137 million in cap space

[csmopar]

https://fox59.com/2019/12/23/with-colts-its-never-too-soon-to-look-ahead-qb-free-agents-salary-cap-etc/

137 mil, wow, more than I was thinking we'd have. 

[MPStack]

Might be a good time to sign a tier 1 FA or two. 

[IinD]

If they choose to somehow sit on this and not spend it then I have no idea what the plan is.

Hopefully there's some guys actually worth paying on the FA market.

[Superman]

I'm thinking he's double-counting the rollover. After the Doyle extension, I have it at under $100m. 

[MPStack]

Just now, IinD said:

If they choose to somehow sit on this and not spend it then I have no idea what the plan is.

Hopefully there's some guys actually worth paying on the FA market.

I believe they have to spend most of it this year. 

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

I'm thinking he's double-counting the rollover. After the Doyle extension, I have it at under $100m. 

thats closer to what I was thinking

[aReggie7]

A decent amount will be used ( at least I hope) to re-sign Castonzo and give Ryan Kelly an extension.

 

 

[csmopar]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm thinking he's double-counting the rollover. After the Doyle extension, I have it at under $100m. 

hmm, I think you're right, the 41 mil from this year plus the 98 from next year. Question is, does the 98 mil already include the roll over?

[IinD]

4 minutes ago, MPStack said:

I believe they have to spend most of it this year. 

Hopefully there's some guys worth paying out there.

 

Because the 3 FAs most NFL fans (of every team) wanted didn't do much this year (Bell/Brown/Dallas DE, forgot his name).

[Superman]

Just now, csmopar said:

hmm, I think you're right, the 41 mil from this year plus the 98 from next year. Question is, does the 98 mil already include the roll over?

 

It should. Spotrac is down right now... OTC says the Colts have $144m committed in 2020, and the cap is projected at $200m. That's $56m under the cap, plus ~$41m rollover from 2019, so that puts us at $97m under the cap.

 

Still have some bonuses, prorations and splits to be reconciled, but those shouldn't have a big impact on the final number. 

 

Either way, unless I'm missing something, I don't see how $137m is accurate. 

[MPStack]

5 minutes ago, IinD said:

Hopefully there's some guys worth paying out there.

 

Because the 3 FAs most NFL fans (of every team) wanted didn't do much this year (Bell/Brown/Dallas DE, forgot his name).

I believe they have to spend roughly 89% of the CAP for 2020. 
 

As nice as that looks, Ballard still has and will plan for future resigns in 2021 and so on. 
 

I doubt he goes all out and signs any big FA’s, and it’s probably wise when the Colts are not a contender in 2020.

[dodsworth]

4 minutes ago, MPStack said:

I believe they have to spend roughly 89% of the CAP for 2020. 
 

As nice as that looks, Ballard still has and will plan for future resigns in 2021 and so on. 
 

I doubt he goes all out and signs any big FA’s, and it’s probably wise when the Colts are not a contender in 2020.

The Colts aren't a contender in 2019, who knows what changes this

offseason will do for the team in 2020. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, IinD said:

Hopefully there's some guys worth paying out there.

 

Because the 3 FAs most NFL fans (of every team) wanted didn't do much this year (Bell/Brown/Dallas DE, forgot his name).

 

Lawrence was the only legitimate consideration, and he had offseason surgery. I expect a bounce back in 2020. 

 

The other guy I wanted was Trey Flowers. He's had a decent year with the Lions, not great. Justin Houston has been as good of a pass rusher, maybe better. 

[cbear]

I'm just glad Ballard signs our own and makes sure we have the money to do so. 

 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, MPStack said:

I believe they have to spend roughly 89% of the CAP for 2020. 
 

As nice as that looks, Ballard still has and will plan for future resigns in 2021 and so on. 
 

I doubt he goes all out and signs any big FA’s, and it’s probably wise when the Colts are not a contender in 2020.

 

The Colts only need to spend about $40m more than they're already committed to in 2020 -- in cash -- to meet the minimum spend requirement. 

[MPStack]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts only need to spend about $40m more than they're already committed to in 2020 -- in cash -- to meet the minimum spend requirement. 

So, would you say the amount of CAP to spend is miss leading?  And Ballard can’t go crazy? Which, I’m assuming.

[shasta519]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm thinking he's double-counting the rollover. After the Doyle extension, I have it at under $100m. 

 

That would almost perfectly account for the gap between what OTC says. 

 

I do think they will have a little bit more to play with...as I could see a scenario where Hunt is released (saving $4M)...Hoyer (saving $3M)...and possibly even Desir (saving $6.85M).

[Superman]

Just now, shastamasta said:

 

That would almost perfectly account for the gap between what OTC says. 

 

I do think they will have a little bit more to play with...as I could see a scenario where Hunt is released (saving $4M)...Hoyer (saving $3M)...and possibly even Desir (saving $6.85M).

 

Yeah with some adjustments, that figure will change. But I also expect at least three new deals -- AC, Kelly and TY. So once they start working, the numbers will be different.

[MPStack]

4 minutes ago, dodsworth said:

The Colts aren't a contender in 2019, who knows what changes this

offseason will do for the team in 2020. 

I don’t have a warm and fuzzy about 2020. Bet yes anything can happen in 2020. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, MPStack said:

So, would you say the amount of CAP to spend is miss leading?  And Ballard can’t go crazy? Which, I’m assuming.

 

I mean, he'll have $100m in cap space, so he can pretty much do whatever he wants. 

 

But I feel like people talk themselves into this 'the Colts are going to spend' narrative every offseason. There's this misunderstanding of the minimum spend rule, and it's going to be even bigger this year because people think the Colts MUST spend big in 2020, and it's not true. So come the second week of March, people are going to be calling for Ballard's head just like they have the last two years, because he never goes crazy. I don't see that changing this year. 

 

Another factor, we don't know what the new CBA will look like. So Ballard, normally a cautious and shrewd spender, will likely be just a cautious in 2020 so that he doesn't put himself in a bad situation. Remember, the cap went down in the first year of the last CBA, and didn't really start going up for three years. I doubt that happens this time, but no one knows yet.

 

[MPStack]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

But I feel like people talk themselves into this 'the Colts are going to spend' narrative every offseason. There's this misunderstanding of the minimum spend rule, and it's going to be even bigger this year because people think the Colts MUST spend big in 2020, and it's not true. So come the second week of March, people are going to be calling for Ballard's head just like they have the last two years, because he never goes crazy. I don't see that changing this year. 

100% Agreed!

 

I don’t see him making any big splash signings. Maybe another Sheard or Autry deal. Probably, more wise until the Colts can really contend. 

[csmopar]

16 minutes ago, MPStack said:

So, would you say the amount of CAP to spend is miss leading?  And Ballard can’t go crazy? Which, I’m assuming.

to a point yes. basically right now, if you throw out the roll over from this year, we have about 56 million under the cap. A decent number but no where near going crazy. If you look at how ballard is spending so far, its almost as if he's ignoring the roll over amount, since the real cap space is much lower. Superman had a GREAT write up on this in another thread. 

 

Cliff notes: by the time Ballard resigns/extends some of our guys like Hilton, Kelly, AC, Nelson, Mack etc, he's probably only going to need to spend 10-15 million in FA to meet the 89% rule. Then he'll likely keep rolling money forward.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts only need to spend about $40m more than they're already committed to in 2020 -- in cash -- to meet the minimum spend requirement. 

 

Warning: Lots of math below.

 

Looking at "Total Cash Spending" on OTC by year...and comparing it to the Salary Cap...

 

 

(Note: I assumed a $10M increase for next year's cap space.) The cash spend threshold target would be 89% of $730,600,000...which is $650,234,000. So they would need to spend ~$54M more in cash this offseason to reach it. 

 

That won't be difficult to do...Kelly and AC's extensions will both have considerable amounts of cash gtd at signing...that will likely cover that. 

 

But the overall cap space spent is a bit frustrating...and will likely garner more attention than it has. Cash spent is almost always higher than cap spent...and in the case of the Colts...their cash spent to cap spent has indexed about 110 on average the past three years (meaning on average they have spent 10% more in cash vs. cap). If those holds true, then at 89% in cash spend, they spent 81% of the available cap. Here are their cap spends:

 

 

Right now...over the four-year period...the Colts have currently used ~$550M in cap space of that $730M figure...and have saved ~$180M. So even if the Colts spent all ~$100M of their available cap space this offseason (including rollover) to get to $650M...they would still only be at 89% for the 4-year period...and would have left ~$80M of the available $730M cap space on the table.

 

We know they won't spend all of their cap space like that. If I had to guess, I will esimate they spend $60M in extra cap space this offseason...which might even be generous. So if they do that...they will have spent $610M of the $730M...or 83.4%. And in that scenario, they would have left $120M on the table.

 

I get that there was rebuilding to be done when Ballard took over...and "some" lean spending made sense...but to only use 83% of one of your biggest asset should raise some questions as to why...especially if the Colts don't turn it around next season. Irsay is a great owner and loves the Colts...but he has also put a lot of money back into his pocket during the Ballard era thus far. 

 

 

 

[Indyfan4life]

I don’t expect Ballard to go nuts, but it’s also clear trying to rely on nothing but lower draft picks and average FA signings will not get it done for us. Unless he’s content finishing 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 every season at best. 

[Orioles22]

Tight end (Hooper), extend Kelly and Costanzo and sign the best linebacker available.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I mean, he'll have $100m in cap space, so he can pretty much do whatever he wants. 

 

But I feel like people talk themselves into this 'the Colts are going to spend' narrative every offseason. There's this misunderstanding of the minimum spend rule, and it's going to be even bigger this year because people think the Colts MUST spend big in 2020, and it's not true. So come the second week of March, people are going to be calling for Ballard's head just like they have the last two years, because he never goes crazy. I don't see that changing this year. 

 

Another factor, we don't know what the new CBA will look like. So Ballard, normally a cautious and shrewd spender, will likely be just a cautious in 2020 so that he doesn't put himself in a bad situation. Remember, the cap went down in the first year of the last CBA, and didn't really start going up for three years. I doubt that happens this time, but no one knows yet.

 

 

He won't spend all of it. I assume he will at least put aside $40M or so...which seems to be his MO.

 

But if he does spend $60M...even with AC getting $15M of that...it could be a fun March. That amount of cap space would have been the equivalent of signing 2 Houstons and 2 Funchesses.

 

I have hoped the plan is use draft assets on a QB...but they certainly have the flexibility to go get a proven QB if they want.

 

They can also flex some of that cap space muscle to trade for some proven talent...either under contract or nearing FA. I think we are going to see even more trades this offseason...as teams are wary of the new CBA..combined with the incoming change in rookie wages (or at the very least...length of cost control). Could be fun offseason...and hopefully the Colts can take advantage.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

We know they won't spend all of their cap space like that. If I had to guess, I will esimate they spend $60M in extra cap space this offseason...which might even be generous. So if they do that...they will have spent $610M of the $730M...or 83.4%. And in that scenario, they would have left $120M on the table.

 

I get that there was rebuilding to be done when Ballard took over...and "some" lean spending made sense...but to only use 83% of one of your biggest asset should raise some questions as to why...especially if the Colts don't turn it around next season. Irsay is a great owner and loves the Colts...but he has also put a lot of money back into his pocket during the Ballard era thus far. 

 

Good breakdown.

 

I think there's an expectation that spending more money means the team will be better on the field. Seems logical, but when you think about, it's easy to spend more money. It's not quite so easy to make your team better, so there's a disconnect somewhere; the two do not go hand in hand.

 

And we can point to countless examples of players getting big FA contracts, but never performing. It's more common that big ticket FAs underperform, than live up to their contracts. If you're willing to accept that kind of return in FA, then that's one thing. Teams get more value from drafting and developing well, then paying their own, while using free agency judiciously.

 

It's critical to remember that cash spend vs cap spend is just accounting. You can move cap spending around, manipulate cap numbers, restructure contracts, frontload, backload, whatever. But once money is spent (including fully guaranteed money to be spent in future years), it's gone. Once cash goes it, it must hit the cap. And with cap rollover, it allows teams to manage their cap space with more freedom, rather than just year by year. So while it's true that a team might have more available cap space, that doesn't mean it's necessarily wise to spend that cap space right now.

 

If your team building strategy is to draft and develop well, then pay your own, and you have some immediate success with that strategy, it makes sense to withhold some cap space in the present to accommodate re-signing your highly performing draft picks. Once Nelson and Leonard hit All Pro, they basically locked in top of the market contracts (barring significant fall-off in performance, or injury). The Colts will be better equipped to absorb those contracts in the next CBA, assuming rollover is still a thing (and it likely will be). Same for other drafted players whose contracts come due.

 

And up until August, the team was likely planning on a $35m/year (or more) extension for Luck, probably in 2021. So their projection was probably to absorb some big extensions within a relatively short period of time, using their excess cap space. Account for prorated bonuses, and the cash would likely exceed the cap by tens of millions in 2020 and 2021. 

 

My main point is that you should spend on the right players, and by saving cap space for future years when your guys come up, you're laying a strong foundation. And that was an acceptable strategy, IMO, when we had a franchise-level QB. I think we need more help in 2020 than we thought we would, though, and since I think a high draft pick needs to go toward a QB, it makes sense that we allocate more resources to the rest of the roster in free agency. But that doesn't mean you spend just to spend. I still want the right guys, at the right positions, for the right price, because I think that leads to continued success.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

I have hoped the plan is use draft assets on a QB...but they certainly have the flexibility to go get a proven QB if they want.

 

 

Let's say you can get Nick Foles for a moderate draft pick. Is that a reasonable approach?

[Orioles22]

There was a story out of Jacksonville that the Jaguars would give up a second round choice just to have someone take Foles and the contract.

[w87r]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let's say you can get Nick Foles for a moderate draft pick. Is that a reasonable approach?

Foles doesn't excite me too much. Tbh, I don't think any other proven QB would be either? Maybe Carr, on the fence.

 

A rookie QB would provide immediate excitement for the franchise. Whether it pans out, who knows? 

 

Now if you are talking getting a different vet and still taking high pick, I might be game? 

 

Definitely need to draft a QB though.

[Orioles22]

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/12/nick-foles-contract-jaguars-trade-colts

 

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let's say you can get Nick Foles for a moderate draft pick. Is that a reasonable approach?

It's probably not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it's optimal use of resources either. Foles is probably a marginal upgrade over Brissett, but I'm not sure the upgrade is worth the price we have to pay in both draft picks and opportunity cost to his contract. I think I'd rather us start over with a high end talent rookie QB with JB as the bridge...

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

It's probably not unreasonable, but I'm not sure it's optimal use of resources either. Foles is probably a marginal upgrade over Brissett, but I'm not sure the upgrade is worth the price we have to pay in both draft picks and opportunity cost to his contract. I think I'd rather us start over with a high end talent rookie QB with JB as the bridge...

 

The only reason it's in my head is because of the Reich/Foles connection. I'm not very interested in Foles myself, just thinking about possibilities.

 

Of course, if they want to bail on the contract like the Texans did with Osweiler, sign me up. 

[MPStack]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let's say you can get Nick Foles for a moderate draft pick. Is that a reasonable approach?

Is it reasonable adding N. Foles, when Brissett and Hoyer total 26.5M towards the CAP next season. I don’t know the ramifications and if it would be in the Colts Colts best interest to absorb Foles  contract too. 

[w87r]

17 minutes ago, Orioles22 said:

There was a story out of Jacksonville that the Jaguars would give up a second round choice just to have someone take Foles and the contract.

Could be interested in that for sure.

 

They would be reasponsible for $6.25m/year so his numbers would look something like this:

 

2020 - $15.6m ($10m dead cap)

2021 - $20.6m($5m dead cap)

2022 - $21m($0 dead cap)

 

I think we are only responsible for $10m if we would cut him. I think you either let him and Brissett battle it out, while still drafting our future. Or trade Brissett for something and move forward with Foles and rookie.

 

Adding on to this. It says in contract that his 2020 salary was paid at signing, so not sure how that would work with us. Maybe Superman has that answer?

[Superman]

Just now, MPStack said:

Is it reasonable adding N. Foles, when Brissett and Hoyer total 26.5M towards the CAP next season. I don’t know the ramifications and if it would be in the Colts Colts best interest to absorb Foles  contract too. 

 

You can bail on Hoyer pretty easily. But if you could use the Foles contract to buy a second rounder, it might be reasonable.

 

I don't expect any of this to happen, by the way.

[richard pallo]

17 minutes ago, Orioles22 said:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/12/nick-foles-contract-jaguars-trade-colts

 

Good read.  I could get behind this very easily.  Another pick to help Ballard move up for a QB if he wants to.  

[Orioles22]

I love the idea of another second rounder. If that's true, we have to do it. We could cut Foles if he doesn't look great in the preseason.

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I think Foles might end up back as the starter for the jags next year. Minshew isn’t exactly playing well since his return. It would be fun to see if Reich could get the magic back with him. Our oline is so much better then the jags. That was his biggest problem. Carr fits Reichs system perfect also. But if there is a guy on the draft I would try and do it that way. It brings some excitement back.

[dw49]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It should. Spotrac is down right now... OTC says the Colts have $144m committed in 2020, and the cap is projected at $200m. That's $56m under the cap, plus ~$41m rollover from 2019, so that puts us at $97m under the cap.

 

Still have some bonuses, prorations and splits to be reconciled, but those shouldn't have a big impact on the final number. 

 

Either way, unless I'm missing something, I don't see how $137m is accurate. 

 

Over the cap is showing 98.7 million for 2012.