For those wondering about

[csmopar]

The salary cap and why Ballard doesn’t play games to manipulate the cap like other teams do, via restructuring or conversions or what not, you need to simply look at what just happened to the Falcons when they traded Matt Ryan. All those kick downs, came due at once, severely handicapping them for this season. While it’s obvious they are in rebuild mode beyond this season, you still have to pay the piper. So eventually teams like the Saints and others will be in similar boats, with aging rosters and no way but to eat the dead cap.

 

it could be argued that the short term gain is worth the long term loss sure. But if you go to OTC and look, really there are only two players with a restructure ability in their contract that would clear us maybe 16 million give or take in cap space. So why do it unless we absolutely have too? In other words, we can still sign whoever we wanted and restructure from there. 

[RobertAP]

3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

you need to simply look at what just happened to the Falcons when they traded Matt Ryan.

Yeah, this was pretty much Thomas Dimitroff's way of doing business, and it's absolutely awful. Of course, it doesn't help that the Falcons kept overpaying for skill positions like WR and RB. But then, it also doesn't help when the team's owner goes out and declares that a player who's in the middle of a hold out is, "a Falcon for life."

 

Yeah, the Falcons are pretty badly mismanaged from the top down.

[Smonroe]

11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

The salary cap and why Ballard doesn’t play games to manipulate the cap like other teams do, via restructuring or conversions or what not, you need to simply look at what just happened to the Falcons when they traded Matt Ryan. All those kick downs, came due at once, severely handicapping them for this season. While it’s obvious they are in rebuild mode beyond this season, you still have to pay the piper. So eventually teams like the Saints and others will be in similar boats, with aging rosters and no way but to eat the dead cap.

 

it could be argued that the short term gain is worth the long term loss sure. But if you go to OTC and look, really there are only two players with a restructure ability in their contract that would clear us maybe 16 million give or take in cap space. So why do it unless we absolutely have too? In other words, we can still sign whoever we wanted and restructure from there. 

 

All true.  But teams know the cap will increase and they aren't afraid to 'push all the chips in' even if it means a future rebuild.

 

It's interesting how much dead cap the last two teams that traded QBs to the Colts took on.  I think they're both records.

[DougDew]

It happens when a team is close to a window.  It makes sense to do it then.

 

Its possible that the Colts could trade one or two defensive players to Flus in CHI.  They need LBers and DBs.   Okereke, Moore, Willis might not fit well into Bradley's defense.  CHI also needs a C to play next to Whitehair, if Ballard has confidence in Pinter.  Kelly would save $10m.

 

Not advocating anything, just saying that we may not be done making a trade on defense....draft day perhaps.   Moore saves $6.7m.   Bradley may want his own Corners from this draft in addition to Rodgers and Facyson.

[GoColts8818]

The real reason the Colts haven’t done much with cap stuff is they haven’t had too.  They did a little last year (Fisher’s voidable year) but they had the most cap space in the league going into off-season.  There was no reason to make more.

 

Id have to look but someone who covers the Colts on twitter said the Colts could easily create up to 40 million dollars with simple restructuring of guys that aren’t going anywhere if they needed the room.  They don’t.  

[csmopar]

28 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

All true.  But teams know the cap will increase and they aren't afraid to 'push all the chips in' even if it means a future rebuild.

 

It's interesting how much dead cap the last two teams that traded QBs to the Colts took on.  I think they're both records.

Yeah but eventually that’ll level off and this stuff will slow down.

[buccolts]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Steelers are viewed by many as a solid organization, and they don't play such games on a regular basis. They're regularly a strong contender, and wins it once in a while organization. THAT instead of all in knowing you might be uncompetitive for years thereafter.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, buccolts said:

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Steelers are viewed by many as a solid organization, and they don't play such games on a regular basis. They're regularly a strong contender, and wins it once in a while organization. THAT instead of all in knowing you might be uncompetitive for years thereafter.

They pretty much have no chance in the AFC with Mitch at QB. You need at least a good QB just to compete. Even with Matt, we need to win the division just to get in because there are like 8 or 9 teams that are really good. Luckily Matt is better than Tannehill and we can win the South. Matt won't get swept by Tennessee and I think he also could win at Jacks to end that silly streak.

[csmopar]

28 minutes ago, DougDew said:

It happens when a team is close to a window.  It makes sense to do it then.

 

Its possible that the Colts could trade one or two defensive players to Flus in CHI.  They need LBers and DBs.   Okereke, Moore, Willis might not fit well into Bradley's defense.  CHI also needs a C to play next to Whitehair, if Ballard has confidence in Pinter.  Kelly would save $10m.

 

Not advocating anything, just saying that we may not be done making a trade on defense....draft day perhaps.   Moore saves $6.7m.   Bradley may want his own Corners from this draft in addition to Rodgers and Facyson.

I don’t see that happening this year. Ballard has tons of holes to fill and I doubt he’d want to take the risk on putting his new old QB behind Pinter just yet. 

[buccolts]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They pretty much have no chance in the AFC with Mitch at QB. You need at least a good QB just to compete. Even with Matt, we need to win the division just to get in because there are like 8 or 9 teams that are really good. Luckily Matt is better than Tannehill and we can win the South. Matt won't get swept by Tennessee and I think he also could win at Jacks to end that silly streak.

Yeah, but that's not the topic.

Yep, Mitch may not taking the Steelers anywhere, but how long has it been since the Steelers haven't had a solid contending team.

And, I disagree with the notion that winning the division is our only shot. Is it the easiest? Sure, but I'm not going to underestimate us at this point.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, buccolts said:

Yeah, but that's not the topic.

Yep, Mitch may not taking the Steelers anywhere, but how long has it been since the Steelers haven't had a solid contending team.

And, I disagree with the notion that winning the division is our only shot. Is it the easiest? Sure, but I'm not going to underestimate us at this point.

Of course I have to give the Steelers credit, they are good every year but they did have Ben for the last 17 years. 

[buccolts]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Of course I have to give the Steelers credit, they are good every year but they did have Ben for the last 17 years. 

But they've been very competitive for years prior to Ben, as well.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, buccolts said:

But they've been very competitive for years prior to Ben, as well.

Yeah as bad as I dislike them, they have had a solid organization forever it seems. We have too though pretty much since 1995. 

[strt182]

I think its every teams first goal is to win their Division. Atleast thats where the first goal should be. You know that as long as you win that division you in the post season. Some teams look better then they are because of the division they are in. Colts have been on that side of the game before.  

Every team starts 0-0 and after week one 16 teams are 1-0 and 16 teams will be 0-1 (despite any ties) . 

 

Most games are decided by 1 or 2 plays anymore. Any team can win and any team can lose. If some teams lose on player their seasons turn really bad. Thats one thing I like about being a Colts fan is that I think that unless the Colts lose several players for significant time  they have a chance to be in every game. 

[Smonroe]

32 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Yeah but eventually that’ll level off and this stuff will slow down.

 

It's so weird, the Bears are probably in the top 10 in dead cap, but they're #1 in cap space.  Not that they're a franchise to emulate.  The Saints did work magic with the cap though.

 

I'm not saying we spend every penny, but there's no excuse not to fill the holes with proven players.  Even if we have to manipulate the cap.  The future is now.  That's what we should plan for.

[Scott Pennock]

The Eagles ate 33.82 million dollars of dead cap when trading Wentz to us.

 

The Falcons ate 40.5 million dollars of dead cap when trading Ryan to us.

 

 

[DougDew]

40 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I don’t see that happening this year. Ballard has tons of holes to fill and I doubt he’d want to take the risk on putting his new old QB behind Pinter just yet. 

And Kelly may heal and return to form. 

 

I could see Flus wanting to get a defense up and running quickly with young players who know the scheme.  We just signed Franklin to what looks like three years of starters money or significant PT money.  Does that forcast something about Oke?  He's making more than Oke now.  And then there is Moore, who is could be a cap savings if they found DBs more to Gus' liking.  

 

Just saying there is the potential for lots of moving around still on defense with Flus and Bradley in new positions.

 

AQM and RYS have moved on.  I could see a couple of more swap outs of players.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, Smonroe said:

 

All true.  But teams know the cap will increase and they aren't afraid to 'push all the chips in' even if it means a future rebuild.

 

It's interesting how much dead cap the last two teams that traded QBs to the Colts took on.  I think they're both records.

Yes they are.  Matt Ryan’s is the largest cap hit in NFL history for a player not on that surpassing the previous record set by Carson Wentz for the Eagles.

[csmopar]

14 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

The Eagles ate 33.82 million dollars of dead cap when trading Wentz to us.

 

The Falcons ate 40.5 million dollars of dead cap when trading Ryan to us.

 

 

Plus WA took on Wentz cap hit in our trade to them, so dang

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Plus WA took on Wentz cap hit in our trade to them, so dang

[2006Coltsbestever]

How we went from Wentz to Ryan in a matter of 1 year is a miracle, man are we lucky.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah as bad as I dislike them, they have had a solid organization forever it seems. We have too though pretty much since 1995. 

Yeah, through the Manning years for sure.   Plenty of poor seasons mixed in though:

1995 - 9-7

1996 - 9-7

1997 - 3-13

1998 - 3-13

2001 - 6-10

2011 - 2-14

2015 - 8-8

2016 - 8-8

2017 - 4-12

2019 - 7-9

 

[JediXMan]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They pretty much have no chance in the AFC with Mitch at QB. You need at least a good QB just to compete. Even with Matt, we need to win the division just to get in because there are like 8 or 9 teams that are really good. Luckily Matt is better than Tannehill and we can win the South. Matt won't get swept by Tennessee and I think he also could win at Jacks to end that silly streak.

He is 4-0 against them lol.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

Yeah, through the Manning years for sure.   Plenty of poor seasons mixed in though:

1995 - 9-7

1996 - 9-7

1997 - 3-13

1998 - 3-13

2001 - 6-10

2011 - 2-14

2015 - 8-8

2016 - 8-8

2017 - 4-12

2019 - 7-9

 

Of course we have had a few dud years but for the most part since 1995 we have been a great franchise. 2011, Peyton was out all year and in 2017 Luck was out all year.

[masterlock]

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

The real reason the Colts haven’t done much with cap stuff is they haven’t had too.  They did a little last year (Fisher’s voidable year) but they had the most cap space in the league going into off-season.  There was no reason to make more.

 

Id have to look but someone who covers the Colts on twitter said the Colts could easily create up to 40 million dollars with simple restructuring of guys that aren’t going anywhere if they needed the room.  They don’t.  

Well, they have just under $16M as of now, and they're still looking for a stud WR, a capable LT, a TE, AND they have to sign they're upcoming draft picks, so it kind of seems like they aren't exactly flush with cap space any longer.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, masterlock said:

Well, they have just under $16M as of now, and they're still looking for a stud WR, a capable LT, a TE, AND they have to sign they're upcoming draft picks, so it kind of seems like they aren't exactly flush with cap space any longer.

[GoColts8818]

7 minutes ago, masterlock said:

Well, they have just under $16M as of now, and they're still looking for a stud WR, a capable LT, a TE, AND they have to sign they're upcoming draft picks, so it kind of seems like they aren't exactly flush with cap space any longer.

You think that’s what they are looking for.  Ballard has said he likes his WR group so it wouldn’t surprise me if they just draft someone and move on.  He has also said that Pryor could be in mix for starting at LT.  So he could have those positions addressed and might sure them up with some draft picks.  As for tightend last I looked there aren’t any big target tight ends to go after.  
 

With that said like I said if they want to get more free agents they can free up more cap space by doing simple restructuring with guys.  Still the reason they haven’t really done it until now is that they haven’t had to.  They did a little last year when they were up against it and I expect Ballard would do it again if he wants to go get someone and needs the space.  Until that happens though there is no point.

[Jackie Daytona]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

They pretty much have no chance in the AFC with Mitch at QB. You need at least a good QB just to compete. Even with Matt, we need to win the division just to get in because there are like 8 or 9 teams that are really good. Luckily Matt is better than Tannehill and we can win the South. Matt won't get swept by Tennessee and I think he also could win at Jacks to end that silly streak.

I can almost guarantee you that more than one of those "really good in March" teams will underperform by more than a bit next fall.

[jbaron04]

7 hours ago, DougDew said:

It happens when a team is close to a window.  It makes sense to do it then.

 

Its possible that the Colts could trade one or two defensive players to Flus in CHI.  They need LBers and DBs.   Okereke, Moore, Willis might not fit well into Bradley's defense.  CHI also needs a C to play next to Whitehair, if Ballard has confidence in Pinter.  Kelly would save $10m.

 

Not advocating anything, just saying that we may not be done making a trade on defense....draft day perhaps.   Moore saves $6.7m.   Bradley may want his own Corners from this draft in addition to Rodgers and Facyson.

Can’t wait to get kelly off the books in a year lol, his 10m could be going towards a LT 

5 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

You think that’s what they are looking for.  Ballard has said he likes his WR group so it wouldn’t surprise me if they just draft someone and move on.  He has also said that Pryor could be in mix for starting at LT.  So he could have those positions addressed and might sure them up with some draft picks.  As for tightend last I looked there aren’t any big target tight ends to go after.  
 

With that said like I said if they want to get more free agents they can free up more cap space by doing simple restructuring with guys.  Still the reason they haven’t really done it until now is that they haven’t had to.  They did a little last year when they were up against it and I expect Ballard would do it again if he wants to go get someone and needs the space.  Until that happens though there is no point.

I wonder if Braden can play LT and move Pryor back to RT 

[jbaron04]

5 hours ago, masterlock said:

Well, they have just under $16M as of now, and they're still looking for a stud WR, a capable LT, a TE, AND they have to sign they're upcoming draft picks, so it kind of seems like they aren't exactly flush with cap space any longer.

Yea since we dont have a 1st we gonna need about 3m for draft picks and we still need Wr depth, LT& CB and vet TE. Based on what the analysis are saying it’s a deep draft for O line, Wr, CB. I think the colts gonna wait and see how the draft work out then plug the other holes with vets on prove it deals. I would mind bringing in D.brown if he came affordable and we should look at a cole Beasley type for slot and kick the tires on a Wr like Jones or Hilton if the price is lower

[GoColts8818]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

Yeah, through the Manning years for sure.   Plenty of poor seasons mixed in though:

1995 - 9-7

1996 - 9-7

1997 - 3-13

1998 - 3-13

2001 - 6-10

2011 - 2-14

2015 - 8-8

2016 - 8-8

2017 - 4-12

2019 - 7-9

 

95 and 96 were NOT poor seasons.  Both teams went to playoffs and one appeared in the AFC championship game and one Hail Mary of the Super Bowl.

1 hour ago, jbaron04 said:

Can’t wait to get kelly off the books in a year lol, his 10m could be going towards a LT 

I wonder if Braden can play LT and move Pryor back to RT 

Not Ballard’s plan per his appearance on the McAfee show today.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

95 and 96 were NOT poor seasons.  Both teams went to playoffs and one appeared in the AFC championship game and one Hail Mary of the Super Bowl.

Two of the greatest seasons in modern Colt History 

[chad.finney.3]

If I am not mistaken, that was one of the reasons it didn't make sense to keep Peyton when he was cut.  Obviously they didn't know if he would ever play again, bit I think we had a ton of high priced guys needing new contracts, but not much cap room to give him a competitive team if he was able to play.  I remember him restructuring his contract more than once.  I like the way Ballard uses the cap and structures his deals.

[jbaron04]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

95 and 96 were NOT poor seasons.  Both teams went to playoffs and one appeared in the AFC championship game and one Hail Mary of the Super Bowl.

Not Ballard’s plan per his appearance on the McAfee show today.

Yup I just saw show and sounds like it’s gonna be Pryor 

[masterlock]

4 hours ago, jbaron04 said:

Yea since we dont have a 1st we gonna need about 3m for draft picks and we still need Wr depth, LT& CB and vet TE. Based on what the analysis are saying it’s a deep draft for O line, Wr, CB. I think the colts gonna wait and see how the draft work out then plug the other holes with vets on prove it deals. I would mind bringing in D.brown if he came affordable and we should look at a cole Beasley type for slot and kick the tires on a Wr like Jones or Hilton if the price is lower

I just read that they can restructure contracts to get back to over $40M in cap space. 

 

 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, csmopar said:

The salary cap and why Ballard doesn’t play games to manipulate the cap like other teams do, via restructuring or conversions or what not, you need to simply look at what just happened to the Falcons when they traded Matt Ryan. All those kick downs, came due at once, severely handicapping them for this season. While it’s obvious they are in rebuild mode beyond this season, you still have to pay the piper. So eventually teams like the Saints and others will be in similar boats, with aging rosters and no way but to eat the dead cap.

 

it could be argued that the short term gain is worth the long term loss sure. But if you go to OTC and look, really there are only two players with a restructure ability in their contract that would clear us maybe 16 million give or take in cap space. So why do it unless we absolutely have too? In other words, we can still sign whoever we wanted and restructure from there. 

 

This is all factually correct. When a team manipulates the cap to chase short term gain, the bill will eventually come due. There's essentially a 2-3 year window before big decisions have to be made, and those decision might cause the team to lose a good player. As long as a team manages the cap the way the Colts do, they will not have these future issues.

 

The counter argument is that there are several teams each year, and increasingly so, that are manipulating the cap for short term gain. If four teams do it this year, then four teams do it next year, and so on, there's always a group of teams trying to force their window open. And while the Colts are being balanced and responsible with the cap, they're competing against these teams that are being more aggressive with player salaries and contract structure. Every year. The teams that are being more aggressive might have to take a step back later, but that group of teams will be replaced by another group, while the Colts stay steady, but still don't quite get the same bang for their buck on the salary cap.

 

Aggressive cap manipulation probably costs a team a good player or two in the future. More conservative cap management means missing out on good players now. 

 

This is a topic on which I am very torn. I fully appreciate and agree with the principles of responsible cap management. And it's pointless to stray from those principles when your team is not reasonably ready to compete at a high level. But I think that with the recent success of the Bucs, Rams, and the way teams are copying that formula, it's likely that teams who refuse to ever stray from their principles will always be second tier, at best.

[MikeCurtis]

I think we can all remember the season that Jacksonville came a play or two from the SB

 

They spent like drunk sailors

 

They got close

 

That season cost them for a few years in CAP hell

 

The big question.... is THIS the year that we do something like that?

 

So far.....  It seems that we are still prudent

 

The current list of FAs is not great

 

We still have the draft where a team may get their star WR and the current WR number 2, MIGHT become available in trade

We still have June 1 cuts

We still have final cuts, 

 

We arent going to get an all pro, but the window isnt closed completely 

 

 

[Smonroe]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is all factually correct. When a team manipulates the cap to chase short term gain, the bill will eventually come due. There's essentially a 2-3 year window before big decisions have to be made, and those decision might cause the team to lose a good player. As long as a team manages the cap the way the Colts do, they will not have these future issues.

 

The counter argument is that there are several teams each year, and increasingly so, that are manipulating the cap for short term gain. If four teams do it this year, then four teams do it next year, and so on, there's always a group of teams trying to force their window open. And while the Colts are being balanced and responsible with the cap, they're competing against these teams that are being more aggressive with player salaries and contract structure. Every year. The teams that are being more aggressive might have to take a step back later, but that group of teams will be replaced by another group, while the Colts stay steady, but still don't quite get the same bang for their buck on the salary cap.

 

Aggressive cap manipulation probably costs a team a good player or two in the future. More conservative cap management means missing out on good players now. 

 

This is a topic on which I am very torn. I fully appreciate and agree with the principles of responsible cap management. And it's pointless to stray from those principles when your team is not reasonably ready to compete at a high level. But I think that with the recent success of the Bucs, Rams, and the way teams are copying that formula, it's likely that teams who refuse to ever stray from their principles will always be second tier, at best.

 

Agree, especially with the "torn" part.  It's sort of like swinging for the fences.  When you connect it's great, when you whiff you're back on the bench while other go to bat.

 

I know it's not as simple as - would you rather be a team that competes every year, but never gets over the hump OR the team that sacrifices the future for a realistic chance to get to the SB.  

 

But between those two choices, Ballard trends a lot more towards the former.  He took a swing at QB last season, whiffed, but did a great job in recovering.  I wouldn't mind seeing more of that.

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is all factually correct. When a team manipulates the cap to chase short term gain, the bill will eventually come due. There's essentially a 2-3 year window before big decisions have to be made, and those decision might cause the team to lose a good player. As long as a team manages the cap the way the Colts do, they will not have these future issues.

 

The counter argument is that there are several teams each year, and increasingly so, that are manipulating the cap for short term gain. If four teams do it this year, then four teams do it next year, and so on, there's always a group of teams trying to force their window open. And while the Colts are being balanced and responsible with the cap, they're competing against these teams that are being more aggressive with player salaries and contract structure. Every year. The teams that are being more aggressive might have to take a step back later, but that group of teams will be replaced by another group, while the Colts stay steady, but still don't quite get the same bang for their buck on the salary cap.

 

Aggressive cap manipulation probably costs a team a good player or two in the future. More conservative cap management means missing out on good players now. 

 

This is a topic on which I am very torn. I fully appreciate and agree with the principles of responsible cap management. And it's pointless to stray from those principles when your team is not reasonably ready to compete at a high level. But I think that with the recent success of the Bucs, Rams, and the way teams are copying that formula, it's likely that teams who refuse to ever stray from their principles will always be second tier, at best.

I’m torn on it as well. But we also know that eventually it catches up. The question is,  will the NFL eventually get sick of teams being able to manipulate the cap to such degrees and put a limit on it or will they just let nature take its course? 

[Smonroe]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

I’m torn on it as well. But we also know that eventually it catches up. The question is,  will the NFL eventually get sick of teams being able to manipulate the cap to such degrees and put a limit on it or will they just let nature take its course? 

 

I'm not sure if the NFL can do anything about it.  The rules are set and agreed to by the NFL and NFLPA.

 

If they let the Browns get away with how they structured Watsons contract this season, which I guess is legal, I can't see them trying to stifle teams from playing with the cap.

 

BTW, that was a really good analysis of our players contracts that you did earlier.  Very helpful, to me at least.