Ballard's one year deals

[WoolMagnet]

  Its not a bad idea to have a handfull of these one-year prove it d als on both sides of the ball.    It keeps the urgency in my he building and helps to stifle complacency.  It is in their best interest to work a little garder and give a little extra as they are always on a job interview so to speak.  Its also a nicecway to plug a hole until your drafting catches up.

  It also doesnt handicap you going forward if it doesnt pan out.

i dont think we need to worry about Ballards cap having much dead cap money.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think your point about needing the draft to catch up is a god one. We really want to draft our own geeat receivers. But it takes time for them to develop.

[ColtStrong]

I basically agree. With Cain coming back, and most likely Inman, I think we are in good shape at WR. Plus, we may even draft another. Yeah, these 1 yr deals are actually a pretty good idea.

[Indyfan4life]

Inman proved he deserves to stay here. I hope Funch does too. Would be amazing if he turned into another Ebron situation. I’m not sure how you cover TY, Doyle, Ebron, Funch and Inman. And hopefully Cain turns into what we were all thinking he would. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

22 minutes ago, Indyfan4life said:

Inman proved he deserves to stay here. I hope Funch does too. Would be amazing if he turned into another Ebron situation. I’m not sure how you cover TY, Doyle, Ebron, Funch and Inman. And hopefully Cain turns into what we were all thinking he would. 

Plus don’t forget we have three pretty good running backs. I look for us to use more of Hines in the receiving game this year. He already had a very good year catching last year. We have a lot of targets.

[Jackie Daytona]

18 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Plus don’t forget we have three pretty good running backs. I look for us to use more of Hines in the receiving game this year. He already had a very good year catching last year. We have a lot of targets.

While true, every other NFL team has just as many promising targets....  

[WoolMagnet]

Bring the question mark guys in for a year to plug holes.  If they impress, structure a longer term contract before he he end of a he year.  If he doesnt work out, or injury, you arent hurt at the tail end.

  So many free agent dont live up to billing (and especially price), that it can be advantageous to both parties for a 1 year prove-it type deal.  You just cant afford to miss on long-term big contracts.

[chad72]

8 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Plus don’t forget we have three pretty good running backs. I look for us to use more of Hines in the receiving game this year. He already had a very good year catching last year. We have a lot of targets.

 

It is all about our OL, QB protection and scheme. If we get those right consistently, our pass catching production will continue at a high level, IMO, as we have enough talent to compete with this signing. A WR or two from the draft, we need to get that right, and then we should be good.

[Smonroe]

8 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Plus don’t forget we have three pretty good running backs. I look for us to use more of Hines in the receiving game this year. He already had a very good year catching last year. We have a lot of targets.

 

I agree about Hines.  It's obvious they had more confidence in him as the season went on.  It seemed he gained confidence in himself after his fumble issues in the preseason.  He's a weapon.

 

I know they like Williams, from what Ballard and Reich said about him.  I'm hoping he turns into that 3rd and 1 bruiser back.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

I don't like 1 year deals.

A 1 year deal often means the GM doesn't feel thr player warrants a commitment of a multiple year deal. So then not too confident he will be productive?

Also if the said player has a good year he will want to use that for next year and will want a big contract that some other team will be more willing to pay then us.

 

If he doesn't have a good year you let him walk.

Either way it usually means your going to have  to replace him next year. And every year it seems salaries go higher.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

26 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I don't like 1 year deals.

A 1 year deal often means the GM doesn't feel thr player warrants a commitment of a multiple year deal. So then not too confident he will be productive?

Also if the said player has a good year he will want to use that for next year and will want a big contract that some other team will be more willing to pay then us.

 

If he doesn't have a good year you let him walk.

Either way it usually means your going to have  to replace him next year. And every year it seems salaries go higher.

If he plays well and walks so whAt. That gives the colts a year to develop their own WR. Or he might like the culture here and want to stay.

[OffensivelyPC]

I always thought the 1 year prove it deals were always glamorized because of the "prove it" portion that people attach themselves to.  It's not a prove your value and you're all the sudden valued toward the top of your position.  It's more like a, "you're on your way out and we're trying to squeeze the last bit of football out of you before you're less than the replacement value."  You always hopes a guy outperforms, but the point of these "prove it" deals is less about proving they deserve a bigger contract and more about taking calculated risks on guys with diminished value.  Generally, that diminished value is based heavily on their previous year's underperformance.  If tehy perform the same as last year, you are getting what you paid for.  If they perform less than last year, these deals are cheap to walk away from.  And if they outperform them, maybe they resign here, maybe their franchised, or tehy sign else where.  

 

It's a wiser investment of risks/rewards, spreading that risk over several players with cheap overhead and no long term investment on a year to year basis.  It's sustainable, even if every player signed that fits under this category fails to live up to their contract.  On the other hand, signing a player based on his reward (i.e. last year's performance) which is often near the peak of his value in his entire career.  Here, the risk/reward is not spread and instead all in one player.  Wehre he lives up to his salary, the reward is never realy exceeded, or marginally so.  But if he underperforms, well, the overhead in cap space goes years into the future and can affect you for multiple years.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I don't like 1 year deals.

A 1 year deal often means the GM doesn't feel thr player warrants a commitment of a multiple year deal. So then not too confident he will be productive?

Also if the said player has a good year he will want to use that for next year and will want a big contract that some other team will be more willing to pay then us.

 

If he doesn't have a good year you let him walk.

Either way it usually means your going to have  to replace him next year. And every year it seems salaries go higher.

 

Not a fan of doing it at WR. Luck needs to develop chemistry with all of his WRs. Tough to do when the WR2 is on one year deals. This is why I hope they double dip at WR in this draft.

 

I can’t believe anyone who has watched Funchess play would want to give him a huge contract (definitely with a higher AAV than this one year deal)...regardless of what happens this season. So I am not sure the “we can re-sign him if he plays well” point means much.

[shasta519]

11 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I always thought the 1 year prove it deals were always glamorized because of the "prove it" portion that people attach themselves to.  It's not a prove your value and you're all the sudden valued toward the top of your position.  It's more like a, "you're on your way out and we're trying to squeeze the last bit of football out of you before you're less than the replacement value."  You always hopes a guy outperforms, but the point of these "prove it" deals is less about proving they deserve a bigger contract and more about taking calculated risks on guys with diminished value.  Generally, that diminished value is based heavily on their previous year's underperformance.  If tehy perform the same as last year, you are getting what you paid for.  If they perform less than last year, these deals are cheap to walk away from.  And if they outperform them, maybe they resign here, maybe their franchised, or tehy sign else where.  

 

It's a wiser investment of risks/rewards, spreading that risk over several players with cheap overhead and no long term investment on a year to year basis.  It's sustainable, even if every player signed that fits under this category fails to live up to their contract.  On the other hand, signing a player based on his reward (i.e. last year's performance) which is often near the peak of his value in his entire career.  Here, the risk/reward is not spread and instead all in one player.  Wehre he lives up to his salary, the reward is never realy exceeded, or marginally so.  But if he underperforms, well, the overhead in cap space goes years into the future and can affect you for multiple years.

 

The downside to one year deals is that you don’t get any additional value past this year. The Ebron deal is a much better gamble because it locks in the player for one more year if he proves to be worth it. There is no cost control for one year deals...outside of one year. 

 

There’s also no cost certainty either. If that player performs well...the only way he is going to be on the roster the following year is at an increased cost. So now you are paying more for the same production/value.

 

Cost certainty definitely has some value. Rookie deals are so valuable because of the cheap cost control...but there’s also a lot of value in cost certainty.

 

But I do like a few one year deals sprinkled in...I just don’t think it should be the foundation.

[OffensivelyPC]

32 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

The downside to one year deals is that you don’t get any additional value past this year. The Ebron deal is a much better gamble because it locks in the player for one more year if he proves to be worth it. There is no cost control for one year deals...outside of one year. 

 

Well yeah, but that's the point of those contracts.  That doesn't mean I'm saying we should be limited to those types of deals.  The type of player usually determines what type of deal you shoudl give them - or at least have in mind what off you're willing to give.  Guys you retain, guys that if you used them as they were used on their previous team and still have projected life and value in the NFL deserve 2-3 year deals and any performing over taht is bonus (i.e. Hunt and Ebron), and then your cornerstone guys get teh longer deals.  You use all these tools taking risks into account, I was just speaking specifically to a subclass of the available tools.

 

Quote

There’s also no cost certainty either. If that player performs well...the only way he is going to be on the roster the following year is at an increased cost. So now you are paying more for the same production/value.

I disagree with the no cost certainty of 1 year deals.  There is, and its based off the cap in the current year.  The value of the replacement player is generally known.  Not to us so much, but amongst the league and that value is relative to the available cap.  So if you signed a replacement level for 2 years, you'll actually be paying the same  (maybe less) than if you signed 1 player at replacement value each year.  It's the guys like Ebron where you get consistent value for multiple years, but that has less to do with the fact that he's under a 2 year contract and more to do with the fact that he was a good enough player that he deserved a 2 year deal in the first place.  

[WoolMagnet]

7 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

I don't like 1 year deals.

A 1 year deal often means the GM doesn't feel thr player warrants a commitment of a multiple year deal. So then not too confident he will be productive?

Also if the said player has a good year he will want to use that for next year and will want a big contract that some other team will be more willing to pay then us.

 

If he doesn't have a good year you let him walk.

Either way it usually means your going to have  to replace him next year. And every year it seems salaries go higher.

The goal is to replace him with a draft pick.  This takes care of ALL your complaints about 1 year deals.

1 year deals that dont work out for ANY deason dont hurt us, its the longer term ones that can.  

  The moral of the story?  If the guy isnt your long term answer, try him out or use him as a  temporary guy until "your guy" is

available.

There are 32 teams.  NONE of them are 100% pleased with ALL the players on their rosters.  Some sacrifices must be made in the areas of $, availability, talent, potential, and personality.

[WoolMagnet]

5 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Well yeah, but that's the point of those contracts.  That doesn't mean I'm saying we should be limited to those types of deals.  The type of player usually determines what type of deal you shoudl give them - or at least have in mind what off you're willing to give.  Guys you retain, guys that if you used them as they were used on their previous team and still have projected life and value in the NFL deserve 2-3 year deals and any performing over taht is bonus (i.e. Hunt and Ebron), and then your cornerstone guys get teh longer deals.  You use all these tools taking risks into account, I was just speaking specifically to a subclass of the available tools.

 

I disagree with the no cost certainty of 1 year deals.  There is, and its based off the cap in the current year.  The value of the replacement player is generally known.  Not to us so much, but amongst the league and that value is relative to the available cap.  So if you signed a replacement level for 2 years, you'll actually be paying the same  (maybe less) than if you signed 1 player at replacement value each year.  It's the guys like Ebron where you get consistent value for multiple years, but that has less to do with the fact that he's under a 2 year contract and more to do with the fact that he was a good enough player that he deserved a 2 year deal in the first place.  

You get it.

[shasta519]

6 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Well yeah, but that's the point of those contracts.  That doesn't mean I'm saying we should be limited to those types of deals.  The type of player usually determines what type of deal you shoudl give them - or at least have in mind what off you're willing to give.  Guys you retain, guys that if you used them as they were used on their previous team and still have projected life and value in the NFL deserve 2-3 year deals and any performing over taht is bonus (i.e. Hunt and Ebron), and then your cornerstone guys get teh longer deals.  You use all these tools taking risks into account, I was just speaking specifically to a subclass of the available tools.

 

I disagree with the no cost certainty of 1 year deals.  There is, and its based off the cap in the current year.  The value of the replacement player is generally known.  Not to us so much, but amongst the league and that value is relative to the available cap.  So if you signed a replacement level for 2 years, you'll actually be paying the same  (maybe less) than if you signed 1 player at replacement value each year.  It's the guys like Ebron where you get consistent value for multiple years, but that has less to do with the fact that he's under a 2 year contract and more to do with the fact that he was a good enough player that he deserved a 2 year deal in the first place.  

 

Cost control and cost certainty beyond one year. Obviously...they have that for the one season he is there. 

[aaron11]

19 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Plus don’t forget we have three pretty good running backs. I look for us to use more of Hines in the receiving game this year. He already had a very good year catching last year. We have a lot of targets.

thats true, luck actually tied the record for most receivers to score a td in a season.  i dont think that means we are set though, they got shut down and even embarrassed a few times too