Not to Blow Up all the Salary Cap Talk.... BUT!

[NewColtsFan]

@Superman   @w87r

 

So, among many things, I get e-mail from Sports Illustrated every day.

 

And the other day,  there was this article written by Andew Brandt, who used to handle the contracts and salary cap issues for the Packers for 10 years.    And one thing he wrote jumped off the page at me.     Now, here's why I remind our two resident Salary Cap experts I noted above about something they have both talked about,  but I haven't seen either of them talk about this year.

 

Roll Over.

 

According to Brandt,  the Colts have the MOST SALARY CAP ROLLOVER in the NFL.   $30 MIl.    So, whatever the general 2021 team salary cap turns out to be,  you can add $30 Mill for the Colts.     I'm going to do two things.     I'm going to link the entire article for everyone.    It's free, non-premium,   and I'm also going to cut and paste the key section for everyone to read right here.   

 

OK....    here's the article...      And just for discussion purposes,  Brandt uses a projected salary cap of $185.   He's NOT saying that's what the final number will be,  only his own hypothetical number for his article.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/02/business-of-football-understanding-the-salary-cap-dead-money?suid=5cc1cc3a3f92a475c0234f43&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SI Extra 030221&utm_term=SI Extra - USE THIS - List

 

 

Here is the key text:

 

Myth: Every NFL team’s cap number is going to be $185 million

 

No. Actually, no team’s cap number is going to be $185 million (or whatever the final cap number is).

The 2011 CBA, for the first time, allowed teams to carry over unused cap room from one year to the next. In managing the cap for the Packers, we did not have that option; it was use it or lose it. I had to negotiate * incentives—such as a clause giving our third-string quarterback $20 million if he threw seven touchdowns in our last game—to carry over cap room. (When he didn’t earn the incentive, we would get it as a credit toward the next year.) Now teams don’t have to play those games.

As per NFLPA numbers, every team in the league has carried over 2020 cap room, from a low of roughly $500,000 for the Ravens to a high of more than $30 million for the Colts. Teams carrying over $20-plus million of cap include the Jets, Browns, Eagles, Cowboys and Jaguars. Thus, although the team cap is $185 million, the Colts’ adjusted cap will be around $215 million, and so on.

And again, these teams have been preparing, or should have been preparing, for this reduced cap for months.

 

What say you both, Superman and w87r?     What do you think of what Brandt has written? 

 

Does everyone have to re-do their off-season mocks reflecting a team figure of $215?     I look forward to hearing from both of you and others!

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman   @w87r

 

So, among many things, I get e-mail from Sports Illustrated every day.

 

And the other day,  there was this article written by Andew Brandt, who used to handle the contracts and salary cap issues for the Packers for 10 years.    And one thing he wrote jumped off the page at me.     Now, here's why I remind our two resident Salary Cap experts I noted above about something they have both talked about,  but I haven't seen either of them talk about this year.

 

Roll Over.

 

According to Brandt,  the Colts have the MOST SALARY CAP ROLLOVER in the NFL.   $30 MIl.    So, whatever the general 2021 team salary cap turns out to be,  you can add $30 Mill for the Colts.     I'm going to do two things.     I'm going to link the entire article for everyone.    It's free, non-premium,   and I'm also going to cut and paste the key section for everyone to read right here.   

 

OK....    here's the article...

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/02/business-of-football-understanding-the-salary-cap-dead-money?suid=5cc1cc3a3f92a475c0234f43&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SI Extra 030221&utm_term=SI Extra - USE THIS - List

 

[OhioColt]

So sounds like it’s the Colts’ year to finally make it rain in FA and sign some big name players.

[DaColts85]

Why does Spotrac have the Colts carry over at 8 mil? 

[Nickster]

Allen Robinson please.

[w87r]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

@Superman   @w87r

 

So, among many things, I get e-mail from Sports Illustrated every day.

 

And the other day,  there was this article written by Andew Brandt, who used to handle the contracts and salary cap issues for the Packers for 10 years.    And one thing he wrote jumped off the page at me.     Now, here's why I remind our two resident Salary Cap experts I noted above about something they have both talked about,  but I haven't seen either of them talk about this year.

 

Roll Over.

 

According to Brandt,  the Colts have the MOST SALARY CAP ROLLOVER in the NFL.   $30 MIl.    So, whatever the general 2021 team salary cap turns out to be,  you can add $30 Mill for the Colts.     I'm going to do two things.     I'm going to link the entire article for everyone.    It's free, non-premium,   and I'm also going to cut and paste the key section for everyone to read right here.   

 

OK....    here's the article...      And just for discussion purposes,  Brandt uses a projected salary cap of $185.   He's NOT saying that's what the final number will be,  only his own hypothetical number for his article.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/02/business-of-football-understanding-the-salary-cap-dead-money?suid=5cc1cc3a3f92a475c0234f43&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SI Extra 030221&utm_term=SI Extra - USE THIS - List

 

 

Here is the key text:

 

Myth: Every NFL team’s cap number is going to be $185 million

 

No. Actually, no team’s cap number is going to be $185 million (or whatever the final cap number is).

The 2011 CBA, for the first time, allowed teams to carry over unused cap room from one year to the next. In managing the cap for the Packers, we did not have that option; it was use it or lose it. I had to negotiate * incentives—such as a clause giving our third-string quarterback $20 million if he threw seven touchdowns in our last game—to carry over cap room. (When he didn’t earn the incentive, we would get it as a credit toward the next year.) Now teams don’t have to play those games.

As per NFLPA numbers, every team in the league has carried over 2020 cap room, from a low of roughly $500,000 for the Ravens to a high of more than $30 million for the Colts. Teams carrying over $20-plus million of cap include the Jets, Browns, Eagles, Cowboys and Jaguars. Thus, although the team cap is $185 million, the Colts’ adjusted cap will be around $215 million, and so on.

And again, these teams have been preparing, or should have been preparing, for this reduced cap for months.

 

What say you both, Superman and w87r?     What do you think of what Brandt has written? 

 

Does everyone have to re-do their off-season mocks reflecting a team figure of $215?     I look forward to hearing from both of you and others!

No need to readjust mock offseasons, the Colts only carried over $8.3m over from 2020 and it is already figured into the $43m-$50m cap space we are projected to have left(depending which site you look at).

 

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

 

Scroll to breakdown at the bottom it shows $185m + 2020 rollover.

 

 

And the cap hasn't been set at $185m yet. Most talk says it likely wont reach that and would be around $182-$183m.

 

 

We truly wont lnow number for couple more weeks.

 

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

 

Here is over the caps as well.

 

 

Carryover is already figured into these cap figures on both sites.

 

 

Have no clue why Brandt said Colts have that much because they definitely dont. Even if they did(they don't), it wouldve been reflected in the salary cap space available.

 

 

Here is finalized list of carryover figures:

 

https://nfltraderumors.co/2021-cap-space-carryover-for-all-32-teams/

 

 

[w87r]

16 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

Why does Spotrac have the Colts carry over at 8 mil? 

because that is what it is.

 

[DaColts85]

15 minutes ago, w87r said:

because that is what it is.

 

That’s what I thought but just clearing up the information. 

[luv_pony_express]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

No need to readjust mock offseasons, the Colts only carried over $8.3m over from 2020 and it is already figured into the $43m-$50m cap space we are projected to have left(depending which site you look at).

 

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

 

Scroll to breakdown at the bottom it shows $185m + 2020 rollover.

 

 

And the cap hasn't been set at $185m yet. Most talk says it likely wont reach that and would be around $182-$183m.

 

 

We truly wont lnow number for couple more weeks.

 

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

 

Here is over the caps as well.

 

 

Carryover is already figured into these cap figures on both sites.

 

 

Have no clue why Brandt said Colts have that much because they definitely dont. Even if they did(they don't), it wouldve been reflected in the salary cap space available.

 

 

Here is finalized list of carryover figures:

 

https://nfltraderumors.co/2021-cap-space-carryover-for-all-32-teams/

 

 

Buzzkill!

[coming on strong]

2 hours ago, w87r said:

because that is what it is.

 

Colts can cut Doyle to save money and restructure some contracts like Kelly.

[DeathByEagle]

3 hours ago, OhioColt said:

So sounds like it’s the Colts’ year to finally make it rain in FA and sign some big name players.

That method in the past by many teams has proven to fail. So called "Dream teams" never work out. As a Eagles fan I have seen that in real life in 2011, the Vikings tried to do this in 2018. The Browns in 2018. There have been teams to try to hit the FA market hard and has backfired pretty much every time. 

 

Picking up a few pieces is a good move but by no means you want to "make it rain" in FA. That money will go very quick and all of a sudden you cant resign your own stars, and turing your team to cap hell. 

 

I think the Colts have done a great job building through the draft process, the best way to build. Yes adding a few FAs to plung a few holes is healthy, but the last thing you want is them going crazy. The positive this year for teams with cap space that are only a few players away like the Colts is that some players will take 1 year prove it deals sot hey can reenter the market next year when hopefully the cap is back on track. 

[danlhart87]

3 hours ago, OhioColt said:

So sounds like it’s the Colts’ year to finally make it rain in FA and sign some big name players.

That wouldn't be very smart. I'm perfectly fine signing 1 high quality starter. Ballard will continue to work in the draft.

[Smonroe]

15 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

That wouldn't be very smart. I'm perfectly fine signing 1 high quality starter. Ballard will continue to work in the draft.

 

If we still want to be "in the window", he's going to have to pay quite a few guys in the coming years.  Q, Smith, Leonard, Willis, Bobby, and a few more, will be getting big contracts.  Q will be the highest paid lineman in the league most likely.

 

Ballard is a bright guy.  He's not going to sacrifice the future.  I think he'll get what he thinks he can't get in the draft, but won't break the bank.

[danlhart87]

5 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

If we still want to be "in the window", he's going to have to pay quite a few guys in the coming years.  Q, Smith, Leonard, Willis, Bobby, and a few more, will be getting big contracts.  Q will be the highest paid lineman in the league most likely.

 

Ballard is a bright guy.  He's not going to sacrifice the future.  I think he'll get what he thinks he can't get in the draft, but won't break the bank.

I'm expecting WR and maybe EDGE to be addressed in FA. I don't think it's gonna be HUGE names either but good players. 

[ztboiler]

Methinks Brandt, credentialed though he is, mixed up his facts re: Colts.  It happens...and the Browns number was probably the line above the Colts in his spreadsheet...

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, w87r said:

No need to readjust mock offseasons, the Colts only carried over $8.3m over from 2020 and it is already figured into the $43m-$50m cap space we are projected to have left(depending which site you look at).

 

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

 

Scroll to breakdown at the bottom it shows $185m + 2020 rollover.

 

 

And the cap hasn't been set at $185m yet. Most talk says it likely wont reach that and would be around $182-$183m.

 

 

We truly wont lnow number for couple more weeks.

 

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

 

Here is over the caps as well.

 

 

Carryover is already figured into these cap figures on both sites.

 

 

Have no clue why Brandt said Colts have that much because they definitely dont. Even if they did(they don't), it wouldve been reflected in the salary cap space available.

 

 

Here is finalized list of carryover figures:

 

https://nfltraderumors.co/2021-cap-space-carryover-for-all-32-teams/

 

 

Must have confused the Colts with another team. Last year and the year before though...the Colts definitely had more than $30M in rollover heading into the offseason. 

[joecolts]

Regardless of how much CAP space the Colts may have, Ballard will continue to operate status quo.  He won't spend frivolously simply because we have the cash on hand but, he'll spend cautiously in Free Agency and continue building through the draft.  I'm good with that.  I do see him looking at the pass rush and receiver positions in FA.  LT is deep in the draft and we should find a quality player with one of our first two picks that hopefully will be able to step in beside of Q and keep our line playing at a high level.  AC was a blessing for 10 years, now we just trust Ballard finds the next one. 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, w87r said:

No need to readjust mock offseasons, the Colts only carried over $8.3m over from 2020 and it is already figured into the $43m-$50m cap space we are projected to have left(depending which site you look at).

 

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

 

Scroll to breakdown at the bottom it shows $185m + 2020 rollover.

 

 

And the cap hasn't been set at $185m yet. Most talk says it likely wont reach that and would be around $182-$183m.

 

 

We truly wont lnow number for couple more weeks.

 

 

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

 

Here is over the caps as well.

 

 

Carryover is already figured into these cap figures on both sites.

 

 

Have no clue why Brandt said Colts have that much because they definitely dont. Even if they did(they don't), it wouldve been reflected in the salary cap space available.

 

 

Here is finalized list of carryover figures:

 

https://nfltraderumors.co/2021-cap-space-carryover-for-all-32-teams/

 

 

So you’re saying the Colts do NOT have $30 mil on roll over?    That’s what I thought Brandt was saying.   Colts have the most RO and it’s $30 mill. 
 

As for the $185m, yes, I noted twice that wasn’t the figure, and that Brandt was just using it as a discussion point. 
 

So I either misread Brandt, or Brandt is wrong?   

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

So you’re saying the Colts do NOT have $30 mil on roll over?    That’s what I thought Brandt was saying.   Colts have the most RO and it’s $30 mill. 
 

As for the $185m, yes, I noted twice that wasn’t the figure, and that Brandt was just using it as a discussion point. 
 

So I either misread Brandt, or Brandt is wrong?   

 

I think Brandt might be using the Colts rollover from a previous season. Either way, he's not accurate in this case.

[AKB]

2 hours ago, coming on strong said:

Colts can cut Doyle to save money and restructure some contracts like Kelly.

Why would Kelly restructure. Who is better than him in the league? 

[NewColtsFan]

27 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

Why would Kelly restructure. Who is better than him in the league? 

There is typically an incentive to restructure.  
 

The player is typically getting more money in exchange for changing the structure if the deal to lower the cap hit for the club.   A deal like this is typically win-win for the player and the team. 

[Dogg63]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

So you’re saying the Colts do NOT have $30 mil on roll over?    That’s what I thought Brandt was saying.   Colts have the most RO and it’s $30 mill. 
 

As for the $185m, yes, I noted twice that wasn’t the figure, and that Brandt was just using it as a discussion point. 
 

So I either misread Brandt, or Brandt is wrong?   

 

What Brandt wrote is this:

"As per NFLPA numbers, every team in the league has carried over 2020 cap room, from a low of roughly $500,000 for the Ravens to a high of more than $30 million for the Colts. Teams carrying over $20-plus million of cap include the Jets, Browns, Eagles, Cowboys and Jaguars."

 

Now, let's take a look at those NFLPA numbers (which, by the way, is updated daily, and matches the numbers at overthecap and other sites):

Indianapolis Colts $8,310,897

Cleveland Browns $30,366,604

Dallas Cowboys $25,443,439

Jacksonville Jaguars $23,481,405

New York Jets $26,686,546

Philadelphia Eagles $22,756,775

 

So, all of the teams he said have over $25M in carryover are correct. The only one that is incorrect is the Colts, which means he probably (as @ztboiler and @shasta519 mentioned earlier) goofed when he glanced at his spreadsheet and confused the Browns cap data - the only one with $30M carryover - with the Colts data.

 

So, per his own source, his reporting is incorrect for the Colts cap data.

 

[Jackie Daytona]

1 hour ago, AustinnKaine said:

Why would Kelly restructure. Who is better than him in the league? 

Often a restructure converts salary to bonus, so money up front and in hand, vs waiting for paychecks, is the player reason to restructure..... IE, "Yes, I'll take that 15 million now as a signing bonus, rather than over the next three years, thanks Chris"

[Myles]

4 hours ago, DeathByEagle said:

That method in the past by many teams has proven to fail. So called "Dream teams" never work out. As a Eagles fan I have seen that in real life in 2011, the Vikings tried to do this in 2018. The Browns in 2018. There have been teams to try to hit the FA market hard and has backfired pretty much every time. 

 

 

The team I can think of that failed the most with it was the Redskins.

[luv_pony_express]

5 hours ago, DeathByEagle said:

That method in the past by many teams has proven to fail. So called "Dream teams" never work out. As a Eagles fan I have seen that in real life in 2011, the Vikings tried to do this in 2018. The Browns in 2018. There have been teams to try to hit the FA market hard and has backfired pretty much every time. 

 

Picking up a few pieces is a good move but by no means you want to "make it rain" in FA. That money will go very quick and all of a sudden you cant resign your own stars, and turing your team to cap hell. 

 

I think the Colts have done a great job building through the draft process, the best way to build. Yes adding a few FAs to plung a few holes is healthy, but the last thing you want is them going crazy. The positive this year for teams with cap space that are only a few players away like the Colts is that some players will take 1 year prove it deals sot hey can reenter the market next year when hopefully the cap is back on track. 

Chris Ballard and his FO team are are nothing if not prudent about the allocation of dollars.  I don’t want to just say that they’re cheapskates - they’ll spend money when and where they need to.  But they are nothing at all like those FOs that go out and drop big dollars on (ostensibly) big names to (ostensibly) beef up the roster.
 

Building through the draft, as you say, is clearly the best primary strategy for roster construction.  Unfortunately, that also means having to make some tough choices on vets who have earned raises come contract time.

[BlackTiger]

5 hours ago, DeathByEagle said:

That method in the past by many teams has proven to fail. So called "Dream teams" never work out. As a Eagles fan I have seen that in real life in 2011, the Vikings tried to do this in 2018. The Browns in 2018. There have been teams to try to hit the FA market hard and has backfired pretty much every time. 

 

Picking up a few pieces is a good move but by no means you want to "make it rain" in FA. That money will go very quick and all of a sudden you cant resign your own stars, and turing your team to cap hell. 

 

I think the Colts have done a great job building through the draft process, the best way to build. Yes adding a few FAs to plung a few holes is healthy, but the last thing you want is them going crazy. The positive this year for teams with cap space that are only a few players away like the Colts is that some players will take 1 year prove it deals sot hey can reenter the market next year when hopefully the cap is back on track. 

Its usually bad teams with the most money to spend anyway though.  The Eagles actually did spend quite a lot the year they won the super bowl.

 

The teams with the best records had hardly any money to  spend on free agents the last couple years.  I am talking about the Chiefs and Saints, Tampa doesn't have a lot either.

[John Waylon]

I suppose I could restructure my deal and make a little cap room for us... 

[DeathByEagle]

1 hour ago, BlackTiger said:

Its usually bad teams with the most money to spend anyway though.  The Eagles actually did spend quite a lot the year they won the super bowl.

 

The teams with the best records had hardly any money to  spend on free agents the last couple years.  I am talking about the Chiefs and Saints, Tampa doesn't have a lot either.

Actually the complete oppt. The 2011 Eagles dream team was actually a year after the Eagles went 10-6 and won the Div. They did it to try and get over the hump. The 2018 Vikings did it 1 year after making the NFC Conf Championship game. So not really bad teams, but teams going away from what gave them success thinking they could get to the next level. 

 

2017 SB Eagles didnt spend a ton of money on FAs either the year of the SB. Most of those players were already on the team. The FAs they picked up were not big contract guys. They traded for Jernigan(cheap), Signed WR Smith(Cheap), Blount(Cheap) and Nick Foles(Very Cheap). There only big signing was Alshon Jeffery at 14 mill for 1 year which was considered a bargain at the time. He was projected to get a lot more but picked a 1 year prove it deal because he wanted to play with Wentz. 

 

As for the teams that didnt have much money and won the SB, how many FAs did each them sign that were big contracts? Brown was not a big contract, Gronk was a trade. Brady was the only real FA the Bucs signed. KC? Not much from FA that was a big splash but one name..Mathieu.  Saints? No FAs really come to mind that were big time and a ton of money spent and have not been ging far in the playoffs as of late. These teams spent their money resigning a lot of there own players to deals.  

 

 

[BlackTiger]

15 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

2017 SB Eagles didnt spend a ton of money on FAs either the year of the SB.

The Eagles spent 31.5 million on outside free agents the year they won.  This is a colts forum and that is a lot more than we usually spend.

 

15 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

As for the teams that didnt have much money and won the SB, how many FAs did each them sign that were big contracts?

Not sure what your point is here, they can't spend money they dont have.

[DeathByEagle]

14 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

The Eagles spent 31.5 million on outside free agents the year they won.  

 

Not sure what your point is here, they can't spend money they dont have.

Point is spending a ton in FA doesnt get you to the promise land. Sticking to what has worked and building your team up through the draft and a rare FA can do it in the right system in the right time. Using that money to keep the players you have that know your system well is a bigger benefit. 

 

Also Eagles spent 50.6 mill actually in total FA contracts in 2017 which was in the lowest 1/3 in the league. So yes they spent less then 2/3 of the rest of the league and won a SB. 

[w87r]

1 hour ago, John Waylon said:

I suppose I could restructure my deal and make a little cap room for us... 

Ah, it's such a bad contract, I would rather not compound the situation and push it down the line any further than it already is. 

[BlackTiger]

12 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Also Eagles spent 50.6 mill actually in total FA contracts in 2017 

31.5 on outside free agents is a lot compared to what we usually do, the colts tend to sit out or go after cheaper guys.  The Eagles total spent on free agents is misleading because it ignores what they already had signed.

[DeathByEagle]

Well not really considering 3 of those deals were 1 year contracts for almost 25 mill of it and 14 mill was 1 player. 

 

So yes the full life of the contract is prob more important since it affects the future of your team. 

[BlackTiger]

You keep looking at it from an Eagle fans perspective.  The Colts are usually pretty conservative compared to them.

 

That 31.5 million would be a lot for Chris Ballard, especially not including a QB.

[Dogg63]

16 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Also Eagles spent 50.6 mill actually in total contracts in 2017 which was in the lowest 1/3 in the league. So yes they spent less then 2/3 of the rest of the league and won a SB. 

Something doesn't seem to match between your $50.6M number and this NFLPA data for 2017:

 

 

[DeathByEagle]

6 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

You keep looking at it from an Eagle fans perspective.  The Colts are usually pretty conservatives compared to them.

 

That 31.5 million would be a lot for Chris Ballard, especially not including a QB.

Exactly, and look where it has put the Colts? In great shape to add one or two FAs and still build through the draft and resigning the key players on this team which has been working in the right direction. Why would you change that and move to what the 2011 Eagles or 2018 Vikings did and turned those franchises flat on their faces for a few years in the wrong direction? 

[DeathByEagle]

1 minute ago, Dogg63 said:

Something doesn't seem to match between your $50.6M number and this NFLPA data for 2017:

 

 

Because we are discussing how much in FAs contracts they spent in 2017, not total cap which includes all the players. the dicussion is about over spending in FAs to build a team up. Im against it, I guess Blacktiger is for it by his arguements. 

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/tools/offseason/2017/

[BlackTiger]

10 minutes ago, DeathByEagle said:

Because we are discussing how much in FAs contracts they spent in 2017, not total cap which includes all the players. the dicussion is about over spending in FAs to build a team up. Im against it, I guess Blacktiger is for it by his arguements. 

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/tools/offseason/2017/

I don't think the team should do anything ridiculous, and they wont with Chris Ballard as the GM.  One or two big names in free agency is more than we usually get, and I wonder if that might be necessary at some point if the goal is to win a super bowl.

 

I trust them for the most part, but its not like we have been winning lots of playoff games or super bowls by being conservative.  

 

[DeathByEagle]

7 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

I don't think the team should do anything ridiculous, and they wont with Chris Ballard as the GM.  One or two big names in free agency is more than we usually get, and I wonder if that might be necessary at some point if the goal is to win a super bowl.

 

I trust them for the most part, but its not like we have been winning lots of playoff games or super bowls by being conservative.  

 

Now Im confused, what is your argument then if you basically agree with what my first post said that you quoted? 

 

Did you only read the first few sentences and ignore the rest? Just trying to understand your point of the first msg then cause now your last msg here basically is saying what I have mentioned over and over. 

 

 

[John Waylon]

37 minutes ago, w87r said:

Ah, it's such a bad contract, I would rather not compound the situation and push it down the line any further than it already is. 

Could he worse, it could have been the Monta Ellis deal.