A trade still possible?

[BProland85]

With OLB Jerry Hughes playing well, and Mathis should be able to play the OLB well also, should we reentertain trade offers for Freeney if we can * a 3rd or 4th for him? We have other LBs like Mario Addison playing the pass rushing OLB role well too.

We will need the added roster spot come time when other teams cut players we could use. We have #1 Waiver priority so Im sure Pagano will want to add a few guys.

[ColtJ82]

I am not sold on trading Freeney before he even plays a meaningful game in this system. We are thin enough at LB positions.....not going to kill our depth. I don't think the cap space is going to be all that beneficial this year anyway.

[jskinnz]

Sure. Because every team would want to take on his big dollar salary right now.

[smittywerb]

No way we're getting rid of Freeney. It's because of how much he makes is why he will be a Colt.

[funktacious2]

Freeney has barely even play 2 quarters total the off season. I'd still like to see what he can so.

[lollygagger8]

I don't think we could get out of him what we have in him. Besides, I want him to stay and see if he can make an impact.

[Purdue Colt]

Keep Freeney!

[JoKeR]

In this system the weak and strongside LBs have very different roles. Yeah Hughes is playing well, in Mathis's role. Addison is playing Freeney's role, so if you wanna gage Freeney's importance, compare Addison to him. Also,would you be comfortable with the lack of depth?

[JoKeR]

Freeney needs more playing time, now in the preseason. I hope they don't wait till the regular season to wok out the kinks.

[TKnight24]

Freeney's not going anywhere. He'll Retire as a Colt. And why so quick to trade? He's one of the starters who haven't had their chance to shine yet due to only playing for a little bit. I want to see him Week 1-3 with us facing 3 Top 10 RB's (If Peterson is healthy, if not it'll be 2 Top 10). I think everyone wants to see our Defense in a real game when we start using the depth of the playbook.

No way we trade Freeney

[ericnan]

I may be way off, but here is my take on Freeney, and even Mathis too. The scheme of the 3-4 is definitely different, but the way I see it, and I've said it before, they used to play with only 2 guys in between them, now they have 3. Seems to me it plays to their favor, but I could be wrong. Just my thoughts on it. I don't think trading Freeney is the right thing to do. I dont' think we could get his quality from somewhere else. It provides us with a solid edge right now, while opening the door for a young stud to come in and fill his role when the time is right. I am a machinist by trade, and it is common practice to not change your roughing tool, at the same time you change your finishing tool. My point is this, too many changes and you don't know where the problem is. I think some of the pieces we left in the defense are to build around. Freeney being one of those pieces. He may not be our OLB for years to come, but I think he'll fill the role just fine this year, and I do believe he will get some sacks. Just wait until he gets 1 on 1 against a RB vs. the double teams from a chipping TE and T or T and G. That's just how I see it.

[Balzer40]

Freeney's not going anywhere. He'll Retire as a Colt. And why so quick to trade? He's one of the starters who haven't had their chance to shine yet due to only playing for a little bit. I want to see him Week 1-3 with us facing 3 Top 10 RB's (If Peterson is healthy, if not it'll be 2 Top 10). I think everyone wants to see our Defense in a real game when we start using the depth of the playbook.

No way we trade Freeney

I agree that we won't trade Freeney, but unless he retire's after this season, I highly doubt he'll retire a Colt. I just can not see us giving him another big contract after this yr.. It's possible, but I seriously doubt it.

[FireJimCaldwell]

My feelings are well documented on this.

If it hasn't happened yet, I doubt that it will, and if they turn around and give him an extension after this season then Grigson loses of that equity he has built up.

[TKnight24]

I agree that we won't trade Freeney, but unless he retire's after this season, I highly doubt he'll retire a Colt. I just can not see us giving him another big contract after this yr.. It's possible, but I seriously doubt it.

I promise you that he'll Retire a Colt. We have to keep someone from the Old Colts around for Retirement. It's only right lol

[FireJimCaldwell]

I promise you that he'll Retire a Colt. We have to keep someone from the Old Colts around for Retirement. It's only right lol

Jeff Saturday might disagree with that theory.

[Balzer40]

I promise you that he'll Retire a Colt. We have to keep someone from the Old Colts around for Retirement. It's only right lol

I think thats a promise you're not going to be able to keep. Sorry, but thats just how I see it. Don't really even want them to give him a big contract at this point in his career. IMO, it just wouldn't be a wise business decision, and I don't want them making decisions for emotional and loyalty reason's. Thats a good way to run your business into the ground.

[TKnight24]

I think thats a promise you're not going to be able to keep. Sorry, but thats just how I see it. Don't really even want them to give him a big contract at this point in his career. IMO, it just wouldn't be a wise business decision, and I don't want them making decisions for emotional and loyalty reason's. Thats a good way to run your business into the ground.

So who would take his place? Would that make Hughes the starter then?

[FireJimCaldwell]

So who would take his place? Would that make Hughes the starter then?

If he's traded? Hughes.

If he's not resigned? Hughes and some draft pick out of PoDunk State.

[TKnight24]

If he's traded? Hughes.

If he's not resigned? Hughes and some draft pick out of PoDunk State.

PoDunk? lol

What about Fugger? Or is he Mathis' back-up?

[ztboiler]

My feelings are well documented on this.

If it hasn't happened yet, I doubt that it will, and if they turn around and give him an extension after this season then Grigson loses of that equity he has built up.

I might not understand your point, but I don't see how Grigson would be losing any equity if he re-signs Freeney after an effective year for a deal that is fair market value for a premier pass rusher.

[Balzer40]

So who would take his place? Would that make Hughes the starter then?

We have a ton of cap space next yr.. There are going to be many changes throughout the roster IMO.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I might not understand your point, but I don't see how Grigson would be losing any equity if he re-signs Freeney after an effective year for a deal that is fair market value for a premier pass rusher.

I'll try to explain.

Freeney's 2012 cap hit is 19 million and change. That is made up of a 14 million base salary and 5 million(pro-ration of his signing bonus). My comment was based on the assumption that he plays this season, and then is resigned.

Paying him 14 million this year, just to turn around and sign him to an extension where he'll likely get another 15-20 million as a signing bonus(maybe more), for 3-4 more years of service isn't a sound way of handing out contracts.

If early on they feel that Freeney is worthy of an extension, I would at that point try to extend him, so a portion of that 14 million that he's being pad this year can be a part of the signing bonus, moving forward, thus lowering his cap hit for 2012, and either a ) providing cap space to make a trade/pick up/signing if needed b ) the space that is created can be carried over to 2013.

To me it would not be sound to pay him 14 million cash in 2012, and then sign him to a lucrative extension.

With that said, I'm not sure I've seen enough to where I would want to extend him at this point anyway, but I certainly don't feel he has a 14 million dollar value at this point.

Polian set up Freeney's contract so that this past off-season was a point where he was extended, traded or released. Under the old scheme, he would have likely already been extended and deserving of an extension. The new scheme changes that because we will have to see how well he plays within that system.

If over the first few weeks he's not playing that well, then I would look to move him to a 4-3 team that he would be better suited for. He would have to agree to an extension with a new team to likely fit under their 2012 cap, but we would get some form of compensation, and the cap relief as well. Whether that relief is used this year or rolled into next year, that would be a good thing.

So I would say that Freeney over the first 5-6 weeks before trade deadline will be under a microscope.

It's a lot like the year they paid Edge the 9 million via the franchise tag and then let him walk, or how Carolina paid Peppers 16 million under the franchise tag and then let him walk. Those monies could have been shifted into a signing bonus and each player extended.

To me paying Freeney 14 million and letting him walk and or then extending him is not a solid use of that 14 million whether he has 2 sacks or 12.

So to sum it up, I feel Grigson will have made a mistake if Freeney plays out his contract and then a ) signs an extension b ) signs with another team.

[GoColts8818]

I want to see Hughes play with the first unit before I'd be comfortable entertaining this. Right now he's owning other teams back ups which while nice isn't the same as doing it vs other teams starters.

[ztboiler]

I'll try to explain.

Freeney's 2012 cap hit is 19 million and change. That is made up of a 14 million base salary and 5 million(pro-ration of his signing bonus). My comment was based on the assumption that he plays this season, and then is resigned.

Paying him 14 million this year, just to turn around and sign him to an extension where he'll likely get another 15-20 million as a signing bonus(maybe more), for 3-4 more years of service isn't a sound way of handing out contracts.

If early on they feel that Freeney is worthy of an extension, I would at that point try to extend him, so a portion of that 14 million that he's being pad this year can be a part of the signing bonus, moving forward, thus lowering his cap hit for 2012, and either a ) providing cap space to make a trade/pick up/signing if needed b ) the space that is created can be carried over to 2013.

To me it would not be sound to pay him 14 million cash in 2012, and then sign him to a lucrative extension.

With that said, I'm not sure I've seen enough to where I would want to extend him at this point anyway, but I certainly don't feel he has a 14 million dollar value at this point.

Polian set up Freeney's contract so that this past off-season was a point where he was extended, traded or released. Under the old scheme, he would have likely already been extended and deserving of an extension. The new scheme changes that because we will have to see how well he plays within that system.

If over the first few weeks he's not playing that well, then I would look to move him to a 4-3 team that he would be better suited for. He would have to agree to an extension with a new team to likely fit under their 2012 cap, but we would get some form of compensation, and the cap relief as well. Whether that relief is used this year or rolled into next year, that would be a good thing.

So I would say that Freeney over the first 5-6 weeks before trade deadline will be under a microscope.

It's a lot like the year they paid Edge the 9 million via the franchise tag and then let him walk, or how Carolina paid Peppers 16 million under the franchise tag and then let him walk. Those monies could have been shifted into a signing bonus and each player extended.

To me paying Freeney 14 million and letting him walk and or then extending him is not a solid use of that 14 million whether he has 2 sacks or 12.

So to sum it up, I feel Grigson will have made a mistake if Freeney plays out his contract and then a ) signs an extension b ) signs with another team.

Very nicely explained and I appreciate both your time to do so as well as your knowledge on the subject. The main benefit, then, if you choose to extend him now, is the gain in next year's cap from the carryover (I see only negligible value for what you could do with the money this year). With as much cap room as we already have next year, I can't envision a scenario where it would be wise to spend all we have + carryover. Your cap knowledge far exceeds my own, so maybe the fundamental is as simple as save it and carry it, you'll need it sometime, but for me I value the flexibility of not extending him until you are certain as of greater value than the savings. Assuming he wouldn't get more than a 3 yr. deal, we probably wouldn't net a savings of more than $6 million or so this year. That is a lot of money, but not nearly as much as getting locked into the wrong contract. Freedom always has a price....God Bless our troops.

I am probably looking at it wrong and suspect that you are right all the way around. Freeney's contract really is unique in how it was designed to require action before it's expiration - the magnitude is unique anyway.

[John Waylon]

Sure. In Madden.

2 pre-season games doesn't make Hughes a starter. But I'll play devil's advocate here and say it does...

What team is going to trade for Freeney and his raging salary?

You'll find that answer to be between VERY few, and none.

[JoKeR]

Hughes has not played weak side so far, I think that would be a important factor in this discussion. Is anyone pleased enough with Addison's play to trade Freeney?

[gbrads_rants]

I think we should keep Freeney...I was shocked that he still demanded the double team from a OLB Position, hes still feared/respected by offensive lines...

[FireJimCaldwell]

Very nicely explained and I appreciate both your time to do so as well as your knowledge on the subject. The main benefit, then, if you choose to extend him now, is the gain in next year's cap from the carryover (I see only negligible value for what you could do with the money this year). With as much cap room as we already have next year, I can't envision a scenario where it would be wise to spend all we have + carryover. Your cap knowledge far exceeds my own, so maybe the fundamental is as simple as save it and carry it, you'll need it sometime, but for me I value the flexibility of not extending him until you are certain as of greater value than the savings. Assuming he wouldn't get more than a 3 yr. deal, we probably wouldn't net a savings of more than $6 million or so this year. That is a lot of money, but not nearly as much as getting locked into the wrong contract. Freedom always has a price....God Bless our troops.

I am probably looking at it wrong and suspect that you are right all the way around. Freeney's contract really is unique in how it was designed to require action before it's expiration - the magnitude is unique anyway.

Thanks,

To me it is key not to extend him without seeing a few full games. Once he's on the roster week 1, he's guaranteed his full 14 million since he's vested veteran and that point the only way to get any cap relief would be via extension/trade.

His contract is a lot like a few others Polian set up. He put in these... Searching for a good term... call it a conversion point, not a great term, but, he did it with Manning, Harrison and others, where cap relief can be found if needed by converting base salaries into bonuses and then prorating it out.

To me it would be buying a house, spending x on remodeling parts of it and then a year later deciding to tear it down and build something from scratch.

[ztboiler]

Thanks,

To me it is key not to extend him without seeing a few full games. Once he's on the roster week 1, he's guaranteed his full 14 million since he's vested veteran and that point the only way to get any cap relief would be via extension/trade.

His contract is a lot like a few others Polian set up. He put in these... Searching for a good term... call it a conversion point, not a great term, but, he did it with Manning, Harrison and others, where cap relief can be found if needed by converting base salaries into bonuses and then prorating it out.

To me it would be buying a house, spending x on remodeling parts of it and then a year later deciding to tear it down and build something from scratch.

When you put it that way, it is a heckuva commitment to put him on the 53 man roster...thanks for the knowledge.

[Susie Q]

Thanks,

To me it is key not to extend him without seeing a few full games. Once he's on the roster week 1, he's guaranteed his full 14 million since he's vested veteran and that point the only way to get any cap relief would be via extension/trade.

His contract is a lot like a few others Polian set up. He put in these... Searching for a good term... call it a conversion point, not a great term, but, he did it with Manning, Harrison and others, where cap relief can be found if needed by converting base salaries into bonuses and then prorating it out.

To me it would be buying a house, spending x on remodeling parts of it and then a year later deciding to tear it down and build something from scratch.

FireJim, You mean since I did some remodeling on my home I can't tear it down and start over. I guess I will just have to be happy with all I've done then. ;)

[Superman]

Sure. Because every team would want to take on his big dollar salary right now.

A trade would obviously have to include a new contract for Freeney.

[FireJimCaldwell]

FireJim, You mean since I did some remodeling on my home I can't tear it down and start over. I guess I will just have to be happy with all I've done then. ;)

Hey if you aren't going to miss it, more power to you.

I saw an article once where someone bought a beachfront house for however many million and planned on tearing it down and rebuilding.

[Superman]

Thanks,

To me it is key not to extend him without seeing a few full games. Once he's on the roster week 1, he's guaranteed his full 14 million since he's vested veteran and that point the only way to get any cap relief would be via extension/trade.

His contract is a lot like a few others Polian set up. He put in these... Searching for a good term... call it a conversion point, not a great term, but, he did it with Manning, Harrison and others, where cap relief can be found if needed by converting base salaries into bonuses and then prorating it out.

To me it would be buying a house, spending x on remodeling parts of it and then a year later deciding to tear it down and build something from scratch.

I call it a "decision point." Same thing.

How does waiting until after he's on the roster in Week 1 and his salary is fully guaranteed affect potential negotiations for an extension? It would seem that doing something before he's guaranteed would be in the team's best interests, but it's highly unlikely that we would release him either way, so it might not matter.

[schwamm]

Hey if you aren't going to miss it, more power to you.

I saw an article once where someone bought a beachfront house for however many million and planned on tearing it down and rebuilding.

Happens all the time with beachfront property. Usually it is the property that holds the value, making the house almost irrelevant.

[IndyColtScout]

I believe Freeney has one year left (this season) on his deal, and frankly we need the depth at the position. No need to trade him. Let him expire and walk next season or come back at a cheap price if he chooses.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I call it a "decision point." Same thing.

How does waiting until after he's on the roster in Week 1 and his salary is fully guaranteed affect potential negotiations for an extension? It would seem that doing something before he's guaranteed would be in the team's best interests, but it's highly unlikely that we would release him either way, so it might not matter.

Say if he played 4 weeks on his current cap hit... It would be computed like this:

5 million from the pro-rated signing bonus.

4 weeks @ 14/16 or 14/17, I can't remember if they receive 16 checks or 17 checks, either way you get the picture.

Then the new deal would be based on whatever the terms were for 12 or 13 weeks and any pro-ration of a new signing bonus.

I would agree with your statement about doing something before week 1, except for the point I doubt we will see enough of him by that point to determine what type of extension he is worthy of. Maybe they can determine that with limited work and his performance in training camp, but it might take a few full games. Who knows.

Happens all the time with beachfront property. Usually it is the property that holds the value, making the house almost irrelevant.

Of course, and location, location, location is the key phrase, but even with money to burn it would irk me to drop 15-20 million on a property just to tear down and spend 15 more...

[Superman]

Say if he played 4 weeks on his current cap hit... It would be computed like this:

5 million from the pro-rated signing bonus.

4 weeks @ 14/16 or 14/17, I can't remember if they receive 16 checks or 17 checks, either way you get the picture.

Then the new deal would be based on whatever the terms were for 12 or 13 weeks and any pro-ration of a new signing bonus.

I would agree with your statement about doing something before week 1, except for the point I doubt we will see enough of him by that point to determine what type of extension he is worthy of. Maybe they can determine that with limited work and his performance in training camp, but it might take a few full games. Who knows.

I think there's much ado about nothing with Freeney. I think he'll be a monster in his new role, and I think the coaches will make sure he's used in a way that allows him to be effective. I'm looking forward to Saturday's game, where hopefully he'll get more time on the field.

As for his contract, I would have offered him an extension a long time ago, as you know. Don't know what the numbers would be; I would figure something north of Robert Mathis, but not by a whole lot. But it makes so much more sense to extend him than it does to let him play under the $19 million cap hit this season. Even if he doesn't work out, and you give him a $15 million signing bonus, and then you release him after this season (highly unlikely), it cost you an extra $1 million, but you cleared up a significant amount of cap space and flexibility.

To me, it's a no-brainer. The only reason that makes sense to me is that they intend to shop him in a trade, but that also seems strange given the time frame. If they were going to trade him, before the draft would have been the best time to do so. Since then, he's expressed on several occasions that a) he's excited about playing in the new system, and b) he wants to remain a Colt for the rest of his career. None of that is surprising; he isn't the kind of person to raise a fuss about changes, and I wouldn't expect him to publicly demand a trade. But still, for potential trade partners, they'd be feeling like they would be getting a disgruntled player. Of course, an extension would have to be worked out as a part of the deal, but with Freeney's situation, once you open up that door, there's no closing it. So it doesn't seem to me like they've been very aggressive in trying to move him, even if they did take calls before the draft.

Anyways, I agree with you. If we let him play this season on his current deal, it's a big mistake. Either extend him or trade him. I prefer the extension.

[CR91]

you seem to be forgetting that hughes and addison are playing against backups

[FireJimCaldwell]

I think there's much ado about nothing with Freeney. I think he'll be a monster in his new role, and I think the coaches will make sure he's used in a way that allows him to be effective. I'm looking forward to Saturday's game, where hopefully he'll get more time on the field.

As for his contract, I would have offered him an extension a long time ago, as you know. Don't know what the numbers would be; I would figure something north of Robert Mathis, but not by a whole lot. But it makes so much more sense to extend him than it does to let him play under the $19 million cap hit this season. Even if he doesn't work out, and you give him a $15 million signing bonus, and then you release him after this season (highly unlikely), it cost you an extra $1 million, but you cleared up a significant amount of cap space and flexibility.

To me, it's a no-brainer. The only reason that makes sense to me is that they intend to shop him in a trade, but that also seems strange given the time frame. If they were going to trade him, before the draft would have been the best time to do so. Since then, he's expressed on several occasions that a) he's excited about playing in the new system, and b) he wants to remain a Colt for the rest of his career. None of that is surprising; he isn't the kind of person to raise a fuss about changes, and I wouldn't expect him to publicly demand a trade. But still, for potential trade partners, they'd be feeling like they would be getting a disgruntled player. Of course, an extension would have to be worked out as a part of the deal, but with Freeney's situation, once you open up that door, there's no closing it. So it doesn't seem to me like they've been very aggressive in trying to move him, even if they did take calls before the draft.

Anyways, I agree with you. If we let him play this season on his current deal, it's a big mistake. Either extend him or trade him. I prefer the extension.

I agree. To me it's just too much money to spend without it working toward future years.

I also agree that before the draft was the time to move him if he were going to be moved, but if the first 4-5 weeks his play isn't near what he used to be, then I think you seriously have to look at trade partners. We might have a lot of cap space next year, but if we can salvage space this year, and roll it in to next year, then if it's not used it can be done again for 2014.

[jbaron04]

With OLB Jerry Hughes playing well, and Mathis should be able to play the OLB well also, should we reentertain trade offers for Freeney if we can * a 3rd or 4th for him? We have other LBs like Mario Addison playing the pass rushing OLB role well too.

We will need the added roster spot come time when other teams cut players we could use. We have #1 Waiver priority so Im sure Pagano will want to add a few guys.

Why would we trade him what do we have to gain answer that?