Braden Smith getting more expensive each passing day

[Superman]

1 minute ago, BProland85 said:

I’d much rather let Mack go over Hines. Hines is an elite pass catching back and also an underrated runner of the football. 

 

Mack would have been gone this season if he could have gotten a better offer, but his injury killed his market. Hines adds a dimension that no other back on this roster provides, and I'm sure they want to retain him, but it will be about the numbers. I think they'll let him play out the season, and see what happens. But Mack likely will not be back.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Hines durability is amazing for his size and being a RB. I am still shocked he hasn’t even missed a practice in three seasons.

 

I think Hines might end up getting a little less then Ekeler. His numbers I think are just slightly lower. We will see if Wentz can use Hines like all the other QB. I think he did have a healthy Sproles in one season and Sproles numbers were pretty good.

[shasta519]

On 7/16/2021 at 12:42 PM, Wentzszn said:

Hines durability is amazing for his size and being a RB. I am still shocked he hasn’t even missed a practice in three seasons.

 

I think Hines might end up getting a little less then Ekeler. His numbers I think are just slightly lower. We will see if Wentz can use Hines like all the other QB. I think he did have a healthy Sproles in one season and Sproles numbers were pretty good.

Slightly lower? Ekeler put up 1,500 scrimmage yards two seasons ago and was on a similar pace last year.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

22 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Slightly lower? Ekeler put up 1,500 scrimmage yards two seasons ago and was on a similar pace last year.

That’s why I said lower. Yeah maybe a little less the slightly. Didn’t Hines have almost 800 total yards last year. Ekeler I think is around 6 million. Hines maybe could get around 4 I am thinking.

[Mackrel829]

On 7/15/2021 at 9:20 PM, Four2itus said:

Kind of mirrors society. This is from....https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

 

"According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 43.4 percent of the world’s wealth. Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 53.6 percent of the world’s population but hold just 1.4 percent of global wealth. Individuals owning over $100,000 in assets make up 12.4 percent of the global population but own 83.9 percent of global wealth. Credit Suisse defines “wealth” as the value of a household’s financial assets plus real assets (principally housing), minus their debts."

 

I'm struggling to understand the point of this post. 

 

These guys are going to get paid more because their past performance and potential future performance determine that they deserve it.

 

It seems like you're suggesting that there's some injustice somewhere. Or is that not the case?

[Boondoggle]

On 7/15/2021 at 5:11 PM, Superman said:

Braden Smith: I think Moton and Ramczyk both have better resumes than Smith, but he has never given up a sack, doesn't get penalized, doesn't miss games (last year, he got stitches in his thumb on Thursday, and missed the game Sunday; in the other game, he was in Covid protocol), and had a really strong 2020. I think we can put him at $18m/year, tied with Moton for 2nd highest paid RT (behind Ramczyk, $19.2m/year). And that's pretty aggressive, by the way...

You're likely correct re: what Smith and his agent will be looking for.  And I think the combination of Nelson being the priority, as well as LT potentially needing to be solved (potentially reworking Fisher if he plays well or replacing him) work against the team getting Smith done.

 

Smith's a solid player who deserves to be paid.  But for me personally I'd let him test FA and leave in FA because I would not give him Moton money.  I think paying him at that level would be something the team regrets down the road.

 

Would be nice if he ends up signing for something reasonable but generally things don't work out that way.  You're either a priority or you're not and I just can't get myself to prioritize him, though maybe I'll feel differently if he kills it this season.  My guess is they draft an OT with good feet this upcoming offseason and start him out at RT with the hope he can be the LT of the future.  But then again I was sure they'd address OT this year in the draft and they didn't so who knows.

 

What would suck is Fisher not working out well.  But I don't like considering that one because it's ugly lol.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

23 minutes ago, Boondoggle said:

You're likely correct re: what Smith and his agent will be looking for.  And I think the combination of Nelson being the priority, as well as LT potentially needing to be solved (potentially reworking Fisher if he plays well or replacing him) work against the team getting Smith done.

 

Smith's a solid player who deserves to be paid.  But for me personally I'd let him test FA and leave in FA because I would not give him Moton money.  I think paying him at that level would be something the team regrets down the road.

 

Would be nice if he ends up signing for something reasonable but generally things don't work out that way.  You're either a priority or you're not and I just can't get myself to prioritize him, though maybe I'll feel differently if he kills it this season.  My guess is they draft an OT with good feet this upcoming offseason and start him out at RT with the hope he can be the LT of the future.  But then again I was sure they'd address OT this year in the draft and they didn't so who knows.

 

What would suck is Fisher not working out well.  But I don't like considering that one because it's ugly lol.

The team isn’t going to regret it. He is one of the best RT in the game. They can sign him to. A long enough contract to help with cap. Both Smith and Leonard will most likely be done before the season starts.

[jvan1973]

On 7/16/2021 at 10:34 AM, DougDew said:

If Mack can come back then he might take over Hines role.  Some may question his pass catching, but he was never asked to do much of that, so its difficult to judge.

 

The off-back or the one-dimensional dynamic playmaker can usually be found in the draft and can contribute right away as a rookie.  Maybe the best way to address the "long term" need for an off-back is to draft one in the second or third round and pay him a cheap 3 year rookie contract.

Hines had more receptions last year than Mack has in his career.   I don't see Mack filling the Hines role

[Superman]

20 hours ago, Boondoggle said:

You're likely correct re: what Smith and his agent will be looking for.  And I think the combination of Nelson being the priority, as well as LT potentially needing to be solved (potentially reworking Fisher if he plays well or replacing him) work against the team getting Smith done.

 

Smith's a solid player who deserves to be paid.  But for me personally I'd let him test FA and leave in FA because I would not give him Moton money.  I think paying him at that level would be something the team regrets down the road.

 

Would be nice if he ends up signing for something reasonable but generally things don't work out that way.  You're either a priority or you're not and I just can't get myself to prioritize him, though maybe I'll feel differently if he kills it this season.  My guess is they draft an OT with good feet this upcoming offseason and start him out at RT with the hope he can be the LT of the future.  But then again I was sure they'd address OT this year in the draft and they didn't so who knows.

 

What would suck is Fisher not working out well.  But I don't like considering that one because it's ugly lol.

 

We're seeing a gradual market adjustment with RTs, because while LT is more critical, the gap has been closing for over a decade. You can't just throw a mauler who can't pass block over at RT anymore, not if you want to protect your QB. And as much as teams utilize scheme to minimize QB pressure, it helps LTs just as much as it helps RTs. So you can mitigate not having an elite LT, but it's still important to have adequate pass protection from your RT. There's some irony in there, but the point is that good RTs are being paid more, and that's something teams are adjusting to.

 

As for Fisher vs Smith not working out, I'd argue that it would be worse for the team to let Smith walk, and he plays well for another team, than it would be for Fisher to fail with the Colts. Signing Fisher is a hopeful move -- if he can get healthy and play well, he'll give us 2-3 years of good LT play, but his recovery is the key factor there, and it's mostly out of anyone's control. Also, we only need a LT because our very good LT retired; it's not like we let a 26 year old walk in FA.

 

Smith is a known commodity. He's a good RT, we drafted him, have developed him, and he's met the challenge and become very good at his position. (And I say this as someone who was critical of him at times in the past, who wanted to see improvement from him. He 'killed it' in 2020.) If we let him walk, and can't adequately replace him, it's worse than Fisher not working out, because Smith is the answer for us, and we would have created a new hole on our roster, for no good reason. It would also go against the team's stated ideals: draft well, develop young players, manage the cap so you can keep your best young players. Now when it's time to pay Smith, and he's earned a big contract, we let him walk? That's a tough one.

 

Personally, I'm not thrilled about paying a RT $18m/year, but the market has spoken. I could see them doing four years, $72m new money, going through 2025. Because he's still under contract for this season, his new money would be spread out over five years, and his effective average would be $15m/year. 

[CoachLite]

I'm not surprised that Braden Smith is getting more expensive every day. Have you see the prices for a used pickup truck?

[Four2itus]

On 7/17/2021 at 1:16 PM, Mackrel829 said:

 

I'm struggling to understand the point of this post. 

 

These guys are going to get paid more because their past performance and potential future performance determine that they deserve it.

 

It seems like you're suggesting that there's some injustice somewhere. Or is that not the case?

Easy to understand, actually, if you read the post I was quoting. Standing on it's own, I could see your lack of understanding my point. 

[EastStreet]

Like @Superman said, not crazy about paying a RT 18M/year, but it's all market driven. RT is still lagging a lot overall compared to LT, but the top end is catching up. LG is catching up too lol... 

 

It's all a mix/equation. But when you start spending near 5% or more of the cap on one player, and per multiple players, something has to give somewhere else on the roster. We all know you have to draft well, and then try to hang on to those players. At some point though, successful drafting catches up to you, and something (or someone), somewhere else, is the casualty. I'm just hoping are young rooks pan out (especially at DE) so we can ride some cheap contracts for a few years.

 

At the end of the day, everyone has to work within the same rules/cap. IMO, timing is as important as anything else. Might as well get use to the thought of having the most expensive OL in the NFL, because it will happen. We're 3rd now (50.4M), and only 3M under #1 (Browns 53.4M).... We're going to easily take the #1 spot with the first extension (Smith or Q), and with both, the OL spend ceiling will be completely blown away. It's fair to say we could top 70M, which would be over a third of the salary cap just on OL.

 

I will say this, if I have to have a revolving door at one of the T positions, I'd prefer it be RT. If for some reason Smith doesn't work out, there's always more/better RT options in FA than LT. Schwartz while aging and coming off injury is still out there, and folks project he'll be cheap. Okung is still out there, and has played both L and R. Wagner is out there and is still grading well. That's this year of course, but pretty consistent in terms of what will and won't be available next season.

[NewColtsFan]

7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Like @Superman said, not crazy about paying a RT 18M/year, but it's all market driven. RT is still lagging a lot overall compared to LT, but the top end is catching up. LG is catching up too lol... 

 

It's all a mix/equation. But when you start spending near 5% or more of the cap on one player, and per multiple players, something has to give somewhere else on the roster. We all know you have to draft well, and then try to hang on to those players. At some point though, successful drafting catches up to you, and something (or someone), somewhere else, is the casualty. I'm just hoping are young rooks pan out (especially at DE) so we can ride some cheap contracts for a few years.

 

At the end of the day, everyone has to work within the same rules/cap. IMO, timing is as important as anything else. Might as well get use to the thought of having the most expensive OL in the NFL, because it will happen. We're 3rd now (50.4M), and only 3M under #1 (Browns 53.4M).... We're going to easily take the #1 spot with the first extension (Smith or Q), and with both, the OL spend ceiling will be completely blown away. It's fair to say we could top 70M, which would be over a third of the salary cap just on OL.

 

I will say this, if I have to have a revolving door at one of the T positions, I'd prefer it be RT. If for some reason Smith doesn't work out, there's always more/better RT options in FA than LT. Schwartz while aging and coming off injury is still out there, and folks project he'll be cheap. Okung is still out there, and has played both L and R. Wagner is out there and is still grading well. That's this year of course, but pretty consistent in terms of what will and won't be available next season.

I think if we didn’t come to an extension with Smith, I believe we’d tag him for a year.   I don’t see us letting him walk out the door after his 4-year rookie contract is up. 

[EastStreet]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think if we didn’t come to an extension with Smith, I believe we’d tag him for a year.   I don’t see us letting him walk out the door after his 4-year rookie contract is up. 

I agree, or potentially work a trade deal for him.

 

When you get into tagging territory, feelings get hurt (sometimes permanently), and it's only really delaying things. And if you do sign him after a tag, it's likely even more expensive (and you really didn't save much in that one year of tagging). Personally I'd want us either to extend early, or tag and trade. At least by trading, we'd get some return. And just to be clear, I am not saying I want to get rid of Smith. I'm just giving my opinion on the hypothetical situation. I really do hope it works out. 

[runthepost]

4 years 60-68M is my guess

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, runthepost said:

4 years 60-68M is my guess

I think I'd be thrilled with 60M lol...

 

I just don't see him not getting top 3 pay. 

 

Keep in mind it'll likely look like Moten's deal 1(current year)+4 (extension). His deal was technically yearly 4+19.2+20.8+20.5+20.5, but averages to 5x17M=85M,

[TomDiggs]

16 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

Keep in mind it'll likely look like Moten's deal 1(current year)+4 (extension). His deal was technically yearly 4+19.2+20.8+20.5+20.5, but averages to 5x17M=85M,

 

The structure Moton got is pretty ideal for a team.

 

No increase in the first year and then going 19.2 and 20.8 with absolutely no guaranteed salary after the third year and only $3M per year in dead cap space.

 

Moton's deal could essentially be a 3 year $50M deal for all intents and purposes with the last $6M paid out over the 4th year if cut.

 

Those last two years totally $41m have no guarantees and only include $3M a year in prorated cap charges.

 

If you told me Smith would come for around 3 yrs and $50M w basically options years tacked on the back end then I'd be totally content with that.

 

I will be very interested to see how the colts structure these upcoming deals with how rarely they give signing bonuses that pro-rate. Even w Buckner it was almost all base salaries and roster bonuses with no obligations in the two out years. 

 

Let's see how crafty they can get w these young guys in paying them what they deserve but also not saddling themselves especially in later years. 

 

 

[Mackrel829]

5 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Easy to understand, actually, if you read the post I was quoting. Standing on it's own, I could see your lack of understanding my point. 

 

I've seen the post you were quoting and I still don't understand why you'd highlight that correlation. Like I said, it seems like you're implying that there's some injustice somewhere either in football, in society, or both.

[stitches]

I don't mind us spending a lot of money on any specific position group, as long as there are enough resources allocated to the other important areas of the team. We've arguably spent plenty on QB, we've spent plenty on interior DL(huge money and 1st for Buckner, relatively big money for Stewart) and after this draft we've spent plenty enough on DE(1st, tons of seconds)... I think that's good enough. Now... those players still need to produce and pan out, but I cannot fault Ballard for lack of attention to those positions. 

 

Some positions where we might need to spend more to secure good production and play - WR, outside CB... those are two of the premier positions in the league and IMO Ballard has not been the biggest fan of spending big on them... although... 2 2nds in recent years on WRs is not nothing. Again, though... we need those players to produce now. Similar with outside CB - 2nd and a bunch of day 3 picks on CBs... with just short term deal for a good vet. We need either some of those young players to pan out, or we need to allocate some good resources(either money or picks) for addressing them in the future.

 

I don't see any area of the team that has been completely neglected, but I see areas where we are dependent on young players taking steps forward. If they do, we will be really good... if not - we will need serious investments on those and this is where tying lots of our capspace in OL might be detrimental. But it's all hypothetical for now so... biggest hopes for OL spending to not be a problem for us:

 

1. Wentz needs to pan out!

2. DE, CB, WR - the young guys need to take the bull by the horns and show why Ballard and the coaching staff are putting so much trust in them. Those are 3 of the most important positions in football and we are relying on players on rookie deals with most of them. This is risky, because no GM bats a 100%, so chances are ... at least one of those groups will be in a serious need of rebuild/reinforcement very soon. 

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

I don't mind us spending a lot of money on any specific position group, as long as there are enough resources allocated to the other important areas of the team. We've arguably spent plenty on QB, we've spent plenty on interior DL(huge money and 1st for Buckner, relatively big money for Stewart) and after this draft we've spent plenty enough on DE(1st, tons of seconds)... I think that's good enough. Now... those players still need to produce and pan out, but I cannot fault Ballard for lack of attention to those positions. 

 

Some positions where we might need to spend more to secure good production and play - WR, outside CB... those are two of the premier positions in the league and IMO Ballard has not been the biggest fan of spending big on them... although... 2 2nds in recent years on WRs is not nothing. Again, though... we need those players to produce now. Similar with outside CB - 2nd and a bunch of day 3 picks on CBs... with just short term deal for a good vet. We need either some of those young players to pan out, or we need to allocate some good resources(either money or picks) for addressing them in the future.

 

I don't see any area of the team that has been completely neglected, but I see areas where we are dependent on young players taking steps forward. If they do, we will be really good... if not - we will need serious investments on those and this is where tying lots of our capspace in OL might be detrimental. But it's all hypothetical for now so... biggest hopes for OL spending to not be a problem for us:

 

1. Wentz needs to pan out!

2. DE, CB, WR - the young guys need to take the bull by the horns and show why Ballard and the coaching staff are putting so much trust in them. Those are 3 of the most important positions in football and we are relying on players on rookie deals with most of them. This is risky, because no GM bats a 100%, so chances are ... at least one of those groups will be in a serious need of rebuild/reinforcement very soon. 

 

 If your drafted players don't pan out to a very high level your are just hoping to be 8-8.
 So their is no Risk relying on drafting because it just IS! 
 WR Already has been addressed  going forward for the next SB run, and it IS easy to see that NEXT season CB will be the next Priority. The team and needs change Every season.
 LMAO, as it is said if players meet expectations or better 60% in the NFL you are doing good. Let us be reminded the failures from the top 15 is also very high.

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 If your drafted players don't pan out to a very high level your are just hoping to be 8-8.
 So their is no Risk relying on drafting because it just IS! 
 WR Already has been addressed  going forward for the next SB run, and it IS easy to see that NEXT season CB will be the next Priority. The team and needs change Every season.
 LMAO, as it is said if players meet expectations or better 60% in the NFL you are doing good. Let us be reminded the failures from the top 15 is also very high.

Yeah, you don't need all of them to pan out, but you need at least like... half of them to pan out. At least from the top picks. The risk of relying on draft picks is assumed, but even more emphasized when you have close to nothing else in the position when it comes to resources invested - example - DE. Pretty much all our eggs are in the basket of our drafted players. Rochell and AQM can potentially be good rotational players, but they are not making or breaking your pass-rush success. You don't expect minimum(or close to) paid vets to be huge contributors and game changers. The main investment here is the draft picks and the risk for having a very poor pass-rush unit is real if those young players don't perform. We are in a very similar situation with WR and outside CB too. Very minimal investment on FA additions/retainment(Rhodes and TY) and huge majority of the depth chart reliant on recently drafted players that have not yet shown they can play. There is extra risk in that. 

[Superman]

8 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

 

The structure Moton got is pretty ideal for a team.

 

No increase in the first year and then going 19.2 and 20.8 with absolutely no guaranteed salary after the third year and only $3M per year in dead cap space.

 

Moton's deal could essentially be a 3 year $50M deal for all intents and purposes with the last $6M paid out over the 4th year if cut.

 

Those last two years totally $41m have no guarantees and only include $3M a year in prorated cap charges.

 

If you told me Smith would come for around 3 yrs and $50M w basically options years tacked on the back end then I'd be totally content with that.

 

I will be very interested to see how the colts structure these upcoming deals with how rarely they give signing bonuses that pro-rate. Even w Buckner it was almost all base salaries and roster bonuses with no obligations in the two out years. 

 

Let's see how crafty they can get w these young guys in paying them what they deserve but also not saddling themselves especially in later years. 

 

Pretty much every contract basically has team options after the third year, even the biggest contracts.

 

I don't think you'll see much "craftiness" on any of the Colts contracts, and I don't think Smith's deal -- assuming it gets done -- will look like Moton's. He was tagged for 2021, at ~$14m. On top of that, he got four more years, $72m. His new money average is $18m/year, but his effective average is $17m/year.

 

If the Colts sign Smith for four more years, $72m, on top of his $2.4m in 2021, his effective average will be ~$15m/year.

 

And the Colts are unlikely to use a $15m signing bonus. I would expect them to follow the Buckner model, but they'll have to make cap space to do that. I just ran my projections through OTC using the Buckner structure, and signing Smith, Leonard and Nelson this year would take the Colts from $15m in cap space to $15m over the cap. So I guess something would have to give, but I doubt they'd go all the way to the Moton structure. 

 

And it could be that they're at a point where they're more willing to use that signing bonus structure on young players, but they've shown little indication of that so far. Stewart ($5m) and Doyle ($3m) are the only multi year veteran deals they've done with signing bonuses.

[Valpo2004]

On 7/15/2021 at 6:11 PM, Superman said:

My rough projections, based on my thinking and some things I've read. Don't want to get into whether they all should get these deals, just thinking about what the market28 says right now. Also projecting four year extensions for each player, taking them all through 2025.

 

Quenton Nelson: No question he'll be the highest paid guard, but he probably also wants to be a top five paid OL, so let's put him at $20m/year (4th highest paid OL, beating Scherff for highest paid guard ($18m).

 

Braden Smith: I think Moton and Ramczyk both have better resumes than Smith, but he has never given up a sack, doesn't get penalized, doesn't miss games (last year, he got stitches in his thumb on Thursday, and missed the game Sunday; in the other game, he was in Covid protocol), and had a really strong 2020. I think we can put him at $18m/year, tied with Moton for 2nd highest paid RT (behind Ramczyk, $19.2m/year). And that's pretty aggressive, by the way...

 

Darius Leonard: The last time a 4-3 LB of Leonard's caliber signed was 2019, when Bobby Wagner signed for $18m/year, and Myles Jack signed for $14.25m/year. I think Leonard will get at least $19m/year, making him the highest paid at his position.

 

The 2021 cap is $182.5m. The 2022 cap ceiling will be $208m, let's assume that's the cap. Based on some projections, the cap is supposed to jump dramatically, either in 2023 or 2024. Some suggest the cap will hit $300m by 2027. New TV deals, return to stadiums, increasing ticket prices, etc., the numbers are there, but I'll be conservative. Let's say 2023 goes to $220m, 2024 goes to $240m, 2025 goes to $260m.

 

The total cap, from 2022-2025, would be $928m. The total salaries for these three players would be $228m. That's 24.5% of the cap, over those four years. If we assume slightly lower cap hits because of the distribution of salary (especially for Nelson, who would probably get an extra year due to his 5th year option), then the total percentage would be a little less.

 

One thing to keep in mind about Nelson's figure is that Scherff's number is based on a franchise tag.  That really throws off the numbers because the franchise tag is based on all OL, so Scherff's getting paid like a left tackle. 

 

So really the largest long term contract for a guard in the NFL is Joe Thuney's 16 mil.   So it's possible that we could get Nelson for under 20 mil.  (18 to 19 mil)

 

That said I wouldn't be shocked if Nelson went over 20 mil either.  Nelson is 25 right now.  Thuney's 29 and Scherff is 30.  So I would imagine Nelson's agent will argue that Nelson being not only better but also significantly younger than those guys deserves not just more money but WAY more money.  

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

One thing to keep in mind about Nelson's figure is that Scherff's number is based on a franchise tag.  That really throws off the numbers because the franchise tag is based on all OL, so Scherff's getting paid like a left tackle. 

 

So really the largest long term contract for a guard in the NFL is Joe Thuney's 16 mil.   So it's possible that we could get Nelson for under 20 mil.  (18 to 19 mil)

 

That said I wouldn't be shocked if Nelson went over 20 mil either.  Nelson is 25 right now.  Thuney's 29 and Scherff is 30.  So I would imagine Nelson's agent will argue that Nelson being not only better but also significantly younger than those guys deserves not just more money but WAY more money.  

 

Fair point, but I think being top five OL is where the conversation probably starts.

[EastStreet]

20 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

 

The structure Moton got is pretty ideal for a team.

 

No increase in the first year and then going 19.2 and 20.8 with absolutely no guaranteed salary after the third year and only $3M per year in dead cap space.

 

Moton's deal could essentially be a 3 year $50M deal for all intents and purposes with the last $6M paid out over the 4th year if cut.

 

Those last two years totally $41m have no guarantees and only include $3M a year in prorated cap charges.

 

If you told me Smith would come for around 3 yrs and $50M w basically options years tacked on the back end then I'd be totally content with that.

 

I will be very interested to see how the colts structure these upcoming deals with how rarely they give signing bonuses that pro-rate. Even w Buckner it was almost all base salaries and roster bonuses with no obligations in the two out years. 

 

Let's see how crafty they can get w these young guys in paying them what they deserve but also not saddling themselves especially in later years. 

 

 

Yup. I expect Ballard to be Ballard and limit dead cap as much as possible. I'd actually prefer if they front loaded it a bit more though if they can afford it. 

[Moosejawcolt]

23 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I agree, or potentially work a trade deal for him.

 

When you get into tagging territory, feelings get hurt (sometimes permanently), and it's only really delaying things. And if you do sign him after a tag, it's likely even more expensive (and you really didn't save much in that one year of tagging). Personally I'd want us either to extend early, or tag and trade. At least by trading, we'd get some return. And just to be clear, I am not saying I want to get rid of Smith. I'm just giving my opinion on the hypothetical situation. I really do hope it works out. 

I listen to GM shuffle hosted by Lombardi. His recent episode he talks about the franchise tag and it is kind of a myth that players don't like it. It is more the agents that speak out against it. It's a  good listen 

[EastStreet]

8 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I listen to GM shuffle hosted by Lombardi. His recent episode he talks about the franchise tag and it is kind of a myth that players don't like it. It is more the agents that speak out against it. It's a  good listen 

I think it's complex, and dependent on the situation. Some players want to be locked up long term, and the insurance (if structured correctly) a long term deal provides. A tag is a bit of a dice roll. Get injured, god forbid a career ender, and you're done. Even if not a career ender, it could dramatically impact your value. Or bet on yourself like Dak, and roll a 7. And if you want out, a tag can be a useful tool.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I listen to GM shuffle hosted by Lombardi. His recent episode he talks about the franchise tag and it is kind of a myth that players don't like it. It is more the agents that speak out against it. It's a  good listen 

 

For a guy like Moton, there was little downside. He was a 2nd round pick, the tag immediately guaranteed him $14m, and he signed it right away. Of course there's the lack of multiple years of guaranteed money, but getting tagged reset his contract negotiations, and he wound up getting the multiple year deal he wanted. 

 

Players have begun to use the tag as a negotiation starting point. So if you're going to tag a guy two years in a row, you might as well give him the four year deal with $30-40m guaranteed (or more, for QBs and DL). Cousins played the game really well. And now, the upper end of the market has moved pretty drastically for almost every position (sorry RBs). But all things equal, any player would rather have the long term deal than to be tagged two years in a row. 

[Freenyfan102]

Really hope it is not so much because the buccaneers showed you dont need to break the bank to keep everybody 

[Valpo2004]

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I think it's complex, and dependent on the situation. Some players want to be locked up long term, and the insurance (if structured correctly) a long term deal provides. A tag is a bit of a dice roll. Get injured, god forbid a career ender, and you're done. Even if not a career ender, it could dramatically impact your value. Or bet on yourself like Dak, and roll a 7. And if you want out, a tag can be a useful tool.

 

I would say most don't like it.  Most players getting tagged are at the top of their game and they likely mostly look at it as the only place to go from here is down.

 

And given how common things like ACL tears are, It's hard to like from the player's perspective.  This is an under-rated aspect because fear of injury is exactly why players sign long term deals to get the guaranteed money that comes with them.  If a player had no fear of injury it would actually make more sense for them to constantly sign 1 or 2 year short term deals because the way the cap increases means that that in 3 years or so they are likely being underpaid (presuming they stay at the same high level)

 

 

The other problem with the franchise tag is that for that first year it's the average of the top 5 at your position.  But a lot of those guys are going to be signing deals that make them the top paid player at their position.  So in a sense those players are being underpaid for a year.  

 

 

[EastStreet]

24 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I would say most don't like it.  Most players getting tagged are at the top of their game and they likely mostly look at it as the only place to go from here is down.

 

And given how common things like ACL tears are, It's hard to like from the player's perspective.  This is an under-rated aspect because fear of injury is exactly why players sign long term deals to get the guaranteed money that comes with them.  If a player had no fear of injury it would actually make more sense for them to constantly sign 1 or 2 year short term deals because the way the cap increases means that that in 3 years or so they are likely being underpaid (presuming they stay at the same high level)

 

 

The other problem with the franchise tag is that for that first year it's the average of the top 5 at your position.  But a lot of those guys are going to be signing deals that make them the top paid player at their position.  So in a sense those players are being underpaid for a year.  

 

I think it's leverage for most. I would say that top 5 guys use tag as a starting point when talking early extensions. If you're not a top 5 or 10 guy, you'd probably be OK with the tag. The injury risk is real though. But Dak worked the system well. 

[Valpo2004]

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

I think it's leverage for most. I would say that top 5 guys use tag as a starting point when talking early extensions. If you're not a top 5 or 10 guy, you'd probably be OK with the tag. The injury risk is real though. But Dak worked the system well. 

 

Maybe but only a few non top 5 guys get tagged.  

 

Dak is also a quarterback who get special considerations.   If a RB had Dak's injury no way would you hand them top 5 money after that injury.  This has a lot to do with the depth of talent and position values.  

[Four2itus]

On 7/16/2021 at 9:01 AM, Superman said:

But Mack likely will not be back.

Yes, he earned this coming year, but you are likely correct. If he amazes us all, he'll want a contract the Colts won't likely pay. If he doesn't return to form, he won't be resigned, and if he is average, the Colts already have depth. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Yes, he earned this coming year, but you are likely correct. If he amazes us all, he'll want a contract the Colts won't likely pay. If he doesn't return to form, he won't be resigned, and if he is average, the Colts already have depth. 

I don’t think he will get any more then Hines. But I take Hines over Mack every time. Hines is more versatile and stays healthy.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

On 7/18/2021 at 9:44 PM, CoachLite said:

I'm not surprised that Braden Smith is getting more expensive every day. Have you see the prices for a used pickup truck?

 

Pickups are high. But used 2 door CJ's/Wranglers are GOLD.  

[GoColts8818]

Don’t think Smith’s agent doesn’t know this too which might be why he’s not rushing to sign whatever offer the Colts put in front of him.

[Four2itus]

This just in.....every player "not in decline", is getting more expensive every day. 

[Moosejawcolt]

On 7/19/2021 at 10:08 PM, EastStreet said:

I think it's complex, and dependent on the situation. Some players want to be locked up long term, and the insurance (if structured correctly) a long term deal provides. A tag is a bit of a dice roll. Get injured, god forbid a career ender, and you're done. Even if not a career ender, it could dramatically impact your value. Or bet on yourself like Dak, and roll a 7. And if you want out, a tag can be a useful tool.

I really can't think of a situation where a player got tagged and didn't eventually get big money. 

[The Fish]

10 hours ago, Four2itus said:

This just in.....every player "not in decline", is getting more expensive every day. 

louder for those in back.

 

After Grigsons run of missing on most of his picks and setting the team up to not really have homegrown to pay, we should be happy that Ballard is finding guys who are earning contracts.

[Dogg63]

49ers, LB Fred Warner agree to five-year extension worth more than $95 million.

 

Ballard now has a new benchmark for his upcoming contract negotiation with Darius Leonard.