Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Kelly contract restructure


w87r
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, w87r said:

Those roster bonuses were essentially a replacement for a big signing bonus.

 

 

Also if that $16m this year was salary, Buckner would have to get that in weekly checks. With the roster bonus he gets it all on a certain date. Benefits the player because he gets his money quicker.

 

 

True

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I'd prefer Pinter develop, but I think he might be destined to be the G/C swing depth guy.

Glow has been fantastic run blocking, which is one of the reasons our right side has been so successful. While RG is likely the least important OL spot, I don't want a downgrade. Glow won't be expensive IMO, so prefer to have him back if possible. I've said for a long time, he's one of the best weak links. I think Reed or Pryor would be the guys to take over if he's not back.

I love Hines. His value was huge in past years. JT being so good at catching the ball last year probably drives Hines' value a bit down. I want to keep him, but not willing to pay a kings ransom. There are a ton of APBs available every year in the mid rounds.

I'd love to see Hines get some time lining up at slot this year. That would increase his value to the team IMO.

Love him too and want to keep him. Not sure I agree with his market value of 8M though.

CB1 is my biggest 2022 worry... I'm really not worried though lol.. 

I would love for Pinter to develop, but I agree who knows. And while Glow has been, I am just not sure how much he will be and as he is getting to 30.

 

I do not think he would be Kings ransom for Hines, and you do know how the coaches like him. And something about that shorter back

 

Pascal I am curious just how much and over how many years. If we dont sign him and TY goes too, Campbell would be the longest, I like idea of Pascal and his ability to continue the blocking and being the elderstatemen

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

I would love for Pinter to develop, but I agree who knows. And while Glow has been, I am just not sure how much he will be and as he is getting to 30.

 

I do not think he would be Kings ransom for Hines, and you do know how the coaches like him. And something about that shorter back

 

Pascal I am curious just how much and over how many years. If we dont sign him and TY goes too, Campbell would be the longest, I like idea of Pascal and his ability to continue the blocking and being the elderstatemen

I'd love to tie down both Pascal and Hines to 3-4 year deals. But want them to be semi-team friendly.

The market for RBs is pretty team friendly outside of the top tier guys. Hines isn't top tier IMO.

Pascal is a great well rounded guy, but he's not a #1 or #2 WR type. I hope he values staying in Indy over simply cash.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

I would love for Pinter to develop, but I agree who knows. And while Glow has been, I am just not sure how much he will be and as he is getting to 30.

 

I do not think he would be Kings ransom for Hines, and you do know how the coaches like him. And something about that shorter back

 

Pascal I am curious just how much and over how many years. If we dont sign him and TY goes too, Campbell would be the longest, I like idea of Pascal and his ability to continue the blocking and being the elderstatemen

Age is my biggest concern with Glow too

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, w87r said:

I thought they might do this earlier in the offseason, at the present moment it seems the timing is a little weird?

 

1. Q extension?

2. High $ FA?

3. Just to have extra space?(Doesn't feel like this one)

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/09/03/colts-restructure-ryan-kellys-contract-to-create-cap-space/

 

What high prices FA would they be looking at though? They would probably have to trade for someone if they were gonna make a move for someone they would have to pay a significant amount. I wish they made a move for Xavier Howard a while back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dw49 said:

 

Do you know the difference between guaranteeing a roster bonus and guaranteeing a salary ? Looking at Buckner's deal , he had 2 roster bonuses. One for 11 million in 2020 and another for 16 million in 2021. Both were guaranteed. I'm curious to know if there would be any difference in just putting that roster bonus into his salary ? For instance .. this year his salary is 1 mill and the roster bonus is 16 million. Maybe it benefits the player as it would somewhat restrict the team's ability to trade him ?

 

For salary cap purposes, there's no real difference. Roster bonus is considered "paragraph 5 salary" (old CBA), just like regular player salary. For cash flow purposes, it's likely that the player gets the roster bonus in a lump sum on a certain date, rather than as weekly salary (although bonus payments are often split). 

 

Another function is that once the bonus is paid, it hits the team's cap. So like you said, it makes it less likely that the player is released or traded in that season, after the bonus has been paid. So kind of a decision point for the team/player.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

For salary cap purposes, there's no real difference. Roster bonus is considered "paragraph 5 salary" (old CBA), just like regular player salary. For cash flow purposes, it's likely that the player gets the roster bonus in a lump sum on a certain date, rather than as weekly salary (although bonus payments are often split). 

 

Another function is that once the bonus is paid, it hits the team's cap. So like you said, it makes it less likely that the player is released or traded in that season, after the bonus has been paid. So kind of a decision point for the team/player.

 

Yes , not a lot of difference. As to being released , he would still collect his money either way. I do think it gives the player a little more leverage as far as a trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...