Colts Extend Buckner. **Contract Details Updated Page 2, Spoiler it's Really BIG Savings**

[Dobbinblitz]

Well, it appears Ballard will have fluid monies available to jump on a post June cut, or swing a deal in August if AR's progression is promising. We also may see a sizable UFA signings post draft. Interesting departure for Ballard for sure. I had to read it twice!

[throwing BBZ]

Kwity is a good player and this would be the perfect time to give him a big lump sum.

 I'll guess fifth year option + 3 years for$14m per. Comes out to 5 years at about $56m. 

 We still would have the $ for a quality FA. 

 Simmons?

 

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, w87r said:

Wowsers:

 

https://overthecap.com/player/deforest-buckner/4720

 

Contract Notes

DeForest Buckner signed a two year, $46 million contract with the Colts on April 15, 2024. Bucker received $53.25 million in guarantees on the total contract value of which $43.25 million is fully guaranteed. The new money guarantee is $33 million with $23 million guaranteed at signing. Buckner received an $18 million signing bonus and his 2024 and 2025 salaries are fully guaranteed. There are two void years for salary cap purposes. The extension reduced Buckner's 2024 salary cap number by $14.4 million.

 

2024 original cap hit: $22.75m

 

new extension cap hits:

2024 - $8.35m

2025 - $26.6m

2026 - $26.6m

2027 - $7.2m(void year)(dead cap)

2028 - $3.6m(void year)(dead cap)

 

 

This is way outside the box for Ballard. Something probably in the works.

 

 

New cap space per OtC(Spotrac not updated yet)

$28,412,296

 

Spotrac estimate - $28,194,348

Stunner. Wow just wow. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Dobbinblitz said:

Well, it appears Ballard will have fluid monies available to jump on a post June cut, or swing a deal in August if AR's progression is promising. We also may see a sizable UFA signings post draft. Interesting departure for Ballard for sure. I had to read it twice!

I’m wondering if clearing room for a trade up perhaps. Or a trade for an established player. 

[wig]

5 hours ago, w87r said:

Well I think this is more in reference to the extension. We were giving him the money so he wouldn't of been a FA next year anyway.

 

 

We did steal $7.2m away from 2027 though if that was their purpose, but that doesn't calculate as making too much sense to me.

 

No need to add those void years unless you plan to use up some more money this year, imo.

 

 

Now the cap will rollover whatever is left but idk? That just doesn't seem to be what it is, at least not to me. Time will tell, at least we get a little more excitement and unknown anticipation leading up to the draft.

 

What doesn't make sense?  You can use it any time over the next 3 years essentially and the $7M in dead applies to the last cheap year of AR's contract. It gives you flexibility with no downside. They could roll 7M over until 2027 if they wanted. All it costs is Irsay's cash

[csmopar]

21 minutes ago, wig said:

 

What doesn't make sense?  You can use it any time over the next 3 years essentially and the $7M in dead applies to the last cheap year of AR's contract. It gives you flexibility with no downside. They could roll 7M over until 2027 if they wanted. All it costs is Irsay's cash

His point is why do that when it’s not required. Dropping that much on an extension is done with an intent for the short term only. Now what that is or if the plan actually goes through is another matter, but this type of move is pretty much exclusively done around the league to free up short term salary cap. 

[w87r]

19 minutes ago, wig said:

 

What doesn't make sense?  You can use it any time over the next 3 years essentially and the $7M in dead applies to the last cheap year of AR's contract. It gives you flexibility with no downside. They could roll 7M over until 2027 if they wanted. All it costs is Irsay's cash

Thanks for your explanation... Save it, I know how the cap works.

 

 

I've been talking about flexibility and no downside to pushing money down the line since the thread started, when everyone was telling me we weren't doing it to save money.

 

 

What I was pretty much saying is, I didn't buy the explanation to them doing it strictly to roll it over to next year, instead of making a move now, in a response to that poster.

[richard pallo]

47 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I’m wondering if clearing room for a trade up perhaps. Or a trade for an established player. 

Unless I’m missing something I don’t see why we would need all of this extra space to move up in the draft.  Trading for an established player is a different story.  That seems more likely to me given the choices you presented.

[throwing BBZ]

52 minutes ago, csmopar said:

I’m wondering if clearing room for a trade up perhaps. Or a trade for an established player. 

 

 

 Maybe Ayuk. 

[jvan1973]

54 minutes ago, wig said:

 

What doesn't make sense?  You can use it any time over the next 3 years essentially and the $7M in dead applies to the last cheap year of AR's contract. It gives you flexibility with no downside. They could roll 7M over until 2027 if they wanted. All it costs is Irsay's cash

Why do it now?  That's the confusion.   

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, w87r said:

Thanks for your explanation... Save it, I know how the cap works.

 

 

I've been talking about flexibility and no downside to pushing money down the line since the thread started, when everyone was telling me we weren't doing it to save money.

 

 

What I was pretty much saying is, I didn't buy the explanation to them doing it strictly to roll it over to next year, instead of making a move now, in a response to that poster.

 

If I had to bet I'd say there's nothing in the works right now. And I think it's unlikely that they make a big enough move that we look back at this say 'that's why they made all that cap space.' I could be wrong.

 

I think the reason they did this is because Buckner's contract was the most likely target to be reworked to create cap space, and once they do it, they can't restructure for 12 months. So if you have one shot at it, just maximize the opportunity. Just in case something comes up later. That way if an opportunity presents itself later on, you don't have to consider backloading someone else's contract, which is something the team already doesn't like doing. 

 

And in general, while this kind of backloading shouldn't be considered a go-to cap management technique, doing this with one or two foundational players here and there isn't a big problem. It's when you start stacking up these backloaded contracts, especially for less reliable players, that you create problems in the future.

[w87r]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Why do it now?  That's the confusion.   

That wasn't it either, at least for me.

 

 

Whether we use it all now or not, doesn't really matter. As it can rollover and help us next year, whatever portion we don't use will just rollover.

 

 

And what else I was about to say, which Superman just posted about, is, we won't be able to capitalize on Buckner's contract again, to where it could help with some cap space next year.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

If I had to bet I'd say there's nothing in the works right now. And I think it's unlikely that they make a big enough move that we look back at this say 'that's why they made all that cap space.' I could be wrong.

 

I think the reason they did this is because Buckner's contract was the most likely target to be reworked to create cap space, and once they do it, they can't restructure for 12 months. So if you have one shot at it, just maximize the opportunity. Just in case something comes up later. That way if an opportunity presents itself later on, you don't have to consider backloading someone else's contract, which is something the team already doesn't like doing. 

 

And in general, while this kind of backloading shouldn't be considered a go-to cap management technique, doing this with one or two foundational players here and there isn't a big problem. It's when you start stacking up these backloaded contracts, especially for less reliable players, that you create problems in the future.

Right but it didn’t HAVE to be done right now unless they just wanted the flexibility for the “what if” thing arises

[MikeCurtis]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

I’m wondering if clearing room for a trade up perhaps. Or a trade for an established player. 

Me too

 

We can now afford Simmons and maybe another lower tier FA

 

IMHO, there is no clear reason to do this, if you werent planning moves

[csmopar]

31 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Unless I’m missing something I don’t see why we would need all of this extra space to move up in the draft.  Trading for an established player is a different story.  That seems more likely to me given the choices you presented.

Not all of it but say you trade up from 15 to 5(random number here), unless I’m mistaken, a rookie at number 5 makes more than a rookie at 15.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Right but it didn’t HAVE to be done right now unless they just wanted the flexibility for the “what if” thing arises

 

If you're doing Buckner's contract right now, this is the only shot to backload it. After this, you can't restructure his contract for 12 months. And for a team that doesn't like to backload contracts, it stands to reason that they would identify Buckner's contract as the candidate for this kind of structure. The only other restructure candidates -- Nelson, Smith, Kelly -- either have multiple years remaining, or have questionable futures. Buckner is THE target for a cap friendly restructure, so this was the time to do it.

 

The only other times Ballard has done this was in 2021, the one year in which the cap was reduced because of a sudden shock to the world economy. And even then, those were one year contracts, they only used one void year, and a small amount of prorated bonus. 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Not all of it but say you trade up from 15 to 5(random number here), unless I’m mistaken, a rookie at number 5 makes more than a rookie at 15.

 

Approximately $6m for #5, $3m for #15. 

[w87r]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

If I had to bet I'd say there's nothing in the works right now. And I think it's unlikely that they make a big enough move that we look back at this say 'that's why they made all that cap space.' I could be wrong.

I agree, probably isn't anything in the works now(as far as a deal close). It is a flexibility thing, and gives us a lot of it. 

 

 

This is the only opportunity, which you just posted about and even posted about earlier today, to take advantage of Buckner's contract, in regards to having more money, not just this year, but next year as well. When talking about stealing from 2027 to help 2025.

 

There is other options though, once next year comes, just not with Buckner's contract, to steal from 2027 cap 

 

I still don't think they cleared $14.4m extra to carry it all over. I imagine they've had talks with guys they have considered offering a deal to, or potential trade options, and will see how it plays out at the draft. Then move forward.

 

 

Like I said, I was just saying I wasn't buying Holder's take on it. Might be what happens, but I wasn't buying it then and still skeptical about it. Maybe saying it didn't make sense was the wrong phrase, Ill own that.

 

 

Either way as I've said the whole thread, there is no issues with pushing money to the future for flexibility now and Buckner's contract was the easiest and has the least negative impact in the future.

 

 

This move was clearly made with the intention of capitalizing on that 2027 cap space this year or next.

 

I for one am hoping it will be a small/medium splash this year. Then still carry over $10m+ next year.

 

[w87r]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Approximately $6m for #5, $3m for #15. 

Yeah moving up on the draft isn't going to effect us too much.

 

Like you said $3-$4m more if we moved into top 5.

 

So would have us around $6-$6.5m in draft picks(top 51), unless we moved our 2nd also, which would drop it down to $5-$5.5m.

 

 

That combined with practice squad funds $2.5m-$3m.

 

We would still be looking at around $19m or so in space 

 

As it is now, $2.8m for draft picks, $2.5m for Practice Squad and we would still be sitting at $22-$23m.

 

When we go back to 53, I don't anticipate too much of a swing as there will be players above the top 51 dropping off, so I anticipate it being a close to a wash. Especially looking at who is below the line now.

[csmopar]

13 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yeah moving up on the draft isn't going to effect us too much.

 

Like you said $3-$4m more if we moved into top 5.

 

So would have us around $6-$6.5m in draft picks(top 51), unless we moved our 2nd also, which would drop it down to $5-$5.5m.

 

 

That combined with practice squad funds $2.5m-$3m.

 

We would still be looking at around $19m or so in space 

 

As it is now, $2.8m for draft picks, $2.5m for Practice Squad and we would still be sitting at $22-$23m.

 

When we go back to 53, I don't anticipate too much of a swing as there will be players above the top 51 dropping off, so I anticipate it being a close to a wash. Especially looking at who is below the line now.

Nice. Thanks

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, w87r said:

I agree, probably isn't anything in the works now(as far as a deal close). It is a flexibility thing, and gives us a lot of it. 

 

 

This is the only opportunity, which you just posted about and even posted about earlier today, to take advantage of Buckner's contract, in regards to having more money, not just this year, but next year as well. When talking about stealing from 2027 to help 2025.

 

There is other options though, once next year comes, just not with Buckner's contract, to steal from 2027 cap 

 

I still don't think they cleared $14.4m extra to carry it all over. I imagine they've had talks with guys they have considered offering a deal to, or potential trade options, and will see how it plays out at the draft. Then move forward.

 

 

Like I said, I was just saying I wasn't buying Holder's take on it. Might be what happens, but I wasn't buying it then and still skeptical about it. Maybe saying it didn't make sense was the wrong phrase, Ill own that.

 

 

Either way as I've said the whole thread, there is no issues with pushing money to the future for flexibility now and Buckner's contract was the easiest and has the least negative impact in the future.

 

 

This move was clearly made with the intention of capitalizing on that 2027 cap space this year or next.

 

I for one am hoping it will be a small/medium splash this year. Then still carry over $10m+ next year.

 

 

Sure, this makes it easier to handle a veteran signing after the draft, so if you still want one of the safeties or something, you're not getting squeezed. I've always thought that was on the table though, and when the time came, they'd make it work. I figured something would happen with Buckner eventually, but this is more than I expected. And that's probably just a 'might as well' kind of thing.

 

I just don't think there's something big in the works. Not that I would know, it's just my opinion.

[King Colt]

Good news.

[w87r]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

it's just my opinion

All it is for all of us.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think we've been on the same page when it comes to Buckner and an extension for quite a while now. Also only so many spots, so if we were to bring in another vet safety, it likely means moving on from Thomas. Which at the end of the day, I'm ok with, as long as there is a vet upgrade.

 

Don't see Cross, Scott or Blackmon going anywhere this year.

 

Of course, saying that, it all depends on injuries as well never know how off-season programs and camp will pay out.

 

 

Definitely more than I anticipated as well. Like you brought up originally though, this was last chance to use Buckner's contract for this purpose.

[1959Colts]

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/inside-the-latest-deforest-buckner-deal

Inside the latest DeForest Buckner deal

By Mike Florio

  

...Here are the full details of the deal, per a source with knowledge of the terms:

1. Signing bonus: $18 million.

2. 2024 base salary: $2.25 million, fully guaranteed.

3. 2025 offseason roster bonus $10 million, fully guaranteed.

4. 2025 base salary: $13 million, fully guaranteed.

5. 2026 offseason roster bonus: $10 million.

6. 2026 base salary: $13 million. ($10 million of the 2026 compensation package is guaranteed for injury only at signing. It becomes fully guaranteed in 2025.)

 

Most extensions aren’t truly extensions; the old deal is ripped up and a new deal takes its place. This deal is more like an extension, in that Buckner’s pay for 2024 remains the same as it was — $20.25 million.

 

The practical guarantee is $53.25 million, since the $10 million injury guarantee for 2026 becomes fully guaranteed in 2025.

The new-money average is $23 million. The total average at signing for the three-year contract is $22.08 million.

 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

All it is, for all of us.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think we've been on the same page when it comes to Buckner and an extension for quite a while now. Also only so many spots, so if we were to bring in another vet safety, it likely means moving on from Thomas. Which at the end of the day, I'm ok with, as long as there is a vet upgrade.

 

Don't see Cross, Scott or Blackmon going anywhere this year.

 

Of course it all depends on injuries as well never know how off-season programs and camp will pay out.

 

 

Definitely more than I anticipated as well. Like you brought up originally though, this was last chance to use Buckner's contract for this purpose.

 

The roster spots are already kind of tight. There will be churn, but we're at 76 players right now (right? after Dabo is exempted), and we have 7 draft picks. Add in UDFAs -- I just went back for the last couple years, in 2021 we only signed 5, but we've signed as many as 22 in the past, and it's usually 10-15 -- and there's not a lot of room. But if we're going to make room after the draft, we're probably looking at guys like Brooks and Tutsie at the safety position, and Thomas makes it to camp. 

[w87r]

2 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:

Most extensions aren’t truly extensions; the old deal is ripped up and a new deal takes its place. This deal is more like an extension, in that Buckner’s pay for 2024 remains the same as it was — $20.25 million

Read this early, and couldn't decide if I thought it was poorly written or not.

 

 

When he says the bolded part it makes it seem as there is no money saved against the cap this year. He has no mention of $14.4m in cap savings this year.

 

 

I think it was written poorly, but that's seems to be standard procedure with Florio.

 

Buckner still gets $20.25m in cash this year, but the cap hit doesn't remain the same.

[w87r]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The roster spots are already kind of tight. There will be churn, but we're at 76 players right now (right? after Dabo is exempted), and we have 7 draft picks. Add in UDFAs -- I just went back for the last couple years, in 2021 we only signed 5, but we've signed as many as 22 in the past, and it's usually 10-15 -- and there's not a lot of room. But if we're going to make room after the draft, we're probably looking at guys like Brooks and Tutsie at the safety position, and Thomas makes it to camp. 

We're at (75) IF Dabo still has his exemption. Still not 100% sure, but Spotrac updated it that way today 

 

Either way it's tight though.

 

 

Thomas definitely makes it to camp, when I say cost their roster spot, I just mean final 53.

 

Even if we bring in a vet, like I said there could be an injury that throws it all up in the air.

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The roster spots are already kind of tight. There will be churn, but we're at 76 players right now (right? after Dabo is exempted), and we have 7 draft picks. Add in UDFAs -- I just went back for the last couple years, in 2021 we only signed 5, but we've signed as many as 22 in the past, and it's usually 10-15 -- and there's not a lot of room. But if we're going to make room after the draft, we're probably looking at guys like Brooks and Tutsie at the safety position, and Thomas makes it to camp. 

I think if Thomas is a late roster cut, then ideally the Colts would like to add him back to the PS.   He’d be eligible for that, wouldn’t he?   

[w87r]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

I think if Thomas is a late roster cut, then ideally the Colts would like to add him back to the PS.   He’d be eligible for that, wouldn’t he?   

Pretty much anyone is able to go on the practice squad these days.

[wig]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Why do it now?  That's the confusion.   

 

Because they locked down a position group more or less before the draft and wanted to give themselves to get a bit more aggressive at any point if the opportunity comes, likely next year

[Superman]

56 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think if Thomas is a late roster cut, then ideally the Colts would like to add him back to the PS.   He’d be eligible for that, wouldn’t he?   

 

The PS rules have changed every offseason lately, I haven't exactly kept up with them. He'd still be eligible for the PS, but there are still rules about how many times a player can be added to the PS during the season.

 

More importantly, I think Thomas has played enough and is good enough that he probably wouldn't clear waivers. And if we've added enough competition at safety that Thomas is a cutdown loss, I'm okay with that. He's fine as a backup and special teamer, but those are the guys who are going to be at risk on cutdown day.

[richard pallo]

Ballard could have extended Buckner after the draft and still achieve the same result.  But he does it a week before the draft.  Therefore giving him more cap space and giving him plenty of flexibility before and during the draft to trade for a player with a meaningful cap hit if he wanted to.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be the 1st pick.  It could be a 2nd or 3rd rd pick. This seems to be the reason to me.  This is the first time he has extended a player this way with a significant cap reduction.  And he does it just before the draft.  He has never traded up in the 1st rd either.  Maybe that is also about to change.  I believe he has a press conference this Friday.  I would imagine he will get questions about this extension and will probably be vague explaining his reasons for doing it the way he did.  That said I think Ballard is going for it this year.  I think he feels he has to.  I think these coming days are going to be exciting and full of surprises.  JMO of course.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Ballard could have extended Buckner after the draft and still achieve the same result.  But he does it a week before the draft.  Therefore giving him more cap space and giving him plenty of flexibility before and during the draft to trade for a player with a meaningful cap hit if he wanted to.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be the 1st pick.  It could be a 2nd or 3rd rd pick. This seems to be the reason to me.  This is the first time he has extended a player this way with a significant cap reduction.  And he does it just before the draft.  He has never traded up in the 1st rd either.  Maybe that is also about to change.  I believe he has a press conference this Friday.  I would imagine he will get questions about this extension and will probably be vague explaining his reasons for doing it the way he did.  That said I think Ballard is going for it this year.  I think he feels he has to.  I think these coming days are going to be exciting and full of surprises.  JMO of course.

 

Don't you ever get tired of trying to convince yourself that Ballard is going to make a big move? You seem to talk yourself into this at every opportunity, and it never happens. 

 

Everything we know about Ballard tells us there is a practical, unexciting reason for this. I'm happy to be proven wrong, by the way. A big splash would be fun, but I think it's very unlikely.

[richard pallo]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Don't you ever get tired of trying to convince yourself that Ballard is going to make a big move? You seem to talk yourself into this at every opportunity, and it never happens. 

 

Everything we know about Ballard tells us there is a practical, unexciting reason for this. I'm happy to be proven wrong, by the way. A big splash would be fun, but I think it's very unlikely.

So what.

[csmopar]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Don't you ever get tired of trying to convince yourself that Ballard is going to make a big move? You seem to talk yourself into this at every opportunity, and it never happens. 

 

Everything we know about Ballard tells us there is a practical, unexciting reason for this. I'm happy to be proven wrong, by the way. A big splash would be fun, but I think it's very unlikely.

I don’t think it’ll be a big splash. I think it might be a multiple tiny splash thing, I think they might sign a few more hungry second tier players or possibly trade up a bit. Or they could do nothing. 
 

typically Ballard goes into the fall with around 10-15 million to roll over or use in season. That leaves us roughly 10 mil or so to play with going into the draft and post draft signing period

 

now if later tonight or tomorrow they cut Mo Allie Cox, I’d say something big was coming but otherwise, I agree that it likely isn’t a major one

[Myles]

I think they did this for no particular reason.   They needed to extend Buckner with a new contract and decided to do this "just in case".

[Dobbinblitz]

6 hours ago, csmopar said:

I’m wondering if clearing room for a trade up perhaps. Or a trade for an established player. 

Yeah, could possibly be preparing to take on a contract in order to facilitate getting something done trade-wise

[GoColts8818]

6 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Why do it now?  That's the confusion.   

Because he was going to be a free agent who they knew they weren’t going to let leave and as Superman pointed out once you do the deal you can’t restructure it for 12 months so once you decided to extend him why not make it work to free up some cap space you can use this off-season or roll over into next year when you will have someone like Kelly who will be a free agent they might want to keep and presumably have money to add a guy or two next year in free agency, especially if Richardson stays healthy and proves he’s the guy.  

[GoColts8818]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Don't you ever get tired of trying to convince yourself that Ballard is going to make a big move? You seem to talk yourself into this at every opportunity, and it never happens. 

 

Everything we know about Ballard tells us there is a practical, unexciting reason for this. I'm happy to be proven wrong, by the way. A big splash would be fun, but I think it's very unlikely.

To answer your question no he doesn’t.  He wants big trades that’s just who Richard is.  While I am with you in that I don’t see them happening I say let Richard dream.  

[Superman]

4 hours ago, richard pallo said:

So what.

 

Hey, knock yourself out. Just wondering...