Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Nelson extension coming next two weeks?


Wentzszn
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

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

He has the money to write the checks.   He doesn't skimp on players contracts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 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. 

 

12 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  ^^^^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 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.   

 

See Eaststreet & NCF's posts above. ^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

Anyone who thinks Irsay has issues spending money needs to look at his father and now he didn’t like to spend money.  Jim couldn’t be more different than his father in that regard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

Anyone who thinks Irsay has issues spending money needs to look at his father and now he didn’t like to spend money.  Jim couldn’t be more different than his father in that regard.

You have that correct!  Jim was a breath of fresh air after he took over, except for his stint as GM ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WentzinRome said:

You have that correct!  Jim was a breath of fresh air after he took over, except for his stint as GM ;).

Which was another cost cutting move by his father.  Jim has told the stories of how he would beg his dad to hire a real GM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jvan1973 is correct.  The Colts do not have a cash flow issue because of a lack of outside businesses owned by Irsay.  Now, I don't know the cash flow situation of the Colts as a separate business, but Irsay's lack of other ventures plays no part in it.

 

This issue is why the salary cap exists.  Eddie DeBartolo got caught using wealth generated from others businesses to fund huge contracts for 49ers during their 1980s/90s dynasty.  The NFL sought to separate those advantages and level the playing field by introducing the cap.  

 

IMO, the cap can be manipulated by a money bags owner for a few years if he can dump a bunch of cash early on good players, but he'll eventually have to back off in later years because the accounting will catch up.

 

Stadium revenue and brand marketing might give some benefit to certain teams and the smaller market might hurt the Colts in that respect (I don't know how revenue sharing works in the NFL but I think Jerry Jones at one time convinced the NFL that certain local revenues could be kept by the team).  Those local revenues could create some cash imbalances between teams but I still think that the accounting of money spent on players evens things out over time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours 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.  

Unspent money is unspent money. Every cent unspent is a cent that could have made the team better. Those years that we had 40+M unspent could have been a few high impact players. Just because you spend on a few elite players, doesn't mean a lot when your close to leading the league in unspent $$. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

Hardly accurate? What is not accurate. I've listed the salary cap / carry over ranks farther below. Don'* on posts/data if you're not willing to at least look it up (I found it easily, and sourced it below). I also said most or near most, and also said IIRC. I haven't done the math for the four years, but gonna assume ranking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in three years straight gets us to at least "near most".... No??? 

 

What is so mysterious about he salary floor. I agree it's not straight forward, but it basically amounts to a team must spend 89% of their cash per year (rolling 4 year average IIRC). Quoted and linked farther too.

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

Colts let Luck keep 25M they could have easily recouped. 

They gave Brissett basically 30M when they were only on the hook for 2M in 2018.

 

That's basically a 53M delta. And we're talking about how things looked after 2018, when they were already well below the 89% pace, ranking 3rd, 2nd, and then 1st in carryover). In other words, the Luck forgiveness and JB over pay happened when they were wayyyyyy under. In hindsight after 20, you can say "we spent enough", but that is certainly not the way we were tracking. So you're not debunking anything. They had to spend. And every Indy talking head was talking about it.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unspent

2021 - 10th (17M so far in terms of top 51) - current

2020 - 12th (8M)

2019 - 1st (41.7M, by more than 9M over the next team)

2018 - 2nd (49.8M, second only to the Browns, and 16M more than #3)

2017 - 3rd (and just barely, delta was only 2m)

2016 - 14th

 

Salary cap (what 11% would be)

2020 - 198M (21.7)

2019 - 188M (20.7) - carried over 11% + 21M

-----luck forgiveness and JB contract--------

2018 - 177M (19.4) - carried over 11% +30M

2017 - 167M (18.3)

 

2018-21 is from sportrac https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

17 and 16 links below

 

DW_jKlzVMAAUxOl.jpg

 

Salary-Cap-Carry-Over-Graphic-Final.jpg

 

Quote

What is the Projection for the 89% Rule? The minimum spending requirement says that teams must spend, in cash, at least 89% of the total salary cap from 2017-2020. To determine the 89% minimum cash spending requirement, the sums of the salary caps are multiplied by 89%

https://www.dawgsbynature.com/2018/3/9/17099712/cleveland-browns-salary-cap-understanding-the-89-cash-spending-requirement#:~:text=What is the Projection for,caps are multiplied by 89%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

He just doesn't spend as much as he could on FAs.


  He Knows that by drafting well, and developing our players well, of which we are doing, he is soon going to be losing Our Good players because of lack of $$$.
 So being penny wise and frugal with bringing other teams players here is very Smart.
 Unless of course it is Two of the Biggest deals in the NFL over the last 2 seasons that CB did do. Brilliant minds think alike!
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Hardly accurate? What is not accurate. I've listed the salary cap / carry over ranks farther below. Don'* on posts/data if you're not willing to at least look it up (I found it easily, and sourced it below). I also said most or near most, and also said IIRC. I haven't done the math for the four years, but gonna assume ranking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in three years straight gets us to at least "near most".... No??? 

 

What is so mysterious about he salary floor. I agree it's not straight forward, but it basically amounts to a team must spend 89% of their cash per year (rolling 4 year average IIRC). Quoted and linked farther too.

 

Colts let Luck keep 25M they could have easily recouped. 

They gave Brissett basically 30M when they were only on the hook for 2M in 2018.

 

That's basically a 53M delta. And we're talking about how things looked after 2018, when they were already well below the 89% pace, ranking 3rd, 2nd, and then 1st in carryover). In other words, the Luck forgiveness and JB over pay happened when they were wayyyyyy under. In hindsight after 20, you can say "we spent enough", but that is certainly not the way we were tracking. So you're not debunking anything. They had to spend. And every Indy talking head was talking about it.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unspent

2021 - 10th (17M so far in terms of top 51) - current

2020 - 12th (8M)

2019 - 1st (41.7M, by more than 9M over the next team)

2018 - 2nd (49.8M, second only to the Browns, and 16M more than #3)

2017 - 3rd (and just barely, delta was only 2m)

2016 - 14th

 

Salary cap (what 11% would be)

2020 - 198M (21.7)

2019 - 188M (20.7) - carried over 11% + 21M

-----luck forgiveness and JB contract--------

2018 - 177M (19.4) - carried over 11% +30M

2017 - 167M (18.3)

 

2018-21 is from sportrac https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

17 and 16 links below

 

DW_jKlzVMAAUxOl.jpg

 

Salary-Cap-Carry-Over-Graphic-Final.jpg

 

https://www.dawgsbynature.com/2018/3/9/17099712/cleveland-browns-salary-cap-understanding-the-89-cash-spending-requirement#:~:text=What is the Projection for,caps are multiplied by 89%.

 

 

 You are in a Dreamland regarding getting back any $$$ from Luck.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Unspent money is unspent money. Every cent unspent is a cent that could have made the team better. Those years that we had 40+M unspent could have been a few high impact players. Just because you spend on a few elite players, doesn't mean a lot when your close to leading the league in unspent $$. 

 

  Spending wild on FA's to take a likely 8-8 roster to maybe a couple more wins is a Losing proposition. Irsay has been kind enough to tell Colts fans that 8-8 or such mediocrity does not work for him.
 He wants to compete for a SB. And he and Ballard agree, Ballard has made it Perfectly for those who closely follow our Colts, that there is a time to spend to fill out the roster when we are getting Close.
 He made a Bold strike to get a Superior talent with Buckner, and no doubt made Frank Giddy by acquiring Wentz at this time.
 Irsay has tens of Million$ to finance Contracts that appeal to Agents/Players that many would have Blown on likely mediocrity. We are a lower revenue franchise and his wealth is centered on this ownership. Those $$$ matter.
It's a little picture/Big picture matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen a breakdown of the NFL revenue sharing flows.

 

I assume that the salary cap is set so that the weakest revenue generating team (after revenue sharing) can still meet the full salary cap limits.  Meaning, if you were to set the cap at $300M, that would be noncompetitive to a team that generates and receives only $200M of revenue.  They can't spend to the NFL cap.

 

I don't know why LVR supposedly ran short of cash to the point that they had to trade Kahlil Mack (that was the rumor, that they did not have the cash to pay his outrageous $50M cash bonus or guarantee demand, so they traded him).  I guess like any household that runs short, they did not budget very well.

 

I assume that a club could simply save and accumulate cash from underspending on players during the years they have little chance.  That may be what Irsay is doing.  Simply not spending a lot of cash now and accumulating it for later needs. 

 

The Colts, in fact, may have one of the biggest cash balances sitting on their balance sheet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:


  He Knows that by drafting well, and developing our players well, of which we are doing, he is soon going to be losing Our Good players because of lack of $$$.
 So being penny wise and frugal with bringing other teams players here is very Smart.
 Unless of course it is Two of the Biggest deals in the NFL over the last 2 seasons that CB did do. Brilliant minds think alike!
 

There's always a balance between FAs and Draft picks. Of course you have to pick the right guys in both. To me, hitting on draft picks and riding the cheap rook contracts is the single most important thing year to year when it come to salary management. And strategically drafting well on the high dollar positions helps big time too. It's why I prefer using early round picks on DEs, 3Ts, CBs, QBs, LTs, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 You are in a Dreamland regarding getting back any $$$ from Luck.
 

Never said we should try. Just pointing out we unnecessarily let that money go. It would have been a pretty easy recoup had we wanted too. And like I said, many believe it was because at that particular time, we were tracking so far under the 89%, it made sense for us to be generous (in addition to other reasons). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  Spending wild on FA's to take a likely 8-8 roster to maybe a couple more wins is a Losing proposition. Irsay has been kind enough to tell Colts fans that 8-8 or such mediocrity does not work for him.
 He wants to compete for a SB. And he and Ballard agree, Ballard has made it Perfectly for those who closely follow our Colts, that there is a time to spend to fill out the roster when we are getting Close.
 He made a Bold strike to get a Superior talent with Buckner, and no doubt made Frank Giddy by acquiring Wentz at this time.
 Irsay has tens of Million$ to finance Contracts that appeal to Agents/Players that many would have Blown on likely mediocrity. We are a lower revenue franchise and his wealth is centered on this ownership. Those $$$ matter.
It's a little picture/Big picture matter.

Nobody is saying spend wild on FAs. What I'm saying is that unspent is unspent. And we weren't really mediocre. If we were mediocre in some areas, it was specific areas, which depending on the timing, could have made the team a lot better had we spent on unpgrades. 2019 was a weird year, but we were primarily deficient in one area.

 

And we're really not a low rent team. We're actually valuated higher than several teams you'd think would be higher than the Colts (like Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Titans, Bills, Chiefs, Chargers, etc..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

He spends what the gm asks him to

That's speculative. The GM reports to him. Most GMs have target budgets every year given to them by ownership. And GMs that want to keep their jobs (like anyone running a business for owners), typically work within the budget they are given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I have never seen a breakdown of the NFL revenue sharing flows.

 

I assume that the salary cap is set so that the weakest revenue generating team (after revenue sharing) can still meet the full salary cap limits.  Meaning, if you were to set the cap at $300M, that would be noncompetitive to a team that generates and receives only $200M of revenue.  They can't spend to the NFL cap.

 

I don't know why LVR supposedly ran short of cash to the point that they had to trade Kahlil Mack (that was the rumor, that they did not have the cash to pay his outrageous $50M cash bonus or guarantee demand, so they traded him).  I guess like any household that runs short, they did not budget very well.

 

I assume that a club could simply save and accumulate cash from underspending on players during the years they have little chance.  That may be what Irsay is doing.  Simply not spending a lot of cash now and accumulating it for later needs. 

 

The Colts, in fact, may have one of the biggest cash balances sitting on their balance sheet. 

I may be wrong but I think when a player signs a new contract the owner has to put around 90% of the guaranteed money in an escrow account. So when you see a player sign for 4 years 60 million with 35 million guaranteed, the owner actually has to write a check for 30 million. Those percentages could be wrong but I think they are close. With the Raiders planning on moving, the owner very well may have been cash strapped and not able to come up with large sums of money to guarantee contracts and fund a move. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:


  He Knows that by drafting well, and developing our players well, of which we are doing, he is soon going to be losing Our Good players because of lack of $$$.
 So being penny wise and frugal with bringing other teams players here is very Smart.
 Unless of course it is Two of the Biggest deals in the NFL over the last 2 seasons that CB did do. Brilliant minds think alike!
 

Two of the biggest deals in the NFL the last two seasons?

 

Buckner and …….  ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I may be wrong but I think when a player signs a new contract the owner has to put around 90% of the guaranteed money in an escrow account. So when you see a player sign for 4 years 60 million with 35 million guaranteed, the owner actually has to write a check for 30 million. Those percentages could be wrong but I think they are close. With the Raiders planning on moving, the owner very well may have been cash strapped and not able to come up with large sums of money to guarantee contracts and fund a move. 

That sounds right.  But its not the owner personally, its LVR.  So the situation with Mack may have been a one-off cash shortage because the club was spending money arranging a big relocation.

 

Ok, I just don't see the notion of ongoing cash shortages being a problem for NFL teams given that the salary cap and revenue sharing is supposed to not let that happen.  But I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That sounds right.  But its not the owner personally, its LVR.  So the situation with Mack may have been a one-off cash shortage because the club was spending money arranging a big relocation.

 

Ok, I just don't see the notion of ongoing cash shortages being a problem for NFL teams given that the salary cap and revenue sharing is supposed to not let that happen.  But I could be wrong.

You aren’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, WentzinRome said:

I believe Wentz is the second.

The Wentz deal was far from being one of the biggest deals.   His contract basically is 4/100, with only half guaranteed.   So it’s really a 2/50 deal.   And he gave $5m back to help the team.    And if Wentz turns out to be as good as we hope, having two more years at roughly $50m is basically a bargain. 
 

That’s part of the beauty of the deal….  It really wasn’t that bad compared to other QB contracts. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

The Wentz deal was far from being one of the biggest deals.   His contract basically is 4/100, with only half guaranteed.   So it’s really a 2/50 deal.   And he gave $5m back to help the team.    And if Wentz turns out to be as good as we hope, having two more years at roughly $50m is basically a bargain. 
 

That’s part of the beauty of the deal….  It really wasn’t that bad compared to other QB contracts. 

Let me clarify, I believe that was what @DougDew was referring to.

 

I agree, the Colts left themselves an out, and it was a shrewd move.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The Wentz deal was far from being one of the biggest deals.   His contract basically is 4/100, with only half guaranteed.   So it’s really a 2/50 deal.   And he gave $5m back to help the team.    And if Wentz turns out to be as good as we hope, having two more years at roughly $50m is basically a bargain. 
 

That’s part of the beauty of the deal….  It really wasn’t that bad compared to other QB contracts. 

It's a good contract if things work out.

Not so good if things don't work out.

The money is not a thing, at least to me.

If it doesn't work out, what will likely be a 3rd and 1st, is what matters to me.

That, and the fact we'll be starting over again after 22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WentzinRome said:

Let me clarify, I believe that was what @DougDew was referring to.

 

I agree, the Colts left themselves an out, and it was a shrewd move.

 

The post I responded to was not from Doug.   I’ll be responding to him later.    The poster I was responding to was Throwing BBZ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

He does? Doesn't the GM produce results and make moves that Irsay asks for. TY Hilton is a prime example. Ballard would not have brought him back at the price he got.

Yes he does. He spends more when necessary.   Thanks for pointing that out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

He does? Doesn't the GM produce results and make moves that Irsay asks for. TY Hilton is a prime example. Ballard would not have brought him back at the price he got.

1.  You don’t know that as a fact that’s your opinion.  
2.  Irsay has a history of doing both.  When Grigson was going to let McAfee walk Irsay stepped in and said no you are keeping him, McAfee has told that story over and over.  However when it came time to let Edge, a guy Irsay has said was his favorite player, and Marvin Harrison go he listened to Bill Polian and let them walk even though he has admitted his heart wanted to keep them.  Most of the time though Irsay has a history of doing what his GM wants.  Honestly Irsay tends to run his team so that him, his GM, and head coach can come to an agreement most of the time, there are several stories of this such as Dungy talking about Polian and him selling each on players in the draft and Irsay telling Ballard and Reich to go get their guy in the draft last year (Taylor.)
3.  It’s a dance between the GM and Owner.  Of course the Owner can always overrule the GM because he owns the team but the whole reason an Owner highers a GM is because he knows the GM knows more about building a team than the Owner does.  So good owners let GMs call the shots most of the time.  The ones that don’t are known as meddlers and tend to not have great success.  
4.  As to the “he does?” comment yes he does.  Name one time there was report that the Colts didn’t go get someone they wanted because Jim Irsay said nope I don’t want to spend the money on that guy even though you want him.  I’ll wait.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

1.  You don’t know that as a fact that’s your opinion.  
2.  Irsay has a history of doing both.  When Grigson was going to let McAfee walk Irsay stepped in and said no you are keeping him, McAfee has told that story over and over.  However when it came time to let Edge, a guy Irsay has said was his favorite player, and Marvin Harrison go he listened to Bill Polian and let them walk even though he has admitted his heart wanted to keep them.  Most of the time though Irsay has a history of doing what his GM wants.  Honestly Irsay tends to run his team so that him, his GM, and head coach can come to an agreement most of the time, there are several stories of this such as Dungy talking about Polian and him selling each on players in the draft and Irsay telling Ballard and Reich to go get their guy in the draft last year (Taylor.)
3.  It’s a dance between the GM and Owner.  Of course the Owner can always overrule the GM because he owns the team but the whole reason an Owner highers a GM is because he knows the GM knows more about building a team than the Owner does.  So good owners let GMs call the shots most of the time.  The ones that don’t are known as meddlers and tend to not have great success.  
4.  As to the “he does?” comment yes he does.  Name one time there was report that the Colts didn’t go get someone they wanted because Jim Irsay said nope I don’t want to spend the money on that guy even though you want him.  I’ll wait.  

1. It's all opinion, but I can guarantee you that Ballard has a target budget, has to produce a yearly projection, etc.. And Irsay is involved on any contract that meets certain thresholds. It's like that in just about every business.

2. Irsay has been up and down, and all around the block in terms of decisions. IMO, he's become more conservative (and has matured personally), but prefers to let the GM manage. That doesn't mean the GM does what he wants.

3. When a GM is hired, he's always selling a vision, or he's selling that he can create the owners vision understanding what he knows about ownership's restraints. Ballard is smart, and equates things to dollars and cents/sense. If I believe anything, it's that Ballard is strong, but also very subservient to Irsay. But Irsay wound never treat Ballard like he is subservient. In that aspect, it's absolutely a dance, but also a partnership. I'd bet Ballard has a pretty clear budget, but also a lot of freedom within that budget.

4. This is a bit silly. A GM is never, or at least very rarely, going to tell tales about his owner or the budget he was given. If he does, he likely won't get another GM job... EVER. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

1. It's all opinion, but I can guarantee you that Ballard has a target budget, has to produce a yearly projection, etc.. And Irsay is involved on any contract that meets certain thresholds. It's like that in just about every business.

2. Irsay has been up and down, and all around the block in terms of decisions. IMO, he's become more conservative (and has matured personally), but prefers to let the GM manage. That doesn't mean the GM does what he wants.

3. When a GM is hired, he's always selling a vision, or he's selling that he can create the owners vision understanding what he knows about ownership's restraints. Ballard is smart, and equates things to dollars and cents/sense. If I believe anything, it's that Ballard is strong, but also very subservient to Irsay. But Irsay wound never treat Ballard like he is subservient. In that aspect, it's absolutely a dance, but also a partnership. I'd bet Ballard has a pretty clear budget, but also a lot of freedom within that budget.

4. This is a bit silly. A GM is never, or at least very rarely, going to tell tales about his owner or the budget he was given. If he does, he likely won't get another GM job... EVER. 

1.  Not what I was talking about or responding too.

2.  What I said just in different words.

3.  Again not what I was talking about.

4.  Again, name a time it’s happened.  There are owners who are known for not wanting to spend, the Bengals and Pacers come to mind.  Jim Irsay has never ever been accused of that.  If anything he’s been applauded for his willingness to spend.  If people are going to accuse him of not wanting to spend money they need to provide more proof than he didn’t spend all his free agent money under his current GM when his current GM has said he doesn’t do splashy free agents and is saving his money to sign guys who are still under rookie contracts.  Also, I didn’t say name a time a GM said that, I said name time it was even reported.  It hasn’t been because Irsay has always been willing to spend what his GM wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

1.  Not what I was talking about or responding too.

2.  What I said just in different words.

3.  Again not what I was talking about.

4.  Again, name a time it’s happened.  There are owners who are known for not wanting to spend, the Bengals and Pacers come to mind.  Jim Irsay has never ever been accused of that.  If anything he’s been applauded for his willingness to spend.  If people are going to accuse him of not wanting to spend money they need to provide more proof than he didn’t spend all his free agent money under his current GM when his current GM has said he doesn’t do splashy free agents and is saving his money to sign guys who are still under rookie contracts.  

The NBA and NFL are different beasts. One has a hard cap, the other doesn't. And the NBA is much easier to track salary with such a small roster.

 

Bengals? If they are cheap, they have spent more than the Colts the last 4 seasons. What does that make the Colts?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

The NBA and NFL are different beasts. One has a hard cap, the other doesn't. And the NBA is much easier to track salary with such a small roster.

 

Bengals? If they are cheap, they have spent more than the Colts the last 4 seasons. What does that make the Colts?

You think this is all about spending in the last few years ITS NOT.  The Bengals ownership has been known as cheap since pretty much the entire time they have owned the franchise.  Jim Irsay has never once been accessed of that.  Like I said if anything he has been applauded over and over for being willing to spend whatever it takes and whatever his general manager wants to spend.  The later is the key.  The reason the Colts haven’t spent as much as they can under Ballard is for the very reasons he’s told you.  He doesn’t like splash free agents and he is saving his money to sign his own who are mostly under rookie deals.  In a year or two when Ballard gives those guys second contracts the last thing anyone is going to complain about the lack of spending Ballard is doing.  You yourself have openly worried about the amount money they are about to dull out to the offensive line.  
 

Teams that don’t like spend tend to let superstar players walk away.  When has that ever happened to the Colts when it wasn’t because of salary cap reasons or a special situation like with Peyton Manning?  They also don’t pay top dollar for coaches, GMs, scouts or other personal.  He’s also invested top dollar in terms of things like the Colts complex.  Read Tony Dungy’s book and see him compare the Colts complex to the Bucs complex at the time.  Again, Irsay has always been willing to pay someone if he or his GM wants him.  There is overwhelming evidence that supports this since he took over ownership of this team and again if you want to see what a cheap owner looks like look no further than his father.  Jim and his dad couldn’t be more different when it comes to spending.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

You think this is all about spending in the last few years ITS NOT.  The Bengals ownership has been known as cheap since pretty much the entire time they have owned the franchise.  Jim Irsay has never once been accessed of that.  Like I said if anything he has been applauded over and over for being willing to spend whatever it takes and whatever his general manager wants to spend.  The later is the key.  The reason the Colts haven’t spent as much as they can under Ballard is for the very reasons he’s told you.  He doesn’t like splash free agents and he is saving his money to sign his own who are mostly under rookie deals.  In a year or two when Ballard gives those guys second contracts the last thing anyone is going to complain about the lack of spending Ballard is doing.  You yourself have openly worried about the amount money they are about to dull out to the offensive line.  
 

Teams that don’t like spend tend to let superstar players walk away.  When has that ever happened to the Colts when it wasn’t because of salary cap reasons or a special situation like with Peyton Manning?  They also don’t pay top dollar for coaches, GMs, scouts or other personal.  He’s also invested top dollar in terms of things like the Colts complex.  Read Tony Dungy’s book and see him compare the Colts complex to the Bucs complex at the time.  Again, Irsay has always been willing to pay someone if he or his GM wants him.  There is overwhelming evidence that supports this since he took over ownership of this team and again if you want to see what a cheap owner looks like look no further than his father.  Jim and his dad couldn’t be more different when it comes to spending.  

Come on man, if you want to go back 5+, 10+ or more, then it's really not relevant to today is it?

So don't dodge the question. If the Bengals are cheap, what does that say about the Colts when comparing the last 5 years.

 

Letting superstars walk away happens. Superstars walking away happens. And trying to sign every guy you drafted doesn't always work out. It's all a $ equation. The Pats parted ways with a lot of guys over the years and won a lot. And if we want to talk about bringing in FAs, our QB, LT, 3T, and CB1 are all FAs playing arguably 4 of the most important positions on any team.

 

Nobody really talks a bunch about unspent dollars in the NFL. Sure you have the Bengals who get a little pub about being cheap years ago, but who else? If we're talking about the last 4-5 seasons, Indy and Irsay haven't exactly been top half of the league in spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EastStreet said:

Come on man, if you want to go back 5+, 10+ or more, then it's really not relevant to today is it?

So don't dodge the question. If the Bengals are cheap, what does that say about the Colts when comparing the last 5 years.

 

Letting superstars walk away happens. Superstars walking away happens. And trying to sign every guy you drafted doesn't always work out. It's all a $ equation. The Pats parted ways with a lot of guys over the years and won a lot. And if we want to talk about bringing in FAs, our QB, LT, 3T, and CB1 are all FAs playing arguably 4 of the most important positions on any team.

 

Nobody really talks a bunch about unspent dollars in the NFL. Sure you have the Bengals who get a little pub about being cheap years ago, but who else? If we're talking about the last 4-5 seasons, Indy and Irsay haven't exactly been top half of the league in spending.

This is going to be my last response to you on this topic because I think we are just going over the same stuff at this point but if you really think Jim Irsay is a cheap owner you have no idea what a cheap owner is.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...