Taylor’s average $14 mil/yr contract

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's October 2024. These conversations were all the rage in September 2023, before the contract was done. For those who don't like second contracts for RBs, or who disagree with Ballard's cap strategies, these conversations have been had already.

 

This thread is nothing more than whining because a player is injured. And we're not talking about a general wear and tear, aging player injury. We watched the player get hurt with our own eyes, and it was no one's fault. Before he got hurt, he was playing well and was very productive. If not for this injury, which is no one's fault, this thread wouldn't exist.

True, but JTs injury issue was part of the past discussions about contract.  In October 2024, the concerns some had about that have come to fruition.  Another ankle injury gives some support for those who want to argue, "I told you so".

 

I stayed out of those discussions.  IMO, even though he is a RB, and probably just carrier of the FB compared to other RBs, he is one of the few big play threats the team had at the time (disappointingly a function of roster construction but that's a different discussion).  I never thought the contract was excessive given that reality, and it doesn't burden the team with inabilities to make other decisions.  I don't think the contract is a big deal even if JTs availability is sporadic like some expected.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

JT ankle got rolled up on. Any player would of gotten hurt with how that happened.

[Superman]

40 minutes ago, DougDew said:

True, but JTs injury issue was part of the past discussions about contract.  In October 2024, the concerns some had about that have come to fruition.  Another ankle injury gives some support for those who want to argue, "I told you so".

 

I stayed out of those discussions.  IMO, even though he is a RB, and probably just carrier of the FB compared to other RBs, he is one of the few big play threats the team had at the time (disappointingly a function of roster construction but that's a different discussion).  I never thought the contract was excessive given that reality, and it doesn't burden the team with inabilities to make other decisions.  I don't think the contract is a big deal even if JTs availability is sporadic like some expected.  

 

He didn't get hurt because he had a previous injury. He got hurt because football is a physical sport and players get hurt, especially when their ankles get trapped under another player's body. 

[Solid84]

2 hours ago, BlackTiger said:

No need to worry about it, according to over the cap the team is going into next season with 55 million in cap space and will still have around 30 after signing the projected roster.  Plenty to sign 53 players and make what ever move they want really

Per Spotrac we have around $53m. So somewhere in the $53-55m range. That's with only 37 players signed to the roster by the way. Now you're possibly looking at giving Raimann a new contract which will almost certainly be more than $20m. Fries will probably be in the range of Nelson-level money at his point. Smith will get at least the same as he's already getting $16.5m.

 

Smith is a wash if he gets about the same. Say Raimann gets around $22m, that would be a little more than $20m more than he's getting now and it'll likely be the same for Fries. Then add, what, $5-ish million for rookie contracts and then we still have to sign some 10-15 players. It'll fit under the cap, but that's once again a lot of money just to stay the same...

 

I'm not sure how this maths, but I'm not seeing where we're getting better here and that's my main gripe. Same old, same old.

[richard pallo]

15 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Per Spotrac we have around $53m. So somewhere in the $53-55m range. That's with only 37 players signed to the roster by the way. Now you're possibly looking at giving Raimann a new contract which will almost certainly be more than $20m. Fries will probably be in the range of Nelson-level money at his point. Smith will get at least the same as he's already getting $16.5m.

 

Smith is a wash if he gets about the same. Say Raimann gets around $22m, that would be a little more than $20m more than he's getting now and it'll likely be the same for Fries. Then add, what, $5-ish million for rookie contracts and then we still have to sign some 10-15 players. It'll fit under the cap, but that's once again a lot of money just to stay the same...

 

I'm not sure how this maths, but I'm not seeing where we're getting better here and that's my main gripe. Same old, same old.

The good news is we keep in place a top five OL.  I don’t think signing Raiman is an absolute must.  I think he has another year to go.  I’m not expecting Fries to get a big contract because of his injury but you never know.  I’m not worried about the money.  It seems like that’s all people like to talk about here.  We have always managed the cap well under Ballard.  They know what they’re doing on that front.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Per Spotrac we have around $53m. So somewhere in the $53-55m range. That's with only 37 players signed to the roster by the way. Now you're possibly looking at giving Raimann a new contract which will almost certainly be more than $20m. Fries will probably be in the range of Nelson-level money at his point. Smith will get at least the same as he's already getting $16.5m.

 

Smith is a wash if he gets about the same. Say Raimann gets around $22m, that would be a little more than $20m more than he's getting now and it'll likely be the same for Fries. Then add, what, $5-ish million for rookie contracts and then we still have to sign some 10-15 players. It'll fit under the cap, but that's once again a lot of money just to stay the same...

 

I'm not sure how this maths, but I'm not seeing where we're getting better here and that's my main gripe. Same old, same old.

 

I highly doubt that Fries will be playing in those waters. Even without his injury, I don't think that was going to be his market, and I certainly wouldn't expect the Colts to make that kind of commitment. 

 

But to your larger point, you're right. The Colts are in a 'maintain the core roster' phase of team building and cap management, which was demonstrated in the past offseason. They added some players in the draft who have the potential to be starters in the next year or two (some of them are already performing now), replacing some higher paid veterans. And they kept their main core together for the next 2-3 seasons. So if they want to continue playing out this strategy, they have the cap standing to do so.

 

The problem is that the main core isn't good enough, as we're seeing in the early part of the season. Especially on defense, where they committed around $70m to players who don't improve any element of the pass defense. So yeah, based on early returns, it's same old. And there's no reason to think that Ballard is going to spend on expensive free agents, even if he has a ton of cap space. So the main hope for this roster right now is for young players to become difference makers.

[RollerColt]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

The problem is that the main core isn't good enough, as we're seeing in the early part of the season. Especially on defense, where they committed around $70m to players who don't improve any element of the pass defense. So yeah, based on early returns, it's same old. And there's no reason to think that Ballard is going to spend on expensive free agents, even if he has a ton of cap space. So the main hope for this roster right now is for young players to become difference makers.

/HEAVY SARCASM**

 

How very dare you to use constructive criticism of this team! Straight to jail with you! Go find another team to support! 

 

/END HEAVY SARCASM**

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I got the feeling from Steichens presser today that Taylor might of been able to go this week but they are giving him one more week to get him 100% for this hard stretch coming up.

[Solid84]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I highly doubt that Fries will be playing in those waters. Even without his injury, I don't think that was going to be his market, and I certainly wouldn't expect the Colts to make that kind of commitment. 

I think Fries is playing at Nelson or very near to Nelson-level at this point. What speaks against giving him a big contract is he hasn't done it for multiple seasons and that's a fair argument. What do you expect his market to look like?

 

Quote

But to your larger point, you're right. The Colts are in a 'maintain the core roster' phase of team building and cap management, which was demonstrated in the past offseason. They added some players in the draft who have the potential to be starters in the next year or two (some of them are already performing now), replacing some higher paid veterans. And they kept their main core together for the next 2-3 seasons. So if they want to continue playing out this strategy, they have the cap standing to do so.

 

The problem is that the main core isn't good enough, as we're seeing in the early part of the season. Especially on defense, where they committed around $70m to players who don't improve any element of the pass defense. So yeah, based on early returns, it's same old. And there's no reason to think that Ballard is going to spend on expensive free agents, even if he has a ton of cap space. So the main hope for this roster right now is for young players to become difference makers.

I agree with all of this.

 

I think the main thing the Colts could do to actually improve without spending is getting a new DC. Ultimately that'll likely mean some old players leaving and new players joining the team, but from a cap point of view should stay the same. Bradley just isn't it and I think we can get more from our current defenders.

 

This has veered a bit from the original post, sorry about that.