FA Agency Day 2 and beyond.

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

 

Interesting. Thanks for the post.

 

Might mean that his market did not shape up how he thought it would and that many fans and industry pundits did not know how much scrutiny teams had for these FA WRs.

 

It was widely considered a poor year for FA WRs, specifically outside guys that are not slot-mavens.

 

I do find it odd that it claims everywhere that there are $22M in guarantees and yet this breakdown shows there's only $10M. Even the contract details on Spotrac say "Total guaranteed: $22M" when it appears nothing is guaranteed other than what was guaranteed at signing which is only $10M. Odd.

 

Good deal for Oakland.

 

 

On the Spotrac page for Williams, it shows that his full 2020 salary is guaranteed on Fay 3 of the 2020 NFL cslendar season in Mid-March.    So about a year from now us when Wilkiams will really sweat whether he gets cut or not.

 

That makes $21 mill.   I don’t know about the last missing million, but it’s got to be on there somewhere!

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

On the Spotrac page for Williams, it shows that his full 2020 salary is guaranteed on Fay 3 of the 2020 NFL cslendar season in Mid-March.    So about a year from now us when Wilkiams will really sweat whether he gets cut or not.

 

That makes $21 mill.   I don’t know about the last missing million, but it’s got to be on there somewhere!

This is what I meant in my posts about Funchess. This is the type of deal I wanted us to sign him to. Give him a million or two more guaranteed now in order to have him cost controlled going forward if we want him or to cut him without any caphit if we choose to. 

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

This is what I meant in my posts about Funchess. This is the type of deal I wanted us to sign him to. Give him a million or two more guaranteed now in order to have him cost controlled going forward if we want him or to cut him without any caphit if we choose to. 

Perhaps Finches had more leverage that any of us realize?

 

And the Colts agreed to terms during the legal tampering period.   So we clearly wanted him, but on a shorter deal. 

 

Williams deal came a few days later and either he really wants to be on the West Coast, or perhaps he didn’t get a better offer.

 

Im not defending the player.   I’m just not phased by the deal.   If the Colts, who are know to sign guys to terms that are typically team friendly,  sign Funchess to a deal that seems less team friendly than expected, that tells me he had more leverage than fans here thought possible.

 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

Perhaps Finches had more leverage that any of us realize?

 

And the Colts agreed to terms during the legal tampering period.   So we clearly wanted him, but on a shorter deal. 

 

Williams deal came a few days later and either he really wants to be on the West Coast, or perhaps he didn’t get a better offer.

 

Im not defending the player.   I’m just not phased by the deal.   If the Colts, who are know to sign guys to terms that are typically team friendly,  sign Funchess to a deal that seems less team friendly than expected, that tells me he had more leverage than fans here thought possible.

 

Possible. Maybe the league likes Funchess more than Williams. Or at the very least they like the prospect of what Funchess can be(still only 24) more than Williams?  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think funchess has more upside then Williams. If Cain is healthy and can play putting Cain and funchess on the outside and TY in the slot could be awesome. Ty speed will kill defenses.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Have to remember also the coaches know Williams. Maybe they don’t like him. Plus funchess had the number one CB on him while Williams had the 3rd one. They had pretty much same numbers but funchess had a number one on him. I think he will flourish not being the number one.

[NewColtsFan]

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

Possible. Maybe the league likes Funchess more than Williams. Or at the very least they like the prospect of what Funchess can be(still only 24) more than Williams?  

Huh?

 

One guy gets one year, the other guy gets four.   And you think the league likes the one year guy more than the four?    Sorry, I don’t follow?   That’s confusing to me.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

WIlliams has a few hundred more career yards and funchess has more TD then Williams. To me they are the same player but one has more upside.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

Huh?

 

One guy gets one year, the other guy gets four.   And you think the league likes the one year guy more than the four?    Sorry, I don’t follow?   That’s confusing to me.

Lol... and here we go again... I don't get why people don't get this. Don't look at the thing his agent is putting out there. Look at the details of the contract. 

 

Williams' contract is NOT 4 years guaranteed. It's the team that gets the benefit of the 4 years, NOT the player, because nothing past the first year is guaranteed. They can cut him sometime in February  next year and he would get only his first 11M and not a cent more. This is essentially a 1 year deal, but with the added bonus for the team that if THEY(the team) like the value, they can keep him for the rest of the contract and if they don't like the value they can cut him for nothing. If the player doesn't like the value he cannot do anything. The team can play the perfect free agency game here - it's all upside for them coming from the contract being structured like that and being 4 years rather than 1. And all the downside is for the player. If the player plays well and to the level of his contract or above, the team simply keeps him, if the player plays under the contract value, the team cuts him and loses nothing.

 

This is what I wanted us to do with Funchess. Precisely this. The 2nd to 4th years are ENTIRELY for the team's benefit. 

 

Let me give you the example with Funchess... Lets say we could have had either his current contract or the one that Oakland gave to Williams.

 

Case 1: Funchess kills it and looks like a pro-bowler/all-pro

-if he's under his current contract: he enters FA and we either lose him or we have to give him 18M a year

-if he's under Williams' contract: he cannot leave - we just keep him under his 11M a year contract

 

Case 2: Funchess is bad and doesn't deserve his contract

-if he's under his current contract: we let him go as unsuccessful FA signing

-if he's under Williams' contract: we cut him and let him go as unsuccessful FA signing

 

In case 2 the outcome is the same for either contract

In case 1 you get 2 advantages from signing him to longer contract:

-he cannot leave

-he gets about 7-8M less in salary for the next 3 years than he would have gotten if you signed him to a short contract and then had to give him new one to keep him.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

Lol... and here we go again... I don't get why people don't get this. Don't look at the thing his agent is putting out there. Look at the details of the contract. 

 

Williams' contract is NOT 4 years guaranteed. It's the team that gets the benefit of the 4 years, NOT the player, because nothing past the first year is guaranteed. They can cut him sometime in February  next year and he would get only his first 11M and not a cent more. This is essentially a 1 year deal, but with the added bonus for the team that if THEY(the team) like the value, they can keep him for the rest of the contract. If the player doesn't like the value he cannot do anything. The team can play the perfect game here - it's all upside for them coming from the contract being structured like that and being 4 years rather than 1. And all the downside is for the player. If the player plays well and to the level of his contract or above, the team simply keeps him, if the player plays under the contract value, the team cuts him and loses nothing.

 

This is what I wanted us to do with Funchess. Precisely this. The 2nd to 4th years are ENTIRELY for the team's benefit. 

Yup....   here we go again..  

 

I spelled it out, and you chose to ignore it.  

 

Even before Ballard showed up, the Colts had a history of signing players to team friendly deals.   Since the Colts agreed to a deal that you view as player friendly and not team friendly then why do you think that happened?

 

Either smart people got stupid overnight,  or our negotiators took the week off and the person who negotiated the Funchess deal was the janitor.   

 

OR...  

 

Maybe Funchess had other options?  

Maybe Funchess was willing to go out in the market and find out what he could get and we liked him enough that we didn’t want to risk it.   Has Ballard ever done this before?   Agreed to terms in the legal signing period?   Not to my knowledge. 

 

Funchess had more leverage than his detractors want to admit.   And Ballard, who has a demonstrated history of not panicking, and letting players walk away, wanted to get him under contract ASAP.   

 

We wanted the player. 

 

He had the leverage. 

 

As for Williams, I don’t want to say anymore because things might get unpleasant.   But I understand the math.   

[stitches]

14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Yup....   here we go again..  

 

I spelled it out, and you chose to ignore it.  

 

Even before Ballard showed up, the Colts had a history of signing players to team friendly deals.   Since the Colts agreed to a deal that you view as player friendly and not team friendly then why do you think that happened?

 

Either smart people got stupid overnight,  or our negotiators took the week off and the person who negotiated the Funchess deal was the janitor.   

Wait? What is your argument here? I really don't get what you are arguing for/against and where this is coming from. I literally just said "maybe the league likes Funchess more" and thus he had better leverage and got the better contract. You asked 

 

Quote

And you think the league likes the one year guy more than the four?    Sorry, I don’t follow?

Yes! Because the 1 year contract is the BETTER contract(for the player). If he could get the better contract I would assume that the league likes him more and he had better leverage and thus it wouldn't be on Ballard not being able to negotiate a Williams type of deal... 

Quote

 

 

 

OR...  

 

Maybe Funchess had other options?  

Maybe Funchess was willing to go out in the market and find out what he could get and we liked him enough that we didn’t want to risk it.   Has Ballard ever done this before?   Agreed to terms in the legal signing period?   Not to my knowledge. 

 

Funchess had more leverage than his detractors want to admit.   And Ballard, who has a demonstrated history of not panicking, and letting players walk away, wanted to get him under contract ASAP.   

 

We wanted the player. 

 

He had the leverage. 

 

As for Williams, I don’t want to say anymore because things might get unpleasant.   But I understand the math.   

 

YES!! This is my point. Maybe the league and Ballard simply like Funchess more than Williams and he had more offers and thus we had to go for Funchess' preferred deal rather than what would have benefited us. 

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, stitches said:

Wait? What is your argument here? I really don't get what you are arguing for/against and where this is coming from. I literally just said "maybe the league likes Funchess more" and thus he had better leverage and got the better contract. You asked 

 

Yes! Because the 1 year contract is the BETTER contract(for the player). If he could get the better contract I would assume that the league likes him more and he had better leverage and thus it wouldn't be on Ballard not being able to negotiate a Williams type of deal... 

YES!! This is my point. Maybe the league and Ballard simply like Funchess more than Williams and he had more offers and thus we had to go for Funchess' preferred deal rather than what would have benefited us. 

I don’t view it as the league like liked him more.   I think Ballard and maybe one ur two other teams.

 

Look, it was you and Superman talked about trying to entice Funchess with a two year deal and perhaps one or two million more.   And now you show up today, saying I wanted us to do what tbe Raiders did with Williams. 

 

Except they're not the same.  You talked about a small little teaser to get Funchess to sign.   The Raiders are offering to guarantee his ENTIRE 2020 salary by a certain date, more than $11 mill.    And you’re trying to sell me that the two negotiations are the same.  That guaranteeing a few million is the same as guaranteeing all of an 8-figure salary.   They’re not same.   This is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

One year and we’re done.   The money comes the books.   What do Ballard and his negotiators know that you and Superman don’t? 

 

Again...  for clarity...   not a fan of Funchess or the signing.   I’m just not in a lather about what was done.   It’s off the books next year. 

[stitches]

45 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t view it as the league like liked him more.   I think Ballard and maybe one ur two other teams.

 

Look, it was you and Superman talked about trying to entice Funchess with a two year deal and perhaps one or two million more.   And now you show up today, saying I wanted us to do what tbe Raiders did with Williams. 

 

Except they're not the same.  You talked about a small little teaser to get Funchess to sign.   The Raiders are offering to guarantee his ENTIRE 2020 salary by a certain date, more than $11 mill.    And you’re trying to sell me that the two negotiations are the same.  That guaranteeing a few million is the same as guaranteeing all of an 8-figure salary.   They’re not same.   This is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

 

Yes, BY CERTAIN DATE. A date that should be plenty good for us to make a decision(after the season is over - in MARCH OF 2020) and a date that has been plenty good for us in the past... like when we cut Hankins for example... he had the exact same type of contract... or the same option we have for Ebron's and Autry's contracts this year. This is STANDARD for the league, almost all contracts have such dates for long term contracts(for guaranteeing either the full contract or part of it) and this is PRECISELY what I meant when I said give him longer term deal with non-guaranteed money after the 1st year. I don't know why you've decided to make a big deal out of it or to pretend I didn't say EXACTLY THIS. 

 

Quote

 

One year and we’re done.   The money comes the books.   What do Ballard and his negotiators know that you and Superman don’t? 

 

Again...  for clarity...   not a fan of Funchess or the signing.   I’m just not in a lather about what was done.   It’s off the books next year. 

 

Yes, and WIlliams' contract is 1 year and you are done... money comes off the books... if the teams wants it to be so. If they don't they can keep him. 

 

What does Ballard and the Colts know that we don't? I don't know... probably Funchess didn't want the long-term deal and he had enough leverage(other similar offers) that we had to give it to him. I'm very willing to entertain that idea and it's very possible that this is the case... just like I told you about 3 posts ago. 

[NewColtsFan]

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Yes, BY CERTAIN DATE. A date that should be plenty good for us to make a decision(after the season is over - in MARCH OF 2020) and a date that has been plenty good for us in the past... like when we cut Hankins for example... he had the exact same type of contract... or the same option we have for Ebron's contract this year. This is STANDARD for the league, almost all contracts have such dates for long term contracts(for guaranteeing either the full contract or part of it) and this is PRECISELY what I meant when I said give him longer term deal with non-guaranteed money after the 1st year. I don't know why you've decided to make a big deal out of it or to pretend I didn't say EXACTLY THIS. 

 

Yes, and WIlliams' contract is 1 year and you are done... money comes off the books... if the teams wants it to be so. If they don't they can keep him. 

 

What does Ballard and the Colts know that we don't? I don't know... probably Funchess didn't want the long-term deal and he had enough leverage(other similar offers) that we had to give it to him. I'm very willing to entertain that idea and it's very possible that this is the case... just like I told you about 3 posts ago. 

 

Well....  if you told me that 3 posts ago,  then why are we back revisiting this?    You're the one who reached out to me.    You're the one that tried to imply that guaranteeing an entire $11 Mill salary is pretty much the same as guaranteeing $1 or 2 million of a 2nd year's salary.   

 

You used the TW contract as an example, and I said it's not a good apples to apples comparison.    I knew what you and Superman were talking about the day this first came up,  about 5 days ago.   Coming along with the TW example today to show that this is what you were talking about was unnecessary.     I got it then,  I get it now.  I think the TW/DF comparison is poor.

 

 

[Hoose]

It looks to me like Funchess wanted to get to a better team, a better situation, and prove his worth this year. Likely no team was going to give him a mega contract; a prove it deal was his best bet. Play with a real QB in a better offense for a year, and things could be far rosier in 2020. 

 

As for the Colts, a one year deal  gives them a chance to see what Funchess can do, while also giving them time to assess what they have in their young WRs like Cain. I also think they are likely to pick a WR early in the draft; if Cain and the draft pick pan out, Funchess is less critical for the future. Thus, the one year mentality. 

 

Works for both sides.  

[stitches]

20 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well....  if you told me that 3 posts ago,  then why are we back revisiting this?    You're the one who reached out to me.    You're the one that tried to imply that guaranteeing an entire $11 Mill salary is pretty much the same as guaranteeing $1 or 2 million of a 2nd year's salary.   

 

You used the TW contract as an example, and I said it's not a good apples to apples comparison.    I knew what you and Superman were talking about the day this first came up,  about 5 days ago.   Coming along with the TW example today to show that this is what you were talking about was unnecessary.     I got it then,  I get it now.  I think the TW/DF comparison is poor.

 

 

It's not poor comparison. TW's deal is the same deal we've been giving pretty much every single player on a long-term contract with us. 

 

Denico Autry - 3 years, 17M... 6.5 guaranteed... out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before march 17

 

Eric Ebron - 2 years 13M, 6.5 guaranteed, out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before March 17

 

Hankins - 3 years, 27M, 10M guaranteed 1st year, out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before March 18

 

Tyrell Williams 4 year 44M, 10M guaranteed, out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before March of 2020

 

It's the EXACT SAME idea... 

 

And we are still talking about it because you asked why I think 1 year deal is better for the player than 4 years deal with only 1 year guaranteed. I explained. And then I don't know... then something went haywire and we might have started talking past eachother... anyways... 

 

It is what it is. Lets hope the guy earns all his bonuses and incentives and he makes the impact that both Ballard and Reich seem to think he can make for the team. Either way it's much better for us if kills it with us than if he fails. 

 

Cheers

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I actually don’t think we will pick a receiver early. We are kind of loaded now. They will wait a year and see if any of the young guys can do anything. It doesn’t really do much dmro draft a rookie WR when we have three guys on rookie deals. If funchesa plays  well and makes us a better team Ballard will resign him no matter how cain, fountain, or Johnson play. Then a receiver is a lot less important. The only way they may take a receiver is if one of the studs drops to us.

[NewColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's not poor comparison. TW's deal is the same deal we've been giving pretty much every single player on a long-term contract with us. 

 

Denico Autry - 3 years, 17M... 6.5 guaranteed... out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before march 17

 

Eric Ebron - 2 years 13M, 6.5 guaranteed, out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before March 17

 

Hankins - 3 years, 27M, 10M guaranteed 1st year, out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before March 18

 

Tyrell Williams 4 year 44M, 10M guaranteed, out after the first year with no dead cap hit if the opt out is exercised before March of 2020

 

It's the EXACT SAME idea... 

 

And we are still talking about it because you asked why I think 1 year deal is better for the player than 4 years deal with only 1 year guaranteed. I explained. And then I don't know... then something went haywire and we might have started talking past eachother... anyways... 

 

It is what it is. Lets hope the guy earns all his bonuses and incentives and he makes the impact that both Ballard and Reich seem to think he can make for the team. Either way it's much better for us if kills it with us than if he fails. 

 

Cheers

No.   We’re still talking about it because YOU reached out to ME.   Oh..   as to the comparison...   where was it written that the ENTIRE SECOND YEAR of the contract totalling over $10 mill would be FULLY GUARANTEED?!?   I’m sure that was SAM oversight, that you meant to write it but it simply slipped your mind.

 

Oh, that’s right...  it didn’t happen.  Not once, not EVER.   And the size of the second year guarantee changes everything.   So your expect ierfect example SUCKS.

 

The idea is the same, the concept is the same, but the numbers change everything.

 

And again, you’re ignoring the reasons why we didn’t do this.  

 

Question:  If he read this thread, do you think Chris Ballard would say:  “Damn!  Why didn’t I think of this?!?”   We both know the answer.   So he didn’t do what you wanted for a good reason.   You and Superman need to get over this — seriously.

 

Either way,  I’m more than done with this.

 

Check please!

 

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

No.   We’re still talking about it because YOU reached out to ME.   I was done with this.    Either way,  I’m more than done with this.

 

Check please!

 

what do you mean by "reached out" ... I just replied to a post of yours about Tyrell Williams' contract details because they sounded exactly like what I had in mind for Funchess' deal and because we talked about it the previous day. 

 

Anyaways... we've exhausted this topic I guess. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

what do you mean by "reached out" ... I just replied to a post of yours about Tyrell Williams' contract details because they sounded exactly what I had in mind for Funchess' deal and because we talked about it the previous day. 

 

Anyaways... we've exhausted this topic I guess. 

I was talking to SOMEONE ELSE!

 

YOU responded to ME!   Hello?!?   

 

Heres an idea....   how about we take the rest of the weekend off from communicating.   This awful, terrible, ridiculous, nonsensical exchange is on my last nerve.  

 

Talk to you next week.    

[stitches]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I was talking to SOMEONE ELSE!

 

YOU responded to ME!   Hello?!?   

 

Heres an idea....   how about we take the rest of the weekend off from communicating.   This awful, terrible, ridiculous, nonsensical exchange is on my last nerve.  

 

Talk to you next week.    

This is a public forum. Everybody talks to everybody else. When you put out something it's with the expectation that others can/will engage with it.

 

Anyways, have a good weekend. 

[stitches]

 

 

The Saints might need a new C now. 

[CR91]

 

I havent seen this retweeted by any of these guys so take it with a grain of salt

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I could see berry coming here. I just don’t think he is the same player as he used to be. Why not just sign Mitchell again.

[CR91]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/16/donald-penn-out-in-oakland/

[PrincetonTiger]

Just saw Raiders are cutting OT Donald Penn

[PrincetonTiger]

7 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I havent seen this retweeted by any of these guys so take it with a grain of salt

Just looked it up he is a HS kid

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

Just looked it up he is a HS kid

I hate these people who tweet dumb stuff. 

[CR91]

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Just looked it up he is a HS kid

 

well I did say take it with a grain of salt

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

well I did say take it with a grain of salt

He is from the metro area

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Another random tweet that berry was here. Maybe it is legit.

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Chloe6124 said:

Another random tweet that berry was here. Maybe it is legit.

 

 

Those are the tweets that I love

  

[PrincetonTiger]

Speaking of tweets

   I am getting more IHSAA news than items from the Holy Trinity(Schefter, Rappaport, La Canfora)

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Also this. This guy is legit.

 

 

[RNGDShobby]

Better to build through the draft

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/ct-spt-nfl-free-agency-risk-20190316-story.html

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, RNGDShobby said:

Better to build through the draft

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/ct-spt-nfl-free-agency-risk-20190316-story.html

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I hope he gets the safety position solidified soon. It is a mess. 

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I hope he gets the safety position solidified soon.  It is a mess. 

 

Wait!    What?!?

 

A "mess"...?

 

The Colts safety situation?      No,  it's not.   If it was,  Ballard woudl've made a move by now.    Just as he saw fit to make a move on Funchess at the beginning of free agency.    That tells you just how important that was to CB.

 

But he's being patient and methodical about safety.    There are still more FA candidates, including our own guy,  Geathers.    There is still the draft.    There is still the cutdown date in early September.    Lots of possibilities and lots of time.

 

I"m not saying it's not worth his attention.   I'm expectig a Day 2 pick to be used on a safety.  Perhaps pick 59 or 89.    But I woldn't call it a mess....

 

[Fluke_33]

50 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Speaking of tweets

   I am getting more IHSAA news than items from the Holy Trinity(Schefter, Rappaport, La Canfora)

Most holy trinity is my hometown church and it has IHS written on the crucifix there but I have a feeling you mean something else 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Wait!    What?!?

 

A "mess"...?

 

The Colts safety situation?      No,  it's not.   If it was,  Ballard woudl've made a move by now.    Just as he saw fit to make a move on Funchess at the beginning of free agency.    That tells you just how important that was to CB.

 

But he's being patient and methodical about safety.    There are still more FA candidates, including our own guy,  Geathers.    There is still the draft.    There is still the cutdown date in early September.    Lots of possibilities and lots of time.

 

I"m not saying it's not worth his attention.   I'm expectig a Day 2 pick to be used on a safety.  Perhaps pick 59 or 89.    But I woldn't call it a mess....

 

What are the chances a safety in the draft will come on and be a starter right away? IDK. I would like to know what is going on with Geathers. Maybe he is visiting some teams and getting a physical. I hope the colts already have a offer on the table. Right now we have Hooker. That is it.