Official complaints about Free Agency thread (merge)

[SteelDragon]

[Gramz]

The sky is falling.  

[Peterk2011]

10 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

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.  

 

Exactly my thoughts. 

 

And thats why the term "he's been overpaid" is not necessarily true. He might've been overpaid if we compare it to a yearly avg of a potential multi year contract, but at the same time it can be just the correct price for one year. All mentioned players (Crowders, Brown, Humphries) who signed multi year contracts - and who are similar to Humpries caliber - will probably earn much more than 10M in their respective first years. If you want leverage after one year, as probably Ballard wanted, then compare year 1 moneys, not yearly averages.

[Myles]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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

With our cap space, this deal isn't bad or relevant really.   It's one year and will be off the books for next off-season.    

He's big, young and only a 1 year risk.    Seems good to me.   

[Valpo2004]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

I agree with this.  Only name we are losing that might get a sizable contract is Geathers.  Inman might get a small one.  

 

Odds are we will have to spend more than that just to make it over the cap floor to keep them from distributing the extra cap money. 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I agree with this.  Only name we are losing that might get a sizable contract is Geathers.  Inman might get a small one.  

 

Odds are we will have to spend more than that just to make it over the cap floor to keep them from distributing the extra cap money. 

Desir will get paid

[jameszeigler834]

19 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

 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

Poian went to 4 with the bills I think got destroyed in 3 of them lost by 1 point in the other here 1 won 1got kicked in the other and Thomson won once in recent memory.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

7 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Poian went to 4 with the bills I think got destroyed in 3 of them lost by 1 point in the other here 1 won 1got kicked in the other and Thomson won once in recent memory.

 

Which is all light years ahead of your accomplishments as a GM... 

[jvan1973]

7 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Poian went to 4 with the bills I think got destroyed in 3 of them lost by 1 point in the other here 1 won 1got kicked in the other and Thomson won once in recent memory.

Sounds like they were competitive then.    

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

I think we paid a little more because we wanted to limit this to a 1 year deal. 

 

But to @stitches point, why? What's so beneficial to the Colts about a one year deal for Funchess? Especially at $10-13m?

[Colt Overseas]

For me, I think the main reason Funchess got that inflated contract was because Ballard/Colts badly need a WR that he could rely to get 600+ yard season. The thing is, it is a bad wide reciever FA class, with not one reciever that fits Ballards criteria for a long term contract (Williams too expensive, Tate too old, Humphries is just a slot you can easily get in the draft).

 

But at the same time, he cant just take a chance on a cheap 1 year deal like last year with Grant. At the end of the day, its the dissapointments of Grant, Fountain and Cain's injury is why Funchess is here. I think Ballard will stick to his guns and try to find that WR2 in the mud rounds draft (rounds 2-4), while also holding hope that Cain can emerge as a good WR too.

 

Funchess' contract is rich, but probably nessessary to get us through this year.

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But to @stitches point, why? What's so beneficial to the Colts about a one year deal for Funchess? Especially at $10-13m?

 

Here we go again....

 

What's so beneficial to the Colts?      Because one year is better than multiple years.   If he doesn't pan out,  the cost to the Colts is meaningless on a one year deal.   But a multi year contract would have potential multiyear impact to the Colts finances going forward.

 

1-year is this year and that's it.

 

As I said in other threads....   if this is a mistake,  then it's a small one because the contract is for just one year.    A small mistake doesn't hurt the Colts badly.

 

Why is this hard to understand?    Or am I not understanding you?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But to @stitches point, why? What's so beneficial to the Colts about a one year deal for Funchess? Especially at $10-13m?

There are lots of benefits. We fill a void at WR. If he plays well he is only 24 so we could find a receiver of the future with him. Hecseems excited to be a colt. We will have the inside track to sign him if he plays well. It gives us a year to see if Cain is as good as advertised and see if fountain has anything to give. Worst case he plays bad and he is gone. Best case we found a receiver for the future. Imagine if Cain is really good and Funchess  plays lights out. We suddenly have a very good receiving core for the future.  Why wouldn’t he want to stay after one year if  ballard offers him market value.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

3 minutes ago, Colt Overseas said:

For me, I think the main reason Funchess got that inflated contract was because Ballard/Colts badly need a WR that he could rely to get 600+ yard season. The thing is, it is a bad wide reciever FA class, with not one reciever that fits Ballards criteria for a long term contract (Williams too expensive, Tate too old, Humphries is just a slot you can easily get in the draft).

 

But at the same time, he cant just take a chance on a cheap 1 year deal like last year with Grant. At the end of the day, its the dissapointments of Grant, Fountain and Cain's injury is why Funchess is here. I think Ballard will stick to his guns and try to find that WR2 in the mud rounds draft (rounds 2-4), while also holding hope that Cain can emerge as a good WR too.

 

Funchess' contract is rich, but probably nessessary to get us through this year.

It isn’t over inflated when it is only for a year. 

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Here we go again....

 

What's so beneficial to the Colts?      Because one year is better than multiple years.   If he doesn't pan out,  the cost to the Colts is meaningless on a one year deal.   But a multi year contract would have potential multiyear impact to the Colts finances going forward.

 

1-year is this year and that's it.

 

As I said in other threads....   if this is a mistake,  then it's a small one because the contract is for just one year.    A small mistake doesn't hurt the Colts badly.

 

Why is this hard to understand?    Or am I not understanding you?

It's not better if the second year is virtually fully non-guaranteed. (pretty much all 2 year deals are like that) You get the upside of the second year in case the guy pans out or the opportunity to cut him without losing capspace or caphit if he doesn't pan out.

 

Are you telling me he would have refused 2/26 with 11M guaranteed and 5M in incentives spread across the two years, for example?

[boo2202]

2 hours 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?

Patriots haven’t used FA much, but they have made some big trades in the past to acquire talent.

[Valpo2004]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But to @stitches point, why? What's so beneficial to the Colts about a one year deal for Funchess? Especially at $10-13m?

 

Funchess can be relied upon to get you at least 500 yards a season if not more.  He's got a lot of upside.  

 

Most of the deals for the top outside receivers are likely going to be out of sight.  

[Valpo2004]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's not better if the second year is virtually fully non-guaranteed. (pretty much all 2 year deals are like that) You get the upside of the second year in case the guy pans out or the opportunity to cut him without losing capspace or caphit if he doesn't pan out.

 

Are you telling me he would have refused 2/26 with 11M guaranteed and 5M in incentives spread across the two years, for example?

 

He might be betting on himself.

 

One year deals are usually limited to old players who you don't know when the wheels will fall off and young players who want to bet on themselves that they can produce more with a different team and get a big payday.

 

Funchess probably has the thought that he is betting on himself, coming to Indy for one year to play with one of the top passers in the league, hopefully producing way more than he has with Cam and then next year getting a big payday.

 

So odds are good that he didn't want a 2 year deal.

 

I mean think about it this way.  You think Ebron might be kicking himself a little bit for signing a 2 year deal?  Because if he only signed a 1 year deal and came and played like that he'd be getting a big payday now.  

 

Funchess probably only wanted a 1 year deal so he could (in his mind) get his payday after he had a good year with Luck.  

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

So would anyone.   But he signed for 4/37.    Yes, I know you're talking about guaranteed money.

 

But he's a moving the chains guy and from this mornings IndyStar story it sounds like the coaching staff wanted a WR with size.   They likened him to Ebron.     So, perhaps that's why we passed on the smaller possession receivers.

 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So would anyone.   But he signed for 4/37.    Yes, I know you're talking about guaranteed money.

 

But he's a moving the chains guy and from this mornings IndyStar story it sounds like the coaching staff wanted a WR with size.   They likened him to Ebron.     So, perhaps that's why we passed on the smaller possession receivers.

 

Humphries got exactly 2/19 guaranteed. The rest is not guaranteed. 

[TheMarine]

Almost like FA doesn't even begin until Wednesday, so who cares?

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's not better if the second year is virtually fully non-guaranteed. (pretty much all 2 year deals are like that) You get the upside of the second year in case the guy pans out or the opportunity to cut him without losing capspace or caphit if he doesn't pan out.

 

Are you telling me he would have refused 2/26 with 11M guaranteed and 5M in incentives spread across the two years, for example?

 

Huh?

 

We didn't want to spend more.    We didn't want a 2-year deal.   Period.

 

I think all this hand wringing and gnashing of teeth is over-thinking.

 

And I'm on record as saying I don't like the signing and I don't like Funchess.    But I trust Ballard and Reich.    So, I go with it, primarily becaue it's a 1-year deal.

 

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Humphries got exactly 2/19 guaranteed. The rest is not guaranteed. 

 

I get it.    He's also 5'10".

 

This morning's Indy Star article says the Colts wanted another receiver with size.

 

Humphries, who I like, along with Crowder and Tate,  do not have size.

 

We bought what we were willing to buy for as little as possible.

 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

We didn't want to spend more.    We didn't want a 2-year deal.   Period.

 

I think all this hand wringing and gnashing of teeth is over-thinking.

 

And I'm on record as saying I don't like the signing and I don't like Funchess.    But I trust Ballard and Reich.    So, I go with it, primarily becaue it's a 1-year deal.

 

WE WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT MORE! This is the point. The second year is FOR OUR BENEFIT, not for Funchess' benefit. It would have been team option/non-guaranteed money. If we like it at the end of the fist year, we pick the option(guarantee his contract), if not we release him without paying him a penny of the second year... Maybe you guarantee 1M more in order to make him take it(11M as opposed to 10 guaranteed), but this would have been a much better deal for the Colts IMO. 

 

edit: apologies for 'screaming'. I'm getting upset because either I'm not explaining things the right way, or people just don't get it... 

[Valpo2004]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Huh?

 

We didn't want to spend more.    We didn't want a 2-year deal.   Period.

 

I think all this hand wringing and gnashing of teeth is over-thinking.

 

And I'm on record as saying I don't like the signing and I don't like Funchess.    But I trust Ballard and Reich.    So, I go with it, primarily becaue it's a 1-year deal.

 

 

I disagree, his argument makes sense from the Colts perspective, but my view is that Funchess is probably the one who only wanted a one year deal.  

 

If Ebron had only signed a 1 year deal he'd be getting a big payday now.  

 

Funchess is aiming to play one good year and get a big payday.  It makes sense from his prospective, less from ours.  

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Because one year is better than multiple years.   If he doesn't pan out,  the cost to the Colts is meaningless on a one year deal.   But a multi year contract would have potential multiyear impact to the Colts finances going forward.

 

The part in bold is not true. The cost is NOT meaningless, and it doesn't matter how many times however many people say it, it's not true. What you spend today takes away from what you can spend tomorrow.

 

It's like saying 'it's not a big deal if I splurge this weekend, I get paid again next week.' 

 

And a multiyear contract would not necessarily have a negative impact on the Colts going forward, especially if you're saving cap space up front. Paul Richardson signed for five years, $40m. Upfront guarantee was $12.5m. His 2018 cap hit was $4m, his 2019 cap hit will be $7.5m, and cutting him after 2019 isn't a burden. (This is not my favorite contract structure, but we all know that contract structure is a matter of preference, not rule.) His two year cap hit is only slightly higher than Funchess' one year cap hit, before incentives.

 

And if we really like him -- and goodness, we're giving him at least $10m for one season, which no one here expected or would have suggested -- why not a multi year deal, like Ebron, to protect the team from his value going through the roof if he plays the way we hope he does?

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

WE WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT MORE! This is the point. The second year is FOR OUR BENEFIT, not for Funchess' benefit. It would have been team option/non-guaranteed money. If we like it at the end of the fist year, we pick the option(guarantee his contract), if not we release him... Maybe you guarantee 1M more in order to make him take it(11M as opposed to 10 guaranteed), but this would have been a much better deal for the Colts IMO. 

 

edit: apologies for 'screaming'. I'm getting upset because either I'm not explaining things the right way, or people just don't get it... 

 

You just gave me hypothetical numbers that were more than the 1-year deal.

 

I just responded to your deal.     Do you really think you understand contracts better than the Colts who are one of the best franchises when it comes to finances?     Come on now,  you're one of my favorite posters,  especially this time of year....   but let's not get carried away.

 

[Valpo2004]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

WE WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT MORE! This is the point. The second year is FOR OUR BENEFIT, not for Funchess' benefit. It would have been team option/non-guaranteed money. If we like it at the end of the fist year, we pick the option(guarantee his contract), if not we release him... Maybe you guarantee 1M more in order to make him take it(11M as opposed to 10 guaranteed), but this would have been a much better deal for the Colts IMO. 

 

He doesn't want that though.  1M probably wasn't going to induce him into that.

 

Say Funchess goes out there and has 1000 yards receiving.  He'll come out of that contract and get like $15M apy for like 4 years with a good deal of guaranteed money.  

 

This is all about Funchess betting on Funchess and if it works out well for him, he doesn't want to delay his big payday by letting the Colts have team options for another modestly sized one year contract.  

[Boiler_Colt]

I read the thread title and guessed it was written by one of three people. Was not disappointed.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I disagree, his argument makes sense from the Colts perspective, but my view is that Funchess is probably the one who only wanted a one year deal.  

 

If Ebron had only signed a 1 year deal he'd be getting a big payday now.  

 

Funchess is aiming to play one good year and get a big payday.  It makes sense from his prospective, less from ours.  

I'm just not buying that he would have had the leverage to be this picky with the amount we would have given him as guaranteed money. We don't know what his market was, but this IMO is not a contract he could easily refuse. 

[Valpo2004]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

I'm just not buying that he would have had the leverage to be this picky with the amount we would have given him as guaranteed money. We don't know what his market was, but this IMO is not a contract he could easily refuse. 

 

I think he had some options. . . I mean Ballard brought him in pretty early in free agency.  Usually you don't spend your time on guys like that when they don't have other options.

 

Shoot if he didn't have options we would be paying him vet minimum.  

 

He might not have had a huge market but he had enough options that he could dictate out any 2nd year team option.  

[Superman]

19 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Funchess can be relied upon to get you at least 500 yards a season if not more. 

 

That's less than compelling.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The part in bold is not true. The cost is NOT meaningless, and it doesn't matter how many times however many people say it, it's not true. What you spend today takes away from what you can spend tomorrow.

 

It's like saying 'it's not a big deal if I splurge this weekend, I get paid again next week.' 

 

And a multiyear contract would not necessarily have a negative impact on the Colts going forward, especially if you're saving cap space up front. Paul Richardson signed for five years, $40m. Upfront guarantee was $12.5m. His 2018 cap hit was $4m, his 2019 cap hit will be $7.5m, and cutting him after 2019 isn't a burden. (This is not my favorite contract structure, but we all know that contract structure is a matter of preference, not rule.) His two year cap hit is only slightly higher than Funchess' one year cap hit, before incentives.

 

And if we really like him -- and goodness, we're giving him at least $10m for one season, which no one here expected or would have suggested -- why not a multi year deal, like Ebron, to protect the team from his value going through the roof if he plays the way we hope he does?

 

 

Sorry,  but with some deep insightful explanation your firset two paragraphs are little more than opinion and gibberish.      What if we had signed Funchess to a contract you'd have been OK with...   1 year and $6 Mill.    We'd have that money back next year as well.    

 

It's this year's money.    We'll have that money again next year, unless we decide to keep Funchess.    And maybe a 1-year deal was also part of the reason Funchess signed with us.   Maybe he wants a chance to go back on the market next year after he has a good year with the Colts.    

 

By the way,  to be clear,  I'm on record as saying I don't like the signing,  I don't like Funchess (never have)  but I trust Ballard and Reich.    And since it's just a 1-year deal,  I'll deal with it.   If it works out for the Colts -- great.    If not,  we move on...

 

 

6 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

I read the thread title and guessed it was written by one of three people. Was not disappointed.

 

And he STILL doesn't know why people here think of him as a troll......

 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So would anyone.   But he signed for 4/37.    Yes, I know you're talking about guaranteed money.

 

But he's a moving the chains guy and from this mornings IndyStar story it sounds like the coaching staff wanted a WR with size.   They likened him to Ebron.     So, perhaps that's why we passed on the smaller possession receivers.

 

 

We already have Ebron. And it's not like the Funchess signing protects us from losing Ebron next year, because they're both FAs.

 

But that's the real crux of my disagreement. I wanted a different kind of receiver. If we were going to sign a big, outside guy, I think we could have done better than Funchess, especially for $10m.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, Superman said:

 

We already have Ebron. And it's not like the Funchess signing protects us from losing Ebron next year, because they're both FAs.

 

But that's the real crux of my disagreement. I wanted a different kind of receiver. If we were going to sign a big, outside guy, I think we could have done better than Funchess, especially for $10m.

Name the player instead of just saying we could do better.

[Jason_]

3 hours ago, GusFring said:

Zero excitement around what should be an exciting time. Not 1 big splash. Not 1. I just don't know what to say.

2 hours 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 

 

As I recall, you two (threeflight and GusFring) were posting this same nonsense last year and through the first few weeks when the colts were losing.  Once the Colts turned it around and started winning, you both mostly disappeared.  Hopefully the Colts come out to a quicker start this year so you guys will disappear sooner.

 

3 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Here we go again another free agency filled with trash signings.

 

 

You mean like last year's "trash signings" that wound up being graded as one of, if not the best overall value FA class in the league? 

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You just gave me hypothetical numbers that were more than the 1-year deal.

 

I just responded to your deal.     Do you really think you understand contracts better than the Colts who are one of the best franchises when it comes to finances?     Come on now,  you're one of my favorite posters,  especially this time of year....   but let's not get carried away.

 

 

This is in the post you responded to:

 

Quote

Are you telling me he would have refused 2/26 with 11M guaranteed and 5M in incentives spread across the two years, for example?

 

This is the exact same thing I posted in the second post. 

 

And no I don't think I know contracts better than the Colts, but this is neither here nor there. This is not about knowing the contracts, this is about preferences. Those are not some complicated contract issues that we cannot know or figure out. 

 

Also, this is the thing I hate the most in threads on the board "Do you think you know better than Ballard?", "Do you think you know contracts better than the Colts", "Do you think you scout better than the Colts' scouting department?" .... NO, for the 10000000000th time "NO". But this is a message board and we discuss the things happening with the Colts and if the answer to every question is "Don't question Ballard and the Colts, because they know better and have more resources than you" we might as well just close the forum and nod along with everything Ballard and the Colts ever do. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Autry 9.5 sacks. Yep that was a trash FA signing.

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, Superman said:

 

We already have Ebron. And it's not like the Funchess signing protects us from losing Ebron next year, because they're both FAs.

 

But that's the real crux of my disagreement. I wanted a different kind of receiver. If we were going to sign a big, outside guy, I think we could have done better than Funchess, especially for $10m.

 

I don't understand your first paragraph.    Yes, we already have Ebron.   And since he was a success story for the Colts,  we're trying to see if we can do it again with Funchess.    Just because you have one big receiver,  doesn't mean you can't have another....

 

I get that you wanted a possession receiver.    But the front office and coaches apparently wanted another receiver with size.

 

I'll share what will really set me off on this signing....   if we decide to not pursue and keep Inman because we signed Funches,   THAT will really bother me.    I'd consider that a rare poorly thought through decision.    I still want and expect him to be brought back.

 

[Valpo2004]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We already have Ebron. And it's not like the Funchess signing protects us from losing Ebron next year, because they're both FAs.

 

But that's the real crux of my disagreement. I wanted a different kind of receiver. If we were going to sign a big, outside guy, I think we could have done better than Funchess, especially for $10m.

 

I'm curious who.  Can you name some names?  Because I don't see a lot of outside guys on the list of FA's who are going to take 10M for one year.