Nelson extension coming next two weeks?

[EastStreet]

52 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

First, I don't believe I've said one time that the Colts have a cash flow problem. Not sure where you are getting that from.

 

My point has been, we're not spending a lot (our average of the ranks was bottom 10), which you say you agree. I do think our "actual" average would be lower (bottom 5, putting us near the bottom), due to the fact the delta was so big for two years, and the other two years were still bottom half. The years we spent high (cap), where the years we had crazy high roll over from the year before, and yet still were bottom half in spend (cash). In short, I'd be happy to do the math on the actual average (instead of avg rank) if the data was available. 

 

As far as the Luck/JB topic, while I can't prove it, it also can not be disproven. The simple fact is we were below the 89% mark per your numbers after the 2018 season. It's been pretty well discussed and accepted that the Colts could have recouped most/all of the 18+M of 2019 dead cap, so not sure why you would question the ability. Then, we had the 2nd most, and 1st most carry over in the league the next two years. The JB contract is a subjective topic, but I think it's fair to say most were surprised we'd take a guy who made under a 1M the year (ranked 61st in QB pay) before and still under contract in 2018, and make him a top 20 paid QB for the next two years given his 2017 performance. Seemed totally unnecessary. So in short, and on the 89% topic, I'd be happy to do the math if I had the data on the 4 year view. Given we were under the mark, then carried over 1st and 2nd the next two years, it would be very interesting to see how we looked on the rolling 4 year mark (for each year, not just now) had we not spent the money on Luck/JB. 

 

Not sure I understand your points on the Cowboys or Packers. Spend doesn't have a direct relationship to value. Value has more, or most to do with fanbase and history. TX/Dallas is a huge market with a deep history. They've been up and down spending over the years. I can certainly understand though if he was spending a bit less lately given the fact he paid construction cost and over-runs of his new stadium. I definitely would not call Jerry cheap (historically speaking).

 

On the Packers, they have a reserve fund that they pay into. Well pay-into is probably the wrong term. They simply don't take as much profit out of the business, and allocate them to the rainy day fund. Keep in mind the Packers are publicly owned, not privately owned like the Colts. My guess, is that Irsay has simply chosen to take the profits out of the business (which is not necessarily uncommon). At the end of the day, Irsay decides how much unspent money to carry over (this would be an interesting figure) and how much to pocket, and how much simple profit to take out, or to leave. 

 

On your last point, I don't really care about paying young players. And I don't think it's necessarily about "paying young players". I'm sure most have different motives/reasons for their complaints. I personally question "who they are paying", or what positions they are paying, but my primary concern as it pertains to this topic is if unspent dollars (carry over, up to the 11%) are going to A) future contracts of young players, or B) remains unspent (taken as profit). 

 

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

First, I don't believe I've said one time that the Colts have a cash flow problem. Not sure where you are getting that from.

 

This is gonna be a long one, sorry. I'll reign myself in after this.

 

I don't know how you could be engaged in this thread and not know where the cash flow angle comes from. This entire diversion began because someone claimed that the Colts are cash strapped, and Ballard has been on an Irsay-imposed budget. This argument has been brought up multiple times recently. You've been stating that the Colts don't spend a lot. Forgive me for assuming you were furthering that argument.

 

Quote

My point has been, we're not spending a lot (our average of the ranks was bottom 10), which you say you agree. I do think our "actual" average would be lower (bottom 5, putting us near the bottom), due to the fact the delta was so big for two years, and the other two years were still bottom half. The years we spent high (cap), where the years we had crazy high roll over from the year before, and yet still were bottom half in spend (cash). In short, I'd be happy to do the math on the actual average (instead of avg rank) if the data was available. 

 

To this, and to the unspent dollars question you bring up later, these questions are kind of missing the point. Rollover, average rank, etc., there are a lot of factors that aren't really pertinent. It's a simple calculation. The total NFL salary cap from 2017 to 2020 was $730.6m. The Colts cash spend over those four years was $717.4m, 98% of the cap. They were well above the spending floor, and they were effectively at the league cap for that period. (The same would be true of the previous four year period.)

 

The Colts have been in good cap shape since 2013. Despite popular opinion, Grigson didn't spend like a drunken sailor. He overvalued certain players and didn't get a lot of return for his spending, but the Colts have managed the cap well since Polian left. They've often had rollover space, since rollover became a thing. They accumulated extra space to accommodate bigger contracts that were on the way. They moved away from big signing bonuses -- Grigson used signing bonuses more than Ballard does, but they were still smaller than a lot of other teams, with exceptions like Cherilus, and 2nd deals for Luck, Hilton, and AC, who were expected to play out their contracts, so cap penalties weren't a big concern. Then, Ballard tore down and rebuilt the roster, creating even more cap space, and he rolled a lot of cap forward. Still, they spent to the cap over that four year period.

 

The questions about why are important. If you're not claiming they have restricted cash flow, are you claiming Ballard is just cheap? Just wondering what you think the reasons are for the Colts not being a big spending team.

 

Quote

As far as the Luck/JB topic, while I can't prove it, it also can not be disproven. The simple fact is we were below the 89% mark per your numbers after the 2018 season.

 

We were at 88% after 2018 (I broke this down in an earlier post), with the intention to spend more money in future seasons. They could have recouped Luck's bonus money in 2019, and cut JB in 2020, and spent the money they saved on different players who would have actually played. 

 

If a claim can't be proven, and the facts don't support it, it should be dismissed.

 

Quote

It's been pretty well discussed and accepted that the Colts could have recouped most/all of the 18+M of 2019 dead cap, so not sure why you would question the ability.

 

I've never questioned the ability to recoup Luck's bonus money. They obviously could, and decided not to. The question is why. If the answer being offered is 'they had to spend to meet the spending floor,' that doesn't work for me, because they didn't have to spend on Luck. They could have recouped his money, and spent it on a player that would actually contribute. 

 

I offer instead the idea that they declined to recoup because a) asking a retiring player to pay back bonus money is a bad look, and leads to strained relations between the player and the team (like Calvin Johnson), and b) they hoped that Luck might come back, and they could retain his rights into perpetuity. I think that's a simpler and more logical conclusion.

 

Quote

Then, we had the 2nd most, and 1st most carry over in the league the next two years. The JB contract is a subjective topic, but I think it's fair to say most were surprised we'd take a guy who made under a 1M the year (ranked 61st in QB pay) before and still under contract in 2018, and make him a top 20 paid QB for the next two years given his 2017 performance. Seemed totally unnecessary. So in short, and on the 89% topic, I'd be happy to do the math if I had the data on the 4 year view. Given we were under the mark, then carried over 1st and 2nd the next two years, it would be very interesting to see how we looked on the rolling 4 year mark (for each year, not just now) had we not spent the money on Luck/JB. 

 

You're still making a bigger deal out of rollover than I think you should. That's a cap management strategy. They still spent more than enough cash.

 

I think they overpaid JB, and that seems undeniable. But again, saying they strategized to overpay him, then replaced him in 2020 but chose to continue overpaying him, all to hit the 89% rule, doesn't add up. They could have spent that money on other players. More likely, they hoped JB would be a quality starter, and felt that offer was fair, and would protect them from JB having a big year in 2019 and gaining more value. I disagreed then with their value, but the strategy seemed obvious.

 

If the Colts admitted that they purposely overpaid JB to meet the spending floor, I'd be upset, because it's a dumb strategy, and because it goes contrary to Ballard's stated approach to paying players. 

 

The comments about the Cowboys and Packers are side points, and maybe not appropriately directed at you if you're not claiming the Colts spending = cash flow restrictions. But the point is that the Colts and Cowboys spend on the same level, and the Packers (the only team that publishes detailed financial data) have a lot of excess cash, suggesting that cash flow restrictions are not likely for any NFL team, unless there's been serious mismanagement, or litigation, or some other external factor. Every NFL team should be more than solvent, especially as it relates to player spending.

 

Quote

On your last point, I don't really care about paying young players. And I don't think it's necessarily about "paying young players". I'm sure most have different motives/reasons for their complaints. I personally question "who they are paying", or what positions they are paying, but my primary concern as it pertains to this topic is if unspent dollars (carry over, up to the 11%) are going to A) future contracts of young players, or B) remains unspent (taken as profit). 

 

The Colts obviously care about paying their young players. They've planned for it meticulously, and it's pretty obvious that it influences their cap strategy and spending decisions.

 

As mentioned before, unspent dollars are being rolled forward, and ultimately still spent on player contracts. Just like they rolled a lot of money for a couple years, then spent above the league cap in 2019 and 2020 (and will in 2021, once all is said and done), they'll continue to roll forward money as they plan for future spending. 

 

The NFLPA publishes a list each year of how much each team is rolling forward. Very few times, I've noticed a team not rolling forward the total amount that they have unspent from the previous season; it's possible there's some rule in the CBA about how much/how many years a team can roll forward unspent cap. These discrepancies are generally minimal, like $2-3m. Generally speaking, every team rolls forward all they can. From memory, the Colts have always rolled forward the full amount that was unspent. (I have not been able to find these historical numbers from the NFLPA. I could probably scour Twitter for the posted images, but I don't want to. Hopefully you can take me at my word on this.)

 

This means that the Colts rollover numbers -- as published by the NFLPA and (mostly) synced up with Spotrac and OTC -- account for all the cap room they've had since rollover started with the 2011 CBA. This gets hard to track because there are cap adjustments based on incentives, salary splits for injured players, etc., which is why the NFLPA historical charts is probably the best source, if someone wants to find them. But there's no unspent cap money that isn't acknowledged in the current rollover number for the Colts. 

 

So unspent cap money being pocketed by the owner (in addition to team profits), rather than spent on player contracts, probably isn't a thing. Instead, unspent cap money is being stashed, and rolled forward for future spending, which allows the Colts to maintain a pay-as-you-go structure even on big contracts, and avoid potential cap penalties if/when players are traded/released.

 

The strategy seems really obvious to me. And it's worked out to the Colts always being in good cap shape. (Whether they're maximizing that cap space as it relates to the players on the field, positions they're paying, etc., is another discussion. I think they're doing okay, but their spending could be allocated better, IMO.)

[EastStreet]

On 6/27/2021 at 6:25 PM, Superman said:

 

This is gonna be a long one, sorry. I'll reign myself in after this.

 

I don't know how you could be engaged in this thread and not know where the cash flow angle comes from. This entire diversion began because someone claimed that the Colts are cash strapped, and Ballard has been on an Irsay-imposed budget. This argument has been brought up multiple times recently. You've been stating that the Colts don't spend a lot. Forgive me for assuming you were furthering that argument.

 

 

 

I've seen others talking about cash flow, but I have not. I've talked about willingness, or unwillingness to spend. I think you and I, and most on the board, would agree that OTC and ST are the best, or most accurate, in terms of providing data on salaries, cap, etc.. That stated, here's what OTC had to say about the Colts 2020 spend as it related to the rolling 89%. It also mentions the point about Luck and JB contracts.

 

"Though our cash numbers that we trace are not going to be 100% accurate they should give us a pretty strong estimate of the teams that are in danger of not meeting the 89% threshold. Through last season we did not have any teams that were under $473.9M in spending, which was the mark required to be on pace to hit the 89% mark. The teams that were closest, the Cowboys, Ravens, Colts, and Chargers were all between $477M and $485M. There is a quirk in the rules that could impact teams in cap trouble (spending on bonuses in contracts in February of 2017 should not count towards spending but we track them as cash for the year)  which means maybe the Cowboys and Ravens were slightly under but if it’s the case it should not be by much.

 

Assuming the cap reaches $200 million this year the four year spending number will jump to $651.8M. Per our estimates we have 11 teams that are under that mark. Of those 11, six should be compliant just by signing their draft picks. Those teams are the Cardinals, Buccaneers, Patriots, Giants, Broncos, and Dolphins. That should leave us with six teams that may have little choice but to spend in free agency this year. Let’s take a look at those teams.

 

Colts, $43M under– The Colts have pretty much avoided spending in free agency the last few years even with a huge surplus of cap space.  Last year when the unexpected retirement of Andrew Luck came down and the team surprisingly did not ask him to repay millions in bonuses paid just months before the retirement and then followed it up by a seemingly crazy decision to agree to a one year, $28 million extension for Jacoby Brissett I surmised that the team was going to be so far under the spending limit that both decisions were in part driven by this. Seeing how far under they are now I think backs that up. Indianapolis will likely make up half of their shortage in the draft but they will most likely have to finally go out and spend at least a bit in free agency this year especially if they do not keep tackle Anthony Castonzo. The Colts may not want to get tied down to anyone for too long so this may wind up being the landing spot for “rehab” projects that take a one year deal in the hope of improving their stock."

https://overthecap.com/minimum-cash-spending-in-2020/

 

Could that be cashflow? Sure. Could it be long term planning? Sure. Could it be Irsay is simply taking money/profit out of the business (which is his right)? Sure... 

 

Fact is, we'll never really know what the reason is. But we do know, the Colts simply weren't spending, and were to a level that they were one of six called out by OTC. 

Quote

 

 

To this, and to the unspent dollars question you bring up later, these questions are kind of missing the point. Rollover, average rank, etc., there are a lot of factors that aren't really pertinent. It's a simple calculation. The total NFL salary cap from 2017 to 2020 was $730.6m. The Colts cash spend over those four years was $717.4m, 98% of the cap. They were well above the spending floor, and they were effectively at the league cap for that period. (The same would be true of the previous four year period.)

See above article.

Quote

 

The Colts have been in good cap shape since 2013. Despite popular opinion, Grigson didn't spend like a drunken sailor. He overvalued certain players and didn't get a lot of return for his spending, but the Colts have managed the cap well since Polian left. They've often had rollover space, since rollover became a thing. They accumulated extra space to accommodate bigger contracts that were on the way. They moved away from big signing bonuses -- Grigson used signing bonuses more than Ballard does, but they were still smaller than a lot of other teams, with exceptions like Cherilus, and 2nd deals for Luck, Hilton, and AC, who were expected to play out their contracts, so cap penalties weren't a big concern. Then, Ballard tore down and rebuilt the roster, creating even more cap space, and he rolled a lot of cap forward. Still, they spent to the cap over that four year period.

 

The questions about why are important. If you're not claiming they have restricted cash flow, are you claiming Ballard is just cheap? Just wondering what you think the reasons are for the Colts not being a big spending team.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply saying we haven't spent. You're point about Grigson not spending either, makes me lean towards the likelihood both were simply on a budget (given to them by Irsay). 

Quote

 

 

We were at 88% after 2018 (I broke this down in an earlier post), with the intention to spend more money in future seasons. They could have recouped Luck's bonus money in 2019, and cut JB in 2020, and spent the money they saved on different players who would have actually played. 

 

If a claim can't be proven, and the facts don't support it, it should be dismissed.

I haven't seen any facts that don't support it. And it's not like I'm pondering something others weren't saying out loud. Even one of the most respected salary/cap sources said the exact same thing. The article by the way that I linked above was written by OTC's founder. PFF regularly quotes him, and even calls him the best source on cap related matters (like in the beginning of the below vid). For the record, I prefer ST due to the bells and whistles / format.

Quote

 

 

I've never questioned the ability to recoup Luck's bonus money. They obviously could, and decided not to. The question is why. If the answer being offered is 'they had to spend to meet the spending floor,' that doesn't work for me, because they didn't have to spend on Luck. They could have recouped his money, and spent it on a player that would actually contribute. 

 

I offer instead the idea that they declined to recoup because a) asking a retiring player to pay back bonus money is a bad look, and leads to strained relations between the player and the team (like Calvin Johnson), and b) they hoped that Luck might come back, and they could retain his rights into perpetuity. I think that's a simpler and more logical conclusion.

 

 

You're still making a bigger deal out of rollover than I think you should. That's a cap management strategy. They still spent more than enough cash.

 

I think they overpaid JB, and that seems undeniable. But again, saying they strategized to overpay him, then replaced him in 2020 but chose to continue overpaying him, all to hit the 89% rule, doesn't add up. They could have spent that money on other players. More likely, they hoped JB would be a quality starter, and felt that offer was fair, and would protect them from JB having a big year in 2019 and gaining more value. I disagreed then with their value, but the strategy seemed obvious.

 

If the Colts admitted that they purposely overpaid JB to meet the spending floor, I'd be upset, because it's a dumb strategy, and because it goes contrary to Ballard's stated approach to paying players. 

I agree they could have spent that money on other players, and the fact they didn't is another concern. I do believe the team gets some benefit from paying "retirement dollars", but not sure exactly what that is. The overpay on JB was a head scratcher I'll never get though. Both though, could be seen as means of spending without being tied down to anything long term, AND, getting them to that 89% threshold.

Quote

 

The comments about the Cowboys and Packers are side points, and maybe not appropriately directed at you if you're not claiming the Colts spending = cash flow restrictions. But the point is that the Colts and Cowboys spend on the same level, and the Packers (the only team that publishes detailed financial data) have a lot of excess cash, suggesting that cash flow restrictions are not likely for any NFL team, unless there's been serious mismanagement, or litigation, or some other external factor. Every NFL team should be more than solvent, especially as it relates to player spending.

The article mentions that historically, the Cowboys have spent. So the Cowboys situation seems a bit out of character, and perhaps like I suggested (due to spend on the stadium). I'm sure all teams work under solvency rules. But like I said, GB is publicly owned, so likely playing under a whole other layer of rules. IMO, they just don't have an owner taking as much profit out (or paying shareholders for GBs specific situation). 

Quote

 

 

The Colts obviously care about paying their young players. They've planned for it meticulously, and it's pretty obvious that it influences their cap strategy and spending decisions.

 

As mentioned before, unspent dollars are being rolled forward, and ultimately still spent on player contracts. Just like they rolled a lot of money for a couple years, then spent above the league cap in 2019 and 2020 (and will in 2021, once all is said and done), they'll continue to roll forward money as they plan for future spending. 

I think it's too early to say the Colts care about paying their young players. We're really just getting into the phase where Ballard's picks are getting to a post-rook-contract phase. Out of Ballard's first draft class, none of his first 4 picks are on the current roster, and only two of eight remain. One was signed on the cheap (Mack) one year deal, one was signed to a very modest contract (Stewart).

 

You can get caught up with roll over, but the fact is, we're spending at a low level. Even though we spent more than cap in 19 and 20, we were still ranked bottom half in cash, and still carrying over the 1st and 2nd most. 

Quote

 

The NFLPA publishes a list each year of how much each team is rolling forward. Very few times, I've noticed a team not rolling forward the total amount that they have unspent from the previous season; it's possible there's some rule in the CBA about how much/how many years a team can roll forward unspent cap. These discrepancies are generally minimal, like $2-3m. Generally speaking, every team rolls forward all they can. From memory, the Colts have always rolled forward the full amount that was unspent. (I have not been able to find these historical numbers from the NFLPA. I could probably scour Twitter for the posted images, but I don't want to. Hopefully you can take me at my word on this.)

 

This means that the Colts rollover numbers -- as published by the NFLPA and (mostly) synced up with Spotrac and OTC -- account for all the cap room they've had since rollover started with the 2011 CBA. This gets hard to track because there are cap adjustments based on incentives, salary splits for injured players, etc., which is why the NFLPA historical charts is probably the best source, if someone wants to find them. But there's no unspent cap money that isn't acknowledged in the current rollover number for the Colts. 

 

So unspent cap money being pocketed by the owner (in addition to team profits), rather than spent on player contracts, probably isn't a thing. Instead, unspent cap money is being stashed, and rolled forward for future spending, which allows the Colts to maintain a pay-as-you-go structure even on big contracts, and avoid potential cap penalties if/when players are traded/released.

Work with me on this one.... The rollover each year isn't just sitting there in a pot waiting to be spent. It's simply money the team/business never had to allocate from profits in the first place. They know they have a rolling 89% they are accountable to spend, but the 11% is a grey area. Money not spent today is more valuable (to the owner) than the same amount they might spend next year, or the year after, or the year after, etc...  if that makes sense. And the money unspent this year, helps towards putting off spending what will typically be a higher cap number (normally increasing every year). 

 

So in other words, it's just good business sense if you're an owner trying to maximize profit. Spend as close as possible to the 89%, collect interest (or take profit, or spend in other areas) on the money unspent, roll over as much as you can to bridge the escalation of the cap in future years. I'd love to see a 20 year view of our spending, and a view since the 89% rule's inception (2013 I think). I'm going to guess we are bottom 10, or bottom 6 like the OTC suggested for that specific 4 year period.

Quote

 

The strategy seems really obvious to me. And it's worked out to the Colts always being in good cap shape. (Whether they're maximizing that cap space as it relates to the players on the field, positions they're paying, etc., is another discussion. I think they're doing okay, but their spending could be allocated better, IMO.)

Yup. I just think there were clearly years we could have added a piece or two that would have made a difference. 

 

On the larger topic, I think Irsay's trend in general (not just Ballard), has been to be frugal. Will that change? Will the rollover translate into keeping key players plus improving/maintaining in the future. I don't know. I just know we have a long track record of not spending, while other teams have spent more, and seen more success. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out over the next 4 years as it gets harder to maintain a roster. Like I've said several times, it's easier to improve a bad roster (like Ballard inherited), then to maintain and improve on a good one (like we have now)..

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I've seen others talking about cash flow, but I have not. I've talked about willingness, or unwillingness to spend. I think you and I, and most on the board, would agree that OTC and ST are the best, or most accurate, in terms of providing data on salaries, cap, etc.. That stated, here's what OTC had to say about the Colts 2020 spend as it related to the rolling 89%. It also mentions the point about Luck and JB contracts.

 

OTC and Spotrac are great (OTC has great data, Spotrac's layout is better). Doesn't mean their editorial opinions are an authority, or above reproach. Same for PFF. I appreciate you posting them. Like I said earlier, I was aware of these arguments, I know it's not just something you made it. 

 

I obviously disagree with this conclusion. These decisions -- Luck and JB -- were made just before the start of the 2019 season. Through 2018, the Colts were at 88% of the spending floor. They were not having an issue keeping pace with their spending. It doesn't fit.

It also doesn't make sense. They may not have wanted to commit to long term money for FAs, to maintain flexlibility -- that makes sense, I think it explains the Funchess contract (which I criticized at the time for being too high), and it explains their lack of spending in 2019. That doesn't mean they couldn't have spent money on short term deals for FAs. Ziggy Ansah, one year, $9m; Cam Fleming, two years, $7.5m; Jared Cook, two years, $15m, etc. Plenty of FAs at positions of need for the Colts that didn't sign long term deals that would taken away from the Colts future cap/spending flexibility, but could have replaced the Luck/JB spending, with ease. OTC doesn't acknowledge the fact that the Colts retained Luck's rights by not recouping his bonus.

 

I don't agree with this conclusion, never will. It doesn't make sense, it wasn't necessary at the time, and it would have been a stupid strategy (IMO). 

 

But if you're not furthering the argument that the Colts have not spent to the satisfaction of the fans/media because they have cash flow issues, then this is just a matter of opinion. But I definitely appreciate the discussion of facts.

 

Quote

 

The article mentions that historically, the Cowboys have spent. So the Cowboys situation seems a bit out of character

 

 

I think maybe you misread that part. 

 

From the article: Cowboys, $45 million under- Despite what most people think of the Cowboys they have basically managed a low cost roster for years now.

 

Value doesn't equal cash flow ability, but the Cowboys don't spend like people think they do. The perception that Colts are small market and have limitations doesn't really factor in all the variables. Every team gets shared revenue that easily exceeds the salary cap, as the Packers financials show. Like you said, Cowboys have expenses the Colts don't, but like I've been saying, the Colts small market limitations are reflected in other ways (coach salaries, stadium deal, etc.). I don't think their cap management is a legitimate factor.

 

Quote

I think it's too early to say the Colts care about paying their young players. (...)

 

I think this is a weird comment to make, unless you don't think the Colts are going to pay Nelson, Smith and Leonard big money. They clearly care about paying their young players. The way they handled Stewart shows what the intention is (and I'd argue that his contract was more than modest, but that's splitting hairs). By this time next year, I'm pretty sure those three guys will be very highly paid; maybe by the start of this season.

 

Quote

Work with me on this one....

 

I don't know if you get my point. The rollover -- which was high previously, but now is not -- accounts for all the cap money the Colts could have spent on player contracts. They rolled over a lot, then spent most of the rollover by 2020, and only had $8m to roll over $8m to 2021. They didn't toe the line to keep that 11%, because that 11% was eventually spent (save for $8m). In cash, they spent $717.4m, 98% of the total cap from 2017-2020. (The Patriots, for comparison, spent $718m over the same four year period.) If they had only spent $650m, I'd agree with you.

 

Now we can talk about cash vs cap, and those numbers will be different, especially compared to teams that don't use a pay-go contract structure, or that do a bunch of restructures and signing bonuses. But eventually, that money gets accounted for. Typically, it means a team has to pull back in a future season (the Pats did this in 2020). Teams had to approach this differently in 2021, and had the expectation that the cap will go up in future seasons. And in 2022/23, I expect that teams that spent a lot more cash than cap over the last couple seasons will spend less cash than cap in coming years, and allow the rising cap to resolve some of their coming cap issues. The Colts don't use those functions, so they will have cap space every year, even when their young guys get paid.

 

I don't think Irsay is relying on that 11% as part of his profit. As I said, it's getting spent on player contracts. Even if he's using money saved in 2018/19 to supplement other team expenses in those years, it's eventually getting spent on player contracts in the years when they team spends over the cap. That's the point of rollover and the spending floor: you don't have to spend it this year, but you do have to spend it. I don't want to get into the specifics of the team's non-player finances, year by year, because we don't really know them. But we do know that from 2017-2020,  they spent 98% of the total cap on player contracts. There's no indication that 11% was held back for non-player contract expenses.

 

Quote

On the larger topic, I think Irsay's trend in general (not just Ballard), has been to be frugal.

 

I don't agree. You said this earlier about spending under Grigson. He used a similar philosophy to Ballard -- more balanced contracts, not a lot of big signing bonuses, saving to pay his young players (Luck, Hilton, AC, Allen, etc.) That doesn't mean either approach was frugal. It was strategic -- save money now, spend money later -- made possible by rollover, and enforced by the spending floor. And when their best FAs come up, the Colts almost always keep them, often at/near the top of the market for their position.

 

The Colts -- with Polian, Grigson, and likely with Ballard (though it remains to be seen) -- generally have top heavy caps. The top 5-7 guys making big money, and being more restrictive with the rest of the roster. With the 2011 CBA came the ability to save money now, to spend it later, so Grigson and Ballard have used rollover to get ready for anticipated future spending. Ballard has gone even more extreme than Grigson with his contract structures, and in doing so he limits his ability to make a bunch of big signings, but he also prevents himself from being in cap trouble in the future. All told, however, the Colts have had no problem spending money on player contracts over the last 20+ years. 

 

No matter the interpretation of the Colts cap management/player acquisition strategies, saying Irsay tends to be frugal isn't accurate.

 

The teams that have won more have almost invariably drafted better. Their success isn't because they've spent more. In fact, their spending more is a byproduct of their successes, coupled with a desire to prolong their window. We haven't really opened our window yet.

[EastStreet]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

OTC and Spotrac are great (OTC has great data, Spotrac's layout is better). Doesn't mean their editorial opinions are an authority, or above reproach. Same for PFF. I appreciate you posting them. Like I said earlier, I was aware of these arguments, I know it's not just something you made it. 

 

I obviously disagree with this conclusion. These decisions -- Luck and JB -- were made just before the start of the 2019 season. Through 2018, the Colts were at 88% of the spending floor. They were not having an issue keeping pace with their spending. It doesn't fit.

The 89% is a rolling 4 year amount, but calc'd each year, not just once after every 4 years. So those two situations impacted 4 separate calcs, not just the one immediately after, or etc.. 

 

And I'd rate the founder of OTC a bit higher than just another editorial opinion. He's arguably one of a few guys out there you can say are absolutely experts on the topic. So yes, it's indeed an editorial opinion, but it's coming from one of two sources that are considered tops in their field. 

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

It also doesn't make sense. They may not have wanted to commit to long term money for FAs, to maintain flexlibility -- that makes sense, I think it explains the Funchess contract (which I criticized at the time for being too high), and it explains their lack of spending in 2019. That doesn't mean they couldn't have spent money on short term deals for FAs. Ziggy Ansah, one year, $9m; Cam Fleming, two years, $7.5m; Jared Cook, two years, $15m, etc. Plenty of FAs at positions of need for the Colts that didn't sign long term deals that would taken away from the Colts future cap/spending flexibility, but could have replaced the Luck/JB spending, with ease. OTC doesn't acknowledge the fact that the Colts retained Luck's rights by not recouping his bonus.

 

I don't agree with this conclusion, never will. It doesn't make sense, it wasn't necessary at the time, and it would have been a stupid strategy (IMO). 

 

But if you're not furthering the argument that the Colts have not spent to the satisfaction of the fans/media because they have cash flow issues, then this is just a matter of opinion. But I definitely appreciate the discussion of facts.

As far a necessary, the article seemed pretty specific that the rolling 89% at that point would not have been met even with signing the draftees. I know you can't see the logic on paying Luck, or overpaying JB, vs just signing some other FA, but keep in mind they paid Luck, overpaid JB, and still had to sign Funchess to get in the rolling 4 year ballpark. And simply the logic around JB's contract will never make sense to me. Totally unnecessary, and that money could have also went to another FA short term deal.

 

I'm not wrapped around the axle on the who cash flow narrative. A cash flow issue, "to me" means the team doesn't have the money. My issue is they have it, and simply are not spending it.

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I think maybe you misread that part. 

 

From the article: Cowboys, $45 million under- Despite what most people think of the Cowboys they have basically managed a low cost roster for years now.

 

Value doesn't equal cash flow ability, but the Cowboys don't spend like people think they do. The perception that Colts are small market and have limitations doesn't really factor in all the variables. Every team gets shared revenue that easily exceeds the salary cap, as the Packers financials show. Like you said, Cowboys have expenses the Colts don't, but like I've been saying, the Colts small market limitations are reflected in other ways (coach salaries, stadium deal, etc.). I don't think their cap management is a legitimate factor.

Cowboys have managed a low cost roster, but their spending has been very up and down pre-stadium. They, at least if memory serves, have not been near as consistently on the low end (cash). The numbers you posted earlier even show that to an extent. 

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I think this is a weird comment to make, unless you don't think the Colts are going to pay Nelson, Smith and Leonard big money. They clearly care about paying their young players. The way they handled Stewart shows what the intention is (and I'd argue that his contract was more than modest, but that's splitting hairs). By this time next year, I'm pretty sure those three guys will be very highly paid; maybe by the start of this season.

All teams have high paid players. Paying Nelson, Smith, and Leonard doesn't equate to, to me at least, a commitment to paying young players. The 2017 draft class example I provided can't be brushed aside. Mack was not likely going to be paid (pre-injury), or else they wouldn't have drafted Taylor. Mack was a top 10ish RB in a contract year, yet they drafted Taylor with the likely intention of letting Mack hit the market. The timing of the injury just made the potential optics problem less visible. Had he not gotten hurt, the Colts would have let a young, good player hit the streets. And while not a superstar, the let Walker go instead of trying to keep him, and are rolling the dice on a questionable rook to take on a bigger role. 

 

If anything, it just tells me that they are being strategic in who they pay. 

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I don't know if you get my point. The rollover -- which was high previously, but now is not -- accounts for all the cap money the Colts could have spent on player contracts. They rolled over a lot, then spent most of the rollover by 2020, and only had $8m to roll over $8m to 2021. They didn't toe the line to keep that 11%, because that 11% was eventually spent (save for $8m). In cash, they spent $717.4m, 98% of the total cap from 2017-2020. (The Patriots, for comparison, spent $718m over the same four year period.) If they had only spent $650m, I'd agree with you.

Again, like I pointed out, and like the article said, we had to spend in 2020. But even as much as we spent, we still were only 17th in cash, and that spending was buffered by the previous year's #1 carry over, and the previous year's #2 carry over.

 

So let's keep it simple. The whole 89% stuff is just clouding the water. Would you agree in the last 5 years, and last 10 years, the Colts have spent (simple cash) bottom 10 in the NFL?

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Now we can talk about cash vs cap, and those numbers will be different, especially compared to teams that don't use a pay-go contract structure, or that do a bunch of restructures and signing bonuses. But eventually, that money gets accounted for. Typically, it means a team has to pull back in a future season (the Pats did this in 2020). Teams had to approach this differently in 2021, and had the expectation that the cap will go up in future seasons. And in 2022/23, I expect that teams that spent a lot more cash than cap over the last couple seasons will spend less cash than cap in coming years, and allow the rising cap to resolve some of their coming cap issues. The Colts don't use those functions, so they will have cap space every year, even when their young guys get paid.

 

I don't think Irsay is relying on that 11% as part of his profit. As I said, it's getting spent on player contracts. Even if he's using money saved in 2018/19 to supplement other team expenses in those years, it's eventually getting spent on player contracts in the years when they team spends over the cap. That's the point of rollover and the spending floor: you don't have to spend it this year, but you do have to spend it. I don't want to get into the specifics of the team's non-player finances, year by year, because we don't really know them. But we do know that from 2017-2020,  they spent 98% of the total cap on player contracts. There's no indication that 11% was held back for non-player contract expenses.

See above, but I'll ask you this.

 

If you have 100M in your bank. Now lets say you have to spend min 10M, but can't spend over 15M. Also, spending 15M as opposed to to 10M, doesn't net you anymore profit. Do you A) spend 10M and collect interest on the other 5M, or B) spend 15M? 

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I don't agree. You said this earlier about spending under Grigson. He used a similar philosophy to Ballard -- more balanced contracts, not a lot of big signing bonuses, saving to pay his young players (Luck, Hilton, AC, Allen, etc.) That doesn't mean either approach was frugal. It was strategic -- save money now, spend money later -- made possible by rollover, and enforced by the spending floor. And when their best FAs come up, the Colts almost always keep them, often at/near the top of the market for their position.

 

The Colts -- with Polian, Grigson, and likely with Ballard (though it remains to be seen) -- generally have top heavy caps. The top 5-7 guys making big money, and being more restrictive with the rest of the roster. With the 2011 CBA came the ability to save money now, to spend it later, so Grigson and Ballard have used rollover to get ready for anticipated future spending. Ballard has gone even more extreme than Grigson with his contract structures, and in doing so he limits his ability to make a bunch of big signings, but he also prevents himself from being in cap trouble in the future. All told, however, the Colts have had no problem spending money on player contracts over the last 20+ years. 

You're the one that said Grigson didn't spend like a drunken sailor. I've never mentioned Grigson.

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No matter the interpretation of the Colts cap management/player acquisition strategies, saying Irsay tends to be frugal isn't accurate.

 

The teams that have won more have almost invariably drafted better. Their success isn't because they've spent more. In fact, their spending more is a byproduct of their successes, coupled with a desire to prolong their window. We haven't really opened our window yet.

Again, I think a view purely of total cash spent over the last 5, and last 10 years, would show that Colts are bottom 10 in spend. And if you are bottom 10 in spend (regardless of yearly flux or 89%), then to me, that's "frugal". Or whatever word you want to use.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

The 89% is a rolling 4 year amount, but calc'd each year, not just once after every 4 years. So those two situations impacted 4 separate calcs, not just the one immediately after, or etc.. 

 

And I'd rate the founder of OTC a bit higher than just another editorial opinion. He's arguably one of a few guys out there you can say are absolutely experts on the topic. So yes, it's indeed an editorial opinion, but it's coming from one of two sources that are considered tops in their field. 

 

I wouldn't argue whether he's an expert. But the article you posted is an editorial opinion piece. Even an expert can be off base, inaccurate, or just plain wrong.

 

Quote

As far a necessary, the article seemed pretty specific that the rolling 89% at that point would not have been met even with signing the draftees. I know you can't see the logic on paying Luck, or overpaying JB, vs just signing some other FA, but keep in mind they paid Luck, overpaid JB, and still had to sign Funchess to get in the rolling 4 year ballpark. And simply the logic around JB's contract will never make sense to me. Totally unnecessary, and that money could have also went to another FA short term deal.

 

The article suggested as much, but that wasn't accurate. I keep saying it, after 2018, they were at 88%. Then the JB/Luck decisions were made. They weren't off the pace at the time of those decisions. And they spent significantly higher in 2020, which was -- apparently -- always the plan. And by the end of 2020, they came in well above the 89%. Take out the extra $40-50m they spent on Luck/JB, and Funchess' $10m, and they still hit 89% for the four year period. 

 

OTC is great. Their analysis on this was off base.

 

Quote

I'm not wrapped around the axle on the who cash flow narrative. A cash flow issue, "to me" means the team doesn't have the money. My issue is they have it, and simply are not spending it.

 

Understood.

 

Quote

Cowboys have managed a low cost roster, but their spending has been very up and down pre-stadium. They, at least if memory serves, have not been near as consistently on the low end (cash). The numbers you posted earlier even show that to an extent. 

 

How far back are we going on this? The stadium opened in 2009, it pre-dates the last two CBAs, under which league revenues and the salary cap have continued to increase, aside from Covid. They spent $742.5m in the last four year period, compared to the Colts $717.4m, but they're the glamour franchise that always spends big money, or at least that's the perception. In reality, they're disciplined just like the Colts are, even though they allocate their money differently.

 

Quote

All teams have high paid players. Paying Nelson, Smith, and Leonard doesn't equate to, to me at least, a commitment to paying young players. The 2017 draft class example I provided can't be brushed aside. (...)

 

If anything, it just tells me that they are being strategic in who they pay. 

 

It equates to having a top heavy salary budget, which is typical for teams that build through the draft. Being strategic in who they pay is a necessity of cap management.

 

I don't agree with your points on the 2017 draft class. Mack is a pretty good RB, not a star player, and they didn't want to give him a second contract. That's position specific. Walker got $3m, they could have matched his money if they wanted. To me, that was a personnel decision, not strictly a money decision. (It helps that I agree with both of these decisions from a football/cap management standpoint; if you think they should have been ready to pay Mack or Walker, that's a different story.)

 

Quote

 

Again, like I pointed out, and like the article said, we had to spend in 2020. But even as much as we spent, we still were only 17th in cash, and that spending was buffered by the previous year's #1 carry over, and the previous year's #2 carry over.

 

So let's keep it simple. The whole 89% stuff is just clouding the water. Would you agree in the last 5 years, and last 10 years, the Colts have spent (simple cash) bottom 10 in the NFL?

 

 

The 89% stuff is the point, primarily because it's an aggregate. They didn't have to pay Luck and JB to meet the spending floor by 2020. That's a basic fact that you won't acknowledge.

 

They were 17th in cash, but first in cap. Did you notice that their cash and cap has always been basically even? That's strategic.

 

Yes, probably bottom 10 over the last ten years (without seriously digging into the numbers). To me, the reasons are pretty obvious.

 

Quote

If you have 100M in your bank. Now lets say you have to spend min 10M, but can't spend over 15M. Also, spending 15M as opposed to to 10M, doesn't net you anymore profit. Do you A) spend 10M and collect interest on the other 5M, or B) spend 15M? 

 

If my prime objective is to make money, and I know for sure that spending the extra $5m doesn't help me make anymore money, then I'll collect interest. If I have competing objectives, those need to be weighed out respective to their importance.

 

Quote

You're the one that said Grigson didn't spend like a drunken sailor. I've never mentioned Grigson.

 

I guess you missed the point. There's a misconception that Grigson threw around money recklessly, which isn't accurate. That doesn't mean he didn't spend money. It means he was responsible with the cap and his contract structures (even if he didn't really spend on the right players).

 

Quote

Again, I think a view purely of total cash spent over the last 5, and last 10 years, would show that Colts are bottom 10 in spend. And if you are bottom 10 in spend (regardless of yearly flux or 89%), then to me, that's "frugal". Or whatever word you want to use.

 

That's a judgment, which is yours to make. I don't really agree. Lots of teams spent more than the total cap, using more aggressive contract structures. To me, that's the major reason for the ranking. The Colts spent their cap room. Other teams spent more than their cap room by using backloaded contracts. It's worth noting that lots of those teams failed to have any meaningful success over the last however many years, despite their more aggressive spending. Saints, for example. Or worse, the Jets, who spent $133.8m more than the Colts over the last ten years (outspent six out of ten seasons), with nothing to show for it. The Lions spent $778m over the last four seasons.

 

Frugal, or cheap, is one thing. The Colts have been responsible with their spending. Along the way, they haven't succeeded in building a great roster, and haven't had a lot of young players to pay. Doesn't mean I don't wish they would take a swing in FA at times, like Buckner, or a better version of the Funchess deal. But it was pretty obvious years ago that their cap management strategy was to stay balanced, roll over cap space, and spend more in specific situations.

[Four2itus]

On 6/13/2021 at 3:02 PM, Wentzszn said:

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

 

 

Well, going back to the premise of the thread, it looks like Chad was incorrect. Flung a possible scenario at the wall, didn't stick.

 

Since then the thread has become a discussion about the perception of Jim Irsay's spending. With the lack of stuff to talk about, it's a good thing. My thoughts about that are more macro than micro. I appreciate the research Supe and East have done. In the end, it's all about perception. 

 

I'll throw a non-factual percentage out there. 95%. When fans might label their teams owner as cheap or frugal, I would guess that 95% of the time, it's because their team did not sign the player(s) they thought the team should have signed. In the famous words of Forrest Gump...."That's all  I got to say about that....."

[Jackie Daytona]

I usually being up the liquid cash as a possible determining factor in organizational philosophy..... No info saying it is or isn't, just what it seems.  A bonus. Heck is cashed immediately, we all know that.  I at times have wondered if maybe Irsay chooses not to afford cutting as many huge bonus checks as some other owners in any given season.... Now, that's different fr claiming he's cheap, he's definitely proven hell more than pay players he loves..... And the team generally prepares to pay those players handsomely.  It's just an idea as to why they might choose to be more conservative at times, it's his cash, so no one really knows but Jim.

[Myles]

I think Nelson and Leonard get contracts done.   Smith is the one I worry about.   They may not give him what he could get in free agency and he may go elsewhere.  Not sure if Ballard will feel he could be replaced with a similar player through the draft.  I hope they keep him because he has been great.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The Saints just paid their RT $90 million on 5 years. Smith is about to get paid.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[EastStreet]

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I wouldn't argue whether he's an expert. But the article you posted is an editorial opinion piece. Even an expert can be off base, inaccurate, or just plain wrong.

 

 

The article suggested as much, but that wasn't accurate. I keep saying it, after 2018, they were at 88%. Then the JB/Luck decisions were made. They weren't off the pace at the time of those decisions. And they spent significantly higher in 2020, which was -- apparently -- always the plan. And by the end of 2020, they came in well above the 89%. Take out the extra $40-50m they spent on Luck/JB, and Funchess' $10m, and they still hit 89% for the four year period. 

 

OTC is great. Their analysis on this was off base.

I think you're missing the fact that the 89% is rolling, and measured every year based on the past 4 years. So what happened in 18, was relevant to 15-16-17-18, 16-17-18-19, and 17-18-19-20..... So the fact they look good in 2020, doesn't mean the moves were not necessary for prior cycles.

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

Understood.

 

 

How far back are we going on this? The stadium opened in 2009, it pre-dates the last two CBAs, under which league revenues and the salary cap have continued to increase, aside from Covid. They spent $742.5m in the last four year period, compared to the Colts $717.4m, but they're the glamour franchise that always spends big money, or at least that's the perception. In reality, they're disciplined just like the Colts are, even though they allocate their money differently.

The stadium is 11 years old, but it also cost over a billion dollars, which Jerry funded most of the cost. He also took a loan from the NFL to build it. I think tax payers covered about 300M of it, but I'm sure Jerry still owes some of the 800M he covered.

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

It equates to having a top heavy salary budget, which is typical for teams that build through the draft. Being strategic in who they pay is a necessity of cap management.

 

I don't agree with your points on the 2017 draft class. Mack is a pretty good RB, not a star player, and they didn't want to give him a second contract. That's position specific. Walker got $3m, they could have matched his money if they wanted. To me, that was a personnel decision, not strictly a money decision. (It helps that I agree with both of these decisions from a football/cap management standpoint; if you think they should have been ready to pay Mack or Walker, that's a different story.)

Mack was top 10ish in yards in 2019. He might not be elite, but he's also not someone you simply push out, if you're indeed interested in paying your young players. Let's be honest, the Colts, like a lot of teams, just diminish the value of RBs. 

 

As far as agreeing or not, I agree with treating RBs as fungible. I don't want to get burnt like so many other teams after signing extending their RB on a big deal. So I'm perfectly fine with drafting a RB every 3-4 years, and shuffling in and out. As far as Walker, I would have kept him simply for the fact he wasn't expensive, and I think Oke was average at best in his part time roll, and I think he'll be a weak spot vs the run. The was also after they gushed several times about how special Walker, and his leadership is/was..... 

 

But regardless or agreeing or disagreeing, both go against "paying young players" in it's purest meaning. 

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

The 89% stuff is the point, primarily because it's an aggregate. They didn't have to pay Luck and JB to meet the spending floor by 2020. That's a basic fact that you won't acknowledge.

 

They were 17th in cash, but first in cap. Did you notice that their cash and cap has always been basically even? That's strategic.

 

Yes, probably bottom 10 over the last ten years (without seriously digging into the numbers). To me, the reasons are pretty obvious.

Sorry man, if you're bottom 10 over a period of 10 years, it means your either cheap, frugal, or whatever adjective you'd prefer, compared to the rest of the teams. That's a large enough sample to draw an opinion or conclusion from.

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

If my prime objective is to make money, and I know for sure that spending the extra $5m doesn't help me make anymore money, then I'll collect interest. If I have competing objectives, those need to be weighed out respective to their importance.

 

 

I guess you missed the point. There's a misconception that Grigson threw around money recklessly, which isn't accurate. That doesn't mean he didn't spend money. It means he was responsible with the cap and his contract structures (even if he didn't really spend on the right players).

I didn't miss the point. I've never said Grigson tossed cash out the window. You're particular opinion is he was responsible. My particular opinion looking at the last 10 years, is he was simply on a budget... 

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

That's a judgment, which is yours to make. I don't really agree. Lots of teams spent more than the total cap, using more aggressive contract structures. To me, that's the major reason for the ranking. The Colts spent their cap room. Other teams spent more than their cap room by using backloaded contracts. It's worth noting that lots of those teams failed to have any meaningful success over the last however many years, despite their more aggressive spending. Saints, for example. Or worse, the Jets, who spent $133.8m more than the Colts over the last ten years (outspent six out of ten seasons), with nothing to show for it. The Lions spent $778m over the last four seasons.

back loading is just another push off, like roll over. It'll count at some point. That's why I suggested we stick to talking cash.

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Frugal, or cheap, is one thing. The Colts have been responsible with their spending. Along the way, they haven't succeeded in building a great roster, and haven't had a lot of young players to pay. Doesn't mean I don't wish they would take a swing in FA at times, like Buckner, or a better version of the Funchess deal. But it was pretty obvious years ago that their cap management strategy was to stay balanced, roll over cap space, and spend more in specific situations.

I'd buy into this is we were around the median, not bottom 10. To me, it just smells like "I'm on a budget"

[Superman]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I think you're missing the fact that the 89% is rolling, and measured every year based on the past 4 years. So what happened in 18, was relevant to 15-16-17-18, 16-17-18-19, and 17-18-19-20..... So the fact they look good in 2020, doesn't mean the moves were not necessary for prior cycles.

 

We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on that. I'm definitely not missing that the 89% is rolling (the four year periods were 2013 to 2016, and 2017 to 2020, so what happened in '15-16 isn't relevant to '18 in the context of the spending floor). They were at 88% after 2018. They didn't need to make those decisions on Luck/JB to keep pace, they were already keeping pace. By the end of 2020, without the Luck/JB money, they would have been at 90.8%.

 

And again, there's no real penalty to not hitting the spending floor.

 

I don't know how anyone can continue to argue this, the numbers are clear and obvious, but whatever.

 

Quote

 

Mack was top 10ish in yards in 2019. He might not be elite, but he's also not someone you simply push out, if you're indeed interested in paying your young players. Let's be honest, the Colts, like a lot of teams, just diminish the value of RBs. 

 

As far as agreeing or not, I agree with treating RBs as fungible. I don't want to get burnt like so many other teams after signing extending their RB on a big deal. So I'm perfectly fine with drafting a RB every 3-4 years, and shuffling in and out. As far as Walker, I would have kept him simply for the fact he wasn't expensive, and I think Oke was average at best in his part time roll, and I think he'll be a weak spot vs the run. The was also after they gushed several times about how special Walker, and his leadership is/was..... 

 

But regardless or agreeing or disagreeing, both go against "paying young players" in it's purest meaning. 

 

 

No, not if you don't ignore nuance. I didn't say pay all their young players. They didn't draft replacements for Nelson, Leonard, and Smith. They kept Stewart. They planned to replace the replaceable RB, due to their RB value and cap management strategy. They obviously plan to keep the more foundational, potential long term producers. 

 

I know you're not a big fan of Okereke, but they made a decision about how to manage their roster, and that included letting go of Walker, who was already being taken off the field for 30% of snaps due to coverage and range. They had the cap space to match his $3m, so I don't see this is a major money issue, more a testament to their expectation that he can be replaced. We'll see how that goes, but it's mostly based on whether Okereke or someone else can sufficiently replace Walker.

 

Quote

I'd buy into this is we were around the median, not bottom 10. To me, it just smells like "I'm on a budget"

 

The budget is the cap. They spent their cap money, 98% of it over the last four years, in cash. 

[EastStreet]

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on that. I'm definitely not missing that the 89% is rolling (the four year periods were 2013 to 2016, and 2017 to 2020, so what happened in '15-16 isn't relevant to '18 in the context of the spending floor). They were at 88% after 2018. They didn't need to make those decisions on Luck/JB to keep pace, they were already keeping pace. By the end of 2020, without the Luck/JB money, they would have been at 90.8%.

NO.... their were not just two 4 year periods......

The 89% rule is rolling, and measured every single year based on previous 4 years. 

So it's not just 2013 to 2016, and 2017 to 2020. 

It started in 2013, so obviously could not be measured until year 4 for the first time.

But... 2018 spending effects multiple 4 year cycles. 15-18, 16-19, 17-20, and 18-21.

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

And again, there's no real penalty to not hitting the spending floor.

Nobody is arguing this. And again, I've asked several times that stick to the "cash" aspect of it as a means to determine level of "frugalness" or whatever adjective. Simply put, we've been bottom 10 in spending. Most would call that some type of adjective that given it's over a xx year period.

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

No, not if you don't ignore nuance. I didn't say pay all their young players. They didn't draft replacements for Nelson, Leonard, and Smith. They kept Stewart. They planned to replace the replaceable RB, due to their RB value and cap management strategy. They obviously plan to keep the more foundational, potential long term producers. 

 

I know you're not a big fan of Okereke, but they made a decision about how to manage their roster, and that included letting go of Walker, who was already being taken off the field for 30% of snaps due to coverage and range. They had the cap space to match his $3m, so I don't see this is a major money issue, more a testament to their expectation that he can be replaced. We'll see how that goes, but it's mostly based on whether Okereke or someone else can sufficiently replace Walker.

My point is, you can't say they are all about paying their young players, and then discount when they don't, favoring mostly when they pay primarily their superstars. And not paying Leonard or Nelson, or even Smith would have very bad optics. 

 

And yes, Walker was taken off the field for XX% of snaps, but still had a higher snap count that Oke. I really don't have a problem with the move IF it pays off. Walker had plenty of holes in his game. I just don't see Oke, who has struggled vs the run historically, being a 3 down guy. And my biggest concern is probably depth at LB in general. 

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

The budget is the cap. They spent their cap money, 98% of it over the last four years, in cash. 

No....

The cap is the cap. The floor (89%) is the floor. The budget is something and owner gives/approves.

[Superman]

16 hours ago, EastStreet said:

NO.... their were not just two 4 year periods......

The 89% rule is rolling, and measured every single year based on previous 4 years. 

 

We've stomped this topic into the ground, so I'll move on. But I'll ask you to please source the above.

[jvan1973]

On 7/1/2021 at 6:56 PM, EastStreet said:

NO.... their were not just two 4 year periods......

The 89% rule is rolling, and measured every single year based on previous 4 years. 

So it's not just 2013 to 2016, and 2017 to 2020. 

It started in 2013, so obviously could not be measured until year 4 for the first time.

But... 2018 spending effects multiple 4 year cycles. 15-18, 16-19, 17-20, and 18-21.

Nobody is arguing this. And again, I've asked several times that stick to the "cash" aspect of it as a means to determine level of "frugalness" or whatever adjective. Simply put, we've been bottom 10 in spending. Most would call that some type of adjective that given it's over a xx year period.

My point is, you can't say they are all about paying their young players, and then discount when they don't, favoring mostly when they pay primarily their superstars. And not paying Leonard or Nelson, or even Smith would have very bad optics. 

 

And yes, Walker was taken off the field for XX% of snaps, but still had a higher snap count that Oke. I really don't have a problem with the move IF it pays off. Walker had plenty of holes in his game. I just don't see Oke, who has struggled vs the run historically, being a 3 down guy. And my biggest concern is probably depth at LB in general. 

No....

The cap is the cap. The floor (89%) is the floor. The budget is something and owner gives/approves.

You're right.   Chris Ballard tells him how much he needs to spend,  and Jim writes the checks.  Pretty simple

[EastStreet]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:56 AM, Superman said:

 

We've stomped this topic into the ground, so I'll move on. But I'll ask you to please source the above.

 

 

"Teams are limited from stockpiling huge cap numbers into one or two years by the NFL’s 89% rule. The 89% rule means that in any four-year period a team must spend more than 89% of its cap in “cash spending.” There are ways around this for teams, including paying players big upfront bonuses that count as a “cash spend” in that season while sharing the salary cap hit across the life of the contract."

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2021-salary-cap-drop/

 

Not sure if correct but PFN is typically a good source... , and I've seen a few articles with this same verbiage. I'll try to find the actual CBA language a bit later this evening.

[Superman]

36 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

"Teams are limited from stockpiling huge cap numbers into one or two years by the NFL’s 89% rule. The 89% rule means that in any four-year period a team must spend more than 89% of its cap in “cash spending.” There are ways around this for teams, including paying players big upfront bonuses that count as a “cash spend” in that season while sharing the salary cap hit across the life of the contract."

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2021-salary-cap-drop/

 

Not sure if correct but PFN is typically a good source... , and I've seen a few articles with this same verbiage. I'll try to find the actual CBA language a bit later this evening.

 

Here's the 2011 CBA:

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/2011%20CBA%20Updated%20with%20Side%20Letters%20thru%201-5-15.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5gbaw8MfxAhWQ4J4KHTkdDfAQFjACegQIFhAC&usg=AOvVaw3tvFw0wdarj0yHmfXxrSeq

 

Page 86:

Quote

 

Section 9. Minimum Team Cash Spending:

(a) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 2013–2016 and

2017–2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the

Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013–16 and 2017–2020 are

$100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team

Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million)).

(b) Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Cash Spending at the end of a

League Year in which it is applicable (i.e., the 2016 and 2020 League Years) shall be paid,

on or before the next September 15, by the Team having such shortfall, directly to the

players who were on such a Team’s roster at any time during the applicable seasons,

pursuant to the reasonable allocation instructions of the NFLPA.

 

 

[EastStreet]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Here's the 2011 CBA:

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/2011%20CBA%20Updated%20with%20Side%20Letters%20thru%201-5-15.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5gbaw8MfxAhWQ4J4KHTkdDfAQFjACegQIFhAC&usg=AOvVaw3tvFw0wdarj0yHmfXxrSeq

 

Page 86:

 

Thanks. So basically clean slate after each period. 

I wonder how that might have impacted carryover trends between the windows.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Thanks. So basically clean slate after each period. 

I wonder how that might have impacted carryover trends between the windows.

 

If you don't hit 89%, the league makes you pay the difference, then the union distributes that money to the players on the team during that period. That amount is subtracted from your leftover cap space / rollover. But the team could still carry over unused cap space, even between spending periods. 

[EastStreet]

Just now, Superman said:

 

If you don't hit 89%, the league makes you pay the difference, then the union distributes that money to the players on the team during that period. That amount is subtracted from your leftover cap space / rollover. But the team could still carry over unused cap space, even between spending periods. 

I understand the penalty. My comment was aimed at any possible trend of teams carrying over less than the amount unspent during those windows between cycles.

[Nickster]

Supe v East

 

[Four2itus]

On 7/3/2021 at 4:28 PM, Nickster said:

Supe v East

 

For me, it was more like....

 

[GoColts8818]

This is why you don’t trust people who just post stuff on Twitter and claim to have a “source”.  It’s one thing to be a proven member of the media who has legit sources and has backed it up more times than not by being right with what they report it’s another for Joe Schmo on Twitter to say I am hearing…. The later should also be taken with a large shaker of salt.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, Four2itus said:

For me, it was more like....

 

- nah this is it  

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

This is why you don’t trust people who just post stuff on Twitter and claim to have a “source”.  It’s one thing to be a proven member of the media who has legit sources and has backed it up more times than not by being right with what they report it’s another for Joe Schmo on Twitter to say I am hearing…. The later should also be taken with a large shaker of salt.  

I think Chad Forbes IS a member of the media.   Click on his name on his tweet and it shows his credentials.    I think he’s legit.   So far he’s not right.  
 

But this may still get done soon.   It’s not uncommon for a prediction like this to be off.   It’s obviously not hitting the two week time window, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening at all.  
 

Just saying. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

- nah this is it  

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think Chad Forbes IS a member of the media.   Click on his name on his tweet and it shows his credentials.    I think he’s legit.   So far he’s not right.  
 

But this may still get done soon.   It’s not uncommon for a prediction like this to be off.   It’s obviously not hitting the two week time window, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening at all.  
 

Just saying. 

He’s not what I consider a member of the media.  He’s a dude with a webpage which is a dime a dozen now a days.  A member of the media is some like JMV who hosts a local radio show, Mike Chappell who was the Colts beat writer and now works for local tv stations, or Adam Schefter who works for ESPN to name a few.

[superrep1967]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think Chad Forbes IS a member of the media.   Click on his name on his tweet and it shows his credentials.    I think he’s legit.   So far he’s not right.  
 

But this may still get done soon.   It’s not uncommon for a prediction like this to be off.   It’s obviously not hitting the two week time window, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening at all.  
 

Just saying. 

You're right again

[Dogg63]

11 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

He’s a dude with a webpage