Official complaints about Free Agency thread (merge)

[MTC]

@GusFring

 

Did you listen to any of Chris Ballard's interviews? Just wondering. 

[needanoline63]

All these people saying “suck it up” or “build through draft”, how many times do you think we’re gonna strike gold in the draft?

[Coltsfanforlife12]

1 hour ago, Old Colt said:

They did sign a WR that lead all WR's in 2018 in drops for 13mm (with incentives) which is the same as TY Hilton.  Got to believe that 13mm could have gone a long way to landing someone who will make a real difference.  This signing looks more unusual for CB, overspending on someone with no proven history, even if it is just one year.

It’s what the market on a one year receiver is.  Look at Moncrief last year and Jeffries the year before.  He had a lot of drops last year but look who he had throwing to him.  Cam has never been known for his accuracy.  He’s also never played across from a guy the caliber of TY.  

 

We dk this every year and I don’t get it. We think we’re going to be big players and then get upset when we don’t sign big names.  I wanted Collins but not at 14 mil a year.  I wanted Mosley but not at 17 mil a year.  Ballard has a price on guys and won’t go over it.  The man has earned a little trust from us and for us to not get on the forums and b***h and complain about his FA signings. 

[C0LT5]

4 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

Can anyone tell me how many "big name" free agents who are in their prime the Patriots have signed from other teams over the last 2 decades? I honestly can't think of them making any big "splashes" in free agency. I would rather mimic the approach of proven winners like the Patriots over going out and trying to sign every big name free agent like teams like Washington and Oakland have done over the years. What approach has been more successful?

 

Adalius Thomas is the only one I can think of. Maybe that signing made them weary of doing it again.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Has anyone noticed the common theme in all these high priced signings. There all teams who are bad and did not make the playoffs. There is a reason teams teams stay bad.

[James]

It's very simple. 

When it's time to upgrade the talent of the Colts in free agency he has done a good job at this time last year, but if he was willing to overpay just a little the Colts perhaps to have landed some quality players that could help the Colts even more.

 

The Colts were reportedly in on Landon Collins, Adrian Amos and Preston Smith, but Ballard couldn't close either (couldn't with Norwell or Jeffery either). Given the reasonable contracts of Amos and Smith that's a little disappointing to me. This is free agency, and I know Ballard has a set price on players.. but come on, if you want to add talent you have to overpay a little when it comes to certain free agents. Happy to not pay Collins that amount, but the other two... that hurts. You have to admire Ballard's steadfast approach, but I wish he would be a little less stubborn.

 

It's funny. The Colts have almost every advantage. 

- Top 5 QB

- Winning program

- Top quality GM (just not a closing Free agents that's highly sought after) and coaching staff to develop

- Reportedly a great culture

- Top quality stadium to play in

- State income tax is decent

- A lot of cap space to make moves

 

Love his drafting in '18, but developing draft picks take time because you're not going to get rookie All Pros every draft (no, it likely won't happen, and I'm expecting the '19 draft to be somewhere between '17 and '18 in terms of quality). Luck is not getting any younger. I'm afraid Chris Ballard's Ted Thomson approach to free agency is going to leave Luck with a wasted career because the Colts like the Packers with Aaron Rodgers didn't bring in sufficient talent through free agency and the draft.

[teganslaw]

I'm not impressed with the signing, but I'm not in charge. I'm thinking that Ballard has to know what he's doing. Cam Newton was off his game, so there was no way Funchess could have high stats. Now he has a different QB, and who knows what might happen? Luck is healthy-hoping he stays that way- so this could give Funchess a chance to prove himself. I'm willing to let him do it.

It's basically a low risk deal.

[Valpo2004]

It isn't suppose to excite you, it's suppose to build a team that wins games.

 

I agree it sucks because it's boring.  But sometimes boring wins more games.

[ColtStrong2013]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yes it can.

 

Nah. Not in this case, especially. He got a touch more than Moncrief did last year in FA while producing more... It's only overspending if he produces to hit incentives, in which case, is it really?

[Trace Pyott]

I totally agree James. I usually hate spending big in free agency and last year I was ok with it. I don’t believe in building a team through free agency but draft but once you have a play off team I think it’s time to get one or two huge playmakers to put you over the edge and make you truly elite and I think we could of done that especially with the amount of money we have to spend this year. Good teams and a guy like luck in his prime doesn’t hit a franchise that often. You have to capatialize and I fear we are being like the pacer and just want to be consistent winners but never truly great. Just good enough to keep fans in the seats and for people to keep their jobs. 

[ColtStrong2013]

These teams signing are reaching for a quick fix. We all know that is recipe for disaster more often than not... and it is NOT the plan and path for Chris Ballard. I don't know why people are surprised right now... Slow and steady, like a good bbq, this team is being built right. 

[Superman]

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Nah. Not in this case, especially. He got a touch more than Moncrief did last year in FA while producing more... It's only overspending if he produces to hit incentives, in which case, is it really?

 

Are we using the shockingly bad Moncrief contract to justify the shockingly bad Funchess contract? We want to do business like the Jags now?

 

You don't even know what his incentives are. What if he gets a million for 50 catches, another million for 800 yards, and another million if we make the playoffs? 

 

The market determines a player's value. The market does not support $10m for Devin Funchess, full stop. In that case, this is an overpay, just like Moncrief was last year.

 

And that's not even my primary objection to the signing, but I'm not going to lie to myself about it.

[The Fish]

I'm not blown away, but I wasn't expecting to be.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Are we using the shockingly bad Moncrief contract to justify the shockingly bad Funchess contract? We want to do business like the Jags now?

 

You don't even know what his incentives are. What if he gets a million for 50 catches, another million for 800 yards, and another million if we make the playoffs? 

 

The market determines a player's value. The market does not support $10m for Devin Funchess, full stop. In that case, this is an overpay, just like Moncrief was last year.

 

And that's not even my primary objection to the signing, but I'm not going to lie to myself about it.

 

Lol... How do you know what the market decided in this case? Do you know what his discussions were with other teams? You are clearly lying to yourself here by acting like you know what his market was... 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Lol... How do you know what the market decided in this case? Do you know what his discussions were with other teams? You are clearly lying to yourself here by acting like you know what his market was... 

 

Don't do this. You're better than this.

 

We know what the market says. Look at every other WR contract over the last two days, and explain to me how these players with more production than Funchess are getting less per year. It's because of their market value, which is clear and obvious.

 

And even if other teams were willing to go above what other receivers are getting, that doesn't justify it for a player whose production doesn't warrant that contract. 

 

This is more than just 'your market is whatever they're willing to pay you.' We're talking about a reasonable expectation of player value based on their history, production, age, and potential. And no one would have defended $10-13m for Devin Funchess before yesterday, just like no one would have defended $9.6m for Moncrief last year. If this was the Jets, we'd be laughing about them overpaying a mediocre FA.

[SilentHill]

i just came here with popcorn to read the comments.

 

Ballard has 100 million. Yes. If he doesn't get what he wants in FA, he will use that $$$ to extend players. Eric Ebron is up next year, Jack Doyle is up next year, Castonzo is up next year, and Ryan Kelly has a club option.

[Dark_Indy]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Don't do this. You're better than this.

 

We know what the market says. Look at every other WR contract over the last two days, and explain to me how these players with more production than Funchess are getting less per year. It's because of their market value, which is clear and obvious.

 

And even if other teams were willing to go above what other receivers are getting, that doesn't justify it for a player whose production doesn't warrant that contract. 

 

This is more than just 'your market is whatever they're willing to pay you.' We're talking about a reasonable expectation of player value based on their history, production, age, and potential. And no one would have defended $10-13m for Devin Funchess before yesterday, just like no one would have defended $9.6m for Moncrief last year. If this was the Jets, we'd be laughing about them overpaying a mediocre FA.

Do we even know the terms of the contract yet? Not being combative, just curious. I know there are incentives, but what are they? 

[ColtStrong2013]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Don't do this. You're better than this.

 

We know what the market says. Look at every other WR contract over the last two days, and explain to me how these players with more production than Funchess are getting less per year. It's because of their market value, which is clear and obvious.

 

And even if other teams were willing to go above what other receivers are getting, that doesn't justify it for a player whose production doesn't warrant that contract. 

 

This is more than just 'your market is whatever they're willing to pay you.' We're talking about a reasonable expectation of player value based on their history, production, age, and potential. And no one would have defended $10-13m for Devin Funchess before yesterday, just like no one would have defended $9.6m for Moncrief last year. If this was the Jets, we'd be laughing about them overpaying a mediocre FA.

 

No... it's because they are signing multi year deals with a lot more guaranteed money. Are you that obtuse? Most players would never sign a one year deal for more money per year than a 4 year deal with guaranteed money... It's a bad business for players. It's great business for teams with a bunch of capspace and unwilling to write a multi year contract. 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, Dark_Indy said:

Do we even know the terms of the contract yet? Not being combative, just curious. I know there are incentives, but what are they? 

 

 No we don't. Who cares what they are, as long as they force him to bring his A game every day and perform at a high level... and they most certainly will. 

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

No... it's because they are signing multi year deals with a lot more guaranteed money. Are you that obtuse? Most players would never sign a one year deal for more money per year than a 4 year deal with guaranteed money... It's a bad business for players. It's great business for teams with a bunch of capspace and unwilling to write a multi year contract. 

 

Which to touch on... tells me he has a plan that you and I cannot comment on quite yet. Possibly a draft pick early on to develop for a year? Perhaps a high belief that Cain is the guy going forward? Maybe he saw something that our ignorant eyes could never see and wants to see what Andrew Luck and Frank Reich can make of Funchess??

[SaturdayAllDay]

Well Im just going to throw this out there. A lot of the people complaining about lack of free agent signings were also pounding the table for Nick Perry 2 years ago. 

Well he just got released! Lets go get this All Pro in the making!! 

 

#WeAllInOnPerryYall!!!

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, Dark_Indy said:

Do we even know the terms of the contract yet? Not being combative, just curious. I know there are incentives, but what are they? 

 

No one knows, we're just acting like the incentives make it a great deal.

[Dark_Indy]

1 minute ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

 No we don't. Who cares what they are, as long as they force him to bring his A game every day and perform at a high level... and they most certainly will. 

 

I did just check Google, theres $10 mil in base salary and $3 mil in incentives. Dont know guaranteed amounts.

 

Cole Beasley got 4yr/29 mil, but $14.4 guaranteed

John Brown got 3/27 so $9 a year

Amendola 1yr/4.5 with incentives to 5.75mil

Josh Bellamy (who?) 2 yr/7mil

Jamison Crowder 3/28.5 with $17 guaranteed.

Adam Humphries 4/36.

 

Did we get fleeced? I dont think so. Other than Amendola who is an outlier on the above, and Josh Bellamy who I dont recognize the name everyone is about 9mil a year. 

 

I'm not a cap/contract expert like Superman is. If he says the contract sucks, then I'm inclined to believe him. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

No... it's because they are signing multi year deals with a lot more guaranteed money. Are you that obtuse? Most players would never sign a one year deal for more money per year than a 4 year deal with guaranteed money... It's a bad business for players. It's great business for teams with a bunch of capspace and unwilling to write a multi year contract. 

 

Am I obtuse, or do I have a track record of knowing what I'm talking about when it comes to contracts?

 

Do you really think it's hard for me to understand the difference between a one year contract and its dynamics, and that of a multi year contract?

 

And are you really going to act like anyone would have defended $10-13m for Funchess a week ago? Seriously?

 

We could actually talk about the merits of the deal and the player, rather than you acting like I don't understand the most obvious and easily understandable aspect of the contract. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Which to touch on... tells me he has a plan that you and I cannot comment on quite yet. Possibly a draft pick early on to develop for a year? Perhaps a high belief that Cain is the guy going forward? Maybe he saw something that our ignorant eyes could never see and wants to see what Andrew Luck and Frank Reich can make of Funchess??

 

All of this goes without saying. 

 

If we can't express our opinions on what the staff does, then there's little sense in even having a message board.

[Dark_Indy]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No one knows, we're just acting like the incentives make it a great deal.

 

I dont think it fits into the boom or bust category. Most other WRs are getting about 9 a year, we went 10 with 3 in incentives, but we didnt lock ourselves into a Cole Beasley contract where they guaranteed 14.5 on a 4 year contract.

[pacolts56]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Are we using the shockingly bad Moncrief contract to justify the shockingly bad Funchess contract? We want to do business like the Jags now?

 

You don't even know what his incentives are. What if he gets a million for 50 catches, another million for 800 yards, and another million if we make the playoffs? 

 

The market determines a player's value. The market does not support $10m for Devin Funchess, full stop. In that case, this is an overpay, just like Moncrief was last year.

 

And that's not even my primary objection to the signing, but I'm not going to lie to myself about it.

Just curious because you know the FA system better than a casual fan like me.

 

.... but in the midst of this business with Funchess could Ballard be preemptively “setting a price for Inman” to where if he does depart in FA... we would net a higher comp pick?

 

And given that we brought Inman aboard mid season would we even get a comp pick if he walks?

[jameszeigler834]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

#ThreadoftheYear

#FireBallard

#GusFringforGM

#JamesforGM

#JamesZeigler834forGM

#ThreeFlightforGM

I would have definitely made atleast one good deal by now Funchess is not a good deal not any better than the current guys we have.

[stitches]

42 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Nah. Not in this case, especially. He got a touch more than Moncrief did last year in FA while producing more... It's only overspending if he produces to hit incentives, in which case, is it really?

This is a HORRIBLE argument. If he's bad, it's not overspending 10M for bad receiver. If he's good it is overspending 13M for good receiver? WUT? This makes no sense. 

 

Lets make it clear here - the absolute worst case scenario in this current situation is that Funchess doesn't hit his incentives. The absolute best scenario is that he hits them all and gets paid all of his 13M. I'd much rather him be good and spend 3M more than be bad. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Dark_Indy said:

 

I dont think it fits into the boom or bust category. Most other WRs are getting about 9 a year, we went 10 with 3 in incentives, but we didnt lock ourselves into a Cole Beasley contract where they guaranteed 14.5 on a 4 year contract.

 

If he hits his incentives -- and we don't even know what they are yet, they could be lame incentives for all we know -- we'll be giving him $13m for one year.

 

In most instances, even multi year contracts aren't structured to be more than a two year commitment, so the guaranteed money is something that we can't really evaluate until more details are available. Just know I personally would rather have Humphries at $19m guaranteed for 2 years than Funchess at $10m guaranteed for one year.

 

And this assumes that the Funchess details being reported are even accurate.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, pacolts56 said:

Just curious because you know the FA system better than a casual fan like me.

 

.... but in the midst of this business with Funchess could Ballard be preemptively “setting a price for Inman” to where if he does depart in FA... we would net a higher comp pick?

 

And given that we brought Inman aboard mid season would we even get a comp pick if he walks?

 

I don't think so. I don't think there's a reasonable projection for the Colts to be active in FA this year and get a comp pick next year. So that scenario seems like a stretch.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, jameszeigler834 said:

I would have definitely made atleast one good deal by now Funchess is not a good deal not any better than the current guys we have.

 

OMG...    the armchair GM is strong in this one...

[jameszeigler834]

45 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

These teams signing are reaching for a quick fix. We all know that is recipe for disaster more often than not... and it is NOT the plan and path for Chris Ballard. I don't know why people are surprised right now... Slow and steady, like a good bbq, this team is being built right. 

You cant build and fix everything and make this team a contender through the draft sorry but you cant this approach didn't even net his previous teams titles why would that change no this guy is basically Polian or the guy that used to run the packers Ted Thomson.

[MacDee1975]

So you haven't really noticed that almost all the free agent activity has been conducted by teams that suck?  And that's pretty much the way it is every year?  That's the lot that you want the Colts to be cast in.....alongside the Jets, Bills, Raiders, and other desperate bottom feeders.

 

I'd hope all you naysayers would've learned your lesson last year, but some of you must be glutton for having your stupidity revealed.

[pacolts56]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think so. I don't think there's a reasonable projection for the Colts to be active in FA this year and get a comp pick next year. So that scenario seems like a stretch.

Thanks... I was just wondering if Inman leaves under a multi year deal in the range of what we paid Funchess... whether comp pick considerations might be another layer of Ballard’s decision.

 

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, pacolts56 said:

Thanks... I was just wondering if Inman leaves under a multi year deal in the range of what we paid Funchess... whether comp pick considerations might be another layer of Ballard’s decision.

 

Those two transactions would offset, leaving us with no comp pick for losing Inman.

 

I expect the Colts to sign more FAs than they lose, so I don't see us getting a 2020 comp pick. And I could be wrong.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, threeflight said:

So instead of trading a 3rd and a 5th and giving a top 5 greatest WR of all time $18 M for 3 years, which would have made the Colts instant top 3 favs to win the SB this year, we decided to give $13 M to a guy who runs like a statue and who can't catch.

 

Does this make any rational sense?

 

To me it doesn't and I'm surprised Irsay hasn't stepped in and said sign someone while we have all this money and Luck is still viable 

 I'm quite positive Irsay is on board with Ballards plan.   Guys who quit on their team and demand to be traded are not the guys they are looking for. 

[jvan1973]

11 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

You cant build and fix everything and make this team a contender through the draft sorry but you cant this approach didn't even net his previous teams titles why would that change no this guy is basically Polian or the guy that used to run the packers Ted Thomson.

 He has never been a GM anywhere before.   So the teams he used to work for are irrelevant.   And Polian and Ted Thompson went to several Superbowls

[TomDiggs]

Funchess was overpaid. I think anyone saying otherwise is just wearing rose colored glasses.

 

Overpaying him is what got him to sign on the dotted line (figuratively not literally) and is the only reason he committed and accepted a one year deal.

 

If the numbers are true, he got basically around $10M guaranteed and probably figured it was close to what he would get guaranteed on a longer term contract elsewhere. Plus he got that in one year w the ability to rehab his value on a solid offense w a world of opportunity.

 

The market shows most FA WRs got around $9M-$10M annually on long term deals w bigger guarantees.

 

All things equal, any sane player is going to prefer a longer deal w more guaranteed $ so we clearly paid a bit extra to get him to agree quickly and to take a one year deal.

 

I believe I saw his estimated contract before FA was around $8.9M. So we did not overpay a ton.

 

Also, let's see what D.Parker signs for with Miami.

 

If it is close in value in guarantees and in annual value then we know we paid market value for Funchess. He and Parker are equally talented but under-performing players.

 

I would anticipate they should be in similar boats contract-wise.

[Valpo2004]

27 minutes ago, Dark_Indy said:

 

I did just check Google, theres $10 mil in base salary and $3 mil in incentives. Dont know guaranteed amounts.

 

Cole Beasley got 4yr/29 mil, but $14.4 guaranteed

John Brown got 3/27 so $9 a year

Amendola 1yr/4.5 with incentives to 5.75mil

Josh Bellamy (who?) 2 yr/7mil

Jamison Crowder 3/28.5 with $17 guaranteed.

Adam Humphries 4/36.

 

Did we get fleeced? I dont think so. Other than Amendola who is an outlier on the above, and Josh Bellamy who I dont recognize the name everyone is about 9mil a year. 

 

I'm not a cap/contract expert like Superman is. If he says the contract sucks, then I'm inclined to believe him. 

 

I disagree with Superman on this.  I think we paid a little more because we wanted to limit this to a 1 year deal.  Funchess probably could have gotten a multi year deal worth 8 or 9 per year someplace else but that would have included some guaranteed money.  We paid a small premium to limit the risk.