What to do with Art Jones?

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Any thoughts of releasing him or being a backup are stupid, unless he physically can't play IMO. When healthy which he hasn't been since being a Colt, he is a very good player. Anderson probably will need to be worked in slowly in a rotation, Jones, if healthy should start, play well and earn his money!

[The Peytonator]

I'm on the fence, but I'm leaning towards bringing him back at least for this year. I feel like his first year he was extremely out of shape, and his performance when healthy was pretty bad. Then he got hurt and it was a busted year. He realized this and came out slimmed down last year, but a freak injury took him out before he got started. His cap hit for 2016 isn't crippling by any means, so I'd like to see a motivated and healthy Art Jones come out and play a role in our rotation. He, Kerr, and McGill would be an excellent backup Dline.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, ztboiler said:

Ahh....herein lies the first fundamental to cap understanding.  The opposite is true. 

 

Dead money exists to pay off your debts, current or past, it does not incur new debt.

 

I suppose people don't get this. Should probably stop calling it 'dead money.' It's money that's already been spent, and therefore will be counted against the cap sooner or later.

[VaAllDay757]

Parry is a beast and much cheaper right now cut jones and save the money

[Superman]

2 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

I think the most important thing to remember is just because you are releasing a player and technically "saving money", everytime you do that and there is some dead money involved, you are effectively lowering the salary cap on your team.

 

You're missing the point. 

 

What we're calling "dead money" is just an accelerated accounting of bonus money that's already been paid, but was spread out over multiple years. You can do a post-June 1 release and that acceleration doesn't happen until the next season. 

 

The saving of money is not a technicality. You are literally saving money by not paying a player more salary. That's money that will not be added to the salary cap, either now or later. You are therefore gaining cap space by releasing a player, whether there's "dead money" or not.

[ztboiler]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I suppose people don't get this. Should probably stop calling it 'dead money.' It's money that's already been spent, and therefore will be counted against the cap sooner or later.

To the bolded...This may be too much to assume...Cap management for the Apocalyptic?....

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

100%. People have to stop worrying about dead money and cap savings. It's not the issue.

 

There are two questions. One is football, the other is fiscal:

1) Can Arthur Jones rebound and play at a reasonably high level again, coming even close to production that would warrant a place in the Colts defensive line rotation?

2) Can his potential production justify his pay, and is it worth the risk of him not being healthy again?

 

If the answer to either of those questions is negative or doubtful, then you have to do something about it. First option is the easiest and cleanest, which is to release him; if you're not even a little optimistic that he can play at a high level and stay healthy, then this makes the most sense. (Also, releasing him creates an acceleration of paid bonus, but a post-June 1 designation would create an additional $2.2m of cap space in 2016.) 

 

Second option is to restructure his base salary with incentives. That only makes sense if you're optimistic about his potential contributions. Both Pagano and Monachino are intimately familiar with Jones, and I would assume both hope he can get back and play well, and are willing to give him a chance. Jones' vet minimum salary is about $1m, and then they could add per game bonuses of ~$219K which would allow Jones to make back his initial salary if he's healthy. 

 

They'll address this once the medical stuff is figured out, I think. If he doesn't get a clean bill of health, nothing else matters.

 

Thank you.     The new system doesn't have a post counter for each thread as the old system had,  but yours is the FIRST POST to offer the idea of re-working Jones' contract.

 

That strikes me as the best idea.     See if he'll re-do the deal.     And I'd even be willing to give him a little more base than just the veteran's minimum.    I'd offer $1.7 base, which is $100k per game.   And I'd offer another $1.7 in game incentives....   another $100k per....     but a new contract has to happen.

 

[Goatface Killah]

3 hours ago, ztboiler said:

Ahh....herein lies the first fundamental to cap understanding.  The opposite is true. 

 

Dead money exists to pay off your debts, current or past, it does not incur new debt.

 

I disagree, and you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I am aware of how the cap works, though I'm no cap guru. I definitely have a good grasp on economics. Paying people for nothing is almost never a good thing, neither short term or long term. 

 

This is a budgeting issue. And that is how I view it. Dead money comes out of your budget and lowers your available cash flow for that season.

 

We already have over 6 million in dead money next year for players LONG gone. That is what I mean by financing old debt, you are levying this years cap for prior expense. The minute hes gone it becomes a prior expense. That is another player we have to sign to fill a roster spot.  The dead money is actually a financing fee for a bad investment. You clearly planned on that player being here longer than he was. 

 

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're missing the point. 

 

What we're calling "dead money" is just an accelerated accounting of bonus money that's already been paid, but was spread out over multiple years. You can do a post-June 1 release and that acceleration doesn't happen until the next season. 

 

The saving of money is not a technicality. You are literally saving money by not paying a player more salary. That's money that will not be added to the salary cap, either now or later. You are therefore gaining cap space by releasing a player, whether there's "dead money" or not.

 

I'm not saying its a technicality. But you are leaving out the most key point I made which is we are dealing with a salary cap (budget) here. We are gonna spend right up to the cap (budget) regardless.

 

I'm saying that the thought that you're "saving money" and therefore its a good thing is not entirely accurate. If you don't believe me go out and start a business, then fire someone and pay them a partial salary anyways for the rest of the year and you'll see what I'm talking about. It does nothing to actually lower your cost of doing business, the Colts still must field a full roster just like you would still need a full staff. What happens is it comes out of your budget (cap) for that year, forcing you to field a staff (roster) with less overall capital. And its very hard to do that.

 

I think you and Dustin are only looking at this from a consumer perspective and failing to factor in the penalties. Yes, we are technically "saving" on the cap and will have more to spend because our cap space goes up. But there are hidden costs here (we have to replace him plus pay him the dead money) and the cap ramifications of that further hinder your ability to replace him adequately and improve the team overall.

 

Gosder Cherilus is a great example of what I'm talking about. We released him and saved money. We spent some of the savings on Todd Herremans who was horrible. We are still paying Cherilus over 5 million next season and Herremans didnt even make it a full season which required another addition ti the roster. And Cherilus started 13 games for the Bucs this year and was certainly as good or better than Denzell Good or even Joe Reitz. 

 

Did we save some money on last years cap?

 

Sure.

 

Did it improve our football team?

 

Nope.

 

I'm not arguing the fact we will save money on next years cap. I'm saying I wouldn't be so quick to assume a few extra bucks to spend is automatically a good thing.

 

 

 

***I AM SPEAKING IN TERMS OF THE CAP HERE, NOT ACTUAL CASH***

[NewColtsFan]

55 minutes ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Parry is a beast and much cheaper right now cut jones and save the money

 

Parry is not a beast.    We don't have a beast on defense -- anywhere.

 

Parry is a nice player.   But at 310 pounds, he can be moved around.    I'd say he's a solid player and enjoyed a nice rookie year.    And he might even get better,  but I don't think he's even the least bit close to being a beast.

 

And I'm a Stanford guy....

 

[Patrick Miller]

Jones can't stay healthy. He's not helping the team if He's always on ir. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see him cut.

[ztboiler]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Parry is not a beast.    We don't have a beast on defense -- anywhere.

 

Parry is a nice player.   But at 310 pounds, he can be moved around.    I'd say he's a solid player and enjoyed a nice rookie year.    And he might even get better,  but I don't think he's even the least bit close to being a beast.

 

And I'm a Stanford guy....

 

Can't blame a Colts fan for getting a touch exhuberant from seeing a DLineman make a run stop....it's been a few years.

[Carlos Danger]

Keep him... There are the minimal savings from releasing him, but that doesn't change anything for me. 

 

The best player in our D-Line is unlikely to be ready to start the season. Even if Anderson was healthy, the defensive line will be a rotation. The primary backups will see playing time no matter what. 

 

Jones needs replacing eventually, but I don't think that this is the off-season to do it. He can provide some needed depth and meaningful snaps next year. 

[ztboiler]

1 hour ago, GoatBeard said:

 

I disagree, and you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. I am aware of how the cap works, though I'm no cap guru. I definitely have a good grasp on economics. Paying people for nothing is almost never a good thing, neither short term or long term. 

 

This is a budgeting issue. And that is how I view it. Dead money comes out of your budget and lowers your available cash flow for that season.

 

We already have over 6 million in dead money next year for players LONG gone. That is what I mean by financing old debt, you are levying this years cap for prior expense. The minute hes gone it becomes a prior expense. That is another player we have to sign to fill a roster spot.  The dead money is actually a financing fee for a bad investment. You clearly planned on that player being here longer than he was. 

 

 

I'm not saying its a technicality. But you are leaving out the most key point I made which is we are dealing with a salary cap (budget) here. We are gonna spend right up to the cap (budget) regardless.

 

I'm saying that the thought that you're "saving money" and therefore its a good thing is not entirely accurate. If you don't believe me go out and start a business, then fire someone and pay them a partial salary anyways for the rest of the year and you'll see what I'm talking about. It does nothing to actually lower your cost of doing business, the Colts still must field a full roster just like you would still need a full staff. What happens is it comes out of your budget (cap) for that year, forcing you to field a staff (roster) with less overall capital. And its very hard to do that.

 

I think you and Dustin are only looking at this from a consumer perspective and failing to factor in the penalties. Yes, we are technically "saving" on the cap and will have more to spend because our cap space goes up. But there are hidden costs here (we have to replace him plus pay him the dead money) and the cap ramifications of that further hinder your ability to replace him adequately and improve the team overall.

 

Gosder Cherilus is a great example of what I'm talking about. We released him and saved money. We spent some of the savings on Todd Herremans who was horrible. We are still paying Cherilus over 5 million next season and Herremans didnt even make it a full season which required another addition ti the roster. And Cherilus started 13 games for the Bucs this year and was certainly as good or better than Denzell Good or even Joe Reitz. 

 

Did we save some money on last years cap?

 

Sure.

 

Did it improve our football team?

 

Nope.

 

I'm not arguing the fact we will save money on next years cap. I'm saying I wouldn't be so quick to assume a few extra bucks to spend is automatically a good thing.

 

 

 

***I AM SPEAKING IN TERMS OF THE CAP HERE, NOT ACTUAL CASH***

Nobody is arguing that dead cap is anything but to be avoided if possible, but you are looking at it with a lens that doesn't contain the operational picture.  Everything you said about the Cap as a budget to be cultivated to maximize your competitive position is true....yes, it is painful to use a portion of it toward players that are no longer on your roster.  It is clear you have a good grasp of the mechanics.

 

In the Art Jones example:  For 2016, his cap hit of $5.6M consists of $4.5M in base and $1.1 in prorated bonus.  Cutting him forces us to reconcile a dead number of $3.3M (in 2016 or 2017) for a player that is no longer here - numbers you already know, I realize.  

 

According to your perspective, the cap depletion cost of $3.3M unusable justifies spending $4.5M in new operational funds to avoid the reconciliation with accounting.  I'm suggesting that the new money spent ($4.5M) must be justified only by projected performance, not the avoidance of a sunk cost.

 

To your business example...would you complain (as a business owner) if your CPA suggested that, for tax benefit, you move expenses/liabilities into next year that could've been taken this year?  This is functionally equivalent.

[DougDew]

I would keep Jones, because if cut, he would have to be replaced...by something other than a late round pick or vet minimum money.  I don't want to use a draft pick or FA money for his replacement. 

 

If my following the cap hit is correct, he's getting paid 4.5 mill but his dead cap is 2.3 mill, so you would have to find a better FA for about 2 mill.  I think that' s unlikely.  So, cutting him would actually cost more than keeping him, in terms of money or mid round pick.

[Douzer]

Keep him...

[krunk]

I say we keep him and also draft a young stud similar to Eddie Goldman. Only way I would I consider getting rid of him is if somebody much better becomes available in FA like Wilkerson or somebody else. And I might not do it then either because if you keep him you have a stock pile of really good players. Langford, Parry, Anderson, Wilkerson, Jones and you draft a solid young guy in the draft or stay with Kerr or Billy Winn or Mcgill. I still kinda wish we would have brought in Terry Williams

[Superman]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Thank you.     The new system doesn't have a post counter for each thread as the old system had,  but yours is the FIRST POST to offer the idea of re-working Jones' contract.

 

That strikes me as the best idea.     See if he'll re-do the deal.     And I'd even be willing to give him a little more base than just the veteran's minimum.    I'd offer $1.7 base, which is $100k per game.   And I'd offer another $1.7 in game incentives....   another $100k per....     but a new contract has to happen.

 

 

It's the only way I'd keep him.

 

Before I get there, though, I have to know he's healthy and able to play.

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, ztboiler said:

Nobody is arguing that dead cap is anything but to be avoided if possible, but you are looking at it with a lens that doesn't contain the operational picture.  Everything you said about the Cap as a budget to be cultivated to maximize your competitive position is true....yes, it is painful to use a portion of it toward players that are no longer on your roster.  It is clear you have a good grasp of the mechanics.

 

In the Art Jones example:  For 2016, his cap hit of $5.6M consists of $4.5M in base and $1.1 in prorated bonus.  Cutting him forces us to reconcile a dead number of $3.3M (in 2016 or 2017) for a player that is no longer here - numbers you already know, I realize.  

 

According to your perspective, the cap depletion cost of $3.3M unusable justifies spending $4.5M in new operational funds to avoid the reconciliation with accounting.  I'm suggesting that the new money spent ($4.5M) must be justified only by projected performance, not the avoidance of a sunk cost.

 

To your business example...would you complain (as a business owner) if your CPA suggested that, for tax benefit, you move expenses/liabilities into next year that could've been taken this year?  This is functionally equivalent.

 

Sorry man, I didn't have the actual numbers in front of me, and I got a little long winded in my explanation, but if we are only saving 2.3, then I just don't think its worth it. 

 

I understand why people are down on Art, but I would rather pay the additional 2.3 and take a chance on his health, than sign a low level free agent or low round pick, to save 1.5 or so that we'll probably blow on overpaying someone else. Probably because I really like Art as a player. If you aren't as big of a fan of his, you might think otherwise.

 

I'm hoping for a restructure. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

This is a budgeting issue. And that is how I view it. Dead money comes out of your budget and lowers your available cash flow for that season

 

Not necessarily. That's the reason for the post-June 1 option.

 

Quote

The dead money is actually a financing fee for a bad investment. You clearly planned on that player being here longer than he was. 

 

No it's not. It's just cap accounting. You only have prorated bonus that has to be accounted for if you gave the player a signing bonus. And the function of the signing bonus spreads out money that you pay up front. It's simply a postponed accounting of money that you have already paid. You could have accounted for all that compensation along the way. Either way, you paid the same amount of money for the player, and used the same amount of cap space.

 

Quote

I'm not saying its a technicality. But you are leaving out the most key point I made which is we are dealing with a salary cap (budget) here. We are gonna spend right up to the cap (budget) regardless.

 

We're not necessarily going to spend right up to the cap, and even if we are, that's not a justification for spending unwisely. If a player isn't worth his salary, regardless of the "dead money" from releasing him, you don't pay him more money. That's a fundamental concept; don't throw good money after bad.

 

Quote

I'm saying that the thought that you're "saving money" and therefore its a good thing is not entirely accurate. If you don't believe me go out and start a business, then fire someone and pay them a partial salary anyways for the rest of the year and you'll see what I'm talking about. It does nothing to actually lower your cost of doing business, the Colts still must field a full roster just like you would still need a full staff. What happens is it comes out of your budget (cap) for that year, forcing you to field a staff (roster) with less overall capital. And its very hard to do that.

 

I think you and Dustin are only looking at this from a consumer perspective and failing to factor in the penalties. Yes, we are technically "saving" on the cap and will have more to spend because our cap space goes up. But there are hidden costs here (we have to replace him plus pay him the dead money) and the cap ramifications of that further hinder your ability to replace him adequately and improve the team overall.

 

Gosder Cherilus is a great example of what I'm talking about. We released him and saved money. We spent some of the savings on Todd Herremans who was horrible. We are still paying Cherilus over 5 million next season and Herremans didnt even make it a full season which required another addition ti the roster. And Cherilus started 13 games for the Bucs this year and was certainly as good or better than Denzell Good or even Joe Reitz. 

 

 

I think we've identified the first fundamental flaw in your understanding, in the bolded parts. We are not paying Cherilus anything next year. We already paid him that money in a signing bonus. Now we have to account for what we already paid him. And if you think that $5.8m in "dead money" in 2016 is annoying, think about having a $9.9m cap hit for a bad RT. (Neither here nor there, but Cherilus wasn't better than Joe Reitz at RT this year.)

 

If we release Jones, we're not paying him anything else. We just have to account for what we've already paid him.

 

It's like rollover minutes. They're already paid for, you just haven't used them yet.

 

Quote

Did we save some money on last years cap?

 

Sure.

 

Did it improve our football team?

 

Nope.

 

I'm not arguing the fact we will save money on next years cap. I'm saying I wouldn't be so quick to assume a few extra bucks to spend is automatically a good thing.

 

***I AM SPEAKING IN TERMS OF THE CAP HERE, NOT ACTUAL CASH***

 

 

The second fundamental flaw: Just because we didn't spend our savings wisely in 2015 doesn't mean it was pointless to have saved. We should have added a better lineman. (Also, the Colts were still $9m under the cap. They could have done more on the OL.)

 

The idea isn't that saving money improves your team. It's that you don't give more money to players who aren't worth it anymore.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I would rather pay the additional 2.3 and take a chance on his health

 

You're not paying an additional $2.3m. You're paying an additional $4.5m. 

 

Also, just to expound further, you are looking at the cap one year at a time. That's a mistake. Assume the cap in 2016 is $150m, and the cap in 2017 is $160m. Between the two years, you have $310m in total cap (and keep in mind, what you don't spend today, you can spend tomorrow). Releasing Jones requires you to account for $3.3m in previously paid bonus money in 2016 and 2017 (you can either take the whole hit in 2016, or you can do $1.1m in 2016 and $2.2m in 2017). That's 1% of your total cap in those two years.

 

If you keep Jones in 2016, you have to account for his $4.5m salary in 2016 plus at least $2.2m in previously paid bonus money (assuming he's not released prior to 2017). That's 2.1% of your total cap, and you still haven't accounted for the remaining $1.1m in previously paid bonus money.

 

That's not a drastic savings, it's not going to change your team to have an extra 1% of available cap. But that's not the point. The point, again, is you don't keep paying a player just because you aren't gaining a bunch of cap space right now. The cap is not just accounted for one year at a time. You don't spend money today just because you don't want to account for the money you already spent yet. The primary question is whether the player is worth the money you would be spending. If not, cut your losses.

[OLD FAN MAN]

imo our new dc will have a lot of new faces for us as he builds a defense and also some of the old

[VaAllDay757]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Parry is not a beast.    We don't have a beast on defense -- anywhere.

 

Parry is a nice player.   But at 310 pounds, he can be moved around.    I'd say he's a solid player and enjoyed a nice rookie year.    And he might even get better,  but I don't think he's even the least bit close to being a beast.

 

And I'm a Stanford guy....

 

He's great at stuffing the run we haven't had anyone like that in years so he got some beast in him but bottom line is cut jones it will saves a headache

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, VaAllDay757 said:

He's great at stuffing the run we haven't had anyone like that in years so he got some beast in him but bottom line is cut jones it will saves a headache

 

Shouldn't "beast" be saved for players who are on the "All-Pro" level and not just your good everyday solid players.      

 

Shouldn't "beast" be saved for the best of the best?

 

[UKColt13]

I think we should keep him. It costs us pretty much the same to cut him than to keep him, so I'd rather keep him.

 

Although I disagree that he should start over Langford or Anderson or Parry. At this point he's the defensive line's sixth man to use a basketball term. First guy off the bench.

[Lawrence Owen]

3 hours ago, UKColt13 said:

I think we should keep him. It costs us pretty much the same to cut him than to keep him, so I'd rather keep him.

 

Although I disagree that he should start over Langford or Anderson or Parry. At this point he's the defensive line's sixth man to use a basketball term. First guy off the bench.

That is my thought.  IDC how much he's paid, to me he is on the roster to help the team in the best way he can.  Him rotating the D-line for breathers is a VERY important role IMO. Being able to do so without loosing skill at a position is a huge bonus to that defense.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

On 1/9/2016 at 3:53 AM, Lawrence Owen said:

With Art Jones being Injury prone the past couple years, and his contract giving up over 3 mil in dead cap next year if let go - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/arthur-jones/ - the  conundrum of what to do with him is expanding day to day.

 

However, I believe keeping him would be most prudent for the team as a whole.  But some would disagree, especially in the capacity I have in mind.

 

I say keep him,...as a primary back-up.  With Langford and Anderson proving they are solid starters on the DE/DT spots,..and Parry shoring up the NT, Jones would then make for perhaps one of the best depth/rotation players in the NFL.  This would also lessen the amount of snaps he has, and in doing so, supposedly lessen the chance of injury. Possibly having him for an entire year for once.

Also, since Anderson's injury is so significant, there is no guarantee he would even be ready at the start of the season himself.  Yes having both Anderson AND Jones on the sideline week 1 does not sound like the best overall usage of personnel, but the reward after both are fully healed could  pay dividends. 

 

 

If healthy, Art Jones is our best D-Lineman.  Therefore, he should start -- and yes, I think a rotation would be good -- with Art, Anderson, Langford and Parry we have a very good base for DL -- I like Kerr and McGill, but adding one more player to that mix could result in a very good DL.

On 1/9/2016 at 8:27 AM, Dustin said:

 

That's way too simplified. The better question would be "what is a better way to spend $2M than using it on a player who's played 9 games in 2 years?"

 

Here's one of many answers: Put it toward re-signing Jerrell Freeman

 

 

The good thing about Art's injuries are that they are not injuries that should have major set-backs for him.  A sprained ankle to a big man like him, obviously, is not something to take lightly, but it (IMO) isn't as serious of an injury as Henry Anderson, who will need serious rehab with a reconstructed knee.

 

I think we were stupid with how Art was brought back in year 1 here -- we should have (IMO) rested him a few more weeks to let that thing totally heal before rushing him into the lineup, when he reaggravated it and basically played with compromised ability for the remainder of the games he was in the line-up.

 

I think they did the right thing by IR'ing him last year -- there is no reason why he shouldn't be back at 100% and given that injuries weren't a part of his history prior to coming, I'll remain optimistic that he'll bounce back just fine.

[krunk]

32 minutes ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

 

If healthy, Art Jones is our best D-Lineman.  Therefore, he should start -- and yes, I think a rotation would be good -- with Art, Anderson, Langford and Parry we have a very good base for DL -- I like Kerr and McGill, but adding one more player to that mix could result in a very good DL.

 

The good thing about Art's injuries are that they are not injuries that should have major set-backs for him.  A sprained ankle to a big man like him, obviously, is not something to take lightly, but it (IMO) isn't as serious of an injury as Henry Anderson, who will need serious rehab with a reconstructed knee.

 

I think we were stupid with how Art was brought back in year 1 here -- we should have (IMO) rested him a few more weeks to let that thing totally heal before rushing him into the lineup, when he reaggravated it and basically played with compromised ability for the remainder of the games he was in the line-up.

 

I think they did the right thing by IR'ing him last year -- there is no reason why he shouldn't be back at 100% and given that injuries weren't a part of his history prior to coming, I'll remain optimistic that he'll bounce back just fine.

I don't think Art Jones is our best lineman. Langford is better and he proved it this year with 7 sacks and he was very solid against the run. Plus he has a history of being healthy. I don't think we could count on Jones for 7 sacks even if 100% healthy. If he is better than Henry it ain't by much. If we keep him I do believe he would start in 2016, but mainly because Henry is rehabbing. I think they would start Henry over him if healthy. Sorry but Henry is a force against the run when healthy. Art is pretty solid but I think Henry could be dominant. I do think we should bring him back though. Also I think we need to draft another Henry Anderson/Eddie Goldman type player high. That will give us further cushion against another Art Jones injury.

[dgambill]

23 hours ago, Superman said:

 

100%. People have to stop worrying about dead money and cap savings. It's not the issue.

 

There are two questions. One is football, the other is fiscal:

1) Can Arthur Jones rebound and play at a reasonably high level again, coming even close to production that would warrant a place in the Colts defensive line rotation?

2) Can his potential production justify his pay, and is it worth the risk of him not being healthy again?

 

If the answer to either of those questions is negative or doubtful, then you have to do something about it. First option is the easiest and cleanest, which is to release him; if you're not even a little optimistic that he can play at a high level and stay healthy, then this makes the most sense. (Also, releasing him creates an acceleration of paid bonus, but a post-June 1 designation would create an additional $2.2m of cap space in 2016.) 

 

Second option is to restructure his base salary with incentives. That only makes sense if you're optimistic about his potential contributions. Both Pagano and Monachino are intimately familiar with Jones, and I would assume both hope he can get back and play well, and are willing to give him a chance. Jones' vet minimum salary is about $1m, and then they could add per game bonuses of ~$219K which would allow Jones to make back his initial salary if he's healthy. 

 

They'll address this once the medical stuff is figured out, I think. If he doesn't get a clean bill of health, nothing else matters.

Exactly. Really any time it comes down to contracts and cap savings etc...everyone should just listen to Supes lol. Just wait til he breaks it down. He is right on everytime. Honestly there is no reason to be debating the fiscal side. Supes has laid it on many times and likely will have a thread after the season that addresses almost all our players financials and futures.

 

The real question is the football side really. Can he be healthy again. Can he be a difference maker again. If not what percentage can he be. Can he live up to the rest of his contract. If not we have to decide about restructuring or cutting lose. We played all year without him and much of 2014. In essence we already have moved on without him...can what he give us going forward be worth what we will pay him. Its hard to tell but medically this guy has faced two pretty devastating ankle injuries. Defensive line play is much about having a strong base and good strong hands. I have a hard time believing he will ever be 100% of what we signed him intending on. We have some good viable options to replace him in house (Grigson does deserve credit for that vision)...his contract is that of more of a main piece/anchor for our DL....if he can't be that again and he is just a complimentary piece I would have a hard time justifying bringing him back. Honestly I think this will be a Gosdner situation all over. Yes we could have kept him and started him but the money owed wasn't worth what he could give us and what we could use it for. Unless Arthur has a full recovery/or reworks his deal I'm afraid we will never get to see what a healthy Arthur Jones could have looked like on our defense.

[krunk]

The guy had two ankle injuries. 1 where somebody rolled on his ankle when engaged and another where somebody fell directly on the ankle. Just bad luck overall, I don't think he is injury prone. I'm good with bringing him back. Who do we think is out there in FA that is an upgrade for the same money? Who is the next Langford? If there's another one out there then cool but I don't know how confident I am about that.

[Dustin]

3 hours ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

 

If healthy, Art Jones is our best D-Lineman.  Therefore, he should start -- and yes, I think a rotation would be good -- with Art, Anderson, Langford and Parry we have a very good base for DL -- I like Kerr and McGill, but adding one more player to that mix could result in a very good DL.

 

The good thing about Art's injuries are that they are not injuries that should have major set-backs for him.  A sprained ankle to a big man like him, obviously, is not something to take lightly, but it (IMO) isn't as serious of an injury as Henry Anderson, who will need serious rehab with a reconstructed knee.

 

I think we were stupid with how Art was brought back in year 1 here -- we should have (IMO) rested him a few more weeks to let that thing totally heal before rushing him into the lineup, when he reaggravated it and basically played with compromised ability for the remainder of the games he was in the line-up.

 

I think they did the right thing by IR'ing him last year -- there is no reason why he shouldn't be back at 100% and given that injuries weren't a part of his history prior to coming, I'll remain optimistic that he'll bounce back just fine.

 

He's not even close to our best d-lineman. Even in the 9ish games he played for us he was completely underwhelming. 

[SteelCityColt]

On 1/9/2016 at 8:07 PM, ztboiler said:

Ahh....herein lies the first fundamental to cap understanding.  The opposite is true. 

 

Dead money exists to pay off your debts, current or past, it does not incur new debt.

 

Superman correctly pulled me up on this often misunderstood cap mechanism. Dead money is as you say already spent, it's not an additional deduction to your cap. However you are effectively paying a guy to not play for you. 

 

Why I guess constant large amounts of dead cap is a good indicator of a team that makes bad bad decisions.

 

Edit - Hadn't seen the newer posts... I'll shh.

Edited January 10, 2016 by SteelCityColt

[JColts72]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 3:16 PM, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Any thoughts of releasing him or being a backup are stupid, unless he physically can't play IMO. When healthy which he hasn't been since being a Colt, he is a very good player. Anderson probably will need to be worked in slowly in a rotation, Jones, if healthy should start, play well and earn his money!

If he's not healthy, cut him, and can get a d player in the draft.

[TrueBlueHorseshoe]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Shouldn't "beast" be saved for players who are on the "All-Pro" level and not just your good everyday solid players.      

 

Shouldn't "beast" be saved for the best of the best?

 

Thank you.

[Dark Superman]

If we're only saving $3 million by cutting him, then I think we should keep him around. The risk is much higher than the reward IMO.

[krunk]

How much would Mike Daniels command in FA? The DT from the Packers

[ztboiler]

2 minutes ago, krunk said:

How much would Mike Daniels command in FA? The DT from the Packers

Packers just extended him for about $10M per.

[krunk]

3 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Packers just extended him for about $10M per.

 

Oh I didn't know that. I know he was set to be a FA next season I think. Seems like if we chose to let go of Art Jones for someone else in FA it will probably be another Kendall Langford type. Don't think we will shell out Mike Daniels or Wilkerson money. If he's healthy hopefully we keep him and draft a quality DL high

[jbaron04]

I say we keep him for this year at least and rotate the line with them often to keep them fresh, 

[gacoop1]

Cut ties with A Jones, too fragile.  McGill showed me something last few games.  He's a Seatlle product no wonder, those scouts in Northwest sure can pick talent.  Hopefully the Colts can improve on the scouting department this year....We need to build a monster as in yesterday.....

[gacoop1]

Remember Irsay said, need to go young and dangerous.....and faster.  Our linebackers are getting up there in age.  Need to retool with some mean younger and aggressive players....