Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Nelson extension coming next two weeks?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

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.

I'm providing data/facts. Again, if the Bengals are cheap per your own statement, but have spent more the past 4-5 years, then serial logic would suggest.... 

 

You're letting emotion or fandom cloud your opinion. I like Irsay, but it's fair to say that we've been on a budget.

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

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I'm providing data/facts. Again, if the Bengals are cheap per your own statement, but have spent more the past 4-5 years, then serial logic would suggest.... 

 

You're letting emotion or fandom cloud your opinion. I like Irsay, but it's fair to say that we've been on a budget.

No I am not I am looking at a history of a guy who has owned this team for a longer period of four or five years you only want to look at because it supports yours theory but even then it only works if you ignore what the GM has said about not spending money and that he’s about to spend very big money to do what he said he was going to do all along.  Again if you think Jim Irsay is a cheap owner you don’t know what a cheap owner is but think what you want.  
 

any I am sure you will want the last word as you always do have a nice night.

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

No I am not I am looking at a history of a guy who has owned this team for a longer period of four or five years you only want to look at because it supports yours theory but even then it only works if you ignore what the GM has said about not spending money and that he’s about to spend very big money to do what he said he was going to do all along.  Again if you think Jim Irsay is a cheap owner you don’t know what a cheap owner is but think what you want.  
 

any I am sure you will want the last word as you always do have a nice night.

lol. you said it was your last post... feel free to post again and I will not reply, so you can "win". I was only hoping you'd address the question/point that you're still avoiding.

 

Point is, you have not addressed the question specifically about the last 5 years. I guess the Bengals have bucked their history lol. It's not a theory, it's just data. Like I said, I like Irsay, but we simply haven't spent the last 5 years. And like I previously said, GMs don't complain about their budgets publicly. And there's just not a great way to explain 2 straight years of not spending 40+M. You don't have to spend it all, you don't have to sign long term deals.... But that's a lot of money to not spend.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours 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.

 

What I was saying was that Wentz is not being compensated like an elite QB.  His annual salary may be high, but the commitment is short.  And the initial investment of a 3rd and a 1st (for being the best available QB on the roster) is also not in elite QB category.

 

Meanwhile, both Nelson's original investment of pick 6 and the forthcoming elite pay over many years will require the Colts to use his skills in order to recoup the capital.  He's not going to be asked to pass block for 1.5 seconds on every play like he would if we had a PM quick releaser or a running QB taking off to his right.  He is going to have to have road grading run blocks too.  That will eat into the plays that an elite QB would make.  Fewer playmaking from the QB means that he doesn't get paid as much, so the Colts would not really be able to afford to pay both an elite G AND and elite QB high salaries over a long term if you're trying to manage capital over the long term.  (if you want to compromise the long term to go all-in in the short term, that's a different calculus)  

 

That makes Wentz a better fit for the Colts than Fields or any other high capital/long term QB.  One reason why during all of this QB talk about the Colts trading up for the franchise guy, that was never going to happen, partially driven by the fact that we intend to keep Nelson long term.  If we made that investment in a pass rusher, that position doesn't take the ball out of the QBs hands so it would make sense to get the elite QB.  If we made that investment in a #1WR, that also would not take the ball out of the QBs hands.  Making that investment on an interior olineman changes the distribution of talent on offense to the unique.

 

Which is why we are always going to have more of a ball control offense and not a wide open offense like the PM and Luck days, and why we are not looking for the next Pat Mahomes.  Our game planning will look that way.

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

What I was saying was that Wentz is not being compensated like an elite QB.  His annual salary may be high, but the commitment is short.  And the initial investment of a 3rd and a 1st (for being the best available QB on the roster) is also not in elite QB category.

 

Meanwhile, both Nelson's original investment of pick 6 and the forthcoming elite pay over many years will require the Colts to use his skills in order to recoup the capital.  He's not going to be asked to pass block for 1.5 seconds on every play like he would if we had a PM quick releaser or a running QB taking off to his right.  He is going to have to have road grading run blocks too.  That will eat into the plays that an elite QB would make.  Fewer playmaking from the QB means that he doesn't get paid as much, so the Colts would not really be able to afford to pay both an elite G AND and elite QB high salaries over a long term if you're trying to manage capital over the long term.  (if you want to compromise the long term to go all-in in the short term, that's a different calculus)  

 

That makes Wentz a better fit for the Colts than Fields or any other high capital/long term QB.  One reason why during all of this QB talk about the Colts trading up for the franchise guy, that was never going to happen, partially driven by the fact that we intend to keep Nelson long term.  If we made that investment in a pass rusher, that position doesn't take the ball out of the QBs hands so it would make sense to get the elite QB.  If we made that investment in a #1WR, that also would not take the ball out of the QBs hands.  Making that investment on an interior olineman changes the distribution of talent on offense to the unique.

 

Which is why we are always going to have more of a ball control offense and not a wide open offense like the PM and Luck days.  Our game planning will look that way.

I agree with you and mistakenly put your name in while NCF was speaking to throwing bbz, My apologies, old timers disease, lol!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WentzinRome said:

I agree with you and mistakenly put your name in while NCF was speaking to throwing bbz, My apologies, old timers disease, lol!

No need to apologize.  I just wanted to be more clear anyway.

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

I'm providing data/facts. Again, if the Bengals are cheap per your own statement, but have spent more the past 4-5 years, then serial logic would suggest.... 

 

You're letting emotion or fandom cloud your opinion. I like Irsay, but it's fair to say that we've been on a budget.

A budget created by the GM

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@GoColts8818   @Superman

 

I'd like to be clear about something....   I've never once accused Irsay of being cheap.   I haven't even hinted or suggested it.  I've never even thought it.     My claim is that we have cash flow issues and small market issues.    

 

But in considering some of the posts made in this thread,  I'd like to throw in a situation not brought up before.....

 

When Chris Ballard interviewed for the GM job in Jan of 17,  among the items he asked for (and was given) is a massive upgrade of the team facility.    Not an insignificant ask.    I'd guess a minimum of $10 Million easy, and possibly more, maybe even much more.    Irsay say yes.    Ballard said we had old outdated facilities that put us at a competitive disadvantage against other franchises.

 

Let me ask everyone here....    does anyone here think that when Ballard explained the need for better facilities,  that was the first time Irsay had ever thought of that?    That no one had ever said it before?   Teams have been in an arms race for better stadiums and facilities for roughly 30 years,   that's no secret.

 

So why do you think Jim Irsay let his facilities become outdated and allowed his franchise to be at a competitive disadvantage?   The best explanation I can come up with is he wanted a sponsor to pay for for it.    He didn't want to spend his money,  he wanted to spend other people's money.    But then we're back to a position that so many fight....   that the team doesn't really have a small market problem or cash flow problems.     What is a better explanation?    It's hard to find a good, simple, logical explanation.    Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the team facility until 2017 or 18.    That's a big gap that I'd like to see explained.

 

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

@GoColts8818   @Superman

 

I'd like to be clear about something....   I've never once accused Irsay of being cheap.   I haven't even hinted or suggested it.  I've never even thought it.     My claim is that we have cash flow issues and small market issues.    

 

But in considering some of the posts made in this thread,  I'd like to throw in a situation not brought up before.....

 

When Chris Ballard interviewed for the GM job in Jan of 17,  among the items he asked for (and was given) is a massive upgrade of the team facility.    Not an insignificant ask.    I'd guess a minimum of $10 Million easy, and possibly more, maybe even much more.    Irsay say yes.    Ballard said we had old outdated facilities that put us at a competitive disadvantage against other franchises.

 

Let me ask everyone here....    does anyone here think that when Ballard explained the need for better facilities,  that was the first time Irsay had ever thought of that?    That no one had ever said it before?   Teams have been in an arms race for better stadiums and facilities for roughly 30 years,   that's no secret.

 

So why do you think Jim Irsay let his facilities become outdated and allowed his franchise to be at a competitive disadvantage?   The best explanation I can come up with is he wanted a sponsor to pay for for it.    He didn't want to spend his money,  he wanted to spend other people's money.    But then we're back to a position that so many fight....   that the team doesn't really have a small market problem or cash flow problems.     What is a better explanation?    It's hard to find a good, simple, logical explanation.    Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the facility until 2017 or 18.    That's a big gap that I'd like to see explained.

 

The facilities that were upgraded were on 56th Street,   not Lucas oil.  Also,  all of the upgrades came from the pocket of Jim Irsay.   Not tax dollars

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2021 at 3:46 PM, EastStreet said:

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.

 

For what it's worth,  this response is not just for you.    I've given this same response in various threads since we made the Wentz trade roughly three months ago.

 

I think the trade is still good even if it doesn't work out.   Because I think it's the best, smartest off-season move of all the QB trades to be made.    All the other trades for a top QB like Stafford,  or trading up in the first round,  we're much, much more expensive.    A 1st round trade up likely would've cost us two 1's and two 2's -- at least, and maybe more.

 

So if Wentz doesn't work out,  and fails his two-year tryout,  I view the trade as simply the cost of doing business in the NFL trying to obtain a QB.    A 1 and a 3 for a young veteran QB is a bargain these days.     I think only the deals for Darnold and Bridgewater were less expensive and I haven't seen much appetite for either of them to be the Colts QB.

 

Every other deal to be made would've been more expensive.    And if it doesn't work out,  I don't see either Ballard or Reich losing their job over it.    It was the best deal to be made under extraordinary circumstances.    Just my two cents....

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The facilities that were upgraded were on 56th Street,   not Lucas oil.  

 

I know that.   That's what I was talking about.   

 

What did I say that made you think otherwise?

 

PS -- I don't know why this response was merged with another response from another poster.

The website did this,  not me.

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

 

For what it's worth,  this response is not just for you.    I've given this same response in various threads since we made the Wentz trade roughly three months ago.

 

I think the trade is still good even if it doesn't work out.   Because I think it's the best, smartest off-season move of all the QB trades to be made.    All the other trades for a top QB like Stafford,  or trading up in the first round,  we're much, much more expensive.    A 1st round trade up likely would've cost us two 1's and two 2's -- at least, and maybe more.

 

So if Wentz doesn't work out,  and fails his two-year tryout,  I view the trade as simply the cost of doing business in the NFL trying to obtain a QB.    A 1 and a 3 for a young veteran QB is a bargain these days.     I think only the deals for Darnold and Bridgewater were less expensive and I haven't seen much appetite for either of them to be the Colts QB.

 

Every other deal to be made would've been more expensive.    And if it doesn't work out,  I don't see either Ballard or Reich losing their job over it.    It was the best deal to be made under extraordinary circumstances.    Just my two cents....

 

I know that.   That's what I was talking about.   

 

What did I say that made you think otherwise?

"Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the facility until 2017 or 18.  "

 

Also the upgrades on 56th Street were fully paid for by Jim Irsay

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvan1973 said:

"Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the facility until 2017 or 18.  "

 

Also the upgrades on 56th Street were fully paid for by Jim Irsay

 

What's confusing about that?    One sentence about LOS,  the other sentence about the team facility.

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

 

What's confusing about that?    One sentence about LOS,  the other sentence about the team facility.

You didn't differentiate between LOS and the training facilities.    I'm not sure how the two are connected.   You also said he needed sponsorship to pay for the upgrades.   Not true.  

 

Not to mention,  those old facilities didn't hamper Peyton and company for over a decade. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

You didn't differentiate between LOS and the training facilities.    I'm not sure how the two are connected.   You also said he needed sponsorship to pay for the upgrades.   Not true.  

 

Not to mention,  those old facilities didn't hamper Peyton and company for over a decade. 

 

 

 

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter who paid.    If Irsay paid,  great.    I only mentioned Lucas Oil to point out we got the new stadium in 2008.    So what took so long to get an upgraded facility?    Why did it take Chris Ballard asking for it to get it?

 

So,  the bigger issue,  the biggest issue, who WHY it took so long.    The Colts were at a competitive disadvantage for a long, long time.    More than a decade.     Why?    

 

There should be a good explanation for it.    I think it's hard to come up with one.

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

So why do you think Jim Irsay let his facilities become outdated and allowed his franchise to be at a competitive disadvantage?   The best explanation I can come up with is he wanted a sponsor to pay for for it.    He didn't want to spend his money,  he wanted to spend other people's money.    But then we're back to a position that so many fight....   that the team doesn't really have a small market problem or cash flow problems.     What is a better explanation?    It's hard to find a good, simple, logical explanation.    Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the team facility until 2017 or 18.    That's a big gap that I'd like to see explained.

 

 

Just reading this paragraph and it reminded me of multiple occasions, at different companies I've worked at, where the owner/management has not spent the money on something (employee salaries, equipment, etc) and had it brought up to them by various people within the company. (including other management) What changed was a new manager was brought in and got done what others had been saying for years. Maybe that wasn't the case in this scenario but I've witnessed it in other situations before.

 

Another potential factor is winning. The Colts had great success in the 2000s and had some good moments early on in the Andrew Luck era. Then some struggles started to happen which prompted the hiring of Ballard. Sometimes it's easy to get big changes done during some sort of adversity. It can make you, or in this case Jim Irsay, start to look at all of the organization and question things that you don't when things are going well.

 

I know your post was directed at others but I just had these thoughts after reading this paragraph. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter who paid.    If Irsay paid,  great.    I only mentioned Lucas Oil to point out we got the new stadium in 2008.    So what took so long to get an upgraded facility?    Why did it take Chris Ballard asking for it to get it?

 

So,  the bigger issue,  the biggest issue, who WHY it took so long.    The Colts were at a competitive disadvantage for a long, long time.    More than a decade.     Why?    

 

There should be a good explanation for it.    I think it's hard to come up with one.

 

It does matter,  because that was the basis of your first post on the subject.  You brought it up

 

Peyton and company seemed to do pretty well with that old facility.   It's not like the old facility was a broken down barn with some dumb bells in it.   It was very well equipped.   A few hall of famers spent the majority of their careers in it.   The explanation is,  all facilities need to be upgraded at some point.  There were other upgrades before the 2018 upgrades.    I understand you don't live in Indy,  but every offseason driving passed the facility on 56th Street construction of some kind was happening

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah if we were at a competitive disadvantage facility wise it didn't show from 2003-2014, we had the 2nd best record in the league in that time frame, won 10 Division Titles, went to 2 SB's, went to 4 AFC Title Games, and won a SB. Upgrading is always good when needed, it was never needed up until 2 or 3 years ago in reality because we were winning all the time. Irsay loves the Colts like a diehard fan besides being an owner so I think he would definitely spend money to help the team win.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah if we were at a competitive disadvantage facility wise it didn't show from 2003-2014, we had the 2nd best record in the league in that time frame, won 10 Division Titles, went to 2 SB's, went to 4 AFC Title Games, and won a SB. Upgrading is always good when needed, it was never needed up until 2 or 3 years ago in reality because we were winning all the time. Irsay loves the Colts like a diehard fan besides being an owner so I think he would definitely spend money to help the team win.

The notion that Jim is strapped for cash is nonsense.   Just look at what he donates every year.   I understand those are tax right offs,  but it still comes out of his pocket.    Fans that don't live in the indy area don't know all of the things that he does.   That isn't their fault,   but we know

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The notion that Jim is strapped for cash is nonsense.   Just look at what he donates every year.   I understand those are tax right offs,  but it still comes out of his pocket.    Fans that don't live in the indy area don't know all of the things that he does.   That isn't their fault,   but we know

I agree, I have never known him to be cheap and I followed the Colts for a longtime.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The notion that Jim is strapped for cash is nonsense.   Just look at what he donates every year.   I understand those are tax right offs,  but it still comes out of his pocket.    Fans that don't live in the indy area don't know all of the things that he does.   That isn't their fault,   but we know

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-richest-owners-revealed-for-2021-panthers-cowboys-and-rams-top-list-of-teams-with-wealthiest-owners/
 

Irsay is the 13th richest owner in the NFL adding to your point.  You are correct hes anything but strapped for cash.

 

Adding to your charity point at least once a year there is a story about him buying some very high priced music thing plus he does the money give aways on Twitter and anyone in the media that Irsay does more for charity that goes unreported because as he tells them that’s not why he does it.  He is known for hearing stories of people in need and quietly helping them.  
 

I don’t know where this idea that Irsay or the Colts are strapped for cash is coming from.  There is nothing to support this other than a very twisted view of the free agent spending since Ballard came in.  I think it’s more of a case people don’t want to accept what Ballard is telling them that he doesn’t believe in splash free agents and that he’s saving the money for when their own become free agents.  I get it if people don’t like that plan that’s another discussion but just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not what is going on.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2021 at 10:59 PM, 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 $$. 


Not to mention that cap spent and cash spent are two different things as well. IIRC the cash to cap ratio for the Colts was around .9 during those years. Can’t seem to get the numbers now. 
 

So $40M not spent in cap was really more like $44M cash saved, if I am looking at that correctly.

 

That said, I don’t think Irsay has a problem with spending. However, there is definitely money not being spent over time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

@GoColts8818   @Superman

 

I'd like to be clear about something....   I've never once accused Irsay of being cheap.   I haven't even hinted or suggested it.  I've never even thought it.     My claim is that we have cash flow issues and small market issues.    

 

But in considering some of the posts made in this thread,  I'd like to throw in a situation not brought up before.....

 

When Chris Ballard interviewed for the GM job in Jan of 17,  among the items he asked for (and was given) is a massive upgrade of the team facility.    Not an insignificant ask.    I'd guess a minimum of $10 Million easy, and possibly more, maybe even much more.    Irsay say yes.    Ballard said we had old outdated facilities that put us at a competitive disadvantage against other franchises.

 

Let me ask everyone here....    does anyone here think that when Ballard explained the need for better facilities,  that was the first time Irsay had ever thought of that?    That no one had ever said it before?   Teams have been in an arms race for better stadiums and facilities for roughly 30 years,   that's no secret.

 

So why do you think Jim Irsay let his facilities become outdated and allowed his franchise to be at a competitive disadvantage?   The best explanation I can come up with is he wanted a sponsor to pay for for it.    He didn't want to spend his money,  he wanted to spend other people's money.    But then we're back to a position that so many fight....   that the team doesn't really have a small market problem or cash flow problems.     What is a better explanation?    It's hard to find a good, simple, logical explanation.    Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the team facility until 2017 or 18.    That's a big gap that I'd like to see explained.

 


I don’t think Irsay is cheap either. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t limitations to spending. Those facility upgrades coincided with lean years from a roster cash spending standpoint as well. If we are making logical connections, it is possible that the roster cash savings during those years allowed for those upgrades to be made. That $10-20M had to come from somewhere to not impact the bottom line. The Colts are a business after all. 
 

And as a Cubs fan, I have seen how expenditures on the development of facilities can impact roster spending. 

 

And considering the person who was pushing for the upgrades (Ballard) was also the one managing the roster spending, it stands to reason that there could be some connection.
 

I don’t think that says anything bad about Irsay though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 1:49 AM, EastStreet said:

lol. you said it was your last post... feel free to post again and I will not reply, so you can "win". I was only hoping you'd address the question/point that you're still avoiding.

 

Point is, you have not addressed the question specifically about the last 5 years. I guess the Bengals have bucked their history lol. It's not a theory, it's just data. Like I said, I like Irsay, but we simply haven't spent the last 5 years. And like I previously said, GMs don't complain about their budgets publicly. And there's just not a great way to explain 2 straight years of not spending 40+M. You don't have to spend it all, you don't have to sign long term deals.... But that's a lot of money to not spend.

 

  It doesn't get more simple.
  Ballard has said, like many many other good GM's before, if i think i can help the team be a SB contender by signing/spending, even for a knucklehead if he thinks the lockerroom is strong enough to handle it, he Would Do It.
 And Irsay has explained he doesn't want to live in the 8-8 zone.
  I LOVE the business plan they have. And some Huge $$$ will be spent the next 2 years signing players we know, we have developed.
 There is no better way to build a roster.
 You are upset they didn't blow $20M trying to win a playoff game, kinda like Mannings embarrasing 7 one and dones.
  2 years of Brissett were lost causes for those that care. And last years 11-5 with a week schedule was still a surprise to Most.
 With us just on the cusp of being really good, with many really good young 1st contract players, and being right where we need to be for a 3-4 year run at the top, with a wad of cap space and Your ca$h in the Bank ready to spend...
 You see failure. That is very sad!
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

 

It does matter,  because that was the basis of your first post on the subject.  You brought it up

 

Peyton and company seemed to do pretty well with that old facility.   It's not like the old facility was a broken down barn with some dumb bells in it.   It was very well equipped.   A few hall of famers spent the majority of their careers in it.   The explanation is,  all facilities need to be upgraded at some point.  There were other upgrades before the 2018 upgrades.    I understand you don't live in Indy,  but every offseason driving passed the facility on 56th Street construction of some kind was happening

This is true, Dungy talked in detail in his book of being awe of the Colts complex when he first arrived compared to the Bucs facility.  So even before the upgrade the facility was still one of the better ones in the NFL.

 

Another example of this is the Fieldhouse in Indy.  Every year it’s voted one of the best venues in the NBA but to keep it that way there has been a large renovation project going on the past few years.  So you can do upgrades even if you have a high quality facility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shasta519 said:


Not to mention that cap spent and cash spent are two different things as well. IIRC the cash to cap ratio for the Colts was around .9 during those years. Can’t seem to get the numbers now. 
 

So $40M not spent in cap was really more like $44M cash saved, if I am looking at that correctly.

 

That said, I don’t think Irsay has a problem with spending. However, there is definitely money not being spent over time. 

Yeah your last point is what I have been trying to say.  The Colts aren’t not spending money in free agency on Irsay’s orders to save money.  They are doing it as part of Ballard’s plan.  Should Ballard come to Irsay and say I want to go all in on spending Irsay would give him the green light.  

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

 They are doing it as part of Ballard’s plan.  Should Ballard come to Irsay and say I want to go all in on spending Irsay would give him the green light.  

We cant really confirm or prove this either way.  People seem to have strong feelings about this but how do we actually know whats going on?  Its not really provable 

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

@GoColts8818   @Superman

 

I'd like to be clear about something....   I've never once accused Irsay of being cheap.   I haven't even hinted or suggested it.  I've never even thought it.     My claim is that we have cash flow issues and small market issues.    

 

But in considering some of the posts made in this thread,  I'd like to throw in a situation not brought up before.....

 

When Chris Ballard interviewed for the GM job in Jan of 17,  among the items he asked for (and was given) is a massive upgrade of the team facility.    Not an insignificant ask.    I'd guess a minimum of $10 Million easy, and possibly more, maybe even much more.    Irsay say yes.    Ballard said we had old outdated facilities that put us at a competitive disadvantage against other franchises.

 

Let me ask everyone here....    does anyone here think that when Ballard explained the need for better facilities,  that was the first time Irsay had ever thought of that?    That no one had ever said it before?   Teams have been in an arms race for better stadiums and facilities for roughly 30 years,   that's no secret.

 

So why do you think Jim Irsay let his facilities become outdated and allowed his franchise to be at a competitive disadvantage?   The best explanation I can come up with is he wanted a sponsor to pay for for it.    He didn't want to spend his money,  he wanted to spend other people's money.    But then we're back to a position that so many fight....   that the team doesn't really have a small market problem or cash flow problems.     What is a better explanation?    It's hard to find a good, simple, logical explanation.    Lucas Oil Stadium has been around since 2008.    We didn't start upgrading the team facility until 2017 or 18.    That's a big gap that I'd like to see explained.

 

 

The question about the facilities seems like an implication that Irsay is penny pinching. And to be clear, I'm not offended by the implication, I just think it's a stretch, and not supported by the facts. And since Irsay did pay for the facilities upgrades, it doesn't seem like money was the issue. There's also no indication that previous GMs had requested updated facilities and been denied. Ballard seems to have been the catalyst behind that decision.

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

We cant really confirm or prove this either way.  People seem to have strong feelings about this but how do we actually know whats going on?  Its not really provable 

There is evidence in Ballard telling you that’s what they are doing, (in terms of him not believing in splash free agents and that he’s saving money to sign his own), plus him starting to do it last year with Kelly and reports are he’s working on more extensions now.  Not to mention people have done the math to show if those extensions are handed out that will eat a large chunk of the cap.  
 

Now add in Irsay’s past history of spending whatever his GM wants continues to provide proof so yes there is proof while there is no real proof that he’s changed the way he’s done business and told Ballard not to spend other than the lack of spending in free agency the past few years which as has been explained over and over in this thread as to why and the evidence backs Ballard up as telling the truth.  If people are going to accuse Irsay of changing his behavior since he took over as owner then they need to provide some real proof other than that easily can be explained.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2021 at 9:03 PM, 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.

 

 

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 they mean. A team can roll over the most unspent cap space (like the Colts in 2019) while still being a significant spender -- they had the 6th highest cap number, the 19th highest cash number, and the 2nd highest prior year rollover. So, no, what you posted doesn't support the idea that the Colts were near the lowest spending team in that four year period.

 

It was also an arbitrary four year period to pick. If you were talking about the most recent four year period for the salary floor, it would be 2017-2020.

 

There's nothing mysterious about the salary floor requirement, but it's obviously misunderstood by many. Most of the noise from talking heads was inaccurate/incomplete. I'm not sure of your understanding of it, but it seems like you're talking about several different things at once.

 

I wasn't unwilling to look it up. I was unable to find the relevant historical figures, and didn't substitute irrelevant numbers in their place.

 

So here are the Colts relevant numbers and rankings for 2017-2020, from Spotrac Premium. This also coincides with Ballard's tenure, and includes a coaching change and roster tear down.

2017: cap $156.2m (27th), cash $155.8m (25th), prior year rollover $8.1m (14th)

2018:  cap $144.2m (32nd), cash $147.2m (31st), prior year rollover $18.3m (7th)

2019: cap $196.1m (6th), cash $192.8m (19th), prior year rollover $49.8m (2nd)

2020: cap $231.3m (1st), cash $221.6m (17th), prior year rollover $41.7m (1st)

2021: prior year rollover $8.5m (12th) -- cap and cash figures TBD

 

Whether they were "near" the most unspent isn't really relevant. They weren't "near" the least spent cash, which is what matters for the 89% rule.

 

Cowboys, for comparison:

2017: cap $159.8 (21st), cash $148.6m (30th), prior year rollover $6.5m (17th)

2018: cap $174.0m (22nd), cash $150.5m (30th), prior year rollover $9.1m (15th)

2019: cap $182.4m (23rd), cash $193.6m (17th), prior year rollover $11.0m (8th)

2020: cap $191.3m (29th), cash $249.8m (3rd), prior year rollover $18.3m (9th)

2021: prior year rollover $26.4m (2nd) -- cap and cash figures TBD

 

No one ever suggests the Cowboys have cash flow problems. Their spending tracks pretty closely to the Colts over that four year period. Before 2020, the Colts had spent $3.1m more in cash than the Cowboys.

 

As for the Colts letting Luck keep his bonus, or paying JB, it just doesn't make sense. First, in 2017 and 2018, the Colts spent $303m cash, which is 88% of the cap for those two years, so the idea that they weren't on track to spend cash to 89% of the four year threshold doesn't hold up. They weren't 'wayyyyyy under,' and they weren't well below the pace.

 

Second, the penalty for not spending 89% of cash over the four year period would be a cash payment to NFLPA to cure the shortage, which would be distributed to the players that were on the roster over that period. Not punitive, certainly not to the degree that you'd pay a retired player and overpay a backup just to avoid that penalty. By the start of 2020, the Colts were at 92% of the threshold, and did not need to keep JB to stay on track for 89%. 

 

The reason the Colts didn't recoup Luck's bonus -- apparently -- is that they wanted to retain his rights, and they were being nice (unlike the Lions with Calvin Johnson). They overpaid JB because they overshot. Why pay and overpay players, rather than giving a moderate contract to a different veteran for a similar amount of money? They could have "overpaid" position players, rather than QBs who wouldn't play, and the cash flow situation would have been the same. In fact, recouping Luck's bonus would have improved their cash flow situation, as would not paying JB $16m in 2020 to ride the bench. 

 

This idea is a stretch, and doesn't make sense. They made decisions that they thought worked for the franchise and the team; coming back two years later and claiming that they made those decisions to meet the spending floor is revisionist. Especially when there's no real penalty for not meeting the spending floor. 

 

What makes much more sense is that the Colts had a regime change, went super young on the roster due to a focus on the draft, they committed to a 'pay as you go' contract structure for almost every veteran signing, and they stuck to their guns on contract value for free agents. The merits of their strategies and decisions is debatable. But the idea that their strategies were based on cash flow issues is a stretch. 

 

And again, I'm not claiming to have proof that they don't have cash flow limitations. I'm saying that their cap strategy shouldn't be presented as evidence of cash flow limitations.

 

Edit: Of course, anyone might reach different conclusions regarding why the Colts paid JB and Luck, rather than paying other players the same amount of money. To me, it's not sensible to say they did it to meet the spending floor. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 10:44 AM, DougDew said:

What I was saying was that Wentz is not being compensated like an elite QB.  His annual salary may be high, but the commitment is short.  And the initial investment of a 3rd and a 1st (for being the best available QB on the roster) is also not in elite QB category.

 

Meanwhile, both Nelson's original investment of pick 6 and the forthcoming elite pay over many years will require the Colts to use his skills in order to recoup the capital.  He's not going to be asked to pass block for 1.5 seconds on every play like he would if we had a PM quick releaser or a running QB taking off to his right.  He is going to have to have road grading run blocks too.  That will eat into the plays that an elite QB would make.  Fewer playmaking from the QB means that he doesn't get paid as much, so the Colts would not really be able to afford to pay both an elite G AND and elite QB high salaries over a long term if you're trying to manage capital over the long term.  (if you want to compromise the long term to go all-in in the short term, that's a different calculus)  

 

That makes Wentz a better fit for the Colts than Fields or any other high capital/long term QB.  One reason why during all of this QB talk about the Colts trading up for the franchise guy, that was never going to happen, partially driven by the fact that we intend to keep Nelson long term.  If we made that investment in a pass rusher, that position doesn't take the ball out of the QBs hands so it would make sense to get the elite QB.  If we made that investment in a #1WR, that also would not take the ball out of the QBs hands.  Making that investment on an interior olineman changes the distribution of talent on offense to the unique.

 

Which is why we are always going to have more of a ball control offense and not a wide open offense like the PM and Luck days, and why we are not looking for the next Pat Mahomes.  Our game planning will look that way.

 

It really shouldn't. A great QB and a good LG >>>> a good QB and a great LG

 

But I don't think Nelson impacts their plans at QB. I mean...they made the initial draft investment in Nelson when Luck was still their QB (who had an elite QB salary). And I am sure they were going to re-sign Nelson as well, even if Luck was still here.

 

Also, KC just signed Thuney to the second-highest G contract and they have Mahomes. 

 

Regardless, the Colts are already top 10 in QB spending the next two years with Wentz (as of right now). And if Wentz plays well and is still here after the next two seasons, he will certainly get a new contract is pretty close to elite QB pay anyways. 

 

So they will still be spending big on a LG and QB. I actually think having to pay Nelson (and the rest of the OL) was actually more of a reason to trade UP to get a QB on a rookie deal (like Fields)...and then try to maximize the next 3-4 years, while also gaining some flexibility in how they structure that QB's second deal, which would have bought even more time.

 

What we do know is that, over the next 4 years, the cap savings on Fields could be $80M+ vs Wentz (and that's assuming Wentz doesn't get a big new contract in two years). The only difference in "draft capital" is essentially the Paye pick. And it's hard to imagine the Paye pick providing $20M+ in surplus value each of the next four years to offset those savings.

 

What we don't know is how each QB will play. Fields is a rookie and an unknown...and Wentz is coming off a bad season, but has played great before. 

 

But in this scenario, I still take my chances on the QB rookie contract window every time. I have seen it work for several teams if they are right about the QB (and that's just in recent years). Meanwhile, I have seen the "buy-low vet QB" strategy work only a couple of times. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

With us just on the cusp of being really good, with many really good young 1st contract players, and being right where we need to be for a 3-4 year run at the top, with a wad of cap space and Your ca$h in the Bank ready to spend...
 You see failure. That is very sad!

Spot on

 

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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 they mean. A team can roll over the most unspent cap space (like the Colts in 2019) while still being a significant spender -- they had the 6th highest cap number, the 19th highest cash number, and the 2nd highest prior year rollover. So, no, what you posted doesn't support the idea that the Colts were near the lowest spending team in that four year period.

 

It was also an arbitrary four year period to pick. If you were talking about the most recent four year period for the salary floor, it would be 2017-2020.

 

There's nothing mysterious about the salary floor requirement, but it's obviously misunderstood by many. Most of the noise from talking heads was inaccurate/incomplete. I'm not sure of your understanding of it, but it seems like you're talking about several different things at once.

 

I wasn't unwilling to look it up. I was unable to find the relevant historical figures, and didn't substitute irrelevant numbers in their place.

 

So here are the Colts relevant numbers and rankings for 2017-2020, from Spotrac Premium. This also coincides with Ballard's tenure, and includes a coaching change and roster tear down.

2017: cap $156.2m (27th), cash $155.8m (25th), prior year rollover $8.1m (14th)

2018:  cap $144.2m (32nd), cash $147.2m (31st), prior year rollover $18.3m (7th)

2019: cap $196.1m (6th), cash $192.8m (19th), prior year rollover $49.8m (2nd)

2020: cap $231.3m (1st), cash $221.6m (17th), prior year rollover $41.7m (1st)

2021: prior year rollover $8.5m (12th) -- cap and cash figures TBD

 

Whether they were "near" the most unspent isn't really relevant. They weren't "near" the least spent cash, which is what matters for the 89% rule.

 

Cowboys, for comparison:

2017: cap $159.8 (21st), cash $148.6m (30th), prior year rollover $6.5m (17th)

2018: cap $174.0m (22nd), cash $150.5m (30th), prior year rollover $9.1m (15th)

2019: cap $182.4m (23rd), cash $193.6m (17th), prior year rollover $11.0m (8th)

2020: cap $191.3m (29th), cash $249.8m (3rd), prior year rollover $18.3m (9th)

2021: prior year rollover $26.4m (2nd) -- cap and cash figures TBD

 

No one ever suggests the Cowboys have cash flow problems. Their spending tracks pretty closely to the Colts over that four year period. Before 2020, the Colts had spent $3.1m more in cash than the Cowboys.

 

As for the Colts letting Luck keep his bonus, or paying JB, it just doesn't make sense. First, in 2017 and 2018, the Colts spent $303m cash, which is 88% of the cap for those two years, so the idea that they weren't on track to spend cash to 89% of the four year threshold doesn't hold up. They weren't 'wayyyyyy under,' and they weren't well below the pace.

 

Second, the penalty for not spending 89% of cash over the four year period would be a cash payment to NFLPA to cure the shortage, which would be distributed to the players that were on the roster over that period. Not punitive, certainly not to the degree that you'd pay a retired player and overpay a backup just to avoid that penalty. By the start of 2020, the Colts were at 92% of the threshold, and did not need to keep JB to stay on track for 89%. 

 

The reason the Colts didn't recoup Luck's bonus -- apparently -- is that they wanted to retain his rights, and they were being nice (unlike the Lions with Calvin Johnson). They overpaid JB because they overshot. Why pay and overpay players, rather than giving a moderate contract to a different veteran for a similar amount of money? They could have "overpaid" position players, rather than QBs who wouldn't play, and the cash flow situation would have been the same. In fact, recouping Luck's bonus would have improved their cash flow situation, as would not paying JB $16m in 2020 to ride the bench. 

 

This idea is a stretch, and doesn't make sense. They made decisions that they thought worked for the franchise and the team; coming back two years later and claiming that they made those decisions to meet the spending floor is revisionist. Especially when there's no real penalty for not meeting the spending floor. 

 

What makes much more sense is that the Colts had a regime change, went super young on the roster due to a focus on the draft, they committed to a 'pay as you go' contract structure for almost every veteran signing, and they stuck to their guns on contract value for free agents. The merits of their strategies and decisions is debatable. But the idea that their strategies were based on cash flow issues is a stretch. 

 

And again, I'm not claiming to have proof that they don't have cash flow limitations. I'm saying that their cap strategy shouldn't be presented as evidence of cash flow limitations.

Well stated. Thanks for the break down and the research. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

It really shouldn't. A great QB and a good LG >>>> a good QB and a great LG

 

But I don't think Nelson impacts their plans at QB. I mean...they made the initial draft investment in Nelson when Luck was still their QB (who had an elite QB salary). And I am sure they were going to re-sign Nelson as well, even if Luck was still here.

 

Also, KC just signed Thuney to the second-highest G contract and they have Mahomes. 

 

Regardless, the Colts are already top 10 in QB spending the next two years with Wentz (as of right now). And if Wentz plays well and is still here after the next two seasons, he will certainly get a new contract is pretty close to elite QB pay anyways. 

 

So they will still be spending big on a LG and QB. I actually think having to pay Nelson (and the rest of the OL) was actually more of a reason to trade UP to get a QB on a rookie deal (like Fields)...and then try to maximize the next 3-4 years, while also gaining some flexibility in how they structure that QB's second deal, which would have bought even more time.

 

What we do know is that, over the next 4 years, the cap savings on Fields could be $80M+ vs Wentz (and that's assuming Wentz doesn't get a big new contract in two years). The only difference in "draft capital" is essentially the Paye pick. And it's hard to imagine the Paye pick providing $20M+ in surplus value each of the next four years to offset those savings.

 

What we don't know is how each QB will play. Fields is a rookie and an unknown...and Wentz is coming off a bad season, but has played great before. 

 

But in this scenario, I still take my chances on the QB rookie contract window every time. I have seen it work for several teams if they are right about the QB (and that's just in recent years). Meanwhile, I have seen the "buy-low vet QB" strategy work only a couple of times. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that a G defines your plans at QB and visa versa, directly.  Its just that in the long game of capital management, Ballard is going to have to think about what his offense is going to look like.  How much vigor do you really want to put into trading up for that franchise guy?

 

We have Nelson,  We have Kelly.  We will pay Smith.  I think we are going to be ball control.  I think we are going to play "four corners" offense.  We're keeping the ball and will go down the field 1 first down at a time.  You don't need an elite QB for that.

 

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

I'm not saying that a G defines your plans at QB and visa versa, directly.  Its just that in the long game of capital management, Ballard is going to have to think about what his offense is going to look like.  How much vigor do you really want to put into trading up for that franchise guy?

 

We have Nelson,  We have Kelly.  We will pay Smith.  I think we are going to be ball control.  I think we are going to play "four corners" offense.  We're keeping the ball and will go down the field 1 first down at a time.  You don't need an elite QB for that.

 

You need a qb that doesn't mess his pants when guys aren't open.   All nfl qbs have the physical ability to make the throws.  You need a qb who knows where to go with the ball when things break down.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 12:10 PM, jvan1973 said:

A budget created by the GM

If you have ever run a business that you did not own, you know that every budget is approved by the owner, and most of the time has a hard ceiling. I've run medium sized businesses and large divisions of large business for decades. It's always the same. The person running the business always creates and submits a yearly budget, and any person running the business won't be around long if they are maxing out the budget every year. If you think Ballard has carte blanche to max the cap every year, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2021 at 9:22 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

For what it's worth,  this response is not just for you.    I've given this same response in various threads since we made the Wentz trade roughly three months ago.

 

I think the trade is still good even if it doesn't work out.   Because I think it's the best, smartest off-season move of all the QB trades to be made.    All the other trades for a top QB like Stafford,  or trading up in the first round,  we're much, much more expensive.    A 1st round trade up likely would've cost us two 1's and two 2's -- at least, and maybe more.

 

So if Wentz doesn't work out,  and fails his two-year tryout,  I view the trade as simply the cost of doing business in the NFL trying to obtain a QB.    A 1 and a 3 for a young veteran QB is a bargain these days.     I think only the deals for Darnold and Bridgewater were less expensive and I haven't seen much appetite for either of them to be the Colts QB.

 

Every other deal to be made would've been more expensive.    And if it doesn't work out,  I don't see either Ballard or Reich losing their job over it.    It was the best deal to be made under extraordinary circumstances.    Just my two cents....

 

 

It was a more reasonable deal, but came with a lot of risk/flags. That's why it was reasonable. Wentz simply had lower demand than some, and more than some.

 

Personally,  I think Wentz will work out. I've getting more and more optimistic the deeper I dig on the Philly situation. That said, if it doesn't work out, I personally will be ready to move on from Reich. He's solid, and a good guy, but I haven't seen anything special at all in terms of game plan, adjustments, scheme, etc.. I really hope he and Wentz are able to open each other's abilities up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 6:24 AM, shasta519 said:


Not to mention that cap spent and cash spent are two different things as well. IIRC the cash to cap ratio for the Colts was around .9 during those years. Can’t seem to get the numbers now. 
 

So $40M not spent in cap was really more like $44M cash saved, if I am looking at that correctly.

 

That said, I don’t think Irsay has a problem with spending. However, there is definitely money not being spent over time. 

There are several ways of looking at it. Money spent (or not spent), carry over, etc.. When your top 3 in either of those areas 3 years running, it says something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 9:57 AM, throwing BBZ said:

 

  It doesn't get more simple.
  Ballard has said, like many many other good GM's before, if i think i can help the team be a SB contender by signing/spending, even for a knucklehead if he thinks the lockerroom is strong enough to handle it, he Would Do It.
 And Irsay has explained he doesn't want to live in the 8-8 zone.
  I LOVE the business plan they have. And some Huge $$$ will be spent the next 2 years signing players we know, we have developed.
 There is no better way to build a roster.
 You are upset they didn't blow $20M trying to win a playoff game, kinda like Mannings embarrasing 7 one and dones.
  2 years of Brissett were lost causes for those that care. And last years 11-5 with a week schedule was still a surprise to Most.
 With us just on the cusp of being really good, with many really good young 1st contract players, and being right where we need to be for a 3-4 year run at the top, with a wad of cap space and Your ca$h in the Bank ready to spend...
 You see failure. That is very sad!
 

To each his own. Not spending almost 50M in 2018 with Luck, was shameful IMO. That could have filled major holes, if only for that year.

 

Anyway, like I said, the next few years will tell us a lot about Ballard. It's very easy to improve a poor roster like we had. It's much harder to maintain a good one and improve it. And with some large contracts coming due, it only gets harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 12:35 PM, Superman said:

 

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 they mean. A team can roll over the most unspent cap space (like the Colts in 2019) while still being a significant spender -- they had the 6th highest cap number, the 19th highest cash number, and the 2nd highest prior year rollover. So, no, what you posted doesn't support the idea that the Colts were near the lowest spending team in that four year period.

 

It was also an arbitrary four year period to pick. If you were talking about the most recent four year period for the salary floor, it would be 2017-2020.

 

There's nothing mysterious about the salary floor requirement, but it's obviously misunderstood by many. Most of the noise from talking heads was inaccurate/incomplete. I'm not sure of your understanding of it, but it seems like you're talking about several different things at once.

 

I wasn't unwilling to look it up. I was unable to find the relevant historical figures, and didn't substitute irrelevant numbers in their place.

 

So here are the Colts relevant numbers and rankings for 2017-2020, from Spotrac Premium. This also coincides with Ballard's tenure, and includes a coaching change and roster tear down.

2017: cap $156.2m (27th), cash $155.8m (25th), prior year rollover $8.1m (14th)

2018:  cap $144.2m (32nd), cash $147.2m (31st), prior year rollover $18.3m (7th)

2019: cap $196.1m (6th), cash $192.8m (19th), prior year rollover $49.8m (2nd)

2020: cap $231.3m (1st), cash $221.6m (17th), prior year rollover $41.7m (1st)

2021: prior year rollover $8.5m (12th) -- cap and cash figures TBD

 

Whether they were "near" the most unspent isn't really relevant. They weren't "near" the least spent cash, which is what matters for the 89% rule.

 

Cowboys, for comparison:

2017: cap $159.8 (21st), cash $148.6m (30th), prior year rollover $6.5m (17th)

2018: cap $174.0m (22nd), cash $150.5m (30th), prior year rollover $9.1m (15th)

2019: cap $182.4m (23rd), cash $193.6m (17th), prior year rollover $11.0m (8th)

2020: cap $191.3m (29th), cash $249.8m (3rd), prior year rollover $18.3m (9th)

2021: prior year rollover $26.4m (2nd) -- cap and cash figures TBD

 

No one ever suggests the Cowboys have cash flow problems. Their spending tracks pretty closely to the Colts over that four year period. Before 2020, the Colts had spent $3.1m more in cash than the Cowboys.

 

As for the Colts letting Luck keep his bonus, or paying JB, it just doesn't make sense. First, in 2017 and 2018, the Colts spent $303m cash, which is 88% of the cap for those two years, so the idea that they weren't on track to spend cash to 89% of the four year threshold doesn't hold up. They weren't 'wayyyyyy under,' and they weren't well below the pace.

 

Second, the penalty for not spending 89% of cash over the four year period would be a cash payment to NFLPA to cure the shortage, which would be distributed to the players that were on the roster over that period. Not punitive, certainly not to the degree that you'd pay a retired player and overpay a backup just to avoid that penalty. By the start of 2020, the Colts were at 92% of the threshold, and did not need to keep JB to stay on track for 89%. 

 

The reason the Colts didn't recoup Luck's bonus -- apparently -- is that they wanted to retain his rights, and they were being nice (unlike the Lions with Calvin Johnson). They overpaid JB because they overshot. Why pay and overpay players, rather than giving a moderate contract to a different veteran for a similar amount of money? They could have "overpaid" position players, rather than QBs who wouldn't play, and the cash flow situation would have been the same. In fact, recouping Luck's bonus would have improved their cash flow situation, as would not paying JB $16m in 2020 to ride the bench. 

 

This idea is a stretch, and doesn't make sense. They made decisions that they thought worked for the franchise and the team; coming back two years later and claiming that they made those decisions to meet the spending floor is revisionist. Especially when there's no real penalty for not meeting the spending floor. 

 

What makes much more sense is that the Colts had a regime change, went super young on the roster due to a focus on the draft, they committed to a 'pay as you go' contract structure for almost every veteran signing, and they stuck to their guns on contract value for free agents. The merits of their strategies and decisions is debatable. But the idea that their strategies were based on cash flow issues is a stretch. 

 

And again, I'm not claiming to have proof that they don't have cash flow limitations. I'm saying that their cap strategy shouldn't be presented as evidence of cash flow limitations.

 

Edit: Of course, anyone might reach different conclusions regarding why the Colts paid JB and Luck, rather than paying other players the same amount of money. To me, it's not sensible to say they did it to meet the spending floor. 

I used the 4 year period simply because it was the last four years, and the 89% rule is rolling over a 4 year period.... 

 

So I won't be accused of conflating... lol, I use YOUR numbers.

 

So if I'm reading your numbers correctly, in terms of cash spent, we were 25th, 31st, 19th, and 17th. Or on average, 23rd, which is bottom 10 spending, and bottom half every single year. In pure cash spent (not average rank) over that same 4 year period, I'm going to guess we would be even worse since we were consistently bottom half..... So to the original point, which is still the point.... we were on a budget.... or we weren't spending... or whatever.... 

 

So we were 88% (which is under), AND carrying over a lot to the next, which would put us farther under. And would have had much higher carryover had we not spent on Luck and Brissett. Again, you're not debunking anything. So what did we end up at 17-18-19-20) in terms of % spend (rolling 4 years)?  And I no what the penalty is.... the penalty is not remotely the point as it's the basis for the 89% rule. One thing I can't find published, is the delta between unspent in year X, and carryover to year X+1 (teams have to declare their carryover, but don't have to carry it over). In other words, how much was pocketed/lost. 

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

I used the 4 year period simply because it was the last four years, and the 89% rule is rolling over a 4 year period.... 

 

So I won't be accused of conflating... lol, I use YOUR numbers.

 

So if I'm reading your numbers correctly, in terms of cash spent, we were 25th, 31st, 19th, and 17th. Or on average, 23rd, which is bottom 10 spending, and bottom half every single year. In pure cash spent (not average rank) over that same 4 year period, I'm going to guess we would be even worse since we were consistently bottom half..... So to the original point, which is still the point.... we were on a budget.... or we weren't spending... or whatever.... 

 

So we were 88% (which is under), AND carrying over a lot to the next, which would put us farther under. And would have had much higher carryover had we not spent on Luck and Brissett. Again, you're not debunking anything. So what did we end up at 17-18-19-20) in terms of % spend (rolling 4 years)?  And I no what the penalty is.... the penalty is not remotely the point as it's the basis for the 89% rule. One thing I can't find published, is the delta between unspent in year X, and carryover to year X+1 (teams have to declare their carryover, but don't have to carry it over). In other words, how much was pocketed/lost. 

 

We could go back and forth forever about the details, and interpretation of those details. I don't think your rankings can be considered valid without producing a calculation of each team's cash spending each year, and then ranking them from top to bottom. Spotrac doesn't offer that specific calculation, and I'm not going to take the time to compile those numbers, but ultimately, you're probably right that the Colts would be somewhere in the 20s on that ranking. 

 

I don't know how you quantify "at or near the bottom," but that's the description I don't think I agree with (it's a stretch to say that bottom half of 32 = "at or near the bottom"). Doesn't really matter, we now have a more accurate representation of the Colts spending during Ballard's tenure. I do agree that we weren't spending aggressively, assuming that means they weren't going hard to acquire highly paid players.

 

The fundamental disagreement is why they weren't spending aggressively. You seem to believe the Colts spending strategy was due to cash flow restrictions, and I believe their overall team building and contract structure strategy was based on a desire to build a competitive roster, and establish and sustain a culture, maintaining both over a long period of time. 

 

I'd like to have someone explain the Luck/JB thing. You would have to acknowledge that there was no punitive penalty for not meeting the spending floor. You'd also have to acknowledge that they could have recouped Luck's bonus money, and not purposely overspent on JB (as the theory suggests), and then spent that same money on other players. Lastly, you'd have to acknowledge that the Colts were on track to meet the spending floor without spending that money. The theory is factually inaccurate.

 

I'd also like to hear a serious theory about how the Packers, whose major revenue source is NFL profit sharing just like the Colts, have a $400m slush fund, but the Colts are cash strapped. Even though the Packers spend at least as much money as, if not more than, the Colts.

 

Or an explanation for why the Cowboys -- the most valuable sports team in America, owned by a very wealthy family -- spend on about the same level as the Colts. If the Colts don't spend because they don't have it, what's the Cowboys reason? Isn't it their team building and cap management strategy? 

 

The Colts aren't one of the highest spending teams. The question is why. And a second question is whether that will change. In the context of the original topic of this thread, I believe the Colts have been disciplined so they have no issues keeping a highly paid QB + retaining their young core players, like Nelson, Leonard, etc. These upcoming contracts will change the complexion of the Colts spending.

 

And I also think it's ironic that some people who claim the Colts are cash flow limited are likely going to complain about the Colts overpaying their young core players. Again, making me question the logic behind this theory in the first place.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing that's separate, but related, the Colts are going to spend a lot of cash in 2021. The salary cap is $182.5m. The Colts have committed $198m (before training camp cuts). They are expected to extend at least Leonard and Smith this season, and the OP suggests Nelson is on the list as well. Their cash spend could easily be $240m in 2021, 30% higher than the salary cap.

 

They still won't be at the top of the list, because the Colts didn't have to spend a bunch of cash in 2021 to get under the cap. Teams that restructured players, all these extensions, voidable years, etc., are using bonus money paid in 2021 to create cap space. The Colts don't use big signing bonuses, so they don't have backloaded contracts, and their cash spend will continue to be closely tracked to their cap number. Unlike the Cowboys, who have a nearly $40m difference between their total cash spent, and their total cap number.

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...