Current Salary Cap Status

[coltsfeva]

1 hour ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I get it man, and it's not like I'm not a Colts fan. I just think the offense, as evidenced in that loss to a putrid KC defense, is far away from SB level. Yeah, they played well in the regular season, but can they be elite, and beat the NE, NO, Rams, and potentially Browns of the league consistently? I'm not sure they can, and it's upsetting that they had every opportunity to add a really high caliber player to the offense, and passed. I get it, he's conservative, and sticks to his guns, but at the same time, I'm worried it may be too conservative. Time will tell. 

   It’s a little early to say who went can’t compete with yet. NONE of the teams listed are the 2019 version yet, including the Colts.

   What if Funchess turns out to have his best year? Ask that about any players from last year and and you have potential to beat anybody .  

     Let’s see how the rest of free agency and the draft turn out. We are closer than you think.

    

[Peterk2011]

3 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

I did look. Only 2 centres make more than $10.5m. Just because Kelly is better than Boehm doesn't mean he should be the best paid centre, especially when we still have the 5th year option.

 

The 5th year option is determined for an OL, not specific to T, G and C. It will be 9.6M in Kelly-s case. I don't think it worths to pick up ... unless he gets injured again, and Ballard wants a short term deal to see if he can stay healthy.

 

Doyle won't cost 10M, that's top TE money. Unles he makes a carreer year, he'll cost about the same as he does now. Ebron might get a top TE contract if he'll have a similar year as 2018 was.

 

Sheard .... he is an interesting case. I think he worths more than his 8M. Probably 11-12. He is not a sack machine, yes. But neither is Flowers, and he just got nearly 20 mills per. Or Calais Campbell was during most of his carreer. All are very good all around ends, it's just not sacks, but tons of pressures and being good againts the run. Sheard will be 31. If healthy, no history of injuries, that is fine age for an end. There are a number of ends & pass rusher playing at high level at that age. Calais Campbell had his best years over 30 for example. So, I can see Ballard bringing Sheard back. Even if Tyquan Lewis improves. The defensive line needs quality rotation, especially at pass rush.

 

Castonzo is a must resign. He's been never injured, except for a few week last year. Tackles in his age still play at high level. He is a top10 ish LT who still has 3-4 good years in him. He should retire as a Colt.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The good thing about us getting funchess is Ebron might not have quite the year he had this past season. Not sure if that would take his price down. That doesn’t mean he won’t be as important but his numbers might go down.

[ManningGM]

6 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I get it man, and it's not like I'm not a Colts fan. I just think the offense, as evidenced in that loss to a putrid KC defense, is far away from SB level. Yeah, they played well in the regular season, but can they be elite, and beat the NE, NO, Rams, and potentially Browns of the league consistently? I'm not sure they can, and it's upsetting that they had every opportunity to add a really high caliber player to the offense, and passed. I get it, he's conservative, and sticks to his guns, but at the same time, I'm worried it may be too conservative. Time will tell. 

Call me crazy, but I think Deon Cain will be major for the offense next season. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, ManningGM said:

Call me crazy, but I think Deon Cain will be major for the offense next season. 

There is huge potential for us to go from a All right WR group to a excellent one. If by some miracle Cain comes back and plays well off this injury and funchess does as well suddenly we have a very lethal Wr group. Coming off that ACL and not playing a snap in the nfl we do have to be a little cautious. He is going to have to learn to play on that knee so he is not thinking about it every second. He does have a good attitude and seems like he feels he has something to prove.

[Mitch Connors]

On 3/17/2019 at 2:21 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doesn't work?

 

It already has worked.     2018?   10-6 with a win in the playoffs.

Perhaps Luck has a long shelf life than you think?

 

As for "no good reason"......    we've been over this dozens and dozens and dozens of times,  just in the past week alone.    And probably hundreds of times since Ballard became GM.

 

Why do you think you've thought of things that Ballard and his team haven't considered?

 

You might as well declare that you disagree with it and think Ballard is wrong.

 

Not to be argumentative and I'm only asking you because I see you take up for Ballard a lot...

 

Do you (or anyone) think there are GM's that say; "We're not interested in the draft and developing our own players. Only free agency for this team."?

 

Nobody drafts a player and says, crap this guys a bust but we took him cause we had to even though we dont care about the draft because we're 100% free agency. They dont say that because they all believe they're going to draft their future team but it never works out that way. Drafting is and always will be a crapshoot guessing game. The day that changes is the day free agency wont be required to build a contending team. 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Not to be argumentative and I'm only asking you because I see you take up for Ballard a lot...

 

Do you (or anyone) think there are GM's that say; "We're not interested in the draft and developing our own players. Only free agency for this team."?

 

Nobody drafts a player and says, crap this guys a bust but we took him cause we had to even though we dont care about the draft because we're 100% free agency. They dont say that because they all believe they're going to draft their future team but it never works out that way. Drafting is and always will be a crapshoot guessing game. The day that changes is the day free agency wont be required to build a contending team. 

 

 

No, not at all....   everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY says build thru the draft.   But what they say and what they do are often two different things.

 

Sometimes GMs aren’t good at the draft.   Ryan Grigson for example.   Or all the front office types the Browns had BEFORE John Dorsey.  

 

You view the draft as as crap shoot.  I don’t think good GMs think that.

 

And sometimes the person who pushes the GM to make decisions he knows are poor is the owner.   Often an old guy who is hoping for a shot at the super bowl before he dies.   

 

There are all sorts of reasons why GM’s do stupid things. 

 

If I’ve raised a few more questions for you, please ask and I’ll try to add more or clarify.

 

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

Drafting is and always will be a crapshoot guessing game

 

Let me ask this:

 

How do you think the "crapshoot" nature of the draft differs from the "crapshoot" nature of free agency?

 

In two years, what's the likelihood the Landon Collins is still with Washington? How does that compare with the likelihood that Malik Hooker is still with the Colts? Assuming health, in both cases, of course...

 

My point is that free agency and the draft are similarly questionable. The difference is that free agency is more expensive from a cap standpoint, while drafting takes more time. But neither method of adding players is risk-free, plug-and-play; both are uncertain and require foresight, patience, and discipline.

[NewColtsFan]

10 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Not to be argumentative and I'm only asking you because I see you take up for Ballard a lot...

 

Do you (or anyone) think there are GM's that say; "We're not interested in the draft and developing our own players. Only free agency for this team."?

 

Nobody drafts a player and says, crap this guys a bust but we took him cause we had to even though we dont care about the draft because we're 100% free agency. They dont say that because they all believe they're going to draft their future team but it never works out that way. Drafting is and always will be a crapshoot guessing game. The day that changes is the day free agency wont be required to build a contending team. 

 

 

I think the line I put into bold is completely false.     It's the comment of media who don't follow the draft close enough and of GM's with a poor drafting record.

 

But how is it,  that typically,  the same teams are drafting at the bottom and still finding talent...   while some teams are typically bad,  typically drafting high and always struggling to find talent?

 

How does that happen?

 

Some teams are better at spotting talent.    Some teams are worse.     It's not a crap shoot.   There is some real skill and some real science for many teams.    And some are just not that good at it.

 

By the way,  this is not only true in football.    It's true in basketball,  baseball and hockey as well.

 

 

[ThorstenDenmark]

On 3/17/2019 at 5:42 AM, ColtsAC said:

Maybe Ballard has a clause in his contract that he gets to keep a percentage of the unspent salary cap. I'm just kidding, but businesses out in the corporate world do have those kinds of things.

 

So what youre saying is Irsay is broke? ;)

[crazycolt1]

11 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Not to be argumentative and I'm only asking you because I see you take up for Ballard a lot...

 

Do you (or anyone) think there are GM's that say; "We're not interested in the draft and developing our own players. Only free agency for this team."?

 

Nobody drafts a player and says, crap this guys a bust but we took him cause we had to even though we dont care about the draft because we're 100% free agency. They dont say that because they all believe they're going to draft their future team but it never works out that way. Drafting is and always will be a crapshoot guessing game. The day that changes is the day free agency wont be required to build a contending team. 

 

But what you fail to mention is the teams who don't have to sign high dollar free agents to be contenders are more successful.

If you grow your own free agents the need is not as great.

That is what Ballard is attempting to do. It's not a point of your comment about taking up for Ballard a lot. I fall into that category because I see and understand what he is trying to do. He has had two very successful drafts in a row and changed the roster over 40% since he has been here.

This team is not anything like it was when he was hired. In two years he has reinserted the Colts into the mixture of winners. We are a long way from that estimated 3-13 team that most thought this team would be at the end of last season.

Till things change I think Ballard does deserve some trust.

Do I expect for him to continue to be as great at drafting as he has? No, not at all. Now is where his work will truly be earned. If not, he will eventually be replaced. That's the business.

 

[ClaytonColt]

54 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

But what you fail to mention is the teams who don't have to sign high dollar free agents to be contenders are more successful.

May I ask which teams you are thinking of?

 

I think in general there's a bit of a misunderstanding between causation and correlation when it comes to this.

 

Most high price free agents go to bad teams. Teams that are already good don't generally have the cap space to "win" free agency wheras the bad teams are using every avenue necessary to improve. When we're talking about the numbers of successes to failures we need to be mindful of the teams starting points.

 

No matter how good they are Mosley and Bell aren't going to turn the Jets into the Patriots. However if the improve from a 4 won team to a 7 win team is that considered success or failure?

[crazycolt1]

18 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

May I ask which teams you are thinking of?

 

I think in general there's a bit of a misunderstanding between causation and correlation when it comes to this.

 

Most high price free agents go to bad teams. Teams that are already good don't generally have the cap space to "win" free agency wheras the bad teams are using every avenue necessary to improve. When we're talking about the numbers of successes to failures we need to be mindful of the teams starting points.

 

No matter how good they are Mosley and Bell aren't going to turn the Jets into the Patriots. However if the improve from a 4 won team to a 7 win team is that considered success or failure?

Considering how much was spent on two players? Fail.

[ClaytonColt]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Considering how much was spent on two players? Fail.

I don't disagree but then it comes down to expectations, starting points and how you measure success. If we'd signed them both and improved by 3 wins I'm guessing that would have counted as success. It's why the starting points if the teams who have the cap space available needs to be considered.

 

Which successful teams were you thinking of who don't sign high dollar free agents by the way?

[Mitch Connors]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Let me ask this:

 

How do you think the "crapshoot" nature of the draft differs from the "crapshoot" nature of free agency?

 

In two years, what's the likelihood the Landon Collins is still with Washington? How does that compare with the likelihood that Malik Hooker is still with the Colts? Assuming health, in both cases, of course...

 

My point is that free agency and the draft are similarly questionable. The difference is that free agency is more expensive from a cap standpoint, while drafting takes more time. But neither method of adding players is risk-free, plug-and-play; both are uncertain and require foresight, patience, and discipline.

 

Free agency is based on the premise that what you've done in the past can be replicated in the future under slightly different circumstances.

 

The draft is taking something thats never been done and seeing if you can project the future based on a past that is drastically different.

 

FA is saying this car has run really well on highways for 5 years and 50,000 miles. I bet it will run just as well or better for the next 5 years on city streets. The draft is saying this car looks good in mocks and test track runs and Ill bet we can change a few things with the engine and transmission and make it run like a dream in the city. Both are gambles.

 

[Mitch Connors]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think the line I put into bold is completely false.     It's the comment of media who don't follow the draft close enough and of GM's with a poor drafting record.

 

But how is it,  that typically,  the same teams are drafting at the bottom and still finding talent...   while some teams are typically bad,  typically drafting high and always struggling to find talent?

 

How does that happen?

 

Some teams are better at spotting talent.    Some teams are worse.     It's not a crap shoot.   There is some real skill and some real science for many teams.    And some are just not that good at it.

 

By the way,  this is not only true in football.    It's true in basketball,  baseball and hockey as well.

 

 

 

There are two things to consider about a drafted player meeting the success criteria thats being set forth in this debate;

 

1. Can they play in the NFL?

2. If 1 is met do they resign with the team that drafted them?

 

If a player meets both of those criteria the next hurdle is signing them to a second contract. On average theres a 71% chance to resign a 1st round pick, 42% a 2nd round pick, 19% for 3rd and its gets worse from there. That really high 1st round number tells you that odds of signing those players in FA is very small because they stay with their team. That also says a team had better maximize their 2-7 round picks because odds are they wont last more than 4 years on that team.

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

 

This article talks about how statistically most draft picks dont work out. 

https://www.dailynorseman.com/2017/4/12/15274148/most-nfl-draft-picks-are-busts

 

 

[Mitch Connors]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

But what you fail to mention is the teams who don't have to sign high dollar free agents to be contenders are more successful.

If you grow your own free agents the need is not as great.

That is what Ballard is attempting to do. It's not a point of your comment about taking up for Ballard a lot. I fall into that category because I see and understand what he is trying to do. He has had two very successful drafts in a row and changed the roster over 40% since he has been here.

This team is not anything like it was when he was hired. In two years he has reinserted the Colts into the mixture of winners. We are a long way from that estimated 3-13 team that most thought this team would be at the end of last season.

Till things change I think Ballard does deserve some trust.

Do I expect for him to continue to be as great at drafting as he has? No, not at all. Now is where his work will truly be earned. If not, he will eventually be replaced. That's the business.

 

 

Im not criticizing Ballard or the people that fully believe in him. Im saying the narrative is slightly off. All good/great teams sign free agents we just dont pay as close attention because its not the Colts. 

 

Belicheck Patriots; Moss, Revis, Welker, Dillon, Galloway, Vrabel, Harrison, Amondeola, Cooks, McCourty, etc, etc.

 

The Broncos won free agency and a superbowl with a certain QB. They also added; Welker, Vasquez, DRC & Terrance Knighton the next season.

 

How about the year the Seahawks won the SB? Cliff Avril, Micheal Bennet and Percy Harvin. 3 of the biggest FA signings that year. 

 

Pick a team/year and Ill find the huge FA's or trades they made before they won something.

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Im not criticizing Ballard or the people that fully believe in him. Im saying the narrative is slightly off. All good/great teams sign free agents we just dont pay as close attention because its not the Colts. 

 

Belicheck Patriots; Moss, Revis, Welker, Dillon, Galloway, Vrabel, Harrison, Amondeola, Cooks, McCourty, etc, etc.

 

The Broncos won free agency and a superbowl with a certain QB. They also added; Welker, Vasquez, DRC & Terrance Knighton the next season.

 

How about the year the Seahawks won the SB? Cliff Avril, Micheal Bennet and Percy Harvin. 3 of the biggest FA signings that year. 

 

Pick a team/year and Ill find the huge FA's or trades they made before they won something.

 

 You make the point quite well.

 When our GM perceives we are on the cusp of being SB contenders, he should/will add what difference makers he thinks he needs to.

 That could be next year. Or after. 

 One thing is certain, he and his staff have a CLUE. 

 

[throwing BBZ]

On 3/17/2019 at 11:47 AM, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Instead of finding every post I've written, and bashing them all with your pretentious ramblings, why don't you tell us how you'd do it, seeing that you're so smart and all. Nevermind, I already know how you'd do it, you basically just emulate whatever the current GM says, without having any kind of abstract thoughts thrown in. Sorry that I'm not part of the hive, and have my own ideologies, in terms of what may work and what may not; because believe it or not, we don't know if Ballard's ultra conservative style is going to work yet or not. May be a roaring success (which I'd love, believe it or not), or it may keep us in the midst of mediocrity. Keep in mind that Grigson was also GM of The Year, and failed miserably at following that up. The NFL is a very "what have you done for me lately" organization, and requires consistent success. I just don't know that this level of conservatism, given the ammunition we had at our disposal, is the best course of action. And yes, I am an armchair GM, and will be more than happy to admit I was wrong, if the situation dictates...would you? I doubt it, considering the pretentious and arrogant nature of literally everything you type. 

 

 And you are wrong again about the KC defense. They changed some of the starters with younger players and improved a great deal by later in the season. That putrid D gave up 17 pts a game at home.  Try knowing more of which you speak.

  I have watched Ballard's methods work so many times that i find your whining about it pretentious and arrogant. I think you must be fairly young.

 And you don't know if he has been conservative or not. I do believe he and his staff know how to grade players and establish a worth. And i am sure the science of building a 63 man team is so far over our heads that to think you have ANY idea is a Joke.

 I  was not liking the Funchess add at all. I gave it one argh post and let it be.

 Show me.

 And i enjoy being proven wrong, it happens occasionally.   

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Free agency is based on the premise that what you've done in the past can be replicated in the future under slightly different circumstances.

 

The draft is taking something thats never been done and seeing if you can project the future based on a past that is drastically different.

 

FA is saying this car has run really well on highways for 5 years and 50,000 miles. I bet it will run just as well or better for the next 5 years on city streets. The draft is saying this car looks good in mocks and test track runs and Ill bet we can change a few things with the engine and transmission and make it run like a dream in the city. Both are gambles.

 

 

Great analogy. The problem is that we have data suggesting that 6 (or more) out of 10 cars that switch owners don't last another five years.

 

So assuming that the players you're getting in free agency are going to replicate past success is shortsighted, at best. There's a ton of evidence that all but proves that free agent additions are going to come up short greater than half the time.

 

To the bolded, that was my exact point. People like to say 'the draft is a crapshoot,' as if free agency is a sure thing, and it's not. Free agency is just as questionable as the draft, and far more expensive.

 

And again, just in case someone misinterprets my point, I'm not against free agency at all. But I understand that signing Player X, Y or Z isn't always going to magically solve my roster issues.