Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts 2021 Salary Cap Forecast/Discussion **Updated pg 6**


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I agree. I’m just saying some of the losses *MAY* get offset to some degree via the TV ratings and revenue. Now how much, if any, remains to be seen. I don’t have any idea where the cap will fall, at one point, the number 30-35 million in a cut was being floated. I don’t think it’ll be near that much, but never know

The $30-$35m is a combo of things though.

 

It is a $20m drop from current $206m, with the added figure of $10-$15m from what the cap was anticipated to rise to this season $215-$220. 

 

I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, maybe that the cap was going to drop to $160-$165m range.

 

 

Game day tickets is around $7m/ game.

 

Multiply that over a 8 game home slate and you get $56m. That doesn't take into account preseason ticket revenue that is usually associated with season ticket pricing.

 

I dont think the difference in TV ratings will coved that spread.

 

I for 1 definitely hope that the cap comes in higher. Just not to confident in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If you are going to do that you already have the QB to develop in Eason.  I don’t see the Colts trading for a vet AND drafting another QB.

Not necessarily. It's what they've already done to set the floor at $175m for 2021. They're borrowing cap space from previous seasons in an undetermined amount to prevent the cap from shrinking to the

Do you think Bill Belichick has cornered the market on ideas?   Do you think he does not make mistakes?   BB made Dont’a Hightower one of the NFL ‘s highest paid players.  So, poof,  there g

5 hours ago, JPFolks said:

The point was that if your back up is good enough to make the playoffs if your new 2nd year QB flops, that's a guy you want. I can't see a team that would pay Brissett starter money.  We would need a backup, so why wouldn't we just hang on to Brissett as backup to Eason if he's ready?

It's not that I don't want JB on a cheap back up contract. It's that I think he would want to go to a place where he has a better place to start, on a team that hasn't "moved on" from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, w87r said:

Yeah I agree.

 

 

Also though, like I said in a post above. A lot more plays into it.

 

Most of those teams have their QBs locked up in that cap space already. Some teams have some guys they can release and get more cap room. Colts only have Doyle and Glow, we could restructure Kelly to get an extra $9m but only if we feel good about his health as of now he has no guarantees money after next year.

Yep. QB is a position that tilts things. So is DE. We lack 3 of those big dollar positions. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, w87r said:

After the signing of Grover, the Colts are left with around $65-$67m in cap space for 2021. Based on $175m floor the league has said would be maximum drop.

 

$65-$67m:

 

Draft picks - $5-$7m

 

$60m left.

 

FAs:(23)

Rivers

Brissett

Mack

Hilton

Marcus Johnson

D. Harris - ERFA

Dulin - ERFA

Z Pascal - RFA

Burton 

Cox - ERFA

Chaz Green

L. Clark

J. Houston

D. Autry

Muhammad

Stallworth - RFA

Walker Jr

X Rhodes

Carrie

T. Smith - RFA

Hooker

T Wilson

Odum - RFA

Like most teams, we are set up on a 3 to 4 year player replacement cycle.  Sign your own that proved worthy or find a replacement.

 

Lewis needs to take over for Autry.  Turay for Houston.  Campbell for TY.  Ya-Sin for Rhodes (and get Tell or Carrie to step up at #2 next season).  They are under contract and need to start.

 

Those are big questions.  Will those draft picks do what they are supposed to do, or will they become just JAGS to where Ballard will have to spend money to find aging vet stop gaps like Houston and Rhodes to play where high-ish picked players should be starting and playing well?

 

There are big holes at LT and at QB.  No replacements are on the roster.  Probably also at #1.  The #1DE and #1 CB spots look shaky. Those are 3 first round draft picks, possibly 5. 

 

Its why picking a FS at 15 and a G at 6 is a WASTE of capital, always was since day 1.  Right now, we should be talking about Marlon Humphry's new contract (2017 pick 16) and sliding McGlinchey (2018 pick 9) over from RT to ACs spot and have RG Smith take over RT (then find a RG, the dude from Ball State?) Instead, in 2017 and 2018, Ballard invested high capital into positions that can be found pretty easily in FA when contract time rolls around.....or the middle rounds of the draft.   He's a freakin genius though.

 

Edit:  We'd have more cap space if AC wasn't resigned and McGlinchey switched over to LT last season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2020 at 10:11 PM, coming on strong said:

rivers cares about winning he chose the colts because he knows franks system and the colts offensive line.  rivers has been sacked the least amount of times per QBS . if the colts explain the situation to him i doubt he is gonna wanna walk and learn a new system at 39 turning 40 and leave a top 3 defense and offensive line for 5 million when he already made over 100 million .   what other team is gonna offer him 25 million plus ?  all the good teams have QBs right now even 49ers are not gonna dump jimmy g .  so rivers would have to go to a bad team and lose or pick the colts .

On the sack part mentioned, a lot of that is Rivers. He constantly just throws balls at the ground by the receivers within 2 seconds in blitzes or intense pressure when most QB's would get sacked, even mobile QB's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, csmopar said:

https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-salary-cap-conundrum-three-major-consequences-of-projected-decrease
 

@w87r interesting read.
 

And man, I’m glad that Ballard has managed this so far very well, we could be like the Saints. But we’re not and our cap roll over from this year is gonna help too. I 

Yeah Ballard definitely left us in good shape, sucks though because its still going to be tight, where of which if not for the cap drop we would of been in prime position to keep our own and add a couple pretty big names.

 

 

Still in better shape than most though, only without QB locked up 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yeah Ballard definitely left us in good shape, sucks though because its still going to be tight, where of which if not for the cap drop we would of been in prime position to keep our own and add a couple pretty big names.

 

 

Still in better shape than most though, only without QB locked up 

Well the good news, OTC has already figured the drop to 176 mil. With the 10 million we currently have to roll over and AFTER Stewart’s extension, they’re showing roughly 75 million., we’d have nearly 100 million if it didn’t drop. 
 

meanwhile, the Saints are 93 million OVER the cap at 176mil and 68 million OVER at this years cap. 
 

theres a total of 10 teams over the cap at 176, 8 teams at the 206 figure. 
 

add in 3 more teams that are above the cap at 176,  But will have less than 7 million. That’s 13 teams in big time cap trouble. 
 

including the Texans and Titans. 
 

and Steelers and chiefs. There’s going to be a flood of vets let go, there won’t be a choice 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given our position I think we could actually look at the drop in cap as an opportunity.   Here are a few things we could do with it.

 

1. Use our cap space to snatch up FA's that otherwise would not have been allowed to walk.

2. Use our cap space to snatch up FA's who are cut for cap saving reasons.

3. Use the cap space to lock in current colts for the long term at prices that in a year or 2 will be considered bargains.  

4. Use our cap space to make cap for picks type trades.  (Team trades away a player with a bunch of guaranteed salary to clear him off the cap and gives up draft picks to do it.)  

 

Honestly it might be to our benefit to not re-sign too many guys . . . hang on to our cap space and wait around and see who gets cut. . . because several teams, the Saints, Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Texans, Vikings, Raiders, Bills, Bears, Titans are going to have to cut people just to get in under the cap.  

 

And quite frankly when I look at the Saints, I don't know how they do it because they are leveraged pretty hard due to signing bonuses.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the more I look at these numbers the more I think the NFL is going to have to set the cap at a higher number then the usual % of revenues.   Either that or they are going to have to grant some exceptions to certain teams to where they can somehow take the amount of cap they are over this year and then push that forward to future years or something.  

 

Go and look at the Saints or the Eagles. . . these teams are leveraged HARD.  I literally don't see how the Eagles are even able to field a team next year.  Like they can go cut everyone and sign the replacements on NFL minimum contracts and I don't see them being able to even have a 53 man roster.  

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

Honestly the more I look at these numbers the more I think the NFL is going to have to set the cap at a higher number then the usual % of revenues.   Either that or they are going to have to grant some exceptions to certain teams to where they can somehow take the amount of cap they are over this year and then push that forward to future years or something.  

 

Go and look at the Saints or the Eagles. . . these teams are leveraged HARD.  I literally don't see how the Eagles are even able to field a team next year.  Like they can go cut everyone and sign the replacements on NFL minimum contracts and I don't see them being able to even have a 53 man roster.  

That would require a new CBA among other things. And it’d turn that into what the NBA did. So I sure hope the league does not grant any exceptions nor make any concessions. Period. All but 2-3 of those teams were over the cap prior to the cut. They mismanaged the cap so it’s on those teams. 

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

Well the good news, OTC has already figured the drop to 176 mil. With the 10 million we currently have to roll over and AFTER Stewart’s extension, they’re showing roughly 75 million., we’d have nearly 100 million if it didn’t drop. 
 

meanwhile, the Saints are 93 million OVER the cap at 176mil and 68 million OVER at this years cap. 
 

theres a total of 10 teams over the cap at 176, 8 teams at the 206 figure. 
 

add in 3 more teams that are above the cap at 176,  But will have less than 7 million. That’s 13 teams in big time cap trouble. 
 

including the Texans and Titans. 
 

and Steelers and chiefs. There’s going to be a flood of vets let go, there won’t be a choice 

They dont have Grover's extension figured into 2021 cap number yet and our roll over is already figured in.

 

We are setting at the $65-$66m currently depending on that fi ao cap number($175/ or $176m).

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/indianapolis-colts/

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/cap/2021/

 

Spotrac doesnt have Grover figured in either but I think the numbers are easier to read there by scrolling all the way down.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

1. Use our cap space to snatch up FA's that otherwise would not have been allowed to walk.

The money just isn't there unless we dont resign Rivers. He alone will take up $20-$25m of our cap space after we hold out our draft pool money($5-$7m).

 

We might be able to sign a guy but wont be to much.

 

57 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

. Use our cap space to snatch up FA's who are cut for cap saving reasons.

Same as above.

 

Some guys will definitely be casualties but again the money just isnt there. We only have 37 guys under contract(well 38 now with Grover). 

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

3. Use the cap space to lock in current colts for the long term at prices that in a year or 2 will be considered bargains

Players are not going to be signing multiple year bargains. Will be a year littered with 1yr deals, where players will hope the cap will go back up in 2022. Probably wont much, but that is what will happen.

 

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

4. Use our cap space to make cap for picks type trades.  (Team trades away a player with a bunch of guaranteed salary to clear him off the cap and gives up draft picks to do it.)  

Only have 2 guys that fit this category.

Doyle and Glowinski.

 

Trading them would free up about $10m, then subtract whatever draft capital from that.

 

 

Last note, as stated in thread before, we are in better shape than a lot of teams, but the fact that, that doesnt include our QB, it knocks us down the list a little further.

 

A move for Darnold would only cost us $4.7m minus the money saved on whatever draft capital involved in deal, would make him pretty cheap.(not sure thats a move I would like to.make but definitely would help cap space next year.

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

Honestly the more I look at these numbers the more I think the NFL is going to have to set the cap at a higher number then the usual % of revenues.   Either that or they are going to have to grant some exceptions to certain teams to where they can somehow take the amount of cap they are over this year and then push that forward to future years or something.  

 

Go and look at the Saints or the Eagles. . . these teams are leveraged HARD.  I literally don't see how the Eagles are even able to field a team next year.  Like they can go cut everyone and sign the replacements on NFL minimum contracts and I don't see them being able to even have a 53 man roster.  

The NFL is aware of the situation teams will be in. The NFLPA tried to get them to spread losses over 10yrs to eliminate the big hit this year. Owners were having none of it,  because they viewed it as an interest free loan for the players. They want the money back in their pockets faster. They did agree to drop to $175m minimum to help, but trams are going to be hit hard.

 

Im sure the league will still be spreading losses over a 2-3yr period with the $175m minimum for this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

Honestly it might be to our benefit to not re-sign too many guys . . . hang on to our cap space and wait around and see who gets cut. . . because several teams, the Saints, Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Texans, Vikings, Raiders, Bills, Bears, Titans are going to have to cut people just to get in under the cap.  

 

And quite frankly when I look at the Saints, I don't know how they do it because they are leveraged pretty hard due to signing bonuses.  

There will be a lot of restructured contracts this year as well, which will help push money to future.

 

Colts can restructure Kelly and gain $9m in cap space next year, his current contract has no guaranteed money after 2021 season, but it is risky with his injury concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2021/

 

 

Here is the link again that really gives a food look at how many players teams have under contract and cap space.

 

Colts figure doesnt include Grover though.

 

 

Again we are high on the list, but our only QB is Eason. If we sign Rivers we drop to 7th/8th with $40m(ish) to spend to fill out 20+ spots.(53 + Practice squad).

 

 

Cap space is short even for us, a team that has done a great job managing our space.

 

Covid really did a number on what we could of did otherwise.

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

Given our position I think we could actually look at the drop in cap as an opportunity.   Here are a few things we could do with it.

 

1. Use our cap space to snatch up FA's that otherwise would not have been allowed to walk.

2. Use our cap space to snatch up FA's who are cut for cap saving reasons.

3. Use the cap space to lock in current colts for the long term at prices that in a year or 2 will be considered bargains.  

4. Use our cap space to make cap for picks type trades.  (Team trades away a player with a bunch of guaranteed salary to clear him off the cap and gives up draft picks to do it.)  

 

Honestly it might be to our benefit to not re-sign too many guys . . . hang on to our cap space and wait around and see who gets cut. . . because several teams, the Saints, Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Texans, Vikings, Raiders, Bills, Bears, Titans are going to have to cut people just to get in under the cap.  

 

And quite frankly when I look at the Saints, I don't know how they do it because they are leveraged pretty hard due to signing bonuses.  

 

Some of the teams will be able to fully convert a lot of the cap hits to bonus but those come out of the owners’ pockets so I’m not sure how many will do that

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Small change to Kelly's restructure, it would save $6.75m next year, not $9m.

 

As the 9m would be spread over final 4 yrs of deal at $2.25/yr.

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Some of the teams will be able to fully convert a lot of the cap hits to bonus but those come out of the owners’ pockets so I’m not sure how many will do that

Funny how non liquid, billionaires are isn't it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, w87r said:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2021/

 

 

Here is the link again that really gives a food look at how many players teams have under contract and cap space.

 

Colts figure doesnt include Grover though.

 

 

Again we are high on the list, but our only QB is Eason. If we sign Rivers we drop to 7th/8th with $40m(ish) to spend to fill out 20+ spots.(53 + Practice squad).

 

 

Cap space is short even for us, a team that has done a great job managing our space.

 

Covid really did a number on what we could of did otherwise.

Given the sheer number of players and teams this will affect, you’re not going to see the mega contracts like you did the last two or three years. It’s going to force players to either get out or sign lower priced deals. Period. 
 

espn had an article earlier this week, I’ll see if I can find it, basically when it comes to options, pretty much any team over the cap more than 15-20 million, which is roughly 6-7 teams, will have very few options. The worst two, Saints and Eagles have basically two options realistically, cut players or convert those salaries to cash, when equates to roughly 100 million out of the pockets of the owners. I think the latter option is going to be hard to swallow. That’s a lot of money even for billionaire team owners to fork over all at once. 
 

there’s likely to be more vets cut, good Vets than in years past. But then some dead money will roll over to future years. Will be interesting indeed

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, w87r said:

Small change to Kelly's restructure, it would save $6.75m next year, not $9m.

 

As the 9m would be spread over final 4 yrs of deal at $2.25/yr.

Funny how non liquid, billionaires are isn't it.

Yep.

 

this is where cutting or trading JB would have been a good move after signing rivers. We could have rolled that extra 16 mil on top of the 10 million and been able to take that with us in the tightening cap. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Given the sheer number of players and teams this will affect, you’re not going to see the mega contracts like you did the last two or three years. It’s going to force players to either get out or sign lower priced deals. Period. 
 

espn had an article earlier this week, I’ll see if I can find it, basically when it comes to options, pretty much any team over the cap more than 15-20 million, which is roughly 6-7 teams, will have very few options. The worst two, Saints and Eagles have basically two options realistically, cut players or convert those salaries to cash, when equates to roughly 100 million out of the pockets of the owners. I think the latter option is going to be hard to swallow. That’s a lot of money even for billionaire team owners to fork over all at once. 
 

there’s likely to be more vets cut, good Vets than in years past. But then some dead money will roll over to future years. Will be interesting indeed

Definitely, but the top of the top FAs, teams will be wanting to secure their services. So teams will come out with good deals for them.

 

 

Should be fun, no doubt. Like you said earlier, glad we have Ballard, because we could be setting in real bad shape like some of those other teams if he wasnt so diligent with the cap.(again, not that we are in great shape, but no one is).

 

Jags are in decent shape though.

 

We have higher expectations going into next season though, Im sure a lot of those teams wont even worry about being to competitive.

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

Yep.

 

this is where cutting or trading JB would have been a good move after signing rivers. We could have rolled that extra 16 mil on top of the 10 million and been able to take that with us in the tightening cap. 

would of been nice in hindsight, no doubt.

 

I was on the fence during offseason, but once it became clear we would lose $30m+ in cap space due to covid, was most definitely the move to make in my opinion.

 

 

When I say $30m+, I mean the drop of $22m coupled with the cap expectation to go up another $10m.

 

$32m+ swing. Would love to have all that money going into next year for sure. This thread wouldn't be needed. Lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, w87r said:

would of been nice in hindsight, no doubt.

 

I was on the fence during offseason, but once it became clear we would lose $30m+ in cap space due to covid, was most definitely the move to make in my opinion.

 

 

When I say $30m+, I mean the drop of $22m coupled with the cap expectation to go up another $10m.

 

$32m+ swing. Would love to have all that money going into next year for sure. This thread wouldn't be needed. Lol.

No, I disagree, I think we’d still be having this discussion to some degree. It normally starts popping up this time of the year

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

No, I disagree, I think we’d still be having this discussion to some degree. It normally starts popping up this time of the year

We would be having the discussion in some degree, but would be in a completely different context.

 

Like what are we going to do with all this cap space, rather than dang money is tight.

 

Would be a much more positive speaking point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, csmopar said:

there’s likely to be more vets cut, good Vets than in years past. But then some dead money will roll over to future years. Will be interesting indeed

This is a good point as well, because teams will be dealing with a couple years aof dead cap, because Im sure post June 1st cuts will be plentiful for teams to spread hit over 2 seasons.

 

So 2022, the Colts should be in that much better shape because of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, w87r said:

We would be having the discussion in some degree, but would be in a completely different context.

 

Like what are we going to do with all this cap space, rather than dang money is tight.

 

Would be a much more positive speaking point.

Yeah it would be. But I feel confident in Ballard to get things right. Heck, who knows, rivers might even take a lower salary to come back next year. Probably not but never know

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, w87r said:

This is a good point as well, because teams will be dealing with a couple years aof dead cap, because Im sure post June 1st cuts will be plentiful for teams to spread hit over 2 seasons.

 

So 2022, the Colts should be in that much better shape because of it.

If I’m reading things right, for 2022, were like 163 million UNDER the cap but we’ currently would have like 12 players under contract so that won’t happen

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, csmopar said:

Yeah it would be. But I feel confident in Ballard to get things right. Heck, who knows, rivers might even take a lower salary to come back next year. Probably not but never know

Possibly, but what constitutes a lower salary?

 

$20m is $5m cheaper, but doesn't help all that much.

 

Even if by some chance he took $15m, things are still tight. Would definitely help to have $10m extra. 

 

At this point of his career, does he just say, $15m isnt worth it, Im going to spend time with my family.

 

 

I cant wait for the off-season, it is almost on the same level as the season for me. I love it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, w87r said:

Possibly, but what constitutes a lower salary?

 

$20m is $5m cheaper, but doesn't help all that much.

 

Even if by some chance he took $15m, things are still tight. Would definitely help to have $10m extra. 

 

At this point of his career, does he just say, $15m isnt worth it, Im going to spend time with my family.

 

 

I cant wait for the off-season, it is almost on the same level as the season for me. I love it.

I hear ya. I feel the same way. 
 

as for rivers who knows. I’d be more than happy if he took 20 vs 25, I mean that very well could be a solid CB pick up this coming off season if teams have to cut a lot of players. We’re talking 1/3 of the league over the cap if 176 holds. Plus several more teams just barely under it. 5 million may even be a good CB pick up. There’s a really good chance that salaries, even cheap 1 year deals become the norm for 2021. If a young player has to chose between taking 5 million due to this for a year, vs taking nothing at all, he’s gonna go for the 5 million. 
 

if that makes sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, csmopar said:

That would require a new CBA among other things. And it’d turn that into what the NBA did. So I sure hope the league does not grant any exceptions nor make any concessions. Period. All but 2-3 of those teams were over the cap prior to the cut. They mismanaged the cap so it’s on those teams. 

 

Not necessarily. It's what they've already done to set the floor at $175m for 2021. They're borrowing cap space from previous seasons in an undetermined amount to prevent the cap from shrinking to the point that half of the teams can't operate without getting rid of their best players. (They also did it at the start of the 2011 CBA, although that was collectively bargained in that agreement. The cap actually shrank in Year 1 of that deal, and increased slowly the first couple of years.)

 

It's also critically different from the NBA in that the NFL has a hard cap. The NBA suspended luxury tax penalties, but teams were already able to go over the cap in specific circumstances. 

 

I think it's hard to predict what they'll do, or how, until someone has an idea of how much revenue they're losing this season, and how long it will take to normalize their business model. All of the TV contracts are pending, and no one can project what will happen because ratings are down this year. The DirecTV deal is expiring in two years, and probably won't be renewed -- in fact, AT&T is trying to sell DirecTV, and Dish has openly said those two services will have to merge at some point. So TV -- and streaming, which I won't even touch right now -- is basically up for grabs. 

 

I haven't seen anything recent and credible about stadium revenues; if someone else has, please post it because I came up empty the last time I went looking. It's probably harder to find now that the NFL is no longer a public entity. 

 

Anyway, everything they based the new CBA on back in March has changed dramatically. There were projections the cap might go up to $240m in 2021; now it's gonna be $175m-ish. So they quickly agreed to a floor, but it's possible that they'll make further adjustments just to avoid having a bunch of players be cut and dumped on a depressed FA market in 2021. This would not just affect teams that were already in cap trouble; it would affect teams that were in pretty good shape, but didn't expect a cap at $50-70m less than expected when the league year began.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, csmopar said:

That would require a new CBA among other things. And it’d turn that into what the NBA did. So I sure hope the league does not grant any exceptions nor make any concessions. Period. All but 2-3 of those teams were over the cap prior to the cut. They mismanaged the cap so it’s on those teams. 

 

I'm not sure it would require a new CBA.  It seems to me that keeping the cap higher than % of revenues benefits the players.  So it shouldn't seem hard to get the players to agree to an exception for the next year.  Otherwise many of them will be taking the hit as well.  Players don't like 1 year deals generally speaking, there is no security in it.  They want security because they all 1 play away from an injury that would derail or end their careers.  So if the cap falls there would be a lot of players cut and walking that would be forced to sign small 1 year deals.  Players that would ordinarily be able to sign for more money and for longer 3 to 5 year deals.  

 

The players are going to want this because more money in their pockets and more security on contracts.  Many of the owners are going to want this because they don't want to gut their teams of talent.  The only opposition will likely be from owners who are sitting on a ton of cap space who want to take advantage of the other team's being tight with their cap.  But I don't think there is enough of them to prevent this. . . because even if your team is fitting in under the cap, most of them are just barely fitting under the cap and arn't going to have lots of room to do much.  Only maybe 8 teams are going to have any real room to take advantage of the situation.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, New Zealands #1 Colts Fan said:

Thanks for the interesting thread. I find the business/contract side of the nfl absolutely fascinating but it does hurt the brain sometimes.

 

 

The more you look at it the easier it becomes.  

 

I will say that looking at each team's individual situation closely isn't easy because it's hard to know have valuable each player is to a team.  That said you can look at general cap situations like the Saints and the Eagles, . . . look at how hard they are leveraged due to guaranteed money and sort of recognize that they are in trouble cap wise.  I'm curious how they are going to field a team next year honestly if the cap stays at about 175M.

 

One thing I like about Ballard is he handles contracts quite brilliantly.   You go look at the Colts situation and not only are we under the cap by a significant amount (despite the drop in cap space) but also (and this is a big thing) the Colts are not leveraged nearly as hard.  

 

Go click on 2021 and the only people on the team that can't be cut for cap space are Rock Ya Sin, PIttman, and Taylor . . . and that is because their rookie contracts demand a certain amount guaranteed.  

 

Even Buckner could be cut for a small amount of cap savings.  Most GM's make a huge signing like Buckner and they are locked in at a cap loss for 3 years.  But the Colts were only locked in like that for the first year.  

 

This is because Ballard uses Roster bonuses and guaranteed salary early in the contract as opposed to handing players big signing bonuses.  

 

This is an aspect that we don't talk about much with Ballard, but it's absolutely important.  Ballard doesn't let the Colts get locked in with any big contract for long periods of time.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I'm not sure it would require a new CBA.  It seems to me that keeping the cap higher than % of revenues benefits the players.  So it shouldn't seem hard to get the players to agree to an exception for the next year.  Otherwise many of them will be taking the hit as well.  Players don't like 1 year deals generally speaking, there is no security in it.  They want security because they all 1 play away from an injury that would derail or end their careers.  So if the cap falls there would be a lot of players cut and walking that would be forced to sign small 1 year deals.  Players that would ordinarily be able to sign for more money and for longer 3 to 5 year deals.  

 

The players are going to want this because more money in their pockets and more security on contracts.  Many of the owners are going to want this because they don't want to gut their teams of talent.  The only opposition will likely be from owners who are sitting on a ton of cap space who want to take advantage of the other team's being tight with their cap.  But I don't think there is enough of them to prevent this. . . because even if your team is fitting in under the cap, most of them are just barely fitting under the cap and arn't going to have lots of room to do much.  Only maybe 8 teams are going to have any real room to take advantage of the situation.  

 

 

Most teams under the cap, are under it by close to 20mil or more AFTER the cut down to 176. And there’s 18 teams that are under the by at least 18 million and 14 teams by 20 or more. 
 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds for sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

The more you look at it the easier it becomes.  

 

I will say that looking at each team's individual situation closely isn't easy because it's hard to know have valuable each player is to a team.  That said you can look at general cap situations like the Saints and the Eagles, . . . look at how hard they are leveraged due to guaranteed money and sort of recognize that they are in trouble cap wise.  I'm curious how they are going to field a team next year honestly if the cap stays at about 175M.

 

One thing I like about Ballard is he handles contracts quite brilliantly.   You go look at the Colts situation and not only are we under the cap by a significant amount (despite the drop in cap space) but also (and this is a big thing) the Colts are not leveraged nearly as hard.  

 

Go click on 2021 and the only people on the team that can't be cut for cap space are Rock Ya Sin, PIttman, and Taylor . . . and that is because their rookie contracts demand a certain amount guaranteed.  

 

Even Buckner could be cut for a small amount of cap savings.  Most GM's make a huge signing like Buckner and they are locked in at a cap loss for 3 years.  But the Colts were only locked in like that for the first year.  

 

This is because Ballard uses Roster bonuses and guaranteed salary early in the contract as opposed to handing players big signing bonuses.  

 

This is an aspect that we don't talk about much with Ballard, but it's absolutely important.  Ballard doesn't let the Colts get locked in with any big contract for long periods of time.  

Good post! 
 

I do disagree on one thing, I think even without the cut to 176 for 2021, that the Saints and Eagles both would have massive trouble fielding teams. I just don’t see how. I mean they’re 93 million and 76 million respectively over the cap, the cut is about 30 million, for that means even if this was normal, they’d still be over roughly 63 million and 46 million. That’s a lot of players. Obviously 30 million in cuts hurts really bad but the situation wasn’t good to begin with

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Good post! 
 

I do disagree on one thing, I think even without the cut to 176 for 2021, that the Saints and Eagles both would have massive trouble fielding teams. I just don’t see how. I mean they’re 93 million and 76 million respectively over the cap, the cut is about 30 million, for that means even if this was normal, they’d still be over roughly 63 million and 46 million. That’s a lot of players. Obviously 30 million in cuts hurts really bad but the situation wasn’t good to begin with

 

Yeah but a 30M swing turns a massive rebuild into "What are we going to even do?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, csmopar said:

Most teams under the cap, are under it by close to 20mil or more AFTER the cut down to 176. And there’s 18 teams that are under the by at least 18 million and 14 teams by 20 or more. 
 

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds for sure

 

Yeah but being only under it by 20 mil.  You start adding in cap space for draft picks and in season moves and 20 million isn't much.

 

Only if you have like 30 mil or more in space (Or could reasonably open that much up by cutting unneeded players) would you really be able to take advantage of the situation.  

 

And that to me seems like it's only going to be maybe 8 teams.  

 

So 3/4th of the owners are going to want this and all of the players are going to want it.  That's why I think that will happen.  NFL will just look at the situation and propose to freeze the cap as is (not let it lower) and 3/4ths of the owners are going to go with that because they want to re-sign talent or pursue a few FA's or at the very least not completely gut their team.  Remember most of the GM's were reasonably counting on the cap constantly increasing when they signed contracts.   Then they will take that to the players and all of the players are going to get behind "more money for us"

 

I will be surprised If the NFL lets the cap slip that much.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Yeah but a 30M swing turns a massive rebuild into "What are we going to even do?"

Completely agree. IF IF this happens as it stands, then it’s gonna make for one heck of an interesting off season.

 

question, there’s talk of owner converting salaries to cash bonuses to eliminate that cap hit. Are there any penalties in doing that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • w87r changed the title to Colts 2021 Salary Cap Forecast/Discussion **Updated pg 6**

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...