120 Million In Cap Space

[Peterk2011]

2 hours ago, coltsblue1844 said:

Now that we KNOW Luck is 100%, we KNOW we have the right coaching staff in place, and we have a solid young core and a solid locker room... why does everyone seem to think we wont spend any money?  The way the NFL rules are set up, if we do not spend enough, we still have to pay money to the NFL for NOT spending enough.

 

Who seem to think Ballard wont spend any money? I've yet to see a post stating or  indicating that. (I bet I won't see any.) The argument was, and is about how much and on whom. Never about nothing or something or all.

 

Note: The 89 percent rule applies to the cashflow, not the "book keeping" (a.k.a. cap management), and for 4 years period. So the Colts can keep their cap space at cca 70 million and be fine. (And - if there's any - they pay it to the NFLPA, not the NFL.)

 

2 hours ago, coltsblue1844 said:

My guess is that yes, we will try to pay to keep our own first... but as is, he inherited a team void of talent for the most part, and we have no one that will need resigned anytime soon.  We have nearly $125 MILLION in cap space and can EASILY structure contracts that will not have any impact on resigning our young guys several years down the road.

 

Please read my post above. That 125 million figure is misleading for those who don't have time to dig into cap management details. That 125 number is like if you'd have 80k in savings, and 45k yearly salary, and you'd say your income is 125k. It's not. It's 45k, plus your savings. If you buy a new car, you can finance it and pay a low price per month from your income, because your income is recurring (hopefully ). But if you buy that car from your savings, you have calculate with the whole price at once. The Colts salary cap situation is similar. They have cca. 55 mills space in "savings", and they have 65 mills yearly "recurring" space. So if they sign a player, they can distribute the total money over the years of the contract hitting the "recurring" part of the cap. But if they go over the recurring budget and "buy" the player from the savings, the whole amount of the contract will hit that savings.

 

Anyway, it's still a lot, compared to other teams. But in a hard cap leauge, a "lot" can very quickly evaporate, because the budget is large compared to other teams budget, but it's still quite limited compared to FA market prices. All in all, you still have to be smart. And Ballard will be. (My estimation is, he'll spend around 40 to 50 in free agency next spring, depending on who will be available.)

[tweezy32]

Don't need to go all out.. But we do need to sign some impact players I think.  Actually I know.  Like Anthony barr  if he is available and bell or hunt. Need to spend some money this year.  Not saying all of it just enough to get some good players

[Reidm]

I know a lot of people want to use the Jags as the prime example of spending in FA not working but how about the Rams.  They have been spending big while Goff is still on his rookie contract. I think the difference is that the rams have been able to manage the egos of the players while the Jags have not.

 

I'm not advocating going all out in FA, I'm just pointing out that there are times when it works.

[chad72]

13 minutes ago, Reidm said:

I know a lot of people want to use the Jags as the prime example of spending in FA not working but how about the Rams.  They have been spending big while Goff is still on his rookie contract. I think the difference is that the rams have been able to manage the egos of the players while the Jags have not.

 

I'm not advocating going all out in FA, I'm just pointing out that there are times when it works.

 

Spending (not lavishly) in FA will work if you the cornerstone franchise QB in place with a high floor. We have that with Luck, they do not have that with Bortles (Jags), and the Rams have a good floor with Goff as well, whether we like to agree with it or not.

[Myles]

Moncrief will be out there.

Others too:

Robby Andersdon

Golden Tate

Mike Wallace

Clay Mathews

Clowney

Preston Brown

 

http://nfltraderumors.co/2019-nfl-free-agents-list/

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

It's just been explained to you in this topic.. Ballard explained it for us fan too already.

 

I understand though, that by looking only at the 120 ish figure, it might not make much sense. You have to dig into cap management a bit to understand, that a big chunk of that 120 mills are cumulated rollover. So its one-year-money. (Meaning, that if you spend THAT money on a new contract, you have to count the entire contract amount against it, not just the first year, otherwise it won't fit under the cap from the second year.)

 

Let me break down that 120 millions for you a bit:

- There will be cca 65 millions of "true" cap space, and

- There will be cca 55 millions of rollover (one year cash).

 

"True cap money" is what you can sign players for multi-year contracts, and count only the first year against the 65 mill. If you go over that 65 mills, then from that point, you have to count contract totals instead of first year money against the rollover (e.g. 3 years 30 mills will count 30 mills, not 10 mills).

 

And let me add, that that 65 million "true" cap space is not all available to spend in free agency. It's a "total", so it includes everything. The future cost of the 2019 draft, the 2019 dead money, future contract signings, offseason moves, and in-season moves (so they can replace injured players, or in case of trading for someone, swallow the new players contract).

 

So, that 65 will ultimately go down to somewhere around 45, maybe a bit less. This is what Ballard can spend on free agency. If he spends all 45, then the Colts will already spend their "year-by-year available" cap space. Only the rollover will remain to be spent.

 

So, that 120 seem to be a lot, and, compared to other teams, it is, but actually, it is not THAT much. (The Jaguars for example had MUCH more money to spend in the last 2 years. They did spend all, and they are already in cap hell from 2019.)

 

All in all, I expect that Ballard will not hold back, he will spend most of that 45 millions in next march. But he will keep the rollover for future leverage. That will help to keep our own guys. And it will help in some extreme cases (if a sudden big trade hits in, and the Colts will need some space to eat the new guys paycheck, etc.)

 

I do understand the rollover piece...which is why frontloading should be used. There are roster bonuses and gtd base salaries that can be used to accomplish this. Obviously, you can't pay an entire contract in one season...but you can frontload a good chunk of it over 2-3 seasons...which will help to mitigate the dead cap hits later in the deal...or at least make them quite manageable. This fits in nicely with the Colts current timeline.

 

This is basically what JAC did. Look at four of their top FA contracts and dead cap hits by year:

 

Bouye - $26M, $21M, $6M

Jackson - 31.5M, $21.5M, $19.5M, $4M

Campbell - $30M, $19.5M, $3M

Gipson - $12M, $8.2M, $8.15M, $1.6M

 

Each player has a steep drop off in dead cap after the 2nd or 3rd year. The largest signing bonus they gave out was $10M...while the bulk of the gtd money for these deals was gtd base salaries in years 1 and 2. This was intentionally done to follow a timeline and manage the cap long-term.

 

Yes, they are over the cap for next year, but they aren't in cap hell. They can simply release 2-3 guys and have the money they need to sign a draft class (to replace those guys) and other miscellaneous signings. Then next season, they can do the same as they are replacing more of those guys via the draft. By the time they have to pay Ngakoue, Jack, Founette, Ramsey...they will have reset the cap. It's not ideal...but if they draft well (and find a QB)...they will retool fairly quickly.

 

I don't expect the Colts to spend like JAC did...or really any team to do that. I think those were unique circumstances...that we will come to learn over the next few years. However, the Colts can follow that footprint to an extent...and become very good very quickly...while not risking their future. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Reidm said:

I know a lot of people want to use the Jags as the prime example of spending in FA not working but how about the Rams.  They have been spending big while Goff is still on his rookie contract. I think the difference is that the rams have been able to manage the egos of the players while the Jags have not.

 

I'm not advocating going all out in FA, I'm just pointing out that there are times when it works.

 

Has it worked?

 

Talib has been hurt all year, Suh hasn't done much of anything, Cooks has been good, Peters has been inconsistent (and hasn't been paid yet)... The Rams are good, but it's mostly been on the backs of the players they already had, not the players they've brought in.

 

And honestly, everyone has acted like they went on a huge spending spree, but that's kind of overblown. They paid their own, brought in Cooks and paid him, and took on a big salary for Talib, with no long term risk or commitment. They obviously took some big swings, but not as dramatically as it's been portrayed. And they still have future flexibility.

 

As for the Jags, their problem isn't with money spent, and I don't really think it's with egos. The main problem is the QB. Second has been health, specifically on offense. And their problem moving forward is that one of the best and most important units on the team -- the DL -- is getting old and will never replicate the success of 2017.

 

Neither model is problematic, but both teams have homegrown talent, and both teams have reconfiguring to do moving forward.

[shasta519]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Spending in FA will work if you the cornerstone franchise QB in place with a high floor. We have that with Luck, they do not have that with Bortles (Jags), and the Rams have a good floor with Goff as well, whether we like to agree with it or not.

 

Yep. Before the LAR were doing their thing...DEN used FA to supplement a 2x Super Bowl run...which they were able to do because of Manning.

 

Every team has to draft well. FA doesn't preclude a team's ability to draft (which doesn't happen). So I never understand why it's constantly portrayed as an either/or. Had Grigs drafted well during his time...the fact that he was awful at FA wouldn't have really mattered. 

 

And while Grigs was spending like a drunken sailor...the Colts never once found themselves in cap hell. So I don't where these fears come about cap hell come from. It's not difficult to spend money and still have plenty to re-sign your own.

 

To me, "building through the draft" is just not an acceptable reason for not spending in FA. And I think it would be unacceptable if the Colts only meet the requirement for cap spending...with a healthy Luck.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

I do understand the rollover piece...which is why frontloading should be used. There are roster bonuses and gtd base salaries that can be used to accomplish this. Obviously, you can't pay an entire contract in one season...but you can frontload a good chunk of it over 2-3 seasons...which will help to mitigate the dead cap hits later in the deal...or at least make them quite manageable. This fits in nicely with the Colts current timeline.

 

I don't understand the draw toward frontloading. Once you use cap space, it's gone. No reason to load contracts with cap space in the first years, which takes away flexibility moving forward. 

 

This is why cap rollover is a factor. Rather than looking at cap space on a year to year basis, it helps to look at total cap space over a span of time. Then project how much of the cap space you intend to use over that period of time, when you'll likely be using it, and what kind of commitments you'll be making. 

 

When it's looked at in totality, there's no benefit to frontloading contracts. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

To me, "building through the draft" is just not an acceptable reason for not spending in FA. And I think it would be unacceptable if the Colts only meet the requirement for cap spending...with a healthy Luck.

 

It's a false premise. You're talking about spending; what's important is team building.

[shasta519]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Has it worked?

 

Talib has been hurt all year, Suh hasn't done much of anything, Cooks has been good, Peters has been inconsistent (and hasn't been paid yet)... The Rams are good, but it's mostly been on the backs of the players they already had, not the players they've brought in.

 

And honestly, everyone has acted like they went on a huge spending spree, but that's kind of overblown. They paid their own, brought in Cooks and paid him, and took on a big salary for Talib, with no long term risk or commitment. They obviously took some big swings, but not as dramatically as it's been portrayed. And they still have future flexibility.

 

As for the Jags, their problem isn't with money spent, and I don't really think it's with egos. The main problem is the QB. Second has been health, specifically on offense. And their problem moving forward is that one of the best and most important units on the team -- the DL -- is getting old and will never replicate the success of 2017.

 

Neither model is problematic, but both teams have homegrown talent, and both teams have reconfiguring to do moving forward.

 

They didn't just use FA...they made trades (which teams don't do enough). The Peters trade seems to have been a bust...but he could turn it around at any time. But Cooks was a solid deal for a team trying to win a Super Bowl...and Fowler has been very good so far.

 

As for FA, they also signed Robert Woods, Whitworth and Suh.

 

I would say it has been working for them quite well. I can't imagine the Colts ever going all-in like this...but it would be fun.

[Myles]

I'd be happy if we signed a perennial 1100 yard WR like Cooks.  

A 300+ lb DT who gets 6 sacks and 60 tackles would be nice too (Suh).

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, shastamasta said:

 

They didn't just use FA...they made trades (which teams don't do enough). The Peters trade seems to have been a bust...but he could turn it around at any time. But Cooks was a solid deal for a team trying to win a Super Bowl...and Fowler has been very good so far.

 

As for FA, they also signed Robert Woods, Whitworth and Suh.

 

I would say it has been working for them quite well. I can't imagine the Colts ever going all-in like this...but it would be fun.

 

I included Suh; he hasn't been anything special. 

 

I didn't include Woods and Whitworth because they were signed last year, and I don't think they factor into this 'the Rams are going all in!' narrative.

 

It's fair to include Fowler. It's also fair to include the draft picks the Rams have traded away. They don't have their second or third this year, but the way they used trades rather than signing players outright should put them in line for two third round comp picks, which is really good work by Les Snead.

 

The Colts aren't in that position because they aren't going to lose anyone this offseason that would bring back any noteworthy comp picks. However, we might get a 4th for Moncrief, which will be a tradeable asset if the right deal comes along. 

[shasta519]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's a false premise. You're talking about spending; what's important is team building.

 

Yes...but you spend to build a team...whether that be cap space or draft picks. Those are the resources you are given. A smart team uses all of their resources.

 

 

[shasta519]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I included Suh; he hasn't been anything special. 

 

I didn't include Woods and Whitworth because they were signed last year, and I don't think they factor into this 'the Rams are going all in!' narrative.

 

It's fair to include Fowler. It's also fair to include the draft picks the Rams have traded away. They don't have their second or third this year, but the way they used trades rather than signing players outright should put them in line for two third round comp picks, which is really good work by Les Snead.

 

The Colts aren't in that position because they aren't going to lose anyone this offseason that would bring back any noteworthy comp picks. However, we might get a 4th for Moncrief, which will be a tradeable asset if the right deal comes along. 

 

I would say Woods and Whitworth are part of their current strategy to immediately become a competitive team...not as aggressive as trading their draft away...but definitely with an eye toward maximizing Goff's rookie deal.

 

But I am not advocating that the Colts go all-in like the LAR (and Ballard would never go for that). I just think it should be noted that they have good examples of how a team can use all of its resources effectively, outside of just building through the draft. 

 

The Colts don't have to do it any one way...and I hope they don't.

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Yes...but you spend to build a team...whether that be cap space or draft picks. Those are the resources you are given. A smart team uses all of their resources.

 

 

A smart team manages their resources carefully. You're setting up a scenario where if the Colts don't use those resources in a specific way, it means they didn't do everything they could to get better. 

 

They can spend all their draft picks on drafted players; that would be using their draft resources. If they trade picks for veterans, they're using picks + additional cap space for players who have fewer remaining years in the league.

 

I think there's a balance to be struck, and I expect the Colts to be a little more aggressive than they were last year, but ultimately, what matters is that they continue to fill holes, add good players, and develop the players they already have. That's good roster building, and smart use of the resources they have at their disposal.

[horseshoecrabs]

6 hours ago, csmopar said:

Actually, I'm hoping we did put a claim on him.  Yeah i know the public outcry would be loud but IF he gets that settled, itd be a steal.   But he wouldnt have been playing yesterday, no matter what.  He's on the exempt list and on top of that, his waiver period doesnt end until 4pm today.

Sorry but to much baggage, with video pending about assault, Only reason the KC  would had let him go

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I would say Woods and Whitworth are part of their current strategy to immediately become a competitive team...not as aggressive as trading their draft away...but definitely with an eye toward maximizing Goff's rookie deal.

 

But I am not advocating that the Colts go all-in like the LAR (and Ballard would never go for that). I just think it should be noted that they have good examples of how a team can use all of its resources effectively, outside of just building through the draft.

 

The Colts don't have to do it any one way...and I hope they don't.

Yep.   Mix and match.   There are 3 ways to acquire players.   Draft them, sign them or trade for them.   Don't limit yourself to only 1 of these tools.  Use all 3.

[Myles]

1 minute ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Sorry but to much baggage, with video pending about assault, Only reason the KC  would had let him go

I disagree.   He's only 23 and did something stupid.    It wasn't even that bad.   Unfortunate, but not a career ender.  

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Sorry but to much baggage, with video pending about assault, Only reason the KC  would had let him go

oh, there's no denying that. but what's it hurt?  If he gets cleared somehow, youve got a star on a rookie deal. if he doesn't get clear or gets suspended, only thing it cost you was a little bit of PR. It'd be different if we were trying to trade for him or something where it'd actually cost us something.

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree.   He's only 23 and did something stupid.    It wasn't even that bad.   Unfortunate, but not a career ender.  

exactly, we also don't know what truly transpired.  There's a reason he wasnt charged in Cleveland, that being we don't know for a fact what took place OFF camera to set him off.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't understand the draw toward frontloading. Once you use cap space, it's gone. No reason to load contracts with cap space in the first years, which takes away flexibility moving forward. 

 

This is why cap rollover is a factor. Rather than looking at cap space on a year to year basis, it helps to look at total cap space over a span of time. Then project how much of the cap space you intend to use over that period of time, when you'll likely be using it, and what kind of commitments you'll be making. 

 

When it's looked at in totality, there's no benefit to frontloading contracts. 

 

Not sure I follow. I am talking about frontloading guaranteed money...which every team does. I will leave it up to the capologist on how to best structure the cap hits. But the point would be to have large dead cap hits in years 1-3 and easy outs after that. This fits in nicely with the current timeline.

 

Also, I am pretty sure you can't rollover cap space ad infinitum. It resets at some point. 

 

 

[horseshoecrabs]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Has it worked?

 

Talib has been hurt all year, Suh hasn't done much of anything, Cooks has been good, Peters has been inconsistent (and hasn't been paid yet)... The Rams are good, but it's mostly been on the backs of the players they already had, not the players they've brought in.

 

And honestly, everyone has acted like they went on a huge spending spree, but that's kind of overblown. They paid their own, brought in Cooks and paid him, and took on a big salary for Talib, with no long term risk or commitment. They obviously took some big swings, but not as dramatically as it's been portrayed. And they still have future flexibility.

 

As for the Jags, their problem isn't with money spent, and I don't really think it's with egos. The main problem is the QB. Second has been health, specifically on offense. And their problem moving forward is that one of the best and most important units on the team -- the DL -- is getting old and will never replicate the success of 2017.

 

Neither model is problematic, but both teams have homegrown talent, and both teams have reconfiguring to do moving forward.

Have to agree with you on the fact that on paper it appeared that the Rams Fa spending spree on defense looked  awesome , But considering what they have put on the field on defense so far has been disappointing to say the least. Typical Example the KC game.  High scoring game , expected more on KC's part , on their defense, but the Rams defense should have been much better considering all that they had invested in the off season. 

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

also, I am pretty sure you can't rollover cap space ad infinitum. It resets at some point. 

thats what ive been getting at too.   they could sign a few more guys like grant and hit the mark without really accomplishment much of anything 

 

if there is ever a time to look at high priced free agents this is it.  we may not get the chance to do it after we sign guys like leonard and nelson during the next cap period. 

[horseshoecrabs]

17 minutes ago, csmopar said:

oh, there's no denying that. but what's it hurt?  If he gets cleared somehow, youve got a star on a rookie deal. if he doesn't get clear or gets suspended, only thing it cost you was a little bit of PR. It'd be different if we were trying to trade for him or something where it'd actually cost us something.

If and when, it is somehow he  is cleared, but with a video of an assault  Your dreaming and . basing you theory on his talent? well some how I already see the hand writing on the wall.

[shasta519]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

A smart team manages their resources carefully. You're setting up a scenario where if the Colts don't use those resources in a specific way, it means they didn't do everything they could to get better. 

 

They can spend all their draft picks on drafted players; that would be using their draft resources. If they trade picks for veterans, they're using picks + additional cap space for players who have fewer remaining years in the league.

 

I think there's a balance to be struck, and I expect the Colts to be a little more aggressive than they were last year, but ultimately, what matters is that they continue to fill holes, add good players, and develop the players they already have. That's good roster building, and smart use of the resources they have at their disposal.

 

That's all I want...a balance...for them to use all of their resources...and that includes their cap space (and money). 

 

If they barely reach the 89% cash spend threshold from 2017-2020...and haven't won a Super Bowl...I will be disappointed. They have the cap space (and cash...I hope) to spend right now...a franchise QB in his prime...and very few people to pay for a few years. 

 

I don't think they need to go all-in, but it would be nice to see them at least get up to the middle of the pack in spending by next season.

 

 

[boo2202]

The 2019 free agent list looks pretty thin to me

 

clowney

frank clark

demarcus lawerence

Bell

 

just a few and clowney/lawerence prolly getting tagged. If any of those guys are available hope Ballard tries to get then here. But I don't want to be spending just for the heck of it aka grigson. 

[csmopar]

14 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

If and when, it is somehow he  is cleared, but with a video of an assault  Your dreaming and . basing you theory on his talent? well some how I already see the hand writing on the wall.

no, not dreaming at all. But you also have a video given to a media outlet, not released by police, and its only an edited partial clip.  We do not have the entire story. Neither does the league or anyone else at this point.  It is a gamble for sure, but a low risk/high reward should it pan out. Now, the likely outcome is he's still suspended, I doubt its much more than 6-10 games, maybe a season at most. He'd still be on his rookie contract afterwards and thus, easy to cut/release should it not work.

[MikeCurtis]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

However, we might get a 4th for Moncrief, which will be a tradeable asset if the right deal comes along. 

I believe that you are not allowed to trade the comp pick from FA loss

 

Update

Thanks Boiler Colt

 

 

[horseshoecrabs]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

no, not dreaming at all. But you also have a video given to a media outlet, not released by police, and its only an edited partial clip.  We do not have the entire story. Neither does the league or anyone else at this point.  It is a gamble for sure, but a low risk/high reward should it pan out. Now, the likely outcome is he's still suspended, I doubt its much more than 6-10 games, maybe a season at most. He'd still be on his rookie contract afterwards and thus, easy to cut/release should it not work.

Dude they are not going to pursue the baggage  as simple as that! move on

 

[Boiler_Colt]

17 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I believe that you are not allowed to trade the comp pick from FA loss

You now can. They changed that rule a couple years back.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

I believe that you are not allowed to trade the comp pick from FA loss

 

You are. That rule was changed, effective for the 2017 draft.

[csmopar]

21 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Dude they are not going to pursue the baggage  as simple as that! move on

 

Most likely not. I don't need to move on. It really makes no matter to me. If they do, they do, if not, oh well. 

[horseshoecrabs]

3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Most likely not. I don't need to move on. It really makes no matter to me. If they do, they do, if not, oh well. 

Obviously,  it does matter to you ! and I agree from a talent position, I agree with you 100%  but with what's going on I just don't think that we will be a player in all of this . That's all.

[csmopar]

5 minutes ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Obviously,  it does matter to you ! and I agree from a talent position, I agree with you 100%  but with what's going on I just don't think that we will be a player in all of this . That's all.

I think we're actually in the same boat here. I don't think we will be a player but I can see the reasons why we'd take a look at it or why we should. 

 

I think youre thinking I'm advocating for us to be. I'm not. Simply looking at it from the perspective of understanding why we could be 

[braveheartcolt]

We need to spend some cash on a play calling guru who can teach Frank when to 'go for it' and when to stick. Great FA players could be rendered impotent if he keeps chucking away points like Curtis Painter in a panic......

[Superman]

56 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Not sure I follow. I am talking about frontloading guaranteed money...which every team does. I will leave it up to the capologist on how to best structure the cap hits. But the point would be to have large dead cap hits in years 1-3 and easy outs after that. This fits in nicely with the current timeline.

 

Also, I am pretty sure you can't rollover cap space ad infinitum. It resets at some point. 

 

If you're talking about typical contract structure, with prorated signing bonus, then yes, that's typical. But I thought you were talking about something like what the Niners did with Garappolo's contract, where it's frontloaded dramatically with giant Year 1 cap hit, then more typical cap hits in future years.

 

Still, the better way to structure contracts is to have the cash and the cap be closely related throughout the life of the contract. People tend to think that if you can get out of a contract without future dead cap hits, it means the contract was well structured. But if I do a five year, $55m contract with a $5M signing bonus and $10m salaries in Years 1-5, it looks like I have a contract that's easy to get out of after two years -- the dead cap hit in Year 3 is only $3m, compared to an $11m cap hit. But if I cut that player, I still paid him $25m for two years of service, and all $25m still hits my cap eventually.

 

That's no different than a five year, $55m contract with a $15m signing bonus, and $5m salaries in Years 1-2. If I cut that player after two years, I still paid him $25m, and it still hits my cap eventually, but my dead cap hit in Year 3 is $12m. That's just the bonus money that hasn't hit my cap yet. It looks bad in Year 3 to most people because you have a $12m penalty vs say a $10m cap hit, but I've spent the same amount of cap space.

 

In reality, over the next two seasons, the Colts have about $500m in cap space, counting rollover. It doesn't matter whether you frontload, backload, or pay as you go, every dollar of bonus money committed to, and every dollar of salary due in those two seasons, will be subtracted from that total, aggregated cap amount of $500m (with the exception of bonus money that gets prorated into future seasons). 

 

Where we differ is that I prefer a pay as you go approach. It minimizes future dead cap hits by keeping salaries and cap hits as close as is possible, and you're not borrowing from future cap space with large amounts of prorated signing bonus.

 

And there's no limit to rollover cap space, besides a) the obvious byproduct of having to meet the 89% spending floor, and b) the CBA expiring after 2020. But if you've met the spending floor, and the new CBA doesn't further restrict cap rollover, there's nothing preventing a team from continuing to roll cap space into future years.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

That's all I want...a balance...for them to use all of their resources...and that includes their cap space (and money). 

 

If they barely reach the 89% cash spend threshold from 2017-2020...and haven't won a Super Bowl...I will be disappointed. They have the cap space (and cash...I hope) to spend right now...a franchise QB in his prime...and very few people to pay for a few years. 

 

I don't think they need to go all-in, but it would be nice to see them at least get up to the middle of the pack in spending by next season.

 

If they don't win a SB in the next two seasons, I'm more likely to blame the fact that we completely blew three drafts in a row and had to spend the next three drafts trying to build NFL caliber trenches that should have already been in place. That's the primary reason we have so much cap space to begin with.

 

I'm not worried about the floor because I don't think the Colts are being cheap. I think they have a philosophy they believe in, and a plan that fits with that philosophy. And if they do it right, they'll have plenty of players to spend money on. I don't think the spending floor is or will become a factor at any point, nor do I think it should. 

 

If they get it right, the Colts will have a top 5-ish roster within 2-3 years. That will mean that players already on the roster will have developed into good (or better) NFL players, it will mean they continue to draft well, and it will most likely mean they've added some good veterans via FA and trades. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will have spent more than 89%, and realistically, it doesn't mean they will have won a SB. But it will mean that they've done a great job of building the roster. No matter how much they've spent.

[horseshoecrabs]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If you're talking about typical contract structure, with prorated signing bonus, then yes, that's typical. But I thought you were talking about something like what the Niners did with Garappolo's contract, where it's frontloaded dramatically with giant Year 1 cap hit, then more typical cap hits in future years.

 

Still, the better way to structure contracts is to have the cash and the cap be closely related throughout the life of the contract. People tend to think that if you can get out of a contract without future dead cap hits, it means the contract was well structured. But if I do a five year, $55m contract with a $5M signing bonus and $10m salaries in Years 1-5, it looks like I have a contract that's easy to get out of after two years -- the dead cap hit in Year 3 is only $3m, compared to an $11m cap hit. But if I cut that player, I still paid him $25m for two years of service, and all $25m still hits my cap eventually.

 

That's no different than a five year, $55m contract with a $15m signing bonus, and $5m salaries in Years 1-2. If I cut that player after two years, I still paid him $25m, and it still hits my cap eventually, but my dead cap hit in Year 3 is $12m. That's just the bonus money that hasn't hit my cap yet. It looks bad in Year 3 to most people because you have a $12m penalty vs say a $10m cap hit, but I've spent the same amount of cap space.

 

In reality, over the next two seasons, the Colts have about $500m in cap space, counting rollover. It doesn't matter whether you frontload, backload, or pay as you go, every dollar of bonus money committed to, and every dollar of salary due in those two seasons, will be subtracted from that total, aggregated cap amount of $500m (with the exception of bonus money that gets prorated into future seasons). 

 

Where we differ is that I prefer a pay as you go approach. It minimizes future dead cap hits by keeping salaries and cap hits as close as is possible, and you're not borrowing from future cap space with large amounts of prorated signing bonus.

 

And there's no limit to rollover cap space, besides a) the obvious byproduct of having to meet the 89% spending floor, and b) the CBA expiring after 2020. But if you've met the spending floor, and the new CBA doesn't further restrict cap rollover, there's nothing preventing a team from continuing to roll cap space into future years.

If you are analyzing from strictly  business since,  Superman, It sounds good on paper , but unfortunately, you also have to deal  from a human &  Player's agent point of view. The X factor can circumvent  the final analogy. There is a lot of factors that decide the business. If it was that simple then everyone could do it. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Have to agree with you on the fact that on paper it appeared that the Rams Fa spending spree on defense looked  awesome , But considering what they have put on the field on defense so far has been disappointing to say the least. Typical Example the KC game.  High scoring game , expected more on KC's part , on their defense, but the Rams defense should have been much better considering all that they had invested in the off season. 

 

That game was an anomaly, but the Rams defense isn't anything special this season. If they get healthy, maybe they'll improve in time for the playoffs, but they're average by any metric -- yards, points, third down, sacks, INTs (they're second in fumbles, which raises their takeaway standing, but I think fumbles are too circumstantial to be very meaningful)... 

 

Of all the players they added on defense, I don't know that any of them have really been difference makers. At least, not so far.