Grigson: "Freeney is a Colt, period" [Merge]

[Busta]

Colts GM Ryan Grigson was adamant at the Owners Meetings on Monday that the team will not be trading RE Dwight Freeney.

It sounds like the Colts are willing to swallow Freeney's $19 million cap number in order to field a competitive defense. "I'm looking forward to Dwight Freeney being part of the Colts' defense in 2012," Grigson said. "He will be a Colt." Freeney could play the Terrell Suggs right-end role with Robert Mathis ticketed for Jarret Johnson duties in Chuck Pagano's Ravens-like defense.

[DG1]

http://www.indystar....xt|IndyStar.com

[Robin]

woooohooo

Go Colts

[ColtsPacersfan]

I hope its true! It won't be the same without him and Mathis the duo. Plus I won't have to change my sceename on here or retire his Jersey. Like I have been doing in the last few weeks. .

[Superman]

Stated in another thread:

I'd prefer to keep him at a better cap number, but it sounds like Grigson is trying to get a better offer for him.

Even still, if we do keep him, there's nothing in that short quote above that suggests that we're willing to keep him at $19 million for 2012. In fact, based on our cap figures as estimated above, we absolutely must do something with Freeney's contract.

[ColtsPacersfan]

Does Freeney have new agent yet? I hope the Cols and Freeney can work something out. Hope he will be like Reggie Wayne that he wants to retire as an Colt.

[Busta]

I believe Freeney's agent is Tom (Peytons agent) correct?

[deedub75]

If they are committed to obtaining the #1 pick next season then they absolutely need to keep Freeney at his current cap hit. I want him to stay but they must address that contract.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Freeney did reportedly hire Condon recently.

It makes zero sense to keep him at a 19 million cap hit.

[MAC]

Well I'm glad because I'd like him to stay a Colt (and reassured by the confidence that he can contribute despite the scheme changes), but the comment:

"Grigson dismissed reports that the Colts had sought trade offers for Freeney and said the club hasn’t looked at the possibility of revisiting his contract for purposes of restructuring."

doesn't make much sense. Freeney's contract was clearly DESIGNED to be restructured at this point. If you think that Dwight will fit in the new scheme and that he has some mileage left on his treads, then you restructure. If you DON'T think either of these things, than you trade him. I don't understand the middle ground. Do you really want an aging DE - about to change positions on a rebuilding team - to be amongst the highest paid players in the league?

Maybe he's just talking around the fact that Freeney hasn't been open to renegotiating. Maybe they'll just postpone this for awhile.

[Busta]

It will be Peyton Manning 2.0 when they decide they can't find a suitor for Freeney's contract and no one will part with any picks. So Colts will be forced to either pay the man (like the Manning situation) or cut him.

[icf]

I'm glad he's a Colt, but he's not worth a $19M cap hit.

[gacker65]

Sounds like Freeney is one and done, IMO.

[Phil J]

yup, playing out his last year here. glad to put that jersey back into the closet and still wear it on game day.

[CCH]

We can't pay him $19M next season, that must be addressed. Even of he stays I don't think he'll do well as a 3-4 OLB and will sign with a 4-3 team next year. If on draft day someone offers a late 1st or 2nd DO IT GRIGSON.

[ColtsPacersfan]

Thanks I was wondering he he hired a new agent yet. Maybe he can take less money? If he does decide to walk. Its just part of the NFL business. Still can't wait to see the whole new look of the Colts.

[Gonzo]

What's the cap hit for cutting him? If he won't renegotiate is it worth keeping him for one year rather then cutting him and paying for yet another player not on the team?

[Busta]

His contract is 19 mil. If we cut him we get 14 mil to play with I believe.

[FireJimCaldwell]

What's the cap hit for cutting him? If he won't renegotiate is it worth keeping him for one year rather then cutting him and paying for yet another player not on the team?

5 million dead cap hit.

14 million cap savings.

[CCH]

What's the cap hit for cutting him? If he won't renegotiate is it worth keeping him for one year rather then cutting him and paying for yet another player not on the team?

The cap hit would be about $6M, and we would save about $14M which is enough to sign some good FAs.

[wordofmouth]

My guess is that with his current contract, no team will give us anything close to his value. If we restructure his contract, then we have to add years to it. Given his age and not knowing how he will adapt to the new scheme, extending his contract doesn't make a lot of sense being that he is still going to demand a good amount.

Now, if we let him play out the year on his current contract, yes, we will be over paying for him and tying our own hands as far as cap space is concerned, but only for one year. I don't think we are going to the playoffs this year anyway so we can live with that. In the process we can find out if Freeney can play in the new system. If so, we sign him to an appropriate contract. If not, we let him walk, gain a ton of cap space, and maybe get as high as a 3rd round comp pick the next season because someone is going to give him good money.

[ruksak]

Freeney did reportedly hire Condon recently.

It makes zero sense to keep him at a 19 million cap hit.

Why do they draw contracts up like this in the first place, that's what I want to know? We hear about this kinda thing every year, big name players get into the last year of their contract and the GM acts like it's a surprise. Do they do this on purpose thinking that they'll just cut him? I don't get it? If they don't want to deal with over-inflated contracts, why make them?

[FireJimCaldwell]

Why do they draw contracts up like this in the first place, that's what I want to know? We hear about this kinda thing every year, big name players get into the last year of their contract and the GM acts like it's a surprise. Do they do this on purpose thinking that they'll just cut him? I don't get it? If they don't want to deal with over-inflated contracts, why make them?

In my opinion it was set up to be a measuring point. Polian has done this with others. You get to the point that the Colts are at with Freeney and you evaluate him. If he's worth of a roster spot over the next 3 years or so you take that 14 million base salary and you make it a part of an extension/signing bonus, and you lower the 2012 cap hit.

If he's not worthy of being extended you either keep him at 19 million(shouldn't be very likely), or you cut him and move in another direction.

It's a different GM at this point. Grigson might have a differing philosophy when it comes to 5-6 year deals. He might set them up in a similar manner. In theory it's a beneficial tool for the team, and can be beneficial to the player as long as he is still playing up to standards.

[UndecidedFrog]

Freeney is a Colt, period.

I love the title of this thread. I know it is a quote from Grigson, and it is absolutely true.

Freeney is a Colt, period. Contractually, at the present time, Freeney is indeed a Colt.

All the way until he is either cut or traded, or when his contract expires. That is true too.

Notice Grigson did not say that the Colts will not be trading Freeney.

Notice Grigson did not say that the Colts will not be cutting Freeney.

[ruksak]

Freeney is a Colt, period.

I love the title of this thread. I know it is a quote from Grigson, and it is absolutely true.

Freeney is a Colt, period. Contractually, at the present time, Freeney is indeed a Colt.

All the way until he is either cut or traded, or when his contract expires. That is true too.

Notice Grigson did not say that the Colts will not be trading Freeney.

Notice Grigson did not say that the Colts will not be cutting Freeney.

Like the new avatar. Looks like somebody wants to be a hippie too?

[UndecidedFrog]

Like the new avatar. Looks like somebody wants to be a hippie too?

I am aligned with the peace movement.

[gacker65]

Query. Why should Freeney restructure? Does he not have only this year left on his contract?

[Superman]

Query. Why should Freeney restructure? Does he not have only this year left on his contract?

He can't restructure, not with any benefit to the team's cap. We'd have to extend his current contract, and that would allow us to restructure his cap hit for 2012, but that's not the same as what Tom Brady or others have done recently. It's really an entirely new contract.

[gacker65]

He can't restructure, not with any benefit to the team's cap. We'd have to extend his current contract, and that would allow us to restructure his cap hit for 2012, but that's not the same as what Tom Brady or others have done recently. It's really an entirely new contract.

I understand what you you are saying, but my questions were not how but about why should he.

[Tark The Shark]

I would love for Freeney to stay a Colt and be like Reggie. I just don't see it happening.

Either Freeney restructure's his contract or we cut him and he probably goes to the Bears or maybe the Titans.

I just think that no team will want to give up any more than a 4th round pick for him. He is kind of in a Randy Moss situation where he didn't really fit with the Raiders and the Pats really wanted him and gave up a 5th round pick for him. I think on draft day, some other team will give up a 4th-5th round pick for Freeney. If that doesn't happen I don't see the Colts keeping Freeney going into training camp at his current contract.

[oldunclemark]

Freeney did reportedly hire Condon recently.

It makes zero sense to keep him at a 19 million cap hit.

FJC.....

There's got to be more going on.....

He says they are NOT trading and NOT restructuring.

..and I dont buy it..

there are no advanatges to the team or to him.....he will have problems being traded to acontender at mid-season if they would have to pick up half the deal...

More to come.

Got to be.

[Balzer40]

Grigson is unfortunately setting himself up for more backlash with these comments and probably should just keep quiet about it. Because I still contend there is absolutely no way they can keep Freeney around with that ridiculous cap hit. I don't see how they could even fill out the rest of the roster as long as Freeney is on it.

[Superman]

Posted this in another thread:

Give him a total of $50 million over four years (including 2012), convert his 2012 base salary of $14 million into a signing bonus, give him a roster bonus of $2 million a season for 2012-2015, and lower his 2012 base salary to $1 million. He'd make a total of $17 million in 2012 (instead of the $14 million he's set to make), and his new contract cap hit for 2012 would be $6.5 million + the $5 million dead hit for his previous signing bonus = $11.5 million.

Just to expound on that, and clarify:

Sign him for four years, $50 million, with a $14 million signing bonus. This bonus gets amortized over the four years at $3.5 million each year, even though it's paid up front and guaranteed. Give him a $2 million roster bonus for being on the roster as of June 1, each year. Base salaries would be as follows: 2012 = $1 million, 2013 = $8 million, 2014 = $8 million, 2015 = $5 million.

Cap hits:

2012 = $11.5 million ($5 million dead hit + $3.5 million prorated bonus + $2 million roster bonus on June 1 + $1 million base salary)

2013 = $13.5 million ($3.5 million prorated bonus + $2 million roster bonus on June 1 + $8 million base salary)

2014 = $13.5 million ($3.5 million prorated bonus + $2 million roster bonus on June 1 + $8 million base salary)

2015 = $10.5 million ($3.5 million prorated bonus + $2 million roster bonus on June 1 + $5 million base salary)

Easier on the team now and later, and it lowers his cap hit in later years when he's older, making it easier to either keep him or release him, knowing he got his money up front.

[Superman]

Grigson is unfortunately setting himself up for more backlash with these comments and probably should just keep quiet about it. Because I still contend there is absolutely no way they can keep Freeney around with that ridiculous cap hit. I don't see how they could even fill out the rest of the roster as long as Freeney is on it.

I think he's just trying to drive up Freeney's trade value, to be honest. Like you, I don't see how we can fill out the roster without doing something about that cap hit.

[Superman]

I understand what you you are saying, but my questions were not how but about why should he.

1) More money up front

2) More guaranteed money

3) No risk of an injury costing him millions in an upfront signing bonus

4) Allows the team to improve, making his job easier and making him look better on the field and publicly

I don't see the reason NOT to do a new deal, except if he wants out of Indy and wants to choose where he goes. Then he takes his chances that we don't trade him for a 5th rounder to some team he doesn't want to play for, and that we'd rather just cut him outright. Also, a team trading a 5th rounder for him would be more likely to release him before the season, knowing that they don't have to pay any bonus or salary if he's not on the team at a certain date. But honestly, it makes more sense for him to get a deal done with the Colts.

[ColtsPRIDE11]

Freeney is a Colt, period.

I love the title of this thread. I know it is a quote from Grigson, and it is absolutely true.

Freeney is a Colt, period. Contractually, at the present time, Freeney is indeed a Colt.

All the way until he is either cut or traded, or when his contract expires. That is true too.

Notice Grigson did not say that the Colts will not be trading Freeney.

Notice Grigson did not say that the Colts will not be cutting Freeney.

Actually, Grigson said the following:

“Everyone knows Dwight’s a great player. He’s going to be here this year,” said Grigson.

So, he actually says that Freeney won't be traded or cut in that one highlighted sentence. By saying "he's going to be here this year," Grigson is saying that Freeney will be in Indy for the 2012 season.

That said, I do agree that we need to see about cutting the cap hit we are going to take with Freeney. I would love to see him stay with us and retire a Colt (wouldn't that be great to have our 2 defensive greats always be a Colt and retire that way), but Freeney has to work with us here...if a team wanted him bad enough, they would have jumped by now and paid the high price...the crickets are chrippin' Dwight, time to restructure.

[gacker65]

1) More money up front

2) More guaranteed money

3) No risk of an injury costing him millions in an upfront signing bonus

4) Allows the team to improve, making his job easier and making him look better on the field and publicly

I don't see the reason NOT to do a new deal, except if he wants out of Indy and wants to choose where he goes. Then he takes his chances that we don't trade him for a 5th rounder to some team he doesn't want to play for, and that we'd rather just cut him outright. Also, a team trading a 5th rounder for him would be more likely to release him before the season, knowing that they don't have to pay any bonus or salary if he's not on the team at a certain date. But honestly, it makes more sense for him to get a deal done with the Colts.

You can not see why Freeney will not restucture his contract. I can sum it up in one word, "Loyalty". The Franchise is asking Freeney to be loyal while it shows no loyalty to the players. Freeney is doing his fulfilling his end of the contract and so he expects the Franchise to fulfill theirs. If you want loyalty from your people, you have to show loyalty to them.

[UndecidedFrog]

Actually, Grigson said the following:

“Everyone knows Dwight’s a great player. He’s going to be here this year,” said Grigson.

So, he actually says that Freeney won't be traded or cut in that one highlighted sentence. By saying "he's going to be here this year," Grigson is saying that Freeney will be in Indy for the 2012 season.

That said, I do agree that we need to see about cutting the cap hit we are going to take with Freeney. I would love to see him stay with us and retire a Colt (wouldn't that be great to have our 2 defensive greats always be a Colt and retire that way), but Freeney has to work with us here...if a team wanted him bad enough, they would have jumped by now and paid the high price...the crickets are chrippin' Dwight, time to restructure.

I wouldn't read too much into that quote.

Colts management has, in the past, said things that they had to take back.

I think I will cut the rookie GM some slack here, and allow him the flexibility to do what he thinks is right for the team, without taking away any of his tools to deal with the Freeney cap situation.

[Superman]

You can not see why Freeney will not restucture his contract. I can sum it up in one word, "Loyalty". The Franchise is asking Freeney to be loyal while it shows no loyalty to the players. Freeney is doing his fulfilling his end of the contract and so he expects the Franchise to fulfill theirs. If you want loyalty from your people, you have to show loyalty to them.

The franchise isn't asking him to be loyal. In my scenario above, they're asking him to accept guaranteed money equal to MORE than what he's due to make this year, plus bonuses and salary in each of the next three years. It works out in Freeney's favor, even if he's cut in training camp this year.

And, long story short, if Freeney or his agent are willing to make an idealistic stand similar to what you're suggesting they are, in the name of walking away from millions of guaranteed dollars, then they are being ridiculous. Loyalty isn't the currency of the NFL; currency is.

[ColtsPRIDE11]

I wouldn't read too much into that quote.

Colts management has, in the past, said things that they had to take back.

I think I will cut the rookie GM some slack here, and allow him the flexibility to do what he thinks is right for the team, without taking away any of his tools to deal with the Freeney cap situation.

I know they have. And I'm not saying that Freeney can't or won't be traded. I'm just saying his statement does say that he is going to be here in 2012. Now, should the time come and Freeney leaves before the season starts, I will not be asking for Grigson's head (like I am sure others will). Slack will be given.

I like what has been done so far by Grigson and Pagano. Hope they keep up the good work.