Official complaints about Free Agency thread (merge)

[2006Coltsbestever]

16 minutes ago, adubb84 said:

@GusFring starts a spark that has turned into a full blown 12 page forest fire where tenured forum members are getting at each other. Meanwhile he had a nice dinner and went to bed 9 pages ago.... Well done 

 

i think we will be ok. There is still time!

GusFring had a huge steak and mashed potatoes and is laughing in his sleep right now  with this wonderful thread 

[Trueman]

LOL

I dunno why you guys do this to yourselves. 

[EastStreet]

9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

GusFring had a huge steak and mashed potatoes and is laughing in his sleep right now  with this wonderful thread 

Gus eats chicken brother.

 

[Farns01]

14 hours ago, GusFring said:

Yes. Just sit and be bored and disappointed together. 

I’m not disappointed.  I like what he doing.  He is not sacrificing the future for a fans instant gratification.  If you want that then go find Grigson and follow him.

[TomDiggs]

49 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Why is it not right now? It would take years to stack draft picks like CLE did because of those trades. And by the time the Colts get to that point...those current rookie deals will be nearing their 2nd contracts.

 

I don't think CLE is doing this because they have the luxury to do so...I think they are doing it because they finally found a franchise QB and they want to win now and maximize his rookie deal. 

 

The Colts have that now again as well. So I think there is definitely a balance between doing little and being super aggressive that they can find. 

 

 

Agreed 100% here. And that’s the new trend. Pay everyone else and try to win while your QB is on a cheap rookie deal

 

Luck is far from being on such a cheap deal

 

which means we will inevitably have to stay cheap somewhere. 

 

If if we have faith in our RBs and we don’t think we need elite CBs in our mostly zone scheme, then it makes sense to save there

 

which basically means we should be paying to beef up our lines on both sides of the ball and our pass catchers, SS and maybe a coverage LB better than walker. 

 

Good news: we went after a S, LB and DE that were the best or one of the best in this FA class. We missed out due to crazy deals and one decision. (P.Smith). But we were trying for the right guys. 

 

The onky thing we have have not done is go hard at WR. Which doesn’t bother me w this mediocre FA class. 

 

So short of trading for AB or OBJ (which character concerns basically ruled out if anyone bothered listening to our GM who is brutally open and honest and our fan base seems to not take at his word), we haven’t really missed on much there. 

 

Im not opposed to spending now. I just think our management is unwilling to take risk right now. We are risk adverse and I think our foundation is a year away from taking that risk. That’s all I was driving at. 

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, threeflight said:

Ok got it.  

 

That being said, it is a pretty rare occurrence for a 5th rounder to amount to anything let alone become a star.

There are players all over the NFL who are stars that were drafted 5th and even in later rounds.

So please think about what you say.

You come into the Colts forum and make statements. You expect to get a response. Correct?

Then you get all bent over comments aimed at you. Correct?

Why? It's just a forum. No more, no less.

 

 

[shasta519]

6 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

 

Agreed 100% here. And that’s the new trend. Pay everyone else and try to win while your QB is on a cheap rookie deal

 

Luck is far from being on such a cheap deal

 

which means we will inevitably have to stay cheap somewhere. 

 

If if we have faith in our RBs and we don’t think we need elite CBs in our mostly zone scheme, then it makes sense to save there

 

which basically means we should be paying to beef up our lines on both sides of the ball and our pass catchers, SS and maybe a coverage LB better than walker. 

 

Good news: we went after a S, LB and DE that were the best or one of the best in this FA class. We missed out due to crazy deals and one decision. (P.Smith). But we were trying for the right guys. 

 

The onky thing we have have not done is go hard at WR. Which doesn’t bother me w this mediocre FA class. 

 

So short of trading for AB or OBJ (which character concerns basically ruled out if anyone bothered listening to our GM who is brutally open and honest and our fan base seems to not take at his word), we haven’t really missed on much there. 

 

Im not opposed to spending now. I just think our management is unwilling to take risk right now. We are risk adverse and I think our foundation is a year away from taking that risk. That’s all I was driving at. 

 

Luck isn’t on a cheap rookie deal...but he’s healthy again and in his prime playing at a top level. I don’t think we can take that for granted.

 

As for cheap rookie deals, I would say having two All-Pro rookiea with 3-4 years left of their rookie deals is pretty similar to a cheap QB. Those two combined will command a higher AAV than Luck.

 

I just think when you add it all up...now is the perfect time to make a couple big moves. 

 

[threeflight]

23 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There are players all over the NFL who are stars that were drafted 5th and even in later rounds.

So please think about what you say.

You come into the Colts forum and make statements. You expect to get a response. Correct?

Then you get all bent over comments aimed at you. Correct?

Why? It's just a forum. No more, no less.

 

 

This link has a pretty good chart showing the average 5th round picks and their stay in the NFL.

 

By year 3 only 1/3 are even still in the league.  By year 4 only 25%.  By year 5 barely 16%.

 

I would hazard a guess that only 1-2% of 5th round picks go on to be all pro type players.

 

So yeah.   I would be just fine taking a flier on someone like Hurst than drafting your average everyday 5th rounder.

 

https://www.milehighreport.com/2014/5/13/5713996/how-long-does-the-average-draft-pick-stick-around

[threeflight]

25 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Luck isn’t on a cheap rookie deal...but he’s healthy again and in his prime playing at a top level. I don’t think we can take that for granted.

 

As for cheap rookie deals, I would say having two All-Pro rookiea with 3-4 years left of their rookie deals is pretty similar to a cheap QB. Those two combined will command a higher AAV than Luck.

 

I just think when you add it all up...now is the perfect time to make a couple big moves. 

 

Yes.  What this man is saying is the QB may not be on the rookie deal, but we have enough young players who are actual starters (obviously being $100 M under the cap) that they make up for the QB hit we take.

 

In 2 years those rookie deals will no longer be rookie deals, and then what?  We have to pay Luck and the present day rookies.  THE TIME TO HIT WAS NOW.  

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, threeflight said:

This link has a pretty good chart showing the average 5th round picks and their stay in the NFL.

 

By year 3 only 1/3 are even still in the league.  By year 4 only 25%.  By year 5 barely 16%.

 

I would hazard a guess that only 1-2% of 5th round picks go on to be all pro type players.

 

So yeah.   I would be just fine taking a flier on someone like Hurst than drafting your average everyday 5th rounder.

 

https://www.milehighreport.com/2014/5/13/5713996/how-long-does-the-average-draft-pick-stick-around

You never heard a word I said did you?

[Maniac]

Also, I'd rather see Ebron extended than any of these guys get big money from us.

 

Ballard will look after his guys.

[Trace Pyott]

I think Ballard deserves the benefit of doubt from his past success. With that being said as a fan we all want the best for our team and it’s hard to see some of these really good players get signed up by other teams every single year.

 

 I totally think Ballard has the correct strategy by building with the draft and using  free agency to plug holes but darn it when an oppurtunity arises to shore up a spot of weakness I think you gotta do it. You only get so many draft picks each year and luck isn’t going to be In his prime forever.  I’m not saying we should be like Grigson was....not at all, I would just like maybe a combo of 80% Ballard and 20% grigson   

  One last point is that I believe Indiana fans are pretty spoiled when it comes to sports franchises especially lately. The pacers almost always seem to make the playoffs and the colts in the last 20 years or so have made the playoffs 80% of the time.  I think Indiana fans are tired of just making the playoffs and feel that we should be more aggressive. I’m not saying I totally agree but I could see where a person who is bored with the Pacers constantly being a 4-8 seed and losing in the first round or the colts winning 10 games and losing in the first round would be willing to trade winning a super bowl this year even if it means not being very competitor for the next 3 years. The ownership of course are completely opposite. They could care less if we win a championship (especially the pacers owner). They just care about being competitive enough that we keep people coming to the games. So In their eyes stability is smart and good business even if stability is a 10 win season and loss in the conference finals year after year.     

Again I think Ballard is doing a great job and he is prob doing the right thing it’s just that it would be super sweet to sign a super star free agent every once in awile 

[cdgacoltsfan]

Well, all the players that can get you to the next level are gone. Time for Ballard to roll up his sleeves and sIgn other teams discarded trash. Stay mediocre my friends!

[DerekDiggler]

7 hours ago, esmort said:

 

If you believe that, I have some prime swampland for sale!  If he did not like where he was being traded he could have made it so difficult that the official trade would have not have happened tomorrow.

Well I gave you my reference to what I said. Now tell me where your statement that he wanted to be traded to the Browns comes from?

[JR Indy]

Two points 

1. Kansas City 31 and Indy Colts 13. Andrew Luck had one WR that he trusted and he was hurt Hilton (and it is probably safe to assume Ty will be hurt again). There was no running game. There was no pass rush. And couldn’t stop the run. All this team had at the time was good locker room culture. WHY is Chris bringing back the same team. I said if only they had another WR that could ball. So much for A Brown, OBJ, or L Bell instead the Colts got good culture along with that 31 - 13 loss before a National audience 

 

2. If the one cornerback the Colts had, Pierre D was the only corner who at times last year had a pretty good season. And Chris is refusing to sign the guy because Chris wants to save money. 

What makes you think he will sign Colts in the future (not named Andrew Luck)? 

When guys like D. Leonard, M Hooker hit free agency they’re going to ask for the bank.

[DaveA1102]

Me coming into the forum this morning....

 

[JColts72]

FA so far Sucks. Have no idea what cheap skate Ballard is doing.Jets and Browns early winners. Ballard is operating like on shoe string budget and plan again to do ragpickers signings. If he was GM in NY and had this money not using up, he would be ripped 24/7. Good thing he's GM in Indy as not a peep about his moves.

[Stephen]

37 minutes ago, JColts72 said:

FA so far Sucks. Have no idea what cheap skate Ballard is doing.Jets and Browns early winners. Ballard is operating like on shoe string budget and plan again to do ragpickers signings. If he was GM in NY and had this money not using up, he would be ripped 24/7. Good thing he's GM in Indy as not a peep about his moves.

A bit disappointed  as well. At the moment the roster is no better than last years maybe worse considering  geathers and desir haven't  resigned

[throwing BBZ]

7 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

I will say this, everyone in the media, here, etc wants to commend Dorsey on his FA acquisitions and aggressive nature. But let's also be realistic here, it is partly due to the prior regime's huuuuge emphasis on picks and the draft....very similar to Ballard there.

 

Cleveland started (finally) building the right way and they are in the position they are in because of their abundance of draft picks and because of their recent draft selections.

 

QB- B.Mayfield (drafted)

RB- N.Chubb (drafted)
WR3- A.Callaway (drafted)

TE- D,Njoku (drafted)

OG- J.Bitonio (drafted)

OG- A.Corbett (drafted)

 

They signed 3 OL (Tretter, Robinson, Hubbard) and now traded for two WRs (Landry, OBJ)

 

6 of their 11 offensive starters are home grown and 5 of them are on their rookie contracts.

 

DE- M. Garrett (drafted)

DE- E.Ogbah (drafted)

DT- L.Ogunjobi (drafted)

LB- J.Schobert (drafted)

LB- C.Kirksey (drafted)

LB- G.Avery (drafted)

CB- D.Ward (drafted)

 

They signed a DT (Richardson), CB (Carrie), S (Randall) and then will likely sign another S (maybe E.Thomas) and you can argue O.Vernon may or may not start but is a big piece (trade).

 

6-7 of their potential defensive starters are home grown and 5 are on their rookie contracts.

 

So when they make big spending moves in trades or free agency, it is because literally 1/2 of their starters are rookies they drafted that are still on their cheap rookie deals.

 

Their outside FA investments have been heavy on OL/DL (3 OL and 2 DL) and now two big moves in back to back years at WR.

 

Dorsey and Ballard are building the same way. Cleveland is just further along in being able to build that way. And Dorsey was gifted a treasure trove of picks. Seriously.

 

If Ballard had the War Chest of picks Dorsey had to work with then I could see him moving some. But he did not. So he is building the team up like this.

 

The Colts right now have 7 offensive starters that are home grown and 4 are on their rookie deals.

 

Defensively we have only 4 defensive starters that are home grown and all on their rookie deals.

 

In another 1-2 years that is when we will be able to do what Dorsey just did.

 

Right now you build smartly and you stack your team with starters in the draft on cheap rookie deals. Then you absolutely hit FA hard and when you do you go after OL/DL if you have holes and you explore the trade market (or FA if any great guys actually hit it) for some skill position guys.

 

At the end of the day, saying "Oh but Cleveland did this, they are not afraid to spend or make a move" is both correct and also wrong at the same time. They made moves because their drafting has allowed them the luxury to now do so and because they had tons of draft picks from an old regime to hit in the draft and trade picks to make those moves.

 

We will get there. But it is not right now. I am excited to keep building and do things like this in the future once we are at that point.

 

 

 Nice explanation. I am going to really enjoy watching Cleveland games. And KC.
 Sorry, but we won't be doing anything like what Cleveland has done, Andrew will break much of our bank unless he is team oriented like that 6 time SB winner. Don't count on it.
 And signing our own will break the rest of the bank. For good reason.

[Trace Pyott]

1 hour ago, JR Indy said:

Two points 

1. Kansas City 31 and Indy Colts 13. Andrew Luck had one WR that he trusted and he was hurt Hilton (and it is probably safe to assume Ty will be hurt again). There was no running game. There was no pass rush. And couldn’t stop the run. All this team had at the time was good locker room culture. WHY is Chris bringing back the same team. I said if only they had another WR that could ball. So much for A Brown, OBJ, or L Bell instead the Colts got good culture along with that 31 - 13 loss before a National audience 

 

2. If the one cornerback the Colts had, Pierre D was the only corner who at times last year had a pretty good season. And Chris is refusing to sign the guy because Chris wants to save money. 

What makes you think he will sign Colts in the future (not named Andrew Luck)? 

When guys like D. Leonard, M Hooker hit free agency they’re going to ask for the bank.

 You have some good points especially when I always hear people saying Ballard is going to rely on the draft and use the money to sign our own guys. I think guys who have played well for us should be rewarded especially if they are still somewhat young and not asking for a kings ransom. If we were a franchise stuck for cash I would understand more but we have more money than anyone. I just think it sends the wrong message.  I will be livid if we lose our most recent draft guys because we are too cheap to keep them especially when all this money we aren’t spending was supposed to be to keep them. 

Off topic it’s  been a bad year for me as far as sports teams and team building. My fav baseball team the Braves traded matt kemp and other players supposedly To spend this year on  free agents and straight up lied to the fans and haven’t spent at all what they said they would on the team so at least the colts aren’t outright lying to us lol. 

[John Waylon]

Warning:

 

The Bell deal is going to kick this thread into overdrive as the day goes on. 

[throwing BBZ]

6 minutes ago, Stephen said:

A bit disappointed  as well. At the moment the roster is no better than last years maybe worse considering  geathers and desir haven't  resigned

 

 For those of us that follow our Colts almost daily, 365, we dream big.
There have been a couple guys that didn't cost a bundle that i thought woud have made great sense. Preston Smith chose to stay in a 3-4 D. That makes sense for him.
 Amos at S sounded good. Jordan Hicks did too. 
 

 Now i look at it believing that we really do need one more draft to build the roster, see what we have after the season, then see what FA makes sense.
 Next off season, and beyond we will need Big Bucks just to keep our own to boot.

[throwing BBZ]

18 minutes ago, Trace Pyott said:

 You have some good points especially when I always hear people saying Ballard is going to rely on the draft and use the money to sign our own guys. I think guys who have played well for us should be rewarded especially if they are still somewhat young and not asking for a kings ransom. If we were a franchise stuck for cash I would understand more but we have more money than anyone. I just think it sends the wrong message.  I will be livid if we lose our most recent draft guys because we are too cheap to keep them especially when all this money we aren’t spending was supposed to be to keep them. 

Off topic it’s  been a bad year for me as far as sports teams and team building. My fav baseball team the Braves traded matt kemp and other players supposedly To spend this year on  free agents and straight up lied to the fans and haven’t spent at all what they said they would on the team so at least the colts aren’t outright lying to us lol. 

 

 If he thinks Jalen Collins is back on track for $1M bucks, then he already has as good or better than Desir on his roster. Desir played some serious ball in our D, but maybe our staff wants even better to play against KC for example. 

[JR Indy]

Some in this post are saying be patient look at what Chris did in Kansas City. And I have to admit that Chris did a great job in Kansas City. But those guys he drafted there would never be welcomed or given a chance in Indy.

 I wonder what is the goal? cheap players with a great locker room culture or winning. Someone, anyone please explain to me that 31 to 13 head-kicking in Kansas City a few months ago. And the refusal to sign players that could make a difference in 2019-2020.

 

[pacolts56]

16 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Warning:

 

The Bell deal is going to kick this thread into overdrive as the day goes on. 

Thank you John..... grief counseling and an aromatherapy tent will also be available for those who need it. 

[pgt_rob]

It's still early in the game, guys. We didn't need Bell, Collins, or Mosely. Remember there is still a large list of free agents available that we can still plug into needs. 

[superrep1967]

21 hours ago, gspdx said:

If you are looking for excitement you might want to wait until September...

 

That is so true I agree totally.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

2 hours ago, JColts72 said:

FA so far Sucks. Have no idea what cheap skate Ballard is doing.Jets and Browns early winners. Ballard is operating like on shoe string budget and plan again to do ragpickers signings. If he was GM in NY and had this money not using up, he would be ripped 24/7. Good thing he's GM in Indy as not a peep about his moves.

 

When was the last time the Jets won anything? And what about the dumpster fire that is the NY Giants. Thank God in Heaven Chris Ballard isn't running the Colts like the GM's in NY! I'm sorry but your post makes no sense to me. We shouldn't spend the money just because we have it. We have to make sure we are getting the most bang for our buck. Will Ballard get every signing right? No, he won't. He has however hit on more of his signings and draftees than he has missed so let's trust him to do his job. He wants to build a winner as badly as we want him to build one. Winners are built throwing money around all willy nilly at every big name free agent. They are built by finding the right guys at the right price.

[superrep1967]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 For those of us that follow our Colts almost daily, 365, we dream big.
There have been a couple guys that didn't cost a bundle that i thought woud have made great sense. Preston Smith chose to stay in a 3-4 D. That makes sense for him.
 Amos at S sounded good. Jordan Hicks did too. 
 

 Now i look at it believing that we really do need one more draft to build the roster, see what we have after the season, then see what FA makes sense.
 Next off season, and beyond we will need Big Bucks just to keep our own to boot.

You are so correct and it’s Ballard’s plan. 

[JColts72]

3 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

When was the last time the Jets won anything? And what about the dumpster fire that is the NY Giants. Thank God in Heaven Chris Ballard isn't running the Colts like the GM's in NY! I'm sorry but your post makes no sense to me. We shouldn't spend the money just because we have it. We have to make sure we are getting the most bang for our buck. Will Ballard get every signing right? No, he won't. He has however hit on more of his signings and draftees than he has missed so let's trust him to do his job. He wants to build a winner as badly as we want him to build one. Winners are built throwing money around all willy nilly at every big name free agent. They are built by finding the right guys at the right price.

Hey. it's my opinion as a fan since 72. We all don't have to drink the Ballard does everything right Kool-Aid. Jets are making power moves though, and Browns too. For Star players, one does have to spend big, and for 13 Milfor new WR is not exactly star material even for one year. Bell is getting about 14; who's the better player/ Going to say we don't need a stud back like him too?

[superrep1967]

3 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

When was the last time the Jets won anything? And what about the dumpster fire that is the NY Giants. Thank God in Heaven Chris Ballard isn't running the Colts like the GM's in NY! I'm sorry but your post makes no sense to me. We shouldn't spend the money just because we have it. We have to make sure we are getting the most bang for our buck. Will Ballard get every signing right? No, he won't. He has however hit on more of his signings and draftees than he has missed so let's trust him to do his job. He wants to build a winner as badly as we want him to build one. Winners are built throwing money around all willy nilly at every big name free agent. They are built by finding the right guys at the right price.

Yes, Ballard has said on numourous occasions that they put a value on a player and when the player exceeds that amount he can sleep well knowing he’ll go after the next player. I will say this about Ballard he don’t mince words and I respect that. 

[Superman]

12 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Cause they are going to play the comp pick game next offseason. I don't think they have any intention of re-signing Funchess to a long-term deal. If they did...then to your point...this contract looks differently. Unless we are to believe that Ballard was out-negotiated by Funchess.

 

It's not a matter of Ballard vs Funchess. It's about what I personally think would have been best for the team.

 

And if Funchess plays great this season, why wouldn't they want to re-sign him? That's Ballard's stated MO, right?

[Superman]

19 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

Look, Parker and Funchess were in similar boats. Have talent. Under-performed. Change of scenery could do them good (yet Parker stays). Have size. Likely needed to sign "prove it" type deals. Etc.

 

I figured we would know if we overpaid when we saw what Parker got.

 

He basically got the same type of money but 2 years instead of 1.

 

So this rings true to one complaint of some forum members which is that it would have been nice to have a second "option" type year tacked on the back end for the Colts at a lesser value so that if Funchess panned out, we could reap the benefits on a ROI standpoint in that second year.

 

So yes we did overpay. Not by a ton. By a couple million for one year or by getting one less year for that price.

 

If we had done the Parker deal for Funchess, I'd probably be fine with it. Still not overly thrilled about the player, but the upside would be greater for the Colts, IMO.

[TomDiggs]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If we had done the Parker deal for Funchess, I'd probably be fine with it. Still not overly thrilled about the player, but the upside would be greater for the Colts, IMO.

For what it is worth, Stephen Holder's article on The Athletic gave some very basic info on the Funchess negotiations and basically said that Funchess actually had another deal on the table from another team that was 2 years and more actual money, but that he took the Colts deal basically because it had more money this year and was a 1 year deal that let him bet on himself and let him play in Indy w a good QB etc.

 

So it sounds like we probably structured our deal the way we did because we did not want to have to guarantee a second year to get him and we also had to make it truly worth his while to accept a 1 year deal w less money than the 2 year deal he had on the table.

 

Most likely our 1 year deal gave him close to the same guarantees of his 2 year deal and thus made it a smart move for him.

[Dark_Indy]

14 hours ago, mahagga73 said:

Rams , last year.  

 

All that money only got them 3 points. 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 hour ago, JColts72 said:

Hey. it's my opinion as a fan since 72. We all don't have to drink the Ballard does everything right Kool-Aid. Jets are making power moves though, and Browns too. For Star players, one does have to spend big, and for 13 Milfor new WR is not exactly star material even for one year. Bell is getting about 14; who's the better player/ Going to say we don't need a stud back like him too?

 

You are more than entitled to your opinion. I was giving mine. You can't honestly say that you want our franchise to be run like the Jets can you? The Jets are the definition of mediocrity. Yeah they've signed some players this off season. Personally, I think Bell is a risk to sign. They ran him into the ground in Pittsburgh. The guy has a ton of miles on his tires. He also took a whole year off from the game. Maybe the year off will help and he'll come in fresh and run roughshod over the league or he could come in very rusty and just not the same player he was in Pittsburgh. He also won't have Big Ben at QB or AB at WR. The weapons the Jets have are nowhere near as good as the weapons they had in Pittsburgh. 

 

I like what they are doing in Cleveland but it has already been pointed out I believe earlier in this thread that the Browns have been doing for years what the Colts are doing now. They have built a strong nucleus through the draft and now they are adding to that. Personally, I would have loved to picked up OBJ and maybe Ballard made an offer for him. Just because we didn't get him doesn't mean Ballard didn't try. We don't want to throw away a bright future for just one year. The goal is sustained success and that takes time to build.

[shasta519]

42 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's not a matter of Ballard vs Funchess. It's about what I personally think would have been best for the team.

 

And if Funchess plays great this season, why wouldn't they want to re-sign him? That's Ballard's stated MO, right?

 

He has said this. But his affinity for comp picks is no secret...he "likes them picks." And those two strategies seem to conflict.

 

In this case...the one year (somewhat lofty) deal for Funchess I think is more geared toward a future comp pick and being a stopgap. But that is just my IMO.

 

I think (most of) the guys that he is legitimate about wanting to prove their worth and keep him around...he builds in an extra year/s into their deals...like Ebron, Autry, Hunt, etc. 

 

The "re-sign your own" makes for a great sound bite...but it's not really all that practical. And I think Ballard will be more selective than people think. And that's how he should be...not only to continually upgrade the team (you don't get better paying the same players more money) but also to take advantage of the comp system (though who knows what that will look like in the next CBA).

 

 

[gspdx]

3 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

The "re-sign your own" makes for a great sound bite...but it's not really all that practical. And I think Ballard will be more selective than people think. And that's how he should be...not only to continually upgrade the team (you don't get better paying the same players more money) but also to take advantage of the comp system (though who knows what that will look like in the next CBA).

 

 

 

Yes - I think this makes sense.  You can build a winning team in multiple ways, but to sustain that you need to be selective on who you pay and who you don't.  You can replace good players with drafted players and in many instances have performance at or near the same level.

 

You re-sign the critical players and replace the others through the draft.  

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

He has said this. But his affinity for comp picks is no secret...he "likes them picks." And those two strategies seem to conflict.

 

In this case...the one year (somewhat lofty) deal for Funchess I think is more geared toward a future comp pick and being a stopgap. But that is just my IMO.

 

I think (most of) the guys that he is legitimate about wanting to prove their worth and keep him around...he builds in an extra year/s into their deals...like Ebron, Autry, Hunt, etc. 

 

The "re-sign your own" makes for a great sound bite...but it's not really all that practical. And I think Ballard will be more selective than people think. And that's how he should be...not only to continually upgrade the team (you don't get better paying the same players more money) but also to take advantage of the comp system (though who knows what that will look like in the next CBA).

 

 

 

I don't think the comp system is collectively bargained, although I suppose it's something the players could ask for a say on. Don't see why they would...

 

As for signing players to one year deals to increase your odds of getting future picks, I think that's simply a potential by-product, not necessarily a core strategy. If you sign a player who plays well, and he fits your team, and he's 26, he should remain part of your core if possible. It's better to keep a player who plays well and fits than it is to potentially get a 3rd or 4th round comp pick a year from now. This is the same reason we don't just trade our good players a year before they come up for FA, but even that would be a more practical plan, because you're securing compensation now, not hoping for future compensation if the stars align.

 

I think people are a little overboard with their comp pick justifications lately. 'It's okay if we lose good players in FA, we'll get a comp pick a year from now!' Nah, that's not a primary team building strategy. It's an element to consider, but it's like 8th on a list of ten elements, IMO.

[shasta519]

18 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

Yes - I think this makes sense.  You can build a winning team in multiple ways, but to sustain that you need to be selective on who you pay and who you don't.  You can replace good players with drafted players and in many instances have performance at or near the same level.

 

You re-sign the critical players and replace the others through the draft.  

 

Exactly. You either replace the good/decent players with cheap talent...OR you go out and find upgrades via trade/FA at one of those positions (if they are available and if you are in position to do so). There is no tangible team benefit to paying a dozen guys more money for the same production.

 

When a Fortune 500 company has a great year...middle management doesn't get 3-4x raises...it's the execs that get the profit sharing...and probably some of those middle management employees leverage that company's success into more money somewhere else. So the Colts should be selective.

 

Sure...if you pay a dozen guys a lot more...those guys are all happy...but it doesn't help the team get better or help set them up for sustained success.

 

Everybody likes to bring up NE...well this is what they do.