How the Colts can sign Mo Wilkerson in 2017

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

LOL at the bolded part. The one time Polian did anything like this was the Corey Simon deal, and that bit him so hard he never even considered a deal like that again.

 

The Colts can technically afford to grab Wilkerson now. They have enough cap space / flexibility to make the numbers work.

 

I think you're ignoring the cash, though. I posted in the other thread where we were discussing this, the Colts are at ~$180m in cash this season, with a cap number of ~$150m. That's $30m in commitments that are already being pushed into future years (a lot of it for Luck, so that's fine). To get Wilkerson under contract will cost at least $30m in Year 1, so you're putting the Colts at $210m in cash, at least.

 

You also have to give up a high pick, probably a first rounder. Even if it's a second, that's a significant price, especially in tandem with a $17-19m/year contract.

 

Answer/explain for me: Does adding Wilkerson in 2016 make the Colts a serious SB contender? 

I think adding Wilkerson this year does make us a serious SB contender.  He is not only great against the run but he can put pressure on the QB and has had a number of double digit sack years I believe,   Also, Jones has not been able to stay healthy and Anderson is also coming off a serious injury.  He would be a huge upgrade to our defense.  The question of the cash commitments is another story.  Yes it would be a huge undertaking but Moe is only 26 like Luck with many years ahead of him.  I suppose there is also the possibility of him playing for us under the franchise tag and giving him his big contract next year in 2017.  If he stays with the Jets he is most likely playing under the tag anyway.  With us he would be on a contender with his big payday the following year.  Personally I would acquire him now.  With a draft pick you never know how it is going to turn out,  Moe has already proven himself.  A talent like Moe is rarely available at a young age.  I don't see the benefit of waiting another year when so much could change and the advantage we have today would be gone.

[krunk]

I don't see the Colts adding Wilkerson in 2016  at all. I don't have great faith they would do it in 2017 either.

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

He is not only great against the run but he can put pressure on the QB and has had a number of double digit sack years I believe,   Also, Jones has not been able to stay healthy and Anderson is also coming off a serious injury.  He would be a huge upgrade to our defense.

 

I agree with that. I'm not sure he'd make enough of a difference to put the Colts into contention. In the AFC, I still think the Pats, Steelers, maybe Bengals, probably Broncos would be a step ahead. No question that Wilkerson would make the Colts better, which is why I want him.

 

I also agree that by trading for him and banging out a deal now, you take him off the free agent market. 

 

The problem is a) the pick, or picks, and b) the cash. It's easy to spend someone else's money. And it's easy to downplay the significance of the draft picks that it would take to get the Jets to trade him. There's a reason they didn't get a deal done before the draft.

 

Last thing, something I hadn't mentioned but was part of my thinking, he's coming off a broken leg. I assume he'll be fine, but letting him play out the tag for the Jets mitigates that risk for any other team that might be interested. I wouldn't want to drop a bunch of guaranteed money on him when I haven't seen proof that he's over the leg injury. That's probably the biggest reason NOT to do it now.

[richard pallo]

23 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I agree with that. I'm not sure he'd make enough of a difference to put the Colts into contention. In the AFC, I still think the Pats, Steelers, maybe Bengals, probably Broncos would be a step ahead. No question that Wilkerson would make the Colts better, which is why I want him.

 

I also agree that by trading for him and banging out a deal now, you take him off the free agent market. 

 

The problem is a) the pick, or picks, and b) the cash. It's easy to spend someone else's money. And it's easy to downplay the significance of the draft picks that it would take to get the Jets to trade him. There's a reason they didn't get a deal done before the draft.

 

Last thing, something I hadn't mentioned but was part of my thinking, he's coming off a broken leg. I assume he'll be fine, but letting him play out the tag for the Jets mitigates that risk for any other team that might be interested. I wouldn't want to drop a bunch of guaranteed money on him when I haven't seen proof that he's over the leg injury. That's probably the biggest reason NOT to do it now.

I did read that the Jets would most likely have to take a 2nd. round pick now.  They tried for a 1st. and maybe more and were not able to get it.  I and many others think he is worth a 1st.  It is easy for us to spend other peoples money but I think most of these owners are in it to win.  They have to do it within the parameters of smart cap management and cash outlay but I think these owners have the cash.  The timing of these transactions have to be taken into account though.  The injury is something to think about but at age 26 I am not too concerned.  Maybe it makes more sense to bring him in under the tag this year?  He would be motivated and more likely to get paid by us in 2017 than by the Jets.  He might view us as a legitimate contender and be okay with it.  Also by signing him to a long term deal next year his future deal most likely would not come due at the same time as Andrews thus avoiding a potential problem.  If he plays for the Jets this year our leverage is lost and the competition opens up.  The chances of us drafting a player of his caliber at 18 or later in the future is pretty slim.  I am all in for doing it this year because of his age, his proven status and our current advantage which is lost next year.  I think he would be a difference maker on defense and help make the other players around him  more productive.  You have to take advantage of your opportunities.  To me this just makes to much sense.  

[Superman]

On 7/2/2016 at 11:46 AM, richard pallo said:

I did read that the Jets would most likely have to take a 2nd. round pick now.  They tried for a 1st. and maybe more and were not able to get it.  I and many others think he is worth a 1st.  It is easy for us to spend other peoples money but I think most of these owners are in it to win.  They have to do it within the parameters of smart cap management and cash outlay but I think these owners have the cash.  The timing of these transactions have to be taken into account though.  The injury is something to think about but at age 26 I am not too concerned.  Maybe it makes more sense to bring him in under the tag this year?  He would be motivated and more likely to get paid by us in 2017 than by the Jets.  He might view us as a legitimate contender and be okay with it.  Also by signing him to a long term deal next year his future deal most likely would not come due at the same time as Andrews thus avoiding a potential problem.  If he plays for the Jets this year our leverage is lost and the competition opens up.  The chances of us drafting a player of his caliber at 18 or later in the future is pretty slim.  I am all in for doing it this year because of his age, his proven status and our current advantage which is lost next year.  I think he would be a difference maker on defense and help make the other players around him  more productive.  You have to take advantage of your opportunities.  To me this just makes to much sense.  

 

Your point is taken. I get where you're coming from, and it's a legit thought. Again, take him off the market by making the proactive move right now.

 

I think it's too risky. First, the leg injury. Trading a high pick for a player who might be damaged is problematic. Add in the long term contract for BIG money, and I think there's too much potential for failure and longer term damage to the team. 

 

If you trade for him and keep him on the tag, the whole rationale for trading for him is undermined, because you're not taking him off the market in 2017. Sure, you have the second tag, but that's prohibitive. And you've given him $16m for what could be a substandard year.

 

Even if he proved to be worth the pick and the contract, you're somewhat undermining the 'build through the draft' direction that this team has to stick to, especially now that Luck is paid. Add in another big contract, and you can't afford to give up high picks. If you give up the pick and he doesn't live up to expectations, it's even worse. I like him a lot, but the risk exists, and shouldn't be ignored.

 

If he has a great season with the Jets on the tag, then I'd be more than happy to break the bank for him, personally. If he doesn't want to entertain the Colts, oh well, but I'd make a very competitive offer for him as soon as the tampering period opens, using the structure in my OP. He'd have proven that he's over the injury, and his production would validate the offer. I'd get to keep my high pick, and I'd still be able to retain my pending FAs if I want, including extending Moncrief and Mewhort before they hit free agency. I wouldn't plan on going after any other compensatory free agents, either.

 

Big money for a veteran FA, but I'm still building through the draft, and I've somewhat minimized the risk.

 

I'm already getting rid of Gore, Jackson and Jones. I'd be open to moving on from Langford to lower the team's cash output. 

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Your point is taken. I get where you're coming from, and it's a legit thought. Again, take him off the market by making the proactive move right now.

 

I think it's too risky. First, the leg injury. Trading a high pick for a player who might be damaged is problematic. Add in the long term contract for BIG money, and I think there's too much potential for failure and longer term damage to the team. 

 

If you trade for him and keep him on the tag, the whole rationale for trading for him is undermined, because you're not taking him off the market in 2017. Sure, you have the second tag, but that's prohibitive. And you've given him $16m for what could be a substandard year.

 

Even if he proved to be worth the pick and the contract, you're somewhat undermining the 'build through the draft' direction that this team has to stick to, especially now that Luck is paid. Add in another big contract, and you can't afford to give up high picks. If you give up the pick and he doesn't live up to expectations, it's even worse. I like him a lot, but the risk exists, and shouldn't be ignored.

 

If he has a great season with the Jets on the tag, then I'd be more than happy to break the bank for him, personally. If he doesn't want to entertain the Colts, oh well, but I'd make a very competitive offer for him as soon as the tampering period opens, using the structure in my OP. He'd have proven that he's over the injury, and his production would validate the offer. I'd get to keep my high pick, and I'd still be able to retain my pending FAs if I want, including extending Moncrief and Mewhort before they hit free agency. I wouldn't plan on going after any other compensatory free agents, either.

 

Big money for a veteran FA, but I'm still building through the draft, and I've somewhat minimized the risk.

 

I'm already getting rid of Gore, Jackson and Jones. I'd be open to moving on from Langford to lower the team's cash output. 

I understand your thinking and it is probably the one the Colts will take.  I think in order for the tag strategy to work he would have to accept the understanding that 2017 would be his big year.  Would he rather play for the Jets or us?  In order to get his big contract he would have to have a great 2016 no matter who he plays for.  That could be for us and we would have the cap space to do it in 2017.  We would still have that 2nd. tag option but I would have to think with that cap they could get it done.  The injury is a concern and the trade off of the draft pick.  But given Andrews injury I would bet a lot of teams would have traded for him if given the opportunity.  Willing to take the risk.  I think building through the draft is the way to go as well.  He is the only kind of player I would be willing to trade a high pick for, Von Miller too.  He is like Andrew entering his prime, young and proven.  Even a high draft pick is not a guarantee of success.  I would explore trading for him now with the Jets and given permission his agent and Moe himself to see where his mind is.  You can get doctors involved as well.  There is risk involved but I would hope they would at least explore the possibility.  My guess is we will probably stand pat and hope our current players can do the job.

[Jact.stark]

Well i would trade a second round pick and give him a premium contract in a heartbeat just to prevent him to hit 12, but i do think we have above-average talent to trade for him and give a lot of cash, we still have a lot of cap space like 13 m, but we can get those $$ into next years cap, and then decide with this parameters:

1.- Whose on our DL rotation and how good are they?

2.- How are things going with team that give those monster contracts(Phi,Mia,etc.)?

3.- Are Moncrief and Jack playing at great level? 
If they are then we must re-sign them now.

But the 2017 FA class looks pretty boring for us, because we got our O core signed, and we have defensive players in place to develop, so i would wait a year and try to get him once we decide if Moncrief , Jack and Thorton are worth to re-sign.

IMO i would wait a year, and not lose an 2nd rounder when we are kind of loaded at the DL.

[Narcosys]

@Superman

 

Does this still work with Luck's new contract? 

[richard pallo]

8 hours ago, Narcosys said:

@Superman

 

Does this still work with Luck's new contract? 

Yes it does.  Either year really but you have to look at all the pros and cons mentioned above and decide if he is a player you want to try to bring to your team and if the answer is yes then next comes when.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, Narcosys said:

@Superman

 

Does this still work with Luck's new contract? 

 

Yup.

 

I had already accounted for Luck's impending contract. I said he'd average $24m/year between 2017-2021; it's $24.1m/year for those five years. I said his 2017 cap hit would be $22m; it's $19.4m. I said his 2017 cash would be $30m; it's $16m, including future guarantees that have to be funded (but his 2016 cash is a little higher than I thought, so it's moot). 

[BOTT]

On July 4, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jact.stark said:

Well i would trade a second round pick and give him a premium contract in a heartbeat just to prevent him to hit 12, but i do think we have above-average talent to trade for him and give a lot of cash, we still have a lot of cap space like 13 m, but we can get those $$ into next years cap, and then decide with this parameters:

1.- Whose on our DL rotation and how good are they?

2.- How are things going with team that give those monster contracts(Phi,Mia,etc.)?

3.- Are Moncrief and Jack playing at great level? 
If they are then we must re-sign them now.

But the 2017 FA class looks pretty boring for us, because we got our O core signed, and we have defensive players in place to develop, so i would wait a year and try to get him once we decide if Moncrief , Jack and Thorton are worth to re-sign.

IMO i would wait a year, and not lose an 2nd rounder when we are kind of loaded at the DL.

 I don't get #2.  Most teams who pick high in the draft don't do well neither, doesn't mean I would automatically trade out.