the option bonus he's more than likely Colt for 3 of the 4 years of his contract because it is not prudent to have so much dead cap space.

[That Guy]

Trading players in the NFL is rare due to the dead cap space that the contracts generate.

In a way it is like sunk cost, but to an extent it's opposite, since it's "future cap dollars" accelerating into a current year as opposed to "old money"

Both sides can receive cap penalties, so it’s not like the Colts are the only being punished. It’s just a matter of both teams having the room to take on such salary cap losses, or simply have enough cap room to field a team while having the dead cap room on the books.

Since many people here think San Francisco would be a possible destination for a Manning trade, let’s hypothetically say we traded Manning to San Fran for Patrick Willis and a 2^nd round draft pick.

Since we would have to pay Manning the 28 million to trade him under his current contract terms, we would get a dead salary cap hit for 38.4 million out of the approximate 121 million 2012 salary cap.

San Francisco would take on an accelerated dead space cap hit of 18,650,000 for the unamortized cap dollars accelerating due to the trading of Willis. SF would be responsible for Manning’s future base salaries and the Colts would be responsible for Willis’ future base salaries.

For a player to realistically be traded in the NFL, they need to have minimal amounts of unamortized cap dollars remaining or towards the end of the contract.

Willis has base salaries of:

2012 (1.9), 2013 (2.4), 2014(5.3), 2015(7.1) 2016(7.9), 2017(4), so the Colts would be responsible for that while the 49ers would be responsible for Manning’s upcoming base salaries 2012(7.4), 2013(8.4), 2014(9.4), 2015(10.4).

The actual dollars would be extreme as well.

28 million option bonus for Manning to play elsewhere? Or 35.4 million for Manning to play here.

Approximately 15 million for Luck

Any combination of Wayne, Mathis, or Garcon will want cash money in the form of a signing bonus, as will any other free agent the new GM might be willing to bring in.

More on Manning

Manning signed a 5 year deal with a 20 million dollar signing bonus. Thus 4 million is allocated to each year for salary cap purposes. 2011, 12,13,14,15. 2011, is over so that 4 million is off the books. As protective salary cap measure, we took a future credit in 2011, of his option bonus(28milion/5) or 5.6 million in the 2011 salary cap. So if he is released, meaning option isn't picked up. that 16 million remaining accelerates into the 2012 cap, and we receive the credit of the 5.6, creating a dead cap space hit of 10.4 million in the 2012 cap.

If we pay him the option bonus, the remainder of the those 4 years at 5.6 million gets added to the books, with the remainder of those 4 years of 4 million.

So if he were to play in 2012, and then we decided to trade him/release him, 12 million from the first signing bonus, and 16.8 from the option bonus would accelerate into the cap for a total of 28.8 for the 2013 cap.

If we traded/released him after 2013, then it is 8 from the first signing bonus and 11.2 from the option bonus or a total of 19.2 in dead cap space accelerated into the 2014 cap.

If we traded/released him after 2014, then it is 4 from the first signing bonus and 5.6 from the option bonus or a total of 9.6 in dead cap space accelerated into the 2015 cap.

This is why if he receives the option bonus he's more than likely Colt for 3 of the 4 years of his contract because it is not prudent to have so much dead cap space.

Thanks! I THINK I have a much better understanind now! Please correct me if I am wrong.

The bonuses from the contract were allocated amongst the years of the contract, and the dead cap is the lumped together unamortized cap from the bonuses.

If we traded Peyton for (using your example) Willis and a second; we would, in 2012, be responsible for 38.4 million of Manning and 1.9 million of Willis cap space (total 40.3 million). We would have NO cap from Manning counting against us in 2013 if we traded him in 2012.

If we were to trade Manning, it would ultimately kill our 2012 season due to cap ramifications. HOWEVER, if we were to trade Manning, it would already be an admission that we ARE REBUILDING. We would kill one season, but be free to rebuild fo the next few seasons.

I propose we take the cap hit to trade Manning, but look to get young players and perhaps 2013 draft picks. We would keep our young core of talent (ie. Bethea, Collie, Castozo, Ijalana, Powers, Nevis, Angerer etc...) and retool for a 2013 season. In the 2012 draft, we go after Luck and whatever needs fall into place. We allow 2012 to be a growing experience for our young players, and look to go after free agents in 2013. I would be willing to sit through another year of bad play, if I knew we had a young core of players who were growing. We need to start rebuilding, and we need to see where Peyton fits into that picture. If we trade him for one or two young talented players and a 2013 first, I would jump on that!

Manning is going to be a HUGE cap hit against us no matter what, in 2012. That is why I called Manning a "sunk cost."

We could still trade him. It would just be us admitting we need to rebuild our entire team. I think we NEED to rebuild our entire team.

Thank you for your patience with me, and for taking the time to explain and type all of your post!

[FireJimCaldwell]

Thanks! I THINK I have a much better understanind now! Please correct me if I am wrong.

The bonuses from the contract were allocated amongst the years of the contract, and the dead cap is the lumped together unamortized cap from the bonuses.

If we traded Peyton for (using your example) Willis and a second; we would, in 2012, be responsible for 38.4 million of Manning and 1.9 million of Willis cap space (total 40.3 million). We would have NO cap from Manning counting against us in 2013 if we traded him in 2012.

If we were to trade Manning, it would ultimately kill our 2012 season due to cap ramifications. HOWEVER, if we were to trade Manning, it would already be an admission that we ARE REBUILDING. We would kill one season, but be free to rebuild fo the next few seasons.

I propose we take the cap hit to trade Manning, but look to get young players and perhaps 2013 draft picks. We would keep our young core of talent (ie. Bethea, Collie, Castozo, Ijalana, Powers, Nevis, Angerer etc...) and retool for a 2013 season. In the 2012 draft, we go after Luck and whatever needs fall into place. We allow 2012 to be a growing experience for our young players, and look to go after free agents in 2013. I would be willing to sit through another year of bad play, if I knew we had a young core of players who were growing. We need to start rebuilding, and we need to see where Peyton fits into that picture. If we trade him for one or two young talented players and a 2013 first, I would jump on that!

Manning is going to be a HUGE cap hit against us no matter what, in 2012. That is why I called Manning a "sunk cost."

We could still trade him. It would just be us admitting we need to rebuild our entire team. I think we NEED to rebuild our entire team.

Thank you for your patience with me, and for taking the time to explain and type all of your post!

You're welcome

Yeah that would be accurate, but at that point say bye 87, 98, you likely have to cut 93 to try to create room to field a team with the limited cap space available.

Personally I doubt that the 49ers would be willing to trade WIllis and a 2 for Manning with the questions that are out there, I was just using him as an example because I knew he had a lot of bonus dollars remaining on his contract.

I don't know if there is a windfall to be found in trading a 36 year old qb with 3 neck surgeries and I'm sure that any team that would offer a trade with acceptable compensation would go over him during his physical to make sure there was not much of a chance of it backfiring outside of a new injury.

If a true rebuild mode is what the team wants, then they might be better off, just not picking up the option, having him account for 10.6, let the other guys above walk, dump Freeney, and try to bring in Free agents, and hope the new guy hits on some draft picks. There are ways to do it, but it is not a simple task.

[That Guy]

You're welcome

Yeah that would be accurate, but at that point say bye 87, 98, you likely have to cut 93 to try to create room to field a team with the limited cap space available.

Personally I doubt that the 49ers would be willing to trade WIllis and a 2 for Manning with the questions that are out there, I was just using him as an example because I knew he had a lot of bonus dollars remaining on his contract.

I don't know if there is a windfall to be found in trading a 36 year old qb with 3 neck surgeries and I'm sure that any team that would offer a trade with acceptable compensation would go over him during his physical to make sure there was not much of a chance of it backfiring outside of a new injury.

If a true rebuild mode is what the team wants, then they might be better off, just not picking up the option, having him account for 10.6, let the other guys above walk, dump Freeney, and try to bring in Free agents, and hope the new guy hits on some draft picks. There are ways to do it, but it is not a simple task.

I agree. I would not pick up the option on Manning (that is still SO hard to say). At this point, his VALUE is not as high as the money we are paying him. I also think a restructuring of Freeney and Brackett needs to be done, and I would only resign Mathis and Wayne if they agreed to sign for cheap. I think we either keep the veterans we have, or lose the veterans we have. Close to an all-or-nothing / package deal. If we keep Peyton and the veterans, we will be playing for the short-run.

If I had to look for a trade, I would still look to Cleveland (doesn't it always seem to be Cleveland?) to try to go after players like Joe Thomas, Phillip Taylor (or Ahtyba Rubin), Alex Mack, or Joe Haden. They have a surprising amount of young talent but need a QB. Maybe one or two of them plus a 2013 pick (I have trouble estimating the value Cleveland would hold for Peyton, so this may seem unrealistic).

Bottom line: I vote for an unpopular overhaul.

[JoKeR]

Instead of just dropping every cornerstone on the team, we just drop those who can't stay healthy. Resign Wayne, Garcon and Mathis, who are playing at a high level. Keep Manning if healthy. Cut Bracket, Addai,Gonzo, and Bullitt. Saturday might retire. Does that free up enough money for you?

I don't think its necessary to completely start over. Teams can slowly revamp while keeping its vets. Those vets will help teach the younger players until they are vets themselves.

This is where I think continuity is important.

[Balzer40]

Instead of just dropping every cornerstone on the team, we just drop those who can't stay healthy. Resign Wayne, Garcon and Mathis, who are playing at a high level. Keep Manning if healthy. Cut Bracket, Addai,Gonzo, and Bullitt. Saturday might retire. Does that free up enough money for you?

I don't think its necessary to completely start over. Teams can slowly revamp while keeping its vets. Those vets will help teach the younger players until they are vets themselves.

This is where I think continuity is important.

The only problem with that is that the guys you mentioned cutting would save us very little money and the guys you proposed keeping would cost us way more than I would imagine the Colts having. Reggie is gonna want a retirement contract, Mathis will want huge money too, and Garcon could probably be had at a decent price. At this point, im sure Irsay is going to feel like he needs an absolute guarantee that Manning is 100% completely healed to pay out a 28 million dollar bonus, and I just doubt very much he will get that guarantee. It is always possible they could push back the deadline to give them extra time, but Im just starting to think Manning will be cut lose no matter how unpopular it would be. For the record I hope im wrong and they can come to some sort of solution but Im skeptical.

[JoKeR]

The only problem with that is that the guys you mentioned cutting would save us very little money and the guys you proposed keeping would cost us way more than I would imagine the Colts having. Reggie is gonna want a retirement contract, Mathis will want huge money too, and Garcon could probably be had at a decent price. At this point, im sure Irsay is going to feel like he needs an absolute guarantee that Manning is 100% completely healed to pay out a 28 million dollar bonus, and I just doubt very much he will get that guarantee. It is always possible they could push back the deadline to give them extra time, but Im just starting to think Manning will be cut lose no matter how unpopular it would be. For the record I hope im wrong and they can come to some sort of solution but Im skeptical.

if that's the case...

Then only let Wayne walk. We have more depth at WR than DE. Keep Garcon Anderson Simms Mathis Tamme.

There's a thread about this issue that's very active if you want to continue there...

[That Guy]

Instead of just dropping every cornerstone on the team, we just drop those who can't stay healthy. Resign Wayne, Garcon and Mathis, who are playing at a high level. Keep Manning if healthy. Cut Bracket, Addai,Gonzo, and Bullitt. Saturday might retire. Does that free up enough money for you?

I don't think its necessary to completely start over. Teams can slowly revamp while keeping its vets. Those vets will help teach the younger players until they are vets themselves.

This is where I think continuity is important.

We have the young cornerstones in place to build a good team, and we are in position to get another KEY cornerstone, but I think the veterans would not like to be a part of our team if they see us as rebuilding. My whole point was that dumping Manning would give us more freedom to rebuild, but it would also agrevate the veterans.

I doubt Wayne would want to stay with the team if Peyton were traded or released.

Saturday would be more likely to retire if Peyton were not on the team.

Mathis and Garcon would ask for more money to play for a rebuilding team.

I know we want to keep our cornerstones, but at what cost? Many of our cornerstones are overpaid, and many of our free agents are going to demand to be overpaid. That makes it harder for us to focus on gathering young talent and rebuilding.

[Smitto]

lol...Smitto, c'mon man. I know what the "III" means for christs sake. I'm sayin....call him Griffin. Unless there's more than one highly touted QB named Robert griffin, I would say the "III" is fodder for ESPN The Magazine.

I was pointing out how silly it is that they have to throw in his surname because it makes a cool nick. Point being, I don't give a chiz if he has a dad with the same name. The moniker "RG3" is catchy but stupid. I wish you fellas would stop biting the medias teet and parroting their stupid blather.

Oh ok then i got ya, i just like saying that cause it sounds cool.. like a video game or something.

[ruksak]

Oh ok then i got ya, i just like saying that cause it sounds cool.. like a video game or something.

It is catchy and I'm a cynical creep so.....

I don't follow college football AT ALL. I follow the draft prospects once they're eligible. Following them too early seems a futile practice because 95% of the players are just kids that will be selling cars in a few years. Which is why so many players look awesome in college then they fail miserably when playing against NFL men.

So....when I first saw people wanting "RG3" I was confused. I thought.....and this is gonna sound stupid....I thought "Why do people think we need 3 right guards"?

[MAC]

lol...Smitto, c'mon man. I know what the "III" means for christs sake. I'm sayin....call him Griffin. Unless there's more than one highly touted QB named Robert griffin, I would say the "III" is fodder for ESPN The Magazine.

I was pointing out how silly it is that they have to throw in his surname because it makes a cool nick. Point being, I don't give a chiz if he has a dad with the same name. The moniker "RG3" is catchy but stupid. I wish you fellas would stop biting the medias teet and parroting their stupid blather.

Living in the NY area, I always hated the "A-Rod" nonsense for Alex Rodriguez. Then the Mets got relief pitcher "K-Rod" from the Angels. After a few months I had trouble remembering what his actual name was. And now the same sillyness is extended to any basketball player who averages more than 4 points per game. Most of the time I have absolutely no idea who they are talking about, and no desire to invest in a translation table.

In short, I find the nickname RGIII annoying. Then again the world has already exhausted EVERY conceivable attempt at a Luck "play on words" - most of them pathetic - 100 times over, and he hasn't even been drafted yet! I must learn to brace myself for the onslaught to come before I develop a nervous tick at the mere sight of a pair of dice.

[ruksak]

In short, I find the nickname RGIII annoying. Then again the world has already exhausted EVERY conceivable attempt at a Luck "play on words" - most of them pathetic - 100 times over, and he hasn't even been drafted yet! I must learn to brace myself for the onslaught to come before I develop a nervous tick at the mere sight of a pair of dice.

I can hear the crew of NFLN already..... chiming in with constant plays on the word "Luck".

[MAC]

I can hear the crew of NFLN already..... chiming in with constant plays on the word "Luck".

But never being able to use that one magical word that rhymes so well and says so much. They should just send a check to the FCC now.

[ruksak]

But never being able to use that one magical word that rhymes so well and says so much. They should just send a check to the FCC now.

I used that here already in response to "Suck for Luck".

It seemed appropriate at the time.

[MAC]

I used that here already in response to "Suck for Luck".

It seemed appropriate at the time.

Here here. So tiresome.

Where's Jim Druckenmiller when you need him.

[emac]

I have solved the Peyton Manning vs. Adrew Luck problem of being on the same team. Peyton Manning will be the starting QB next year. Adrew Luck can display his recieving skills with the number 3 receiver. Problem solved they are both starting for the Colts.

[JoKeR]

We have the young cornerstones in place to build a good team, and we are in position to get another KEY cornerstone, but I think the veterans would not like to be a part of our team if they see us as rebuilding. My whole point was that dumping Manning would give us more freedom to rebuild, but it would also agrevate the veterans.

I doubt Wayne would want to stay with the team if Peyton were traded or released.

Saturday would be more likely to retire if Peyton were not on the team.

Mathis and Garcon would ask for more money to play for a rebuilding team.

I know we want to keep our cornerstones, but at what cost? Many of our cornerstones are overpaid, and many of our free agents are going to demand to be overpaid. That makes it harder for us to focus on gathering young talent and rebuilding.

Which cornerstones are over paid, Freeney and Bracket? I'd agree there. And if Peyton is done I agree that Wayne might want to leave and Saturday might retire but I don't think Garcon/Mathis would ask for too much.

I think almost all of our players are happy to be Colts and want to stay with what's familiar, even if its moving towards a new era. They know if they demand a over the top salary, they are basically pushing the team away.

[Smitto]

It is catchy and I'm a cynical creep so.....

I don't follow college football AT ALL. I follow the draft prospects once they're eligible. Following them too early seems a futile practice because 95% of the players are just kids that will be selling cars in a few years. Which is why so many players look awesome in college then they fail miserably when playing against NFL men.

So....when I first saw people wanting "RG3" I was confused. I thought.....and this is gonna sound stupid....I thought "Why do people think we need 3 right guards"?

lol... still laughing at this after ten minutes..

[MikeCurtis32]

So much has been said about this topic. As I see it, the Colts have an identity crisis on their hands. We need to learn from past mistakes. One of which is.... don't put all your eggs in one basket, nobody else does. The Steelers have a dynasty, maybe the only one in the NFL that has lasted over 40 years. Make NO DOUBT about it, you know who they are and not much has changed with them. Yet, they have one of the most successful teams in the NFL. Why is that... you should ask yourself. And yet, who are we? When you look at the Colts of today, one will say we are a team that likes to pass. Yet, who were we before Peyton came along? Are we a dynasty or a team in constant change as players become obsolete? What will we be 10 or 20 years from now and why? If I'm not too far of the radar screen on this one, I'm willing to bet Jim Irsay is asking this too. Bill Polian's concept of success wasn't as successful as we would like to admit. He gave the Colts and the Buffalo Bills many good years, but without many Super Bowl victories. His need for speed on both offense and defense is good with regular season play, but when the playoff starts, his record shows failure. Too many times his offense came up short because the defense couldn't get off the field. And when our team needed to run, they couldn't. Teams loaded with veteran players lose quite a bit during the regular season because experienced veterans of the game have an incentive not to risk career threatening injuries. Our team was the most successful "Regular Season" team during the first decade of this century for one reason only... we were always able to take fresh NEW talent and make them successful on the field. Rookies are highly motivated for two distinct reasons, they want the job and are willing to risk injury for the sake of that job, whereas, veteran players are not. So, when we made it to the playoffs every year, we often went one and done due to the fact our rookie players couldn't bring their play up to the next level. Bill Polian reminded me of Mike Vanderjack... great during the regular season, but "no can do" during post season. So, do we wish to repeat these mistakes again? Ask Jim Irsay. I don't feel we should use the Steelers as our benchmark for play, but we should look for a benchmark that shows how to run a team for decades to come. Who has had the best success overall, or by season? Let's take the Dolphins who went undefeated and won the Super Bowl with a little known QB named Bob Griece. He's not in many record books for his accomplishments, yet, he came back from injury to win the Super Bowl with the only team to do so since. Also, that undefeated team made it to the Super Bowl using a backup QB named Earl Morral who used to play for the Colts. So, do teams need a super star QB to win the big game? No! It's highly overrated and not necessary to have one. What you need is balance on both sides of the field with a great coaching staff. As the coach of the 1980 USA hockey olympic team that beat a Soviet team that hadn't lost a game i over 20 years, once said to his superiors..... I'm not looking for the BEST players to be on this team, just the RIGHT ones! Another example of what NOT to do is what the Cowboys did during the past ten years and as with the current Jets squad who are trying to BUY their way to success using all star players. Look at what that got them this year? All I heard during the beginning of the season was that NOBODY was going to stop the Jets with the players they had. If I were the owner of the Colts, I would surround myself with like minded people who share my vision of success for years to come. I would start by establishing a team identity. Then I would go out and get the talent from there. My bench mark for success would be similar to those of the Undefeated Dolpins who forced other teams to account for every inch of the field of play. Another would be the Giants who defeated the Patriots in the Super Bowl by using three running backs of different caliber coupled with the ability to pass when needed and a balanced defense (pass and run). Our biggest challenge doesn't lay with our choice of quarterback, but with the culture of our owner. Is he a good problem solver or does he need to hand that responsibility to someone else? I have faith HE will make the proper choices and set this team on a track similar to those I mentioned above. We want a Dynasty not just a few good seasons. Good Luck Mr. Irsay! We're depending on you. GO COLTS!!!