Article claiming Colts will break the bank to infinity to pay Luck-opinions?

[Superman]

7 hours ago, Larry Horseman said:

 

Indeed. I was just saying I'd be happy with a $200 m, 8 yr deal. That's not happening. I've been thinking it will be more like 5 yrs, $120m-$130m. I'm really interested in the structure of the guarantee. I assume Luck's camp is going to push the issue on that more than overall number. 

 

Yeah, I agree. Maybe a player option after six years, but that doesn't really help anyone.

 

I've been saying six years, $23m/year, with $75m+ guaranteed. I don't see why that wouldn't get it done. Even in that case, you probably have to push some of that guaranteed money into Year 4, so I don't really have a problem with the first four years being guaranteed, in which case the $98m figure that Barnwell pulled out of his rear isn't even out the question. Luck is the closest thing to a sure thing that there is in the NFL, so if you aren't confident that you'll have him for the next four years, then you're probably not thinking right.

 

One thing I think the Colts will want is to make sure he's under contract into at least the first year of the next CBA. Don't know what kind of crazy stuff might happen after 2020, and if somehow the franchise tag goes away or becomes especially prohibitive, the team would want at least a year to prepare themselves for the next step. I would insist on a six year deal, at least.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

The Ravens let Flacco play out his final year, and they ended up winning the Super Bowl. Totally blew up in their faces because they had zero leverage. Could you imagine the amount that Luck would command in that situation? "Hey I just won the Super Bowl, here's my routing number, please deposit $300 million by tomorrow, thanks."

 

If I remember correctly, Flacco wanted $18m, the Ravens wouldn't go above $16m. They win the SB, and the next year they're giving him $20m. Guess who won that one...

 

I still don't think he was really worth it, but he had a spectacular postseason. If they really wanted to play hardball, they could have given him the non-exclusive franchise tag and let another team set the market. But then you run the risk of a team frontloading that contract and now you're up the creek.

[BlueShoe]

On 5/13/2016 at 2:02 PM, threeflight said:

This article is saying the Colts are ready to not only make Luck the highest paid player in football, which is ludicrous, but they are also ready to give him the highest guaranteed contract in NFL history.  $98 MILLION of the entire contract ($200 M or more) guaranteed.  .

 

Look, I love Luck as much as anyone, but even at his best, he is not the best player in football.  To pay him this much is absolute insanity.  He is a turnover machine, and has yet to deliver what I would call a truly great season. He had a very good one in 2014, but not great.  And the thing is, Irsay almost seems like he is giddy to pay him that much.  He seems proud of it.  Makes no sense to me.

 

If it costs that much to retain Luck, trade him.  We could get a kings ransom from someone.  Paying that much to one player, no matter how good (and he is not even THAT GOOD yet) is a sure way to having what we had with Manning.  It doesn't work in the long run.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sounds-andrew-luck-going-contract-160719540.html

 

Stop it. Have you lost your damn mind or just trolling?

 

If every player in the NFL was thrown into a draft then it would not matter what team was picking first; they would all draft Andrew Luck #1 overall.

 

He is going to get that kind of money because that's what he is. He is the next John Elway and Peyton Manning. He is the face of the entire NFL, and will be for the next decade or so.

 

He will get 20-25 million a year with about 100 million guaranteed. And he will be worth every penny, because with him the Colts are super bowl contenders.

[crazycolt1]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:22 PM, NewEra said:

Colts do have a bad habit of over paying their players. 

Not much with Grigson. Grigson has done a good job at keeping team friendly contracts reasonable.

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, Iancolts said:

Keep Luck we all knew this was gonna happen when Luck in his rookie year too the team to the playoffs.  I understand that it's gonna be impossible to field a defense after signing Luck but like I said we all knew this day would come.  If colts fan are mad blame Grigson and Irsay for keeping Grigson around.  Grigson had mucho mucho deniro to spend the past three years and guess what he used it all on old average players at best!  

Where do you get the idea the Colts cant put together a defense after Luck is signed? With rookie contracts structured the way they are it can be done. Now this thread is about Luck, not lets bash Grigson. We have had enough of those. Grigson is here to stay and hashing old news serves no purpose at this point.

[Lawrence Owen]

Does anyone even think that Indy this year investing in an o-line to help Luck stay upright, and having given him weapons to play with would even effect the contract?  I know business is business, but a part of me hopes this would be a card in the teams favor in contract talks.  

 

[NewEra]

8 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Not much with Grigson. Grigson has done a good job at keeping team friendly contracts reasonable.

No you're right on that. I was having flash backs of Polians insanity 

[crazycolt1]

39 minutes ago, NewEra said:

No you're right on that. I was having flash backs of Polians insanity 

Understandable.

[Larry Horseman]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I agree. Maybe a player option after six years, but that doesn't really help anyone.

 

I've been saying six years, $23m/year, with $75m+ guaranteed. I don't see why that wouldn't get it done. Even in that case, you probably have to push some of that guaranteed money into Year 4, so I don't really have a problem with the first four years being guaranteed, in which case the $98m figure that Barnwell pulled out of his rear isn't even out the question. Luck is the closest thing to a sure thing that there is in the NFL, so if you aren't confident that you'll have him for the next four years, then you're probably not thinking right.

 

One thing I think the Colts will want is to make sure he's under contract into at least the first year of the next CBA. Don't know what kind of crazy stuff might happen after 2020, and if somehow the franchise tag goes away or becomes especially prohibitive, the team would want at least a year to prepare themselves for the next step. I would insist on a six year deal, at least.

 

Good point on length relative to CBA. Adds another layer. Length and true guarantee, more than per year amount, are probably the main negotiating points. 

[pgt_rob]

On 5/14/2016 at 0:49 PM, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Brock Osweiler just got $17mil/yr out of the Texans. If that's the going rate for a serviceable backup QB with 8 NFL starts under his belt, then it's pretty easy for me to justify giving Luck $24mil/yr.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. The article claims that he will get more than 25M per year. Which... is outrageous.

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. The article claims that he will get more than 25M per year. Which... is outrageous.

If you can easily justify 24M just on Osweiler alone it's not to hard to extrapolate above 25M for Luck.  Yes it's outrageous and it's a big number but the NFL is crazy period.  It's like Monopoly money for them. In a few years it will be considered a bargain especially if Winston or Mariotta turn out to be anything close to Luck.  The owners are making a ton of money, the Cap keeps going up, it's nothing to get really worked up about.  If you want to keep one of the premier young star quarterbacks for your franchise you have to accept the fact that he will be paid ,what appears now to be, an outrageous contract,  In reality it will probably turn out to be a bargain in two or three years.  

[pgt_rob]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

If you can easily justify 24M just on Osweiler alone it's not to hard to extrapolate above 25M for Luck.  Yes it's outrageous and it's a big number but the NFL is crazy period.  It's like Monopoly money for them. In a few years it will be considered a bargain especially if Winston or Mariotta turn out to be anything close to Luck.  The owners are making a ton of money, the Cap keeps going up, it's nothing to get really worked up about.  If you want to keep one of the premier young star quarterbacks for your franchise you have to accept the fact that he will be paid ,what appears now to be, an outrageous contract,  In reality it will probably turn out to be a bargain in two or three years.  

 

I'm going to state my opinion here and say that Luck will not receive more than $25M a year. I think he's in the $22.5M-23M area. My opinion of course. I don't think teams are willing to shell $26M+ a year for a player just yet.

[chad72]

12 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

 

I'm going to state my opinion here and say that Luck will not receive more than $25M a year. I think he's in the $22.5M-23M area. My opinion of course. I don't think teams are willing to shell $26M+ a year for a player just yet.

 

I agree.

 

I do think something like 6 years $140 mil. with $80 mil. guaranteed will get it done though I wish for less.

 

A guy like Von Miller will soon be making in the range of 6 years $120 mil. with $70 mil. guaranteed, so I don't see why a QB would be paid less.

[Jason_]

On 5/13/2016 at 6:10 PM, Superman said:

 

Differences of opinion on the rest, which basically boil down to you telling some of your best players to go play the market because you'd rather penny pinch than pay them what the market says they're worth. That's not good team building. You let average guys walk, you don't let 'all time great pass rushers' walk. (I'd have been fine with Brackett leaving, but I think the market supported his contract at the time.)

 

I highly disagree with your comment that I'd rather penny pinch than pay a guy what the market says they're worth.  I think if anything, we disagree on what the market would have said those players were worth at the time.  I think that "penny pinching" is a gross over simplification and misrepresents the point I was trying to make.  

 

With Sanders, it was more about injury than anything.  Yes, when healthy he was one of the best Safeties and best play-makers in the league.  When he was healthy.  I'd have offered him a contract commensurate with him being one of the best safeties, but it would have been heavily incentive laden based on games played. 

 

Hypothetical question...when Vontae resigned his contract, he got $9 mil per year.  If he'd demanded $13 mil per year and Grigson let him walk, would you have said Grigson was "penny pinching"?

 

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

I highly disagree with your comment that I'd rather penny pinch than pay a guy what the market says they're worth.  I think if anything, we disagree on what the market would have said those players were worth at the time.  I think that "penny pinching" is a gross over simplification and misrepresents the point I was trying to make.  

 

With Sanders, it was more about injury than anything.  Yes, when healthy he was one of the best Safeties and best play-makers in the league.  When he was healthy.  I'd have offered him a contract commensurate with him being one of the best safeties, but it would have been heavily incentive laden based on games played. 

 

Hypothetical question...when Vontae resigned his contract, he got $9 mil per year.  If he'd demanded $13 mil per year and Grigson let him walk, would you have said Grigson was "penny pinching"?

 

I knew you'd take exception to "penny pinching." I was in a hurry and didn't take the time to go back and reformulate my thought. I don't think you personally would be looking to penny pinch with really good players. But I do think, like you said, that our ideas about the market for those players are different.

 

Take Bob Sanders. He was the primary difference maker on defense during the SB run, then he's having a great season in 2007, the year he won DPOY. He only missed one game that year. Optimistically, the hope at the time is that he's past all the injury issues and he will be one of your foundational players moving forward. No question he was one of the top three safeties in the league at that point, with Reed and Polamalu. Tradition has it that Sanders was made the highest paid safety, but he was actually still behind Reed on yearly average, and tied in "guaranteed" money. If Bob Sanders hits free agency after that year, is there really any question that he'd be made the lone highest paid safety in the league? The Colts gave him his market value. At the same time, they backloaded his deal -- pretty big bonus, lower base salaries that mushroomed in later years (which wound up not being paid since he was released after 2010). Long story short, they paid him market value. His injuries wound up making it a bad deal, and we can say now that they shouldn't have paid him at all, but the alternative was to let one of the best playmakers in the league walk in free agency.

 

Without doing a full post-mortem, I'll just say that I think Freeney got market value. You might disagree. I'd have been fine with letting Brackett walk, but at $6.6m/year, that was market value (Dansby, 18 months younger, got $8.6m/year that same day.)

 

As for Vontae, I would have been disappointed if that negotiation went that way, but he didn't have a claim to be the second highest paid CB in the league at that point. If he hit free agency he probably would have gotten $10-11m/year, based on what happened just after he signed. Sherman, Peterson and Haden hadn't done their deals at $13.5m-14m yet. Even Talib's big deal hadn't happened yet, and it came in at $9.5m. The market didn't support that kind of demand for a player at Vontae's level. As it stands, the Colts got him just under market value, but he sort of reset the market, and everyone after him came in higher. 

 

I don't think any of the deals we've been talking about from the past equate to paying Vontae $13m when his market was probably more like $10m. We haven't talked about the Kelvin Hayden deal, but that's probably the one that makes the least sense.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I knew you'd take exception to "penny pinching." I was in a hurry and didn't take the time to go back and reformulate my thought. I don't think you personally would be looking to penny pinch with really good players. But I do think, like you said, that our ideas about the market for those players are different.

 

Take Bob Sanders. He was the primary difference maker on defense during the SB run, then he's having a great season in 2007, the year he won DPOY. He only missed one game that year. Optimistically, the hope at the time is that he's past all the injury issues and he will be one of your foundational players moving forward. No question he was one of the top three safeties in the league at that point, with Reed and Polamalu. Tradition has it that Sanders was made the highest paid safety, but he was actually still behind Reed on yearly average, and tied in "guaranteed" money. If Bob Sanders hits free agency after that year, is there really any question that he'd be made the lone highest paid safety in the league? The Colts gave him his market value. At the same time, they backloaded his deal -- pretty big bonus, lower base salaries that mushroomed in later years (which wound up not being paid since he was released after 2010). Long story short, they paid him market value. His injuries wound up making it a bad deal, and we can say now that they shouldn't have paid him at all, but the alternative was to let one of the best playmakers in the league walk in free agency.

 

Without doing a full post-mortem, I'll just say that I think Freeney got market value. You might disagree. I'd have been fine with letting Brackett walk, but at $6.6m/year, that was market value (Dansby, 18 months younger, got $8.6m/year that same day.)

 

As for Vontae, I would have been disappointed if that negotiation went that way, but he didn't have a claim to be the second highest paid CB in the league at that point. If he hit free agency he probably would have gotten $10-11m/year, based on what happened just after he signed. Sherman, Peterson and Haden hadn't done their deals at $13.5m-14m yet. Even Talib's big deal hadn't happened yet, and it came in at $9.5m. The market didn't support that kind of demand for a player at Vontae's level. As it stands, the Colts got him just under market value, but he sort of reset the market, and everyone after him came in higher. 

 

I don't think any of the deals we've been talking about from the past equate to paying Vontae $13m when his market was probably more like $10m. We haven't talked about the Kelvin Hayden deal, but that's probably the one that makes the least sense.

 

fair enough...and I appreciate the clarification in your first paragraph.  Though, personally, I don't think 6.6 per for Brackett is all that different than 13 per for Vontae...but I've never hid nor been shy about the fact that I had a, we'll just say a high level of dislike for Brackett. lol

[Superman]

45 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

fair enough...and I appreciate the clarification in your first paragraph.  Though, personally, I don't think 6.6 per for Brackett is all that different than 13 per for Vontae...but I've never hid nor been shy about the fact that I had a, we'll just say a high level of dislike for Brackett. lol

 

He wasn't my favorite, but he fit the defense almost perfectly. He didn't steal my girlfriend, though, or whatever he did to you to make you hate him... ;)

 

All things equal, at the time I would rather have paid Dansby the $8.6m than Brackett the $6.6m, and I said so at the time. I didn't understand contracts like I do now, so I was appeased by the backloaded nature of the contract, but I wasn't really a fan of it. I was prepared for Brackett to walk that year. Then he played 13 games over the next two seasons and was released.

 

We all know what Polian's philosophy was, though. He'd rather overpay his own guys than overpay someone else's. The devil you know... 

[oldunclemark]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 2:29 PM, crazycolt1 said:

The article is coming out of ESPN. Nuff said.

Exactly...its down time..They need content.

They make stuff up

[oldunclemark]

  Lets not worry about what Andrew gets paid.

 

We have other problems

[oldunclemark]

23 hours ago, richard pallo said:

If you can easily justify 24M just on Osweiler alone it's not to hard to extrapolate above 25M for Luck.  Yes it's outrageous and it's a big number but the NFL is crazy period.  It's like Monopoly money for them. In a few years it will be considered a bargain especially if Winston or Mariotta turn out to be anything close to Luck.  The owners are making a ton of money, the Cap keeps going up, it's nothing to get really worked up about.  If you want to keep one of the premier young star quarterbacks for your franchise you have to accept the fact that he will be paid ,what appears now to be, an outrageous contract,  In reality it will probably turn out to be a bargain in two or three years.  

Exactly, Richard,.,.and the cap keeps going up.

$25 to $30 mil a year wont be Top-5 in 5 years

[Moncrief]

Would we frontload or backload the contract?

[jvan1973]

6 minutes ago, Moncrief said:

Would we frontload or backload the contract?

Probably neither to a large extent 

[SaturdayAllDay]

10 minutes ago, Moncrief said:

Would we frontload or backload the contract?

If anything probably backload it a bit, just due to the fact that the cap will keep going up.  keep his costs around the same percentage of our cap each year. But like Jvan said, probably not to a large extent. 

[Valpo2004]

Blind post:  I see Luck's contract being something close to Aaron Rodger's current contract.  Maybe just a little bit bigger.  

 

I think 24 to 25M per year is too high at this point.  

 

If he had put up another season in 2015 like his 2014 season then we might be looking at that.  But he didn't and it's going to hurt his contract accordingly.

[King Colt]

It will be a mother load but after four years of no protection risking major injuries they pay him. Something wrong with contract structure or football philosophy or all three!! I wonder when Luck's time is up what a top notch QB will be getting. $1,000,000,000,000/game

[chad72]

On 5/16/2016 at 10:24 AM, chad72 said:

 

I agree.

 

I do think something like 6 years $140 mil. with $80 mil. guaranteed will get it done though I wish for less.

 

A guy like Von Miller will soon be making in the range of 6 years $120 mil. with $70 mil. guaranteed, so I don't see why a QB would be paid less.

 

A few things above that I got right