Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GusFring

Official complaints about Free Agency thread (merge)

Recommended Posts

 

 

This falls in line with a few of the forum's complaints.

 

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.

 

I am still OK with it. But I see the slight angst. I just do not see the overwhelming "sky is falling" angst. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stitches said:

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.

 

That's a bit of an overreaction.

 

You (a fan) post an opinion being critical of the professionals, someone else (a fan) posts an opinion being critical of your opinion, and you get upset?

 

If you were the actual GM, would you get upset that fans have critical opinions of your decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

This is in the post you responded to:

 

 

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. 

 

Is not $11 Mill more than $10 Mill?      That was YOUR hypothetical.

 

And perhaps Funchess wants another chance on the open market after he re-establishes his value with the Colts.    Perhaps we were willing to give that to him.    Perhaps some other team was also willing to give that offer, and so our hand was forced to get him to sign with us.

 

Hey,  again,  not defending Funchess.    I'm only saying that apparently Reich and Ballard wanted something different.    The size that Funchess brings that Humphries and Crowder and Tate and Beasley don't.       What can I say?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

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.

 

We're well beyond talking about whether we like the signing.

 

Quote

 

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.    

 

 

This is incorrect is so many ways.

 

First, it's not opinion, it's objective fact. If you spend $10m in 2019, you're taking away from what you can spend in 2020. Once you stop looking at cap space as a one year asset this becomes clear and obvious. There's no such thing as "this year's money." 

 

Second, if we had signed Funchess for one year, $6m, we'd have an extra $4m that might very well get rolled over to 2020. We would have it next year, but in this case, we do not, because it's spent this year. (The reason we rolled forward $50m to 2019 is specifically because we did not spend it in 2018. If we had given Jordan Matthews one year, $10m, we'd only be rolling forward $40m.)

 

Third, the fact that he's a FA in 2020 has nothing to do with the amount of cap space we're using on him in 2019.

 

Fourth, if he does play well, we're sending him back into the market in 2020. It would have been better to give him a two year deal, or more. In this way, the benefit of a one year deal is swayed dramatically in Funchess' favor, not the team's. You allude to this yourself.

 

And this is why I bring up the Paul Richardson contract. It's five years, $40m, but we all know that doesn't represent an unavoidable burden for his team moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

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.

 

 

I would too because of how cheap Inman could be brought back for.  

 

Quite frankly I'm not quite sure why we havn't worked out a deal with him yet.  Either Inman wants too much money or the front office staff doesn't consider him a priority.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

post an opinion being critical of the professionals

 

There's a big difference between disagreeing and being critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Is not $11 Mill more than $10 Mill?      That was YOUR hypothetical.

 

And perhaps Funchess wants another chance on the open market after he re-establishes his value with the Colts.    Perhaps we were willing to give that to him.    Perhaps some other team was also willing to give that offer, and so our hand was forced to get him to sign with us.

 

Hey,  again,  not defending Funchess.    I'm only saying that apparently Reich and Ballard wanted something different.    The size that Funchess brings that Humphries and Crowder and Tate and Beasley don't.       What can I say?

 

 

I have to say I'm more of a fan of Funchess than you are but I think you have the right attitude.  Skeptical but giving the benefit of the doubt due to Ballards previous success.   

 

Superman's being a little strange today.  He's usually pretty level headed about these things but he seems really set off by this contract.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

There's a big difference between disagreeing and being critical.

 

Please elaborate.

 

If you say you would do something different, aren't you being critical of the way it was done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We're well beyond talking about whether we like the signing.

 

 

This is incorrect is so many ways.

 

First, it's not opinion, it's objective fact. If you spend $10m in 2019, you're taking away from what you can spend in 2020. Once you stop looking at cap space as a one year asset this becomes clear and obvious. There's no such thing as "this year's money." 

 

Second, if we had signed Funchess for one year, $6m, we'd have an extra $4m that might very well get rolled over to 2020. We would have it next year, but in this case, we do not, because it's spent this year. (The reason we rolled forward $50m to 2019 is specifically because we did not spend it in 2018. If we had given Jordan Matthews one year, $10m, we'd only be rolling forward $40m.)

 

Third, the fact that he's a FA in 2020 has nothing to do with the amount of cap space we're using on him in 2019.

 

Fourth, if he does play well, we're sending him back into the market in 2020. It would have been better to give him a two year deal, or more. In this way, the benefit of a one year deal is swayed dramatically in Funchess' favor, not the team's. You allude to this yourself.

 

And this is why I bring up the Paul Richardson contract. It's five years, $40m, but we all know that doesn't represent an unavoidable burden for his team moving forward. 

 

What objective fact?     I don't recall you EVER making this argument before.   In fact quite the opposite.    Every time in the last 7 years we signed someone to a 3 or 4 year deal and someone screamed bloody murder there was Superman to explain that once the guy was cut before the deal was up and there was no dead cap money,  we'd be able to spend that money again in the future.    You were saying there was no problem.     Now you're saying money spend on a 1-year deal is gone forever.     Sorry,  you've lost me.     Whip out the NFL rules that explain this because this expalnation is a giant FAIL.

 

Maybe you're right.    But you're doing a HORRIBLE job of explaining it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

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....

 

 

The question I have is whether that was the right move for the team. We already have Ebron, do we need another Ebron?

 

And the difference between the Ebron contract and the Funchess contract is that Ebron is locked up for two years! Imagine Ebron being a FA after catching 13 TDs... We don't have to worry about Ebron wanting a big, long term contract this year because Ballard had the foresight to give him a two year deal, protecting the team from his now increased market value.

 

So if Funchess goes off for 13 TDs like Ebron did, he'll be swaggering into FA like a madman. If this was an upside play, the two year contract would have been more beneficial to the Colts, even if it cost more money.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

And I'm totally comfortable with that disagreement between me and the staff. If they're right and I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. I just had a different vision for what the offense would benefit from.

 

We differ on Inman. I was always okay with him walking, and I think the Funchess signing officially ends his time as a Colt. And I could be wrong about that, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

Superman's being a little strange today.  He's usually pretty level headed about these things but he seems really set off by this contract.  

 

I'm not set off. But this 'it's only a one year deal' defense is completely fallacious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

That's a bit of an overreaction.

 

You (a fan) post an opinion being critical of the professionals, someone else (a fan) posts an opinion being critical of your opinion, and you get upset?

 

If you were the actual GM, would you get upset that fans have critical opinions of your decisions?

I'm not upset that someone else disagrees with my opinion. I'm upset that people don't seem to understand what exactly my opinion is. Ever since the news came through I've been expressing my displeasure that we couldn't get a second (non-guaranteed) year on that contract if we are going to be overpaying for the 1st and people continue to not understand why I would want that non-guaranteed second year. 

 

If I were an actual GM I wouldn't be listening to what fans thought about my decisions and I'm glad Ballard is not listening to us either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What objective fact?     I don't recall you EVER making this argument before.   In fact quite the opposite.    Every time in the last 7 years we signed someone to a 3 or 4 year deal and someone screamed bloody murder there was Superman to explain that once the guy was cut before the deal was up and there was no dead cap money,  we'd be able to spend that money again in the future.    You were saying there was no problem.     Now you're saying money spend on a 1-year deal is gone forever.     Sorry,  you've lost me.     Whip out the NFL rules that explain this because this expalnation is a giant FAIL.

 

Maybe you're right.    But you're doing a HORRIBLE job of explaining it.

 

 

Those are two completely separate factors, NCF. 

 

Let me ask you this: Do you understand that the reason we rolled forward $50m to 2019 is because that money was left unspent in 2018?

 

If yes, do you understand that if we had spent an additional $10m for one year on a bad player in 2018 (not calling Funchess a bad player, btw), we would only have been able to roll forward $40m to 2019?

 

As such, instead of having $100m in cap space at the beginning of FA, we only would have had $90m?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The question I have is whether that was the right move for the team. We already have Ebron, do we need another Ebron?

 

And the difference between the Ebron contract and the Funchess contract is that Ebron is locked up for two years! Imagine Ebron being a FA after catching 13 TDs... We don't have to worry about Ebron wanting a big, long term contract this year because Ballard had the foresight to give him a two year deal, protecting the team from his now increased market value.

 

So if Funchess goes off for 13 TDs like Ebron did, he'll be swaggering into FA like a madman. If this was an upside play, the two year contract would have been more beneficial to the Colts, even if it cost more money.

 

 

And I'm totally comfortable with that disagreement between me and the staff. If they're right and I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. I just had a different vision for what the offense would benefit from.

 

We differ on Inman. I was always okay with him walking, and I think the Funchess signing officially ends his time as a Colt. And I could be wrong about that, also.

 

Interesting.....    espeically since less than a week ago,  I offered up a post with my preferred receiving group for the 19 season.     I wrote:   Hilton, FA receiver, Rookie receiver, Inman and Cain.    I noted it was 5 receivers so we even had room for a 6th.    

 

And your response was that was what you forecast or wanted too...     Today?   Not so much.

Hmmmm?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Those are two completely separate factors, NCF. 

 

Let me ask you this: Do you understand that the reason we rolled forward $50m to 2019 is because that money was left unspent in 2018?

 

If yes, do you understand that if we had spent an additional $10m for one year on a bad player in 2018 (not calling Funchess a bad player, btw), we would only have been able to roll forward $40m to 2019?

 

As such, instead of having $100m in cap space at the beginning of FA, we only would have had $90m?

 

This is a somewhat better explanation....    except that we were always going to spend the money on SOMEONE.     You don't dispute that.

 

So, if we're going to spend the money,  and there's a chance of a bad signing,  then I want a SMALL BAD SIGNING and not one that's 4 or 5 years that might go sour and have HUGE cost ramifications.

 

If this is a mistake, a bad signing,  I'd prefer one for $10 Mill and not $20 or $30 Mill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I thought this couldn’t get any worse... 

 

Admins/mods: can we make it so when you post a thread it asks if you’re going to cry about something that’s been discussed 587 times a day for the last several years? That way these *ic threads can’t be started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

Can you tell us which of the deals that were made would you consider a good deal that Ballard missed on?

 

Because none of them were good.  They were all over priced.  I am glad Ballard is sticking to his guns.   I am not high on the Funchess signing, but we shall see, whats done is done.  Well it will be done tomorrow at 4 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 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.

 

Who?    Give me names?   

 

A big, outside guy?   Apparently Williams will be way outside our comfort level.   So,  who?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.  

 

Agreed. If we overpaid, it's for the luxury of a one year deal and, ultimately, not truly overpaying him like the majority of the 4-6 year deals for B players... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This is a somewhat better explanation....    except that we were always going to spend the money on SOMEONE.     You don't dispute that.

 

So, if we're going to spend the money,  and there's a chance of a bad signing,  then I want a SMALL BAD SIGNING and not one that's 4 or 5 years that might go sour and have HUGE cost ramifications.

 

If this is a mistake, a bad signing,  I'd prefer one for $10 Mill and not $20 or $30 Mill.

 

 

Yeah, I think @Superman doesn't like the specific SOMEONE we spent the money on. And he doesn't think that "oh well, it's just 1 year 10M... not a big deal if he doesn't work out" argument precisely because he doesn't like Funchess and he thinks the money could have been spend better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Ballard I trust...  But, I will admit I don't understand the Funchess signing.  Even if the scouts see something that we are all missing, the signing itself goes against what Ballard typically preaches, growing from within.  What is the message to not sign Inman, and then throw $10M on an outsider like Funchess?  I think most fans would have been happy with no FA signings through Wednesday, like the last couple of years, knowing he would strike gold after the prices fell to normal ranges.  In summary, I am glad Ballard has returned to normal and has ceased crazy day 1/2 free agent signings after his one excursion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's crazy that some are disappointed. I, personally, am not utterly disappointed, but I'm also a little *sigh* watching guys like Flowers & Collins (who would fit in) get signed. We have 0 room to distrust Ballard as he hit last off-season completely out the ballpark without signing a big name. I understand he's sticking to his guns and building through the draft and not overvaluing, but I mean.. we have a lot of money.. and I feel like we are very close. I feel like it would be outright irresponsible to not lock down at least one position of need through FA & address the rest in the draft. I am a little *sigh* as previously stated, but seriously I couldn't trust this guy more. Slightly conflicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

You're right. But you present your opinion as absolute, which is why I commented in the first place... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Superman here's a cheery thought for you. Ballard spent massive money for a big, contested catch receiver. IMO this makes it more likely that he's going to go after a slotty/YAC type of receiver in the draft(Parris Campbell, Deebo Samuel, Andy Isabella)... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bluesmith said:

In Ballard I trust...  But, I will admit I don't understand the Funchess signing.  Even if the scouts see something that we are all missing, the signing itself goes against what Ballard typically preaches, growing from within.  What is the message to not sign Inman, and then throw $10M on an outsider like Funchess?  I think most fans would have been happy with no FA signings through Wednesday, like the last couple of years, knowing he would strike gold after the prices fell to normal ranges.  In summary, I am glad Ballard has returned to normal and has ceased crazy day 1/2 free agent signings after his one excursion.

 

You don't know that it goes against what he preaches... It could be his plan to do EXACTLY that. This could be a one year deal to groom Cain, and whatever draft picks he brings in (Brown perhaps?) from within... That makes more sense to me than bringing a receiver in for 4 years with more guaranteed money that doesn't even have the potential to be our #1... talk about a short term fix with disregard for the longterm future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

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

 

There's a big difference between expressing your opinion and expressing your opinion with the expectation of no discourse about it.

 

I keep seeing people disagree with what the staff does without offering a realistic alternative backed up by numbers.

 

If someone wants to act like they know better than the staff, fine.  But back it up or get called out.  :hat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

You don't know that it goes against what he preaches... It could be his plan to do EXACTLY that. This could be a one year deal to groom Cain, and whatever draft picks he brings in (Brown perhaps?) from within... That makes more sense to me than bringing a receiver in for 4 years with more guaranteed money that doesn't even have the potential to be our #1... talk about a short term fix with disregard for the longterm future. 

I think we might be agreeing more than we are disagreeing, but a one year deal worth up to $13M for a guy that has never caught a pass for the Colts seems excessive.  That is what TY Hilton is making in cash this year, TY!  I wouldn't have done any of the other day one WR deals either, I would vote no deal up to this point if I had a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Polian also went to one with the Panthers, didnt he??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bluesmith said:

I think we might be agreeing more than we are disagreeing, but a one year deal worth up to $13M for a guy that has never caught a pass for the Colts seems excessive.  That is what TY Hilton is making in cash this year, TY!  I wouldn't have done any of the other day one WR deals either, I would vote no deal up to this point if I had a vote.

 

....from a 2015 contract. What would TY make today, I wonder?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Sounds like they were competitive then.    

Competitive ya but winning championships not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

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

Not him but guys like Goode,Grant those guys were trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Competitive ya but winning championships not so much.

Why don't you read your initial post.   Do you even know what you said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DerekDiggler said:

Can you tell us which of the deals that were made would you consider a good deal that Ballard missed on?

 

Because none of them were good.  They were all over priced.  I am glad Ballard is sticking to his guns.   I am not high on the Funchess signing, but we shall see, whats done is done.  Well it will be done tomorrow at 4 

Any other signing would have been a better deal than paying 13 million to a guy that wont help this team much at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Any other signing would have been a better deal than paying 13 million to a guy that wont help this team much at all.

 

Good god...

 

Your posts are nothing if not ridiculously consistent...

 

:wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Funchess signing.

Glad he isn’t throwing some of the money and term at certain players.

 

gotta improve that pass rush though. Must. What would it take to get Dee Ford out of KC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheNextGM said:

I like the Funchess signing.

Glad he isn’t throwing some of the money and term at certain players.

 

gotta improve that pass rush though. Must. What would it take to get Dee Ford out of KC?

 

Best way to do that is through the draft.  

 

Teams don't let good pass rusher go easily and when they do leave they get ridiculous amounts of money.  

 

Trey Flowers just got 5 years 90 Mil (18M per year) 

 

He's never had more than 7.5 sacks in a year.  

 

They talk about Left Tackles earning the 2nd most on a team.  Honestly while it's relative to the individual talent of your LT and your pass rushers.  But top pass rushers are making way more than left tackles these days.  

 

Trent Brown sets the market at LT at 16.5M per year

 

Kahlil Mack is at 23.5M per year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Any other signing would have been a better deal than paying 13 million to a guy that wont help this team much at all.

No No No.....  you said this

Quote

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.

 now back it up with who you would've signed.  You did say you would have definitely would have signed at least one good deal by now.   Tell us who?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheNextGM said:

I like the Funchess signing.

Glad he isn’t throwing some of the money and term at certain players.

 

gotta improve that pass rush though. Must. What would it take to get Dee Ford out of KC?

I am excited to see how this plays out. We could have a elite receiving group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...