Colts re-sign Dwayne Allen, four years $29.4m [Merge]

[GoColts8818]

For those worried about Allen's role in the offense I don't think they would have kept Allen if they didn't have a plan to use him in the offense.  It wouldn't shock me to see them use Doyle as the extra blocker next year and use Allen in more passing plays.

[rock8591]

I'm big on Scott Chandler if/when he gets signed. At 6'7'' and 260 lbs, another big target in the red zone.

[ricker182]

@mchappell51: Breakdown of Dwayne Allen 4-yr, $29.4 deal: $4M SB. In '16, $2.5M base, $5.5M RB,$9M cap. Future caps of $6M in '17-'18, $8.4M in '19

[gnet550]

$9mill against the cap this year? Looks like we aren't signing anyone of note...

[TheRustonRifle#7]

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

 

Spotrac's contract breakdown....

[OffensivelyPC]

15 minutes ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

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

 

Spotrac's contract breakdown....

So everyone worrying that we overpaid can now calm down.  We can void at least $5m of the guaranteed next year as long as we do it before the 5th league day of 2017.  It's a bit more team friendly than people thought.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

So everyone worrying that we overpaid can now calm down.  We can void at least $5m of the guaranteed next year as long as we do it before the 5th league day of 2017.  It's a bit more team friendly than people thought.

 

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

So everyone worrying that we overpaid can now calm down.  We can void at least $5m of the guaranteed next year as long as we do it before the 5th league day of 2017.  It's a bit more team friendly than people thought.

Yup...people need to wait for the contract details before freaking out.

[krunk]

I love football so much it's hard for me to get away, but I need a breather from this forum sometimes!  The insanity is too much at certain points.  LOL

[SteelCityColt]

Typical contract structure from this FO, something they don't get enough credit for. 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

So everyone worrying that we overpaid can now calm down.  We can void at least $5m of the guaranteed next year as long as we do it before the 5th league day of 2017.  It's a bit more team friendly than people thought.

 

And then we'll have paid $12m in one year for a TE that we don't want two years of. That doesn't really make it any better, and that fact makes it unlikely that Allen goes anywhere after 2016, even if he doesn't play well. This is a two year guarantee, assuming no drastic developments. It only gets "team friendly" if Allen sucks, in which case the claims of being overpaid are obviously true.

 

I really don't like the structure. There's no reason for a $9m cap hit in 2016. True, that frontloaded structure means there's not a lot of dead money if we want to cut him in the future, but that's not that attractive. For several reasons, the idea that cap space tomorrow is more important or more valuable than cap space today is flawed. I don't know why they did it this way; the only real advantage is that it leaves more cap space in 2017 and 2018.

 

I'd rather see slightly graduating cap hits each year, that way the team can manage each contract as time goes on and as the cap goes up. The way they're doing it, they're stealing tomorrow's cap space from today, which there's no reason for.

[theanarchist]

On 3/8/2016 at 7:26 PM, Superman said:

 

I get the feeling the Colts overshot their target. Reportedly, they had been talking with Allen's people, and I assume numbers were exchanged. Four hours after the tampering period begins, Allen re-signs with the Colts. I feel like their numbers were higher than what anyone else was interested in offering, and his people figured that out quickly and came back to Indy with grins on their faces. JMO.

 

We'll have to wait on the structure, but the average would make Allen the 10th highest paid TE in the league. If he's healthy, that's acceptable. Maybe they could have gotten him for $6m, but now we're being petty.

According to Chappell the deal is 9M cap hit the first year, 6M the next two. Thats not horrible. My biggest concern with Allen, as are most people, is can he stay healthy? Which he has shown up to this point he cannot. Some of that is bad luck but as we know some players just seem to be prone to injury.

[Dustin]

As of now we're going to have $75M in cap space next season with nobody of note except for Luck to re-sign lel

[SteelCityColt]

@Superman I'm surprised in some ways at your reaction to the structuring but you do make valid points. So what you're saying is it's only a good deal if the worst happens? 

[jvan1973]

52 minutes ago, gnet550 said:

$9mill against the cap this year? Looks like we aren't signing anyone of note...

Why would that be the case. ? 

[gnet550]

15 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Why would that be the case. ? 

We had roughly 30 million after cutting AJ...9 million gone with Allen, 3 gone with Vinny, still need to resign Luck and Freeman...doesn't leave much room for another difference maker....down to 18 million without luck or Freeman signed. I hope I'm wrong, but just my opinion

[corgi]

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

2 hours ago, gnet550 said:

We had roughly 30 million after cutting AJ...9 million gone with Allen, 3 gone with Vinny, still need to resign Luck and Freeman...doesn't leave much room for another difference maker....down to 18 million without luck or Freeman signed. I hope I'm wrong, but just my opinion

Why would that be the case. ? 

still plenty of time for cuts and restructured deals.

[gnet550]

Just now, corgi said:

still plenty of time for cuts and restructured deals.

Very true, probably just my knee jerk reaction

[throwing BBZ]

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And then we'll have paid $12m in one year for a TE that we don't want two years of. That doesn't really make it any better, and that fact makes it unlikely that Allen goes anywhere after 2016, even if he doesn't play well. This is a two year guarantee, assuming no drastic developments. It only gets "team friendly" if Allen sucks, in which case the claims of being overpaid are obviously true.

 

I really don't like the structure. There's no reason for a $9m cap hit in 2016. True, that frontloaded structure means there's not a lot of dead money if we want to cut him in the future, but that's not that attractive. For several reasons, the idea that cap space tomorrow is more important or more valuable than cap space today is flawed. I don't know why they did it this way; the only real advantage is that it leaves more cap space in 2017 and 2018.

 

I'd rather see slightly graduating cap hits each year, that way the team can manage each contract as time goes on and as the cap goes up. The way they're doing it, they're stealing tomorrow's cap space from today, which there's no reason for.

 

 Well now, there is a Reason for everything, and these guys do seem to have a plan each year for FA.
 $11.5M for year one had to put a smile on lots of Allen family faces.
  Pray he stays healthy and fills the role Chud has in mind. Good blocking for a run game to take the ball out of Luck`s hands as much as possible (turnover machine), and a good relief valve.
 If he does these things the $$$ is reasonable. IMO And lol

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

 http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rob-gronkowski-notes-pay-cut-005000228.html;_ylt=A0LEViTuR.BWQFAAuGMnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

 

Dwayne Allen (Colts): B

Allen has been a frustrating figure during his four years in Indy. When healthy, he has been a plus blocker and a competent receiver, and the list of tight ends in the NFL who are average-or-better at both those things really doesn't go very long. His totals aren't especially impressive, but Indy's leveraged him as a blocker while using fellow free-agent Coby Fleener as their primary receiving tight end. The issue has been staying on the field; Allen has missed 21 of Indy's last 48 games with various maladies, most recently a calf ailment which cost him three games in 2015.

Under that microscope, Allen's four-year, $29.4-million deal looks like an overpay at first. Allen will have a $8.9 million cap hit in 2016, the second-highest figure for a tight end in football behind Jimmy Graham. The structure of the deal, though, makes a lot of sense for Indy. With Andrew Luck coming due for an even bigger raise in 2017, it's logical for Ryan Grigson to get as much money onto the 2016 cap as possible. And indeed, Allen's cap hit drops to $6 million during 2017 and 2018, with no guaranteed money on the deal after 2016. This is really a two-year deal, and given that Allen's role will likely expand in a second season under Rob Chudzinski, it's one that could look good for the Colts.

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

And then we'll have paid $12m in one year for a TE that we don't want two years of. That doesn't really make it any better, and that fact makes it unlikely that Allen goes anywhere after 2016, even if he doesn't play well. This is a two year guarantee, assuming no drastic developments. It only gets "team friendly" if Allen sucks, in which case the claims of being overpaid are obviously true.

 

I really don't like the structure. There's no reason for a $9m cap hit in 2016. True, that frontloaded structure means there's not a lot of dead money if we want to cut him in the future, but that's not that attractive. For several reasons, the idea that cap space tomorrow is more important or more valuable than cap space today is flawed. I don't know why they did it this way; the only real advantage is that it leaves more cap space in 2017 and 2018.

 

I'd rather see slightly graduating cap hits each year, that way the team can manage each contract as time goes on and as the cap goes up. The way they're doing it, they're stealing tomorrow's cap space from today, which there's no reason for.

The problem with Dwayne isn't whether he's bad or good.  We know what we're getting from him, the question is whether or not we get it at all.  If he can't play this year, we can let him go and forego the $5m.  Yeah, we'd have already paid $12, so what?  The "overpaid" folks are clamoring about the $7m per year.  $12 is obviously more than that, but if his health doesn't hold up, fine he was overpaid.  But the problem wouldn't be paying $12m to a TE who's good when he's on the field, the problem is then that we don't have a suitable backup at least at this point.  We're already assuming (and Grigs has practically confirmed) that we will only get one of either Allen or Fleener, so Fleener's out.  A rookie isn't going to step in day 1 and give the same output as a 5th year Allen (or Fleener for that matter).  Who else is available in free agency to step in and replace Allen?  Of course there's options, none of them on Allen's talent level if you ask me.  The market is why I think this deal makes sense.  In 2017, we could get out of hte deal with little penalty and be in the market for a new TE via the draft or FA if we need to.  If the deal works out and Allen stays healthy, this deal is an asset, not a liability.  

 

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

And then we'll have paid $12m in one year for a TE that we don't want two years of. That doesn't really make it any better, and that fact makes it unlikely that Allen goes anywhere after 2016, even if he doesn't play well. This is a two year guarantee, assuming no drastic developments. It only gets "team friendly" if Allen sucks, in which case the claims of being overpaid are obviously true.

 

I really don't like the structure. There's no reason for a $9m cap hit in 2016. True, that frontloaded structure means there's not a lot of dead money if we want to cut him in the future, but that's not that attractive. For several reasons, the idea that cap space tomorrow is more important or more valuable than cap space today is flawed. I don't know why they did it this way; the only real advantage is that it leaves more cap space in 2017 and 2018.

 

I'd rather see slightly graduating cap hits each year, that way the team can manage each contract as time goes on and as the cap goes up. The way they're doing it, they're stealing tomorrow's cap space from today, which there's no reason for.

I still think that Colts management wants to save cap room for the time that Brady retires.  I think there is a risk that loading up on talent while Brady and NE dominate the AFC is risky.  When Brady retires or has finally declined, its hard to see a dominate team to take their place.  Having more money to attract FAs at that time might be enough to push us over the top into the SB.  Maybe that strategy is flawed but I think the Colts want to build the team in way that doesn't mortgage the future until the time is more attractive to do so.  JMO.

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

I still think that Colts management wants to save cap room for the time that Brady retires.  I think there is a risk that loading up on talent while Brady and NE dominate the AFC is risky.  When Brady retires or has finally declined, its hard to see a dominate team to take their place.  Having more money to attract FAs at that time might be enough to push us over the top into the SB.  Maybe that strategy is flawed but I think the Colts want to build the team in way that doesn't mortgage the future until the time is more attractive to do so.  JMO.

 

If that really were Grigson's thinking, then he wouldn't be around to spend that saved cap space when the time comes. ;)

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

If that really were Grigson's thinking, then he wouldn't be around to spend that saved cap space when the time comes. ;)

Not if Jimmy agrees with the strategy.

[Jason_]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not if Jimmy agrees with the strategy.

 

I can't see that as even possibly being the case.  Mr. "we want more than 1 SB in the Luck era" isn't going to be content with just coasting along until Brady retires.  First and foremost, no one has any idea when Brady is going to retire.

 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

And then we'll have paid $12m in one year for a TE that we don't want two years of. That doesn't really make it any better, and that fact makes it unlikely that Allen goes anywhere after 2016, even if he doesn't play well. This is a two year guarantee, assuming no drastic developments. It only gets "team friendly" if Allen sucks, in which case the claims of being overpaid are obviously true.

 

I really don't like the structure. There's no reason for a $9m cap hit in 2016. True, that frontloaded structure means there's not a lot of dead money if we want to cut him in the future, but that's not that attractive. For several reasons, the idea that cap space tomorrow is more important or more valuable than cap space today is flawed. I don't know why they did it this way; the only real advantage is that it leaves more cap space in 2017 and 2018.

 

I'd rather see slightly graduating cap hits each year, that way the team can manage each contract as time goes on and as the cap goes up. The way they're doing it, they're stealing tomorrow's cap space from today, which there's no reason for.

 

 

At first glance , I would agree but I think you need to wait until the dust settles to pass final judgment . If the Colts don't plan on adding a large free agent signing , it makes sense. If they plan on not resigning Freeman , that would factor in. Plus Luck's cap hit necessarily  doesn't change a whole lot even with a new contract. 

 

I'm surprised with both the size of this contract and like you .. a bit perplexed as to the 9 mill 2016 hit. However I can't imagine the Colts messed this up so I'm thinking it fits the blueprint they've laid out for this year. Other words I'm thinking when all is said and done , it will make more sense than it does today.

[Vinatieri4]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

As of now we're going to have $75M in cap space next season with nobody of note except for Luck to re-sign lel

 

Is that the actual number :O

[Gavin]

Not a bad deal by any means

[JPFolks]

22 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Idk you have to compete with me and Colts Legacy as well 

I've been as vocal in favor of Allen as anyone else as well.  So you're 1 out of 2, but perhaps if we get Elliot you'll come around (or if he goes elsewhere and kicks butt).   Elliot is not only a great RB and Receiver, he's a great upgrade for offensive blocking to protect Luck, making him more valuable overall than an O-line pick.  

[Superman]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

@Superman I'm surprised in some ways at your reaction to the structuring but you do make valid points. So what you're saying is it's only a good deal if the worst happens? 

 

Nah, it's only a good deal if he stays healthy and plays well. If the worst happens, we'll still have paid him at least $11.5m in Year 1, and that's all bad.

 

I have no problem with paying good players, especially homegrown guys. I think we're sort of paying him like he's NOT a homegrown guy, but that's not the end of the world. I just don't get frontloading a guy that you expect to be with you for the long haul, and if you don't expect him to be with you, then I don't get paying him $11.5m in Year 1. 

[Superman]

47 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The problem with Dwayne isn't whether he's bad or good.  We know what we're getting from him, the question is whether or not we get it at all.  If he can't play this year, we can let him go and forego the $5m.  Yeah, we'd have already paid $12, so what?  The "overpaid" folks are clamoring about the $7m per year.  $12 is obviously more than that, but if his health doesn't hold up, fine he was overpaid.  But the problem wouldn't be paying $12m to a TE who's good when he's on the field, the problem is then that we don't have a suitable backup at least at this point.  We're already assuming (and Grigs has practically confirmed) that we will only get one of either Allen or Fleener, so Fleener's out.  A rookie isn't going to step in day 1 and give the same output as a 5th year Allen (or Fleener for that matter).  Who else is available in free agency to step in and replace Allen?  Of course there's options, none of them on Allen's talent level if you ask me.  The market is why I think this deal makes sense.  In 2017, we could get out of hte deal with little penalty and be in the market for a new TE via the draft or FA if we need to.  If the deal works out and Allen stays healthy, this deal is an asset, not a liability.  

 

I don't care about the "overpaid" folks. @Dustin is one of the smartest people here, and his earliest prediction for Allen was one year, $3m. No one accurately gauged Allen's market, and I think a big part of it is that there's just sooo much money about to be spent in free agency. I'm over the yearly average.

 

The bolded is my problem. I don't think paying $12m in one year to a nonperforming TE is a good use of resources. That money is gone, no matter what. Yeah, we could cut him with minimal dead money, but that doesn't really offset the money that's already spent. People judge contracts as "team friendly" because of minimal dead money, but you can't ignore the money that was already paid out. I just think a balanced, graduated deal would have been the ideal, especially for a guy who hasn't really earned this yearly average just yet. This structure is borrowing tomorrow's cap space for today, and then it's gone forever.

 

And then, he's a TE. I'm all about Dwayne Allen, but it's a non-premium position with a low replacement cost. Scott Chandler and Jack Doyle are decent multipurpose TEs, Jared Cook is non-qualifying FA (who will cost less than $12m in 2016, for sure), etc. If push had come to shove, both Allen and Fleener would have been replaceable. I'll repeat, I have no problem with paying good players, especially homegrown. I just don't like the balance of money and the big Year 1 cap hit for Allen. 

 

Last thing, and this is unlikely, but the Colts could restructure his Year 1 roster bonus if they wanted, at any point, which would reduce his cap hit to around $6m in 2016. Doesn't really change the balance of money, but it does change the big cap hit.

[Superman]

55 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I still think that Colts management wants to save cap room for the time that Brady retires.  I think there is a risk that loading up on talent while Brady and NE dominate the AFC is risky.  When Brady retires or has finally declined, its hard to see a dominate team to take their place.  Having more money to attract FAs at that time might be enough to push us over the top into the SB.  Maybe that strategy is flawed but I think the Colts want to build the team in way that doesn't mortgage the future until the time is more attractive to do so.  JMO.

 

I don't think that's the strategy. If it is, that's a very bad strategy. I'd rather see us try to knock Brady out of the league than try to wait him out. Realistically, we could load up the next two years and give it our best shot, and if it doesn't work, take a year to reconfigure.

 

End of the day, Brady and the Pats aren't that important. 

[Superman]

34 minutes ago, dw49 said:

At first glance , I would agree but I think you need to wait until the dust settles to pass final judgment . If the Colts don't plan on adding a large free agent signing , it makes sense. If they plan on not resigning Freeman , that would factor in. Plus Luck's cap hit necessarily  doesn't change a whole lot even with a new contract. 

 

I'm surprised with both the size of this contract and like you .. a bit perplexed as to the 9 mill 2016 hit. However I can't imagine the Colts messed this up so I'm thinking it fits the blueprint they've laid out for this year. Other words I'm thinking when all is said and done , it will make more sense than it does today.

 

We can give them the benefit of the doubt. I agree that they don't seem to be planning on signing any big money free agents (the DA deal and the Cole retention made that obvious to me), but still, swallowing so much money in Year 1 doesn't seem prudent.

[Superman]

36 minutes ago, Vinatieri4 said:

 

Is that the actual number :O

 

Assume a cap of $170m in 2017. The Colts currently have under $90m committed. Luck's deal should get done this year, and we'll have rookies of course, and maybe a couple of free agents. By the end of the offseason, we should have around $130m committed in 2017.

[Gavin]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Nah, it's only a good deal if he stays healthy and plays well. If the worst happens, we'll still have paid him at least $11.5m in Year 1.

 

I have no problem with paying good players, especially homegrown guys. I think we're sort of paying him like he's NOT a homegrown guy, but that's not the end of the world. I just don't get frontloading a guy that you expect to be with you for the long haul, and if you don't expect him to be with you, then I don't get paying him $11.5m in Year 1. 

I think it was a case of lack of options at TE which Allen knew so Grigson and company were pinned down to frontload the deal. Obviously Allen can produce and big if we made more  of a point to get him the ball and coaches know that and so does Allen. I think versatility won out. I thought they could re-sign both once but I think Fleener priced himself out.

 

I also wonder if Grigson will be going for TE's now with a more well rounded skillset then Fleener. That's what I think I'd do

[Jason_]

20 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

I've been as vocal in favor of Allen as anyone else as well.  So you're 1 out of 2, but perhaps if we get Elliot you'll come around (or if he goes elsewhere and kicks butt).   Elliot is not only a great RB and Receiver, he's a great upgrade for offensive blocking to protect Luck, making him more valuable overall than an O-line pick.  

 

 

[AKB]

5 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

 

Lol he said Elliot can block...

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think that's the strategy. If it is, that's a very bad strategy. I'd rather see us try to knock Brady out of the league than try to wait him out. Realistically, we could load up the next two years and give it our best shot, and if it doesn't work, take a year to reconfigure.

 

End of the day, Brady and the Pats aren't that important. 

Also consider the Broncos loading up to give Manning one last shot. 

 

I think back to baseball and that one year that the Florida Marlins signed every big name free agent, won the World Series, then had to disband the next year because the team couldn't afford them.  I think there is a bit of that dynamic in football.

 

Just speculating as to why the Colts seem to want to front load contracts thus far.

[Gavin]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Also consider the Broncos loading up to give Manning one last shot. 

 

I think back to baseball and that one year that the Florida Marlins signed every big name free agent, won the World Series, then had to disband the next year because the team couldn't afford them.  I think there is a bit of that dynamic in football.

 

Just speculating as to why the Colts seem to want to front load contracts thus far.

In other words trying to buy a SB. That's what its felt like to me for the last couple years

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I still think that Colts management wants to save cap room for the time that Brady retires.  I think there is a risk that loading up on talent while Brady and NE dominate the AFC is risky.  When Brady retires or has finally declined, its hard to see a dominate team to take their place.  Having more money to attract FAs at that time might be enough to push us over the top into the SB.  Maybe that strategy is flawed but I think the Colts want to build the team in way that doesn't mortgage the future until the time is more attractive to do so.  JMO.

That would be the worst mindset in all of professional sports... Lay low, wait till Brady retires and then try and win a Superbowl. Lmao! 

[Vinatieri4]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Assume a cap of $170m in 2017. The Colts currently have under $90m committed. Luck's deal should get done this year, and we'll have rookies of course, and maybe a couple of free agents. By the end of the offseason, we should have around $130m committed in 2017.

 

Wow! How do we keep having so much cap space? Seems like even with Luck's contract we are going to be in great shape. 

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't care about the "overpaid" folks. @Dustin is one of the smartest people here, and his earliest prediction for Allen was one year, $3m. No one accurately gauged Allen's market, and I think a big part of it is that there's just sooo much money about to be spent in free agency. I'm over the yearly average.

 

The bolded is my problem. I don't think paying $12m in one year to a nonperforming TE is a good use of resources. That money is gone, no matter what. Yeah, we could cut him with minimal dead money, but that doesn't really offset the money that's already spent. People judge contracts as "team friendly" because of minimal dead money, but you can't ignore the money that was already paid out. I just think a balanced, graduated deal would have been the ideal, especially for a guy who hasn't really earned this yearly average just yet. This structure is borrowing tomorrow's cap space for today, and then it's gone forever.

 

And then, he's a TE. I'm all about Dwayne Allen, but it's a non-premium position with a low replacement cost. Scott Chandler and Jack Doyle are decent multipurpose TEs, Jared Cook is non-qualifying FA (who will cost less than $12m in 2016, for sure), etc. If push had come to shove, both Allen and Fleener would have been replaceable. I'll repeat, I have no problem with paying good players, especially homegrown. I just don't like the balance of money and the big Year 1 cap hit for Allen. 

 

Last thing, and this is unlikely, but the Colts could restructure his Year 1 roster bonus if they wanted, at any point, which would reduce his cap hit to around $6m in 2016. Doesn't really change the balance of money, but it does change the big cap hit.

Just thinking out loud here.  Is there any possibility that they're front-loading his contract so there will be more cap space after we give Luck his extension?  Luck is making $16 mil this year, I believe.  But in 2017, that could balloon to $22-25 mil.  With much more money having to be invested at the QB position, is it possible that they're front-loading this to have more wiggle room in the future?