Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts interested in Mike Mcglinchey?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I get what you're saying, but that's two years down the road since we'd have the fifth year option for both Q and Mike. The cap will go back to 200+ that it's normally at.

Yeah, I see that, but we also have to factor in how much we'll be dishing out the year before that and how much we'll be paying Q. Its likely that we will be paying the trio of Leonard, Smith, and Nelson a combined total upwards of $50M per year. Throwing in Mike, that number would be even higher, meaning that probably close to 35% of our total cap space would be spent in the span of two seasons on just four players.

 

I would love McGlinchey next to Q again, but looking at how Ballard is likely looking at it, it doesn't seem that likely financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Yeah, I see that, but we also have to factor in how much we'll be dishing out the year before that and how much we'll be paying Q. Its likely that we will be paying the trio of Leonard, Smith, and Nelson a combined total upwards of $50M per year. Throwing in Mike, that number would be even higher, meaning that probably close to 35% of our total cap space would be spent in the span of two seasons on just four players.

 

I would love McGlinchey next to Q again, but looking at how Ballard is likely looking at it, it doesn't seem that likely financially.

 

Could also be a two year rental if Ballard doesn't like what he sees.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Yeah, I see that, but we also have to factor in how much we'll be dishing out the year before that and how much we'll be paying Q. Its likely that we will be paying the trio of Leonard, Smith, and Nelson a combined total upwards of $50M per year. Throwing in Mike, that number would be even higher, meaning that probably close to 35% of our total cap space would be spent in the span of two seasons on just four players.

 

I would love McGlinchey next to Q again, but looking at how Ballard is likely looking at it, it doesn't seem that likely financially.

It wouldnt be any more than they were paying for Castonzo, Q, Brissett last year to pay Q and McGlinchey....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Could also be a two year rental if Ballard doesn't like what he sees.

We’d trade a FIRST round pick for McGlinchey and then not resign him if we don’t like what we see?    Is that what you’re saying?

 

I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. 
 

Odds are if we could trade for him, we’d extend him as we did with Buckner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewColtsFan said:

We’d trade a FIRST round pick for McGlinchey and then not resign him if we don’t like what we see?    Is that what you’re saying?

 

I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. 
 

Odds are if we could trade fir him, we’d extend him as we did with Buckner. 

 

I don't know what the compensation would be, but we all know Ballard makes low ball offers look like gold.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I don't know what the compensation would be, but we all know Ballard makes low ball offers look like gold.

Ok...    now I’m even more confused.   Compensation?  
 

The whole thread discussion is about sending a first for McGlinchey.   And what low ball offer did we make for Buckner?   The 49ers said they wanted a first and Ballard couldn’t say yes fast enough!

 

It wouldn’t be for less than a two, and even for a two, he’d never be a “rental.”

 

Come on now....

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Yeah, I see that, but we also have to factor in how much we'll be dishing out the year before that and how much we'll be paying Q. Its likely that we will be paying the trio of Leonard, Smith, and Nelson a combined total upwards of $50M per year. Throwing in Mike, that number would be even higher, meaning that probably close to 35% of our total cap space would be spent in the span of two seasons on just four players.

 

I would love McGlinchey next to Q again, but looking at how Ballard is likely looking at it, it doesn't seem that likely financially.

On the contrary I think Ballard is looking at this trade from a financial standpoint as well.  And to him he can make it work or he wouldn't have made the call.  Bringing McGlinchey on board gives us two years at least of financial control.  Very little cap consequence this year.  To me this could open up extending Smith and Possibly Leonard now.  We still have possible contract restructuring available to us and Buckner alone could add an additional 12m in cap space if needed.  To me this presents more positive consequences for us than bad.  I could see these extensions being spread over 3 years easily.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ok...    now I’m even more confused.   Compensation?  
 

The whole thread discussion is about sending a first for McGlinchey.   And what low ball offer did we make for Buckner?   The 49ers said they wanted a first and Ballard couldn’t say yes fast enough!

 

It wouldn’t be for less than a two, and even for a two, he’d never be a “rental.”

 

Come on now....

 

Where was it mentioned that we'd send a one? This whole thread is basically a rumor

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BProland85 said:

Please no more trading high picks unless for young studs.

 

I’d rather get young players in the draft since I do trust Ballard and this scouting dept to evaluate draft classes. 

I watched a youtube video on this and the comments from the fan base on Mike was, they would be happy seeing him gone even for a 3rd or 4th round pick. I guess he missed a few passing blocks last year that cost them games. I will try to find the video and link it

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jeremy Waldon said:

I watched a youtube video on this and the comments from the fan base on Mike was, they would be happy seeing him gone even for a 3rd or 4th round pick. I guess he missed a few passing blocks last year that cost them games. I will try to find the video and link it

 

 

Sounds like Colts fans thoughts on AC after three years.

 

Yeah, 49er fans will gladly take a second, but that doesn't mean much.  Not sure you could get him for a 2nd   Perhaps you could trade a 1st and get a later pick back in the trade.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would rather not, if we do that we're again for the 2nd year in a row trading away a 1st round pick for a player who we are going to have to pay big money to.

 

You can't keep that up.  You need your high picks to give you players who will play on cheap rookie deals for 4 years.  Keep trading for guys you have to pay big money to and we'll find ourselves up against the cap in 3 years or so.

 

Remember in the next couple years we're gonna have to pay Leonard, Smith and Big Q.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jeremy Waldon said:

I watched a youtube video on this and the comments from the fan base on Mike was, they would be happy seeing him gone even for a 3rd or 4th round pick. I guess he missed a few passing blocks last year that cost them games. I will try to find the video and link it

 


I almost NEVER care what the fan base thinks.   Fans are mostly uninformed and full of opinions.   Many in this fan base used to think AC sucked!   That’s now mostly ancient history.   But it too way too long for fans to come around..... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

Sounds like Colts fans thoughts on AC after three years.

 

Yeah, 49er fans will gladly take a second, but that doesn't mean much.  Not sure you could get him for a 2nd   Perhaps you could trade a 1st and get a later pick back in the trade.

I agree i dont take to serious their trade expectations, but if for whatever reason theres an issue with his pass pro. That could benefit CB if he is actually interested. And believes that part can be fixed to a at least an avg skill set. But one thing that stands out is every report i have seen on him, he is a beast like Q in the run game.

Fan bases are almost always wrong with value assessment on players because most(not all) base everything on feelings and expectations. The way the Colts set a value and really dont budge much on it or jusy step away from out of control deals is nice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we not actually be looking at him as a very solid replacement for Leraven Clark as the swing tackle?  I could be wrong, but I had that thought in my head.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Big Mike would be fine at LT with Nelson on his hip.

 

Not sure though why SF would want to deal him unless they're desperate to pick up more draft capital. And his 5th year option would only cost them around 10M next year.

don't honestly see McGlinchey as left tackle material (he struggled at RT in 2020) so I'd assume a trade for him might involve Braden Smith moving to LT---and shouldn't, under any circumstances, involve a 1st (or IMO 2nd) round draft pick

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

Could we not actually be looking at him as a very solid replacement for Leraven Clark as the swing tackle?  I could be wrong, but I had that thought in my head.

A young starting OT on his 1st round rookie contract is suddenly going to be our backup swing tackle?!? 
 

Please tell me you didn’t post that?  
 

Please?      :peek:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, poilucelt said:

don't honestly see McGlinchey as left tackle material (he struggled at RT in 2020) so I'd assume a trade for him might involve Braden Smith moving to LT---and shouldn't, under any circumstances, involve a 1st (or IMO 2nd) round draft pick

Struggled? He graded out at a hair under 80. That's not struggling. It's as good or better than AC's last 4 years, and almost identical to Braden Smith's rating last year. 

 

And Big Mike played on the Left side at T in college, so it's not a stretch. Smith never played LT, which would be a stretch. Big Mike is easily worth a 2nd, but I wouldn't give make the trade. The T class is deep this year, so no need to give up a 1st or 2nd to trade for one. Might as well use the draft pick and reap the rewards of years of cheap rook $$ . The thing with Mike, is he's nearing the end of his contract, and 49ers might be trying to maximize his trade value given this year's and next's cap situation for them.

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

Could we not actually be looking at him as a very solid replacement for Leraven Clark as the swing tackle?  I could be wrong, but I had that thought in my head.

An 80 graded T as a backup... Nope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

A young starting OT on his 1st round rookie contract is suddenly going to be our backup swing tackle?!? 
 

Please tell me you didn’t post that?  
 

Please?      :peek:

Oh who cares. You saw the words i could be wrong. I know he difnt start

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

I would rather just take a chance on a rookie. 

Not me.  Ballard passed on drafting Kinlaw last year in favor of trading for and extending Buckner.  A DT.   So much for the rookie deal.  Now you want to draft a rookie and take a chance on him at LT to protect our franchise QB's blind side.  I don't think so.  I would much rather sign a starting LT in FA or trade for someone like McGlinchey or Brown.  I would find it hard to believe that Ballard would take that chance.  That's why this call to SF makes sense.  I think a rookie starting would not be his 1st option no matter how deep the class is.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Not me.  Ballard passed on drafting Kinlaw last year in favor of trading for and extending Buckner.  A DT.   So much for the rookie deal.  Now you want to draft a rookie and take a chance on him at LT to protect our franchise QB's blind side.  I don't think so.  I would much rather sign a starting LT in FA or trade for someone like McGlinchey or Brown.  I would find it hard to believe that Ballard would take that chance.  That's why this call to SF makes sense.  I think a rookie starting would not be his 1st option no matter how deep the class is.  

I want a rookie from a financial stand point. Kelly already got paid and Smith/Q will soon join him. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danlhart87 said:

Its already been said by @EastStreet but a rookie will do just fine next to Q. If Ballard likes a guy enough late 1st to 2nd I would trade down and get a rookie. Colts could even go CB  DE or WR 1st then OT 2nd 54th

I see people say this but I disagree. Like disagree by a lot. LaRaven Clark is example 1. Next to Nelson he still was terrible. Rivers even new it and never was comfortable. Green was only slightly better. If you draft a rookie it better be someone you are very comfortable with like a Darrisaw type guy. This whole wait for LT because Nelson stuff is just not good with me. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is McGlinchley's 5th year option decision.  They might not be 100% sure they want to exercise it.  It will be over 10m.  The guys in the video seem okay with moving on from him.  Trading him now allows them to get a better value in a trade versus not exercising it which raises a flag and would lower his trade value.  Trade him now and let his new team make and live with their decision.  This would be the ideal time to trade him before FA and the draft.  Before teams sign FA tackles and draft rookie tackles.  If Ballard signs a FA tackle I don't see him trading for McGlinchley as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

McGlinchey would PROBABLY be a decent left tackle.....notice two key words; “probably” and “decent”. He has not played LT in several years, since college, and on the right side he has been decent. I would say not quite to the level that our own, less heralded right tackle has played but fairly close. Trading for Buckner, an absolute stud at what Ballard seems to consider the most important position on the defense was far more prudent than taking a gamble on an above average right tackle that we’d be asking to move to the other side. 
 

I would much rather bring in some cheap camp competition and draft and develop our own. There are other options than going all in on one spot when we’ve got a number of key holes to fill. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, richard pallo said:

More like our 1st rd pick for McGlinchey and their 3rd. 

 

No, trading a top player for a first like they did last year was because of cap space. No team is going to trade a top OT still on his rookie deal for cap space, just the opposite. If the 49'ers are trying to shop him it's because they don't think he's starting material, so there's no way they would expect a 1st or a 2nd round pick in return. A swap of picks where they move up a round is possible. Maybe something like our 1st to the 49ers for McGinchey and their 2nd..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Mike McGlinchey or Orlando Brown Jr getting traded because of the price tag attached to both of them. Also, they're both still on their rookie contracts and its going to take at least a 1st round pick to acquire either guy. 

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

 

No, trading a top player for a first like they did last year was because of cap space. No team is going to trade a top OT still on his rookie deal for cap space, just the opposite. If the 49'ers are trying to shop him it's because they don't think he's starting material, so there's no way they would expect a 1st or a 2nd round pick in return. A swap of picks where they move up a round is possible. Maybe something like our 1st to the 49ers for McGinchey and their 2nd..

The way I viewed the report is Ballard called the 49er's not the other way around.  I didn't get the impression they were shopping him.  They are trying real hard to sign Williams right now before he hits FA.  Williams might get 20m a year from them.  That's a chunk of cap space.  They also might be trying to move up in the draft to get a QB.  Possibly up to 2 or 3.  They could use our 1st to help them get there.  That's what I think is going on.  Ballard called to plant a seed and let them know he's interested in McGlinchey.  IF, and that's a big IF,  they resign Williams then I think there is a good chance this trade goes down.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Struggled? He graded out at a hair under 80. That's not struggling. It's as good or better than AC's last 4 years, and almost identical to Braden Smith's rating last year. 

 

And Big Mike played on the Left side at T in college, so it's not a stretch. Smith never played LT, which would be a stretch. Big Mike is easily worth a 2nd, but I wouldn't give make the trade. The T class is deep this year, so no need to give up a 1st or 2nd to trade for one. Might as well use the draft pick and reap the rewards of years of cheap rook $$ . The thing with Mike, is he's nearing the end of his contract, and 49ers might be trying to maximize his trade value given this year's and next's cap situation for them.

I don't follow the NFC as closely as the AFC but FWIW listening to several of the guys who cover the 49ers professionally and do podcasts, it sounds like the 49ers front office is not terribly happy with McGlinchey and apparently they are looking to move him

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, poilucelt said:

I don't follow the NFC as closely as the AFC but FWIW listening to several of the guys who cover the 49ers professionally and do podcasts, it sounds like the 49ers front office is not terribly happy with McGlinchey and apparently they are looking to move him

Great.  Apparently Ballard feels differently.  I could see Ballard already having a trade in place If they sign Williams.  McGlinchly to the Colts could happen very quickly.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, poilucelt said:

I don't follow the NFC as closely as the AFC but FWIW listening to several of the guys who cover the 49ers professionally and do podcasts, it sounds like the 49ers front office is not terribly happy with McGlinchey and apparently they are looking to move him

The dig on Big Mike is his pass pro. He's one of the best blocking the run, and has not been very good pass blocking. Many have speculated it's because he's a natural left side guy, and switching him to the R had a negative impact (mostly around blocking the edge IIRC). Also factor that SF's RGs have been pretty meh the last couple years. Brunskill last year barely graded in the 60s. If memory serves, there was also a lot of injury and musical chairs going on in SF this year. Not sure, but thought they were the highest in man games lost. Not sure how much of that was OL though.

 

At the end of the day, SF has a decision to make on his 5YO. His 5th year option would likely be considerably less than his market value IMO, but extending him early would help them offset cap. This is why I can see them trying to move him now, especially with a great T class this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...