Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Nelson extension coming next two weeks?


Recommended Posts

Not sure how accurate this might be. But I am surprised if it is. I thought he would have to wait until next offseason. But this may help with the cap? I thought Leonard and smith would be done first. They are supposed to be fine before week 1. I won’t be surprised if Nelson gets like 6 years. That would also really help the cap.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's not accurate in several ways. First, you're conflating unspent cap/rollover with actual spending, and while they're related, they are not the same thing, nor do they mean what you're suggesting t

For me, it was more like....  

That's not exactly true if you consider cap space left over. IIRC, we had the most unspent or near most unspent over a 3-4 year period just recently (IIRC, 16, 17, 18, 19). Pretty sure we had 40+M uns

27 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Will be done is about as definite as it gets.  No mincing words for Chad Forbes.  Is he a sound source?   That’s the question.

I am not sure about him being accurate. Seems he gets a lot of heat sometimes. Maybe he got it messed up with Smith. LMAO. I am fine getting all three done but I just never thought nelson would be done this off season. I hope Hines gets extended too. That one might have to wait to see how he gels with Wentz.

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

I am not sure about him being accurate. Seems he gets a lot of heat sometimes. Maybe he got it messed up with Smith. LMAO. I am fine getting all three done but I just never thought nelson would be done this off season. I hope Hines gets extended too. That one might have to wait to see how he gels with Wentz.

I'm with you.  I think we take this report with a big grain of salt.  Kind of hard to believe an NFL reporter would get his players mixed up though.  We will find out soon enough.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone who knows someone who is friends with the cousin of Ballard’s mailman’s son...

 

Could it turn out to be true?  Sure but right now I view it as an unfounded rumor.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have time with Nelson with a 5th year, but at the same time, a 5th year can make an early extension easier, or even create leverage for the team.

 

Nelson will be due to make 7.7 this year, and 13.8 next year via the 5YO if I recall correctly. All of it guaranteed I think. So he's making 21ish over the next two years.  Top LG pay is currently 16M (Thuney), so assume he's wanting 17-18M over 4 years (2023-2026). Team could basically say we'll extend now, and give you 15.5 on average (in whatever yearly amount is best) over the next 6 years (7.7+13.8+18+18+18+18). It would net him $ earlier, and remove any fear of career ending injury over the next two years. Could be front loaded, could be back loaded.

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

We have time with Nelson with a 5th year, but at the same time, a 5th year can make an early extension easier, or even create leverage for the team.

 

Nelson will be due to make 7.7 this year, and 13.8 next year via the 5YO if I recall correctly. All of it guaranteed I think. So he's making 21ish over the next two years.  Top LG pay is currently 16M (Thuney), so assume he's wanting 17-18M over 4 years (2023-2026). Team could basically say we'll extend now, and give you 15.5 on average (in whatever yearly amount is best) over the next 6 years (7.7+13.8+18+18+18+18). It would net him $ earlier, and remove any fear of career ending injury over the next two years. Could be front loaded, could be back loaded.

 

Looking at right tackle contracts, Smith is probably going to get close to what Jack Conklin got - 3 years $42 mil.

 

DL probably close to the 4 years $70 mil. range, IMO.

 

If Nelson is extended, does that include his 5th option year or overwrite it? 6 years $105 mil. extension is what I am preparing for. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, coming on strong said:

It’s smart to sign all three now . Every year the salaries go up by a couple million . 

 

 That is so true. And they better discuss it with the accountant and cap guy to make sure it fits the budget. Exciting times!

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

We have time with Nelson with a 5th year, but at the same time, a 5th year can make an early extension easier, or even create leverage for the team.

 

Absolutely agree.......  

 

Getting him locked down now, may actually save money in the long run as salaries are continuing to grow.

 

5 Years of 17M may be a bargain by the 4th or 5th year the way things are going

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Absolutely agree.......  

 

Getting him locked down now, may actually save money in the long run as salaries are continuing to grow.

 

5 Years of 17M may be a bargain by the 4th or 5th year the way things are going

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, and with the cap growing every year, it even greater room in the long run for signing free agents.

 

The Colts are really good at cap management.  But that's only a plus if you're putting yourself in a position to win.  

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

It’s smart to sign all three now . Every year the salaries go up by a couple million . 

This.

 

Especially with inflation apparently rising.  By definition, inflation has a way to find its way to virtually every dollar-denominated good and service.  And I guess that pro sports salaries aren’t exempt.

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

 

That, and with the cap growing every year, it even greater room in the long run for signing free agents.

 

The Colts are really good at cap management.  But that's only a plus if you're putting yourself in a position to win.  

 

The League cap will never be a problem for the colts....it's Irsay's internal cap that often make Ballard look thrifty. 

 

With all these extensions going to less impactful positions, I wonder how much the premium positions will be compromised in near future. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

The League cap will never be a problem for the colts....it's Irsay's internal cap that often make Ballard look thrifty. 

 

With all these extensions going to less impactful positions, I wonder how much the premium positions will be compromised in near future. 

This actually isn’t true. It’s well known Irsay has told Ballard to spend the money on a player and Ballard is the one that pulled back. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Looking at right tackle contracts, Smith is probably going to get close to what Jack Conklin got - 3 years $42 mil.

 

DL probably close to the 4 years $70 mil. range, IMO.

 

If Nelson is extended, does that include his 5th option year or overwrite it? 6 years $105 mil. extension is what I am preparing for. 

IMHO

 

Smith should be given a longer term deal,  4 years would be better, as he is young, and you dont want to be doing another expensive contract

 

It also gives some more time to spread out a signing bonus

 

14M MIGHT be the right number, but it might go higher

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

The League cap will never be a problem for the colts....it's Irsay's internal cap that often make Ballard look thrifty. 

 

With all these extensions going to less impactful positions, I wonder how much the premium positions will be compromised in near future. 

If inflation is kicking in as reported, unneeded yet perpetual government stimulus might eventually raise the cap to where it doesn't matter how much we pay less impactful positions.

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

We have time with Nelson with a 5th year, but at the same time, a 5th year can make an early extension easier, or even create leverage for the team.

 

Nelson will be due to make 7.7 this year, and 13.8 next year via the 5YO if I recall correctly. All of it guaranteed I think. So he's making 21ish over the next two years.  Top LG pay is currently 16M (Thuney), so assume he's wanting 17-18M over 4 years (2023-2026). Team could basically say we'll extend now, and give you 15.5 on average (in whatever yearly amount is best) over the next 6 years (7.7+13.8+18+18+18+18). It would net him $ earlier, and remove any fear of career ending injury over the next two years. Could be front loaded, could be back loaded.

 

Absolutely, the 5th year option could in some ways be seen as a softer version of the franchise tag style negotiation. Plus it makes sense to do it now while contracts are probably going be slightly down in value (even if it's in the very short term. He will no doubt set the market regardless.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DougDew said:

If inflation is kicking in as reported, unneeded yet perpetual government stimulus might eventually raise the cap to where it doesn't matter how much we pay less impactful positions.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the cap over the next few years.  It’s already been interesting seeing teams dealing with a post-Covid contraction.

 

But nobody can predict the future.  Right now, the CW is that inflation will be short-lived — a relatively brief, once-in-a-lifetime monetary adjustment to deal with a relatively brief, once-in-a-lifetime economic event.  Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Looking at right tackle contracts, Smith is probably going to get close to what Jack Conklin got - 3 years $42 mil.

 

DL probably close to the 4 years $70 mil. range, IMO.

 

If Nelson is extended, does that include his 5th option year or overwrite it? 6 years $105 mil. extension is what I am preparing for. 

I'm prepared for Smith to get anywhere between 13-18M a year depending on how they treat 21. He's easily top 5, and a case could be made for top 2. Johnson is getting 18, while Conklin is getting 14. That's a pretty good delta between the top 2. How they factor the early raise may help lower the overall number.

 

I'm hoping Leonard's is closer to 15M/year. Don't get me wrong, I love Leonard and absolutely want him back and tied up for long term, but he lacks too much in coverage to get #1 pay. We're over a barrel though given the rest of the LB unit (talent level), so he'll likely get more.

 

Nelson's contract can be structured any way they agree to, but if they extend, whatever is in place now will be over-written. He'll definitely be getting a raise for 21 if they extend this year lol, although the 21 over the next two year (already in place) will likely be factored in the overall term. Key is to make everyone happy, which generally means getting a player money earlier, a long term agreement, and a sensible per year AVG. When I say sensible, I don't mean cheap. Just factoring in he's set to make only 21M total the next two years, and then would obvious want at least top pay (currently 16M/y) for anything past 22. What makes things kinda interesting, is that I'm sure he'll want more per year than Smith, which I'm sure his agent will be pressing for. That could be one of the reasons they are trying to lock him up at the same time, or even a little before Smith.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

Absolutely agree.......  

 

Getting him locked down now, may actually save money in the long run as salaries are continuing to grow.

 

5 Years of 17M may be a bargain by the 4th or 5th year the way things are going

Sure it'll look better in 3-5 years, but the thing is, the longer you wait, the top tier pay will just go up. So it's always better to lock in early (for top tier guys on certain positions, assuming age and health). What's really important also is the structure as far as yearly amounts and dead cap. Not really worried though about dead cap for Nelson, and more interested in the yearly progressions (front loaded or back loaded).

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Absolutely, the 5th year option could in some ways be seen as a softer version of the franchise tag style negotiation. Plus it makes sense to do it now while contracts are probably going be slightly down in value (even if it's in the very short term. He will no doubt set the market regardless.  

Yup, and double yup!!!

 

The first bolded is huge if the cap goes up a lot over the next couple years.

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

It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the cap over the next few years.  It’s already been interesting seeing teams dealing with a post-Covid contraction.

 

But nobody can predict the future.  Right now, the CW is that inflation will be short-lived — a relatively brief, once-in-a-lifetime monetary adjustment to deal with a relatively brief, once-in-a-lifetime economic event.  Time will tell.

Do what?  The cap generally increases gradually year after year, along with league revenue.....  if you mean this big jump up, it's a new TV deal..... it jumps every time a new, larger TV deal comes into play because it's a percentage of revenue.....  it will always steadily increase as long as the league is the #1 sports league and every TV contract is substantially larger by default so it will always jump when one happens.....  yes, THIS jump is extra big because of the Covid contraction, but your "inflation" isn't going to be short lived..... it's built in, and predicated on league popularity.....  Thus the cap will always increase because it's in the owners best interest that it does under the current CBA, and that aspect won't go away anytime soon in any future CBA, the players will always push for a larger percentage allocated to the cap.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

lol is that new? first time seeing it

nah, from March 2019, in Cancun IIRC

his party to celebrate his new contract might actually have Cardi B performing lol... 

he'll be able to afford it

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2021 at 11:53 AM, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

The League cap will never be a problem for the colts....it's Irsay's internal cap that often make Ballard look thrifty. 

 

With all these extensions going to less impactful positions, I wonder how much the premium positions will be compromised in near future. 

That's obviously nonsense.    Irsay doesn't pay the players,  the Indianapolis Colts do.    Have you ever owned a business?  The business pays the employees not the owner of the business.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

That's obviously nonsense.    Irsay doesn't pay the players,  the Indianapolis Colts do.    Have you ever owned a business?  The business pays the employees not the owner of the business.   

Not to mention if anyone has paid any attention to the Colts under Irsay he’s never had a problem with letting his GM spend whatever money they feel is needed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

That's obviously nonsense.    Irsay doesn't pay the players,  the Indianapolis Colts do.    Have you ever owned a business?  The business pays the employees not the owner of the business.   

Semantics. Colts are privately owned, and Irsay is the owner. His team, his payroll. The GM reports to him.

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

Semantics. Colts are privately owned, and Irsay is the owner. His team, his payroll. The GM reports to him.

Regardless Irsay has never been shy about spending to make the Colts better.  So either way the first point that started all this is irrelevant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Regardless Irsay has never been shy about spending to make the Colts better.  So either way the first point that started all this is irrelevant.  

That's not exactly true if you consider cap space left over. IIRC, we had the most unspent or near most unspent over a 3-4 year period just recently (IIRC, 16, 17, 18, 19). Pretty sure we had 40+M unspent two years in a row.

 

IIRC, we carried over the most in the league again this year at around 30M.

 

It was also speculated that we 1) didn't ask Luck for money back, AND 2) gave JB such a big raise, was because we would have been too far under the 89% rule had we not done both 1 and 2. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

That's not exactly true if you consider cap space left over. IIRC, we had the most unspent or near most unspent over a 3-4 year period just recently (IIRC, 16, 17, 18, 19). Pretty sure we had 40+M unspent two years in a row.

 

IIRC, we carried over the most in the league again this year at around 30M.

 

It was also speculated that we 1) didn't ask Luck for money back, AND 2) gave JB such a big raise, was because we would have been too far under the 89% rule had we not done both 1 and 2. 

 

 

Just because they had money left over doesn’t mean Irsay had a problem spending it had Ballard wanted too.  It doesn’t take that hard of a look back at Irsay’s history of owner to see he has zero problem spending what his GM wants to spend.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Just because they had money left over doesn’t mean Irsay had a problem spending it had Ballard wanted too.  It doesn’t take that hard of a look back at Irsay’s history of owner to see he has zero problem spending what his GM wants to spend.  

I’m not sure why you find it hard to accept that the Colts may have cash flow problems?  Not that they can’t manage them, but still….

 

Irsay is one of the few owners who doesn’t have any other source of big income.   No high tech company.  No real estate development.   No oil and gas.   His wealth is owning the Colts.   That’s it. 
 

Sure he may he may spend money, but these last five years he now uses a pay-go system that lends itself to managing money.  We used to give bigger SB’s under Grigson.   Now,  we give either small or no signing bonuses.   Very few teams do that.  And we’re a very small market franchise.   You weren’t the least bit surprised to see DeForest Buckner accept a ZERO signing bonus?   I sure was.  
 

Point of clarification:  none of what I’ve written is proof of anything.   But I think it’s at least worth considering, and you seem completely unwilling to even do that.  I confess find that surprising. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m not sure why you find it hard to accept that the Colts may have cash flow problems?  Not that they can’t manage them, but still….

 

Irsay is one of the few owners who doesn’t have any other source of big income.   No high tech company.  No real estate development.   No oil and gas.   His wealth is owning the Colts.   That’s it. 
 

Sure he may he may spend money, but these last five years he now uses a pay-go system that lends itself to managing money.  We used to give bigger SB’s under Grigson.   Now,  we give either small or no signing bonuses.   Very few teams do that.  And we’re a very small market franchise.   You weren’t the least bit surprised to see DeForest Buckner accept a ZERO signing bonus?   I sure was.  
 

Point of clarification:  none of what I’ve written is proof of anything.   But I think it’s at least worth considering, and you seem completely unwilling to even do that.  I confess find that surprising. 

Because I’ve been a Colts fan for a long time and Jim Irsay has never had an issue spending money.  Ballard has also said over and over again he was saving his money to pay his own.  This isn’t breaking news.  So rather buy into some idea that he was fine with spending money under Tobin, Polian, and Grigson but is no longer fine with spending money under Ballard just doesn’t add up when you look at his history and what Ballard said.  It’s much more logical to assume that’s he’s spending what Ballard wants like he has with his previous GMs especially when the GM tells you he doesn’t believe in splash free agents and is saving his money to sign his own.
 

Irsay doesn’t negotiate the contracts.  Ballard does so contract structuring is done by Ballard and Ballard has done it in away to give him cap flexibility that is going to allow him to keep guys like Nelson, Leonard, Smith and others over the next couple of years. 
 

Also Jim Irsay is worth 3 billion dollars he’s not hurting for money.

 

You want to see an organization that doesn’t want to spend money look across town where Simon won’t even let the Pacers look at the luxury tax.  That’s an owner who doesn’t want to spend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Because I’ve been a Colts fan for a long time and Jim Irsay has never had an issue spending money.  Ballard has also said over and over again he was saving his money to pay his own.  This isn’t breaking news.  So rather buy into some idea that he was fine with spending money under Tobin, Polian, and Grigson but is no longer fine with spending money under Ballard just doesn’t add up when you look at his history and what Ballard said.  It’s much more logical to assume that’s he’s spending what Ballard wants like he has with his previous GMs especially when the GM tells you he doesn’t believe in splash free agents and is saving his money to sign his own.
 

Irsay doesn’t negotiate the contracts.  Ballard does so contract structuring is done by Ballard and Ballard has done it in away to give him cap flexibility that is going to allow him to keep guys like Nelson, Leonard, Smith and others over the next couple of years. 
 

Also Jim Irsay is worth 3 billion dollars he’s not hurting for money.

 

You want to see an organization that doesn’t want to spend money look across town where Simon won’t even let the Pacers look at the luxury tax.  That’s an owner who doesn’t want to spend.

I couldn't agree more.  It's funny how so many think this team/business can't survive or compete with other teams in the league unless the owner loans money to them to keep the ship afloat.  Their revenue stream isn't enough to keep them viable and competitive they need the owner to intercede.  I don't see that point of view.  Small market big market they all operate under the same cap.  The Colt's are great at managing the cap.  That's one of their strengths.  That leads to managing cash flow at the same time.  You can't forget the 89% rule either.  They still need to spend just where and to whom.  I don't see cash on hand being an issue at all.  I think it's there when Ballard decides it's time to use it.  Just like the other teams.  They make decisions on when and where to use it.  The Colts appear to be pretty good at it.  Sound management if you ask me.  JMO

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

That's not exactly true if you consider cap space left over. IIRC, we had the most unspent or near most unspent over a 3-4 year period just recently (IIRC, 16, 17, 18, 19). Pretty sure we had 40+M unspent two years in a row.

 

IIRC, we carried over the most in the league again this year at around 30M.

 

It was also speculated that we 1) didn't ask Luck for money back, AND 2) gave JB such a big raise, was because we would have been too far under the 89% rule had we not done both 1 and 2. 

 

This is very surface level, and hardly accurate. I don't think the Colts had the most unspent in the last four year period, but I'm having trouble finding those numbers now. Besides, there was/is a gross misunderstanding of how the salary floor works.

 

Any speculation about Luck and JB being paid because the Colts were too far under the 89% rule is wrongheaded, and easily debunked.

 

Edit: It's hard to find accurate historical cap/cash figures, but what I put together just now is that each team needed to spend at least $650m cash between 2017-2020 to hit the minimum threshold. The Colts spent at least $704m (pretty sure it's higher than that, but I didn't go through all the signing bonuses for rookie contracts). So the idea that they had to pay Luck and JB to meet the floor doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’m not sure why you find it hard to accept that the Colts may have cash flow problems?  Not that they can’t manage them, but still….

 

Irsay is one of the few owners who doesn’t have any other source of big income.   No high tech company.  No real estate development.   No oil and gas.   His wealth is owning the Colts.   That’s it. 
 

Sure he may he may spend money, but these last five years he now uses a pay-go system that lends itself to managing money.  We used to give bigger SB’s under Grigson.   Now,  we give either small or no signing bonuses.   Very few teams do that.  And we’re a very small market franchise.   You weren’t the least bit surprised to see DeForest Buckner accept a ZERO signing bonus?   I sure was.  
 

Point of clarification:  none of what I’ve written is proof of anything.   But I think it’s at least worth considering, and you seem completely unwilling to even do that.  I confess find that surprising. 

 

It's because it doesn't make sense, for multiple reasons. 

 

First, it's really hard for an NFL team to have cash flow issues, just due to revenue sharing alone. The Packers reported having a $400m slush fund for team expenses last year, and they are a similar small market team, with similar pricing models, they have a less favorable stadium deal, and they pay their coaches more than the Colts do. If the Packers have $400m socked away, imagine the mismanagement it would take for the Colts to have cash flow issues. And then think about how long it's been since the Colts have been even close to going over the cap. There would be a lot of missing money.

 

Second, the pay-go player pay system doesn't save the Colts cash. Buckner didn't get a signing bonus, but he did get big roster bonuses in the first two years of his deal. HIs two year cash pay is $40m. The same year, Kenny Clark received a similar four year extension, less total value, but he got a $25m signing bonus. His two year cash pay is $28m. Clark's cap hits start out low for two years, then increase 300% in Year 3, while Buckner's cap hits stay even for the entirety of his contract; in fact, his cap hit goes down in Years 2 and 3. This formula applies to almost any contract/structure comparison you make between similarly paid players.

 

This is a cap management strategy, not a cash flow strategy. It affects cap hits and dead money, not cash spent. These different strategies have their advantages and drawbacks, but none of those elements speak to a team's cash flow standing. Buckner -- and anyone else -- agreed to that structure because it didn't affect his bottom line. From a cash flow standpoint, there's basically no difference.

 

Third, Irsay has never had a problem spending money on players, facilities, or anything else related to this team. That's been true over the several decades he's been running the show. So the fiscal restraint of recent seasons -- while NFL financials have been increasing year over year, except for during Covid -- is likely due to the strategies of the GM. And Ballard has very clearly explained his approach to spending money and building his roster, and every move the team has made has been in line with that approach.

 

Whether the Colts have cash flow restraints is unknown. But there's really no evidence that they do.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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...