Colts Franchise Tag Freeney - Page 10 - New England Patriots Forums

everlong · 02-20-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankees/Colts

Yeah, you're right. The two whole playoff games the Pats beat the Colts does seem to equal the 80-90 years of horror for the Red Sox and 26 titles for the Yanks.

You beat the Colts in the playoffs two whole times. Now the Colts beat you once. Get real.

Ah so now it's 80-90 years because that fits your arguement the best. Go back to the Bronx troll.

***Yankees/Colts*** · 02-20-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

DE - Warren (26)
DE - Seymour (28)
NT - Wilfork (26)
OLB - Vrabel (32)
OLB - Colvin (30)
ILB - Bruschi (34)
ILB - Alexander (25)
CB - Samuel (26)
CB - Hobbs (25)
FS - Wilson (27)
SS - Harrison (35)

Average age: 28.5

Unfortunately the heart of your defense and its two key players are the two oldest. Again, do you remember your defense last season without Bruschi and Harrison?

***MoLewisrocks*** · 02-20-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

All true, but only if you count that spectacular 41-0 performance.

Last time I trust you and Ryan as my proofreaders.

Some Colts fans understand how the game is played, although this one still doesn't grasp the fact that Irsay doesn't have deep pockets and apparently has no qualms about a potential impending cash over cap penalty. And doing what he suggests in a thread on Indy Star (responding to someone else who worried aloud that things might be too tight) would cost closer to $50M+ in bonus money this year since they need to sign Freeney and he'll want at least what Richard got ($18), Peyton just pocketed another $10M roster bonus, he wants to pony up $15M to save $3M on Glenn and sign June as well as most of the other UFA's and RFA's to initially cap friendly ong term deals via bonus. Irsay only managed to get through last year with bonuses to Manning and Harrison as well as Wayne and Mathis because he got a one time buyout on the lease arrangement for RCA whereby the city used to pay $10M per to cover Mannings nut. That's $30M gone now, and he's on his own a year before his shiny new taxpayer stadium, which won't generate enough cash flow alone to outstrip the haves, even comes on line. The man had to sell his private rock and roll memorabelia collection in 2004 to help fund Peyton's $34.5M signing bonus for God sakes...

But this intrepid Colts fan says:

"A lot depends on how much money they have to spend. Not the funny money, pie in the sky, cap stuff; but real, hard, cash on the barrelhead, money.

What's the difference, you ask?

The difference is that salary cap numbers are an accounting gimmick. Cash is the stuff you have in the bank. Cash is the stuff that signing bonuses are made of.

On the surface, the Colts have salary cap issues. But, if they're willing to spend enough money, to sign enough guys like Lilja to new contracts, those issues go away.

Take Lilja, for instance. Keeping him off the free agent market will require the team to ante up $1.8 Million, next year. On the other hand, they could sign him to a long term contract that'd shave half a million off that number.

Do the same with Scott, David, Thomas, Reid and Utecht, and you've got enough cap space to sign June.

And, then, there's Tarik Glenn. He's in the final year of a contract that carries a cap value of more than $8 Million. Invest $15 Million in a signing bonus for him, and you can shave that number by $3 Million.

Of course, we're talking about spending $30 or $40 Million on signing bonuses, and that's the rub. "

That is indeed a rub.

solman · 02-20-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

The whining is more than whining though. They are letting Nate Clement walk away because they claim they can't afford to give him a bonus. They have already said they are using the cap as a hard cap and not spending over the cap with bonus money. The Levy and Wilson are morons if they are just posturing and letting Clement and Fletcher to hit free agency just to prove a point.

I don't think it is unrealistic to believe that a team like the Bills can't finance Clements' contract. It isn't just his contract. It is every free agent they sign, all the rookies, all the money they have already financed in previous years to sign free agents, etc. It is more than $20 million. Most teams probably have considerably more than that financed to pay salaries. It may cost $18 million in bonuses to sign Clement, but it will also cost $6-8 in bonuses to sign higher mid-tier free agents too.

As the cap goes up every level of signing bonuses go up too. In fact, mid-tier players tend to have their bonuses go up higher percentage-wise than the higher tier. So many teams have tons of cash and there ain't many upper tier free agents to be had. So teams throw money at the better second tier free agents. That is why Randel El can get $11 million in guarantees, David Givens can get an $8 million signing bonus, etc.

As for Wilson vs. Kraft, Kraft turned this franchise from a money loser to a huge money winner. He has put a lot of money into this franchise, but this franchise is generating more revenue than virtually every other franchise in the league. Kraft's operational profit is probably bigger than what the Bills do in five years. It isn't fair to expect the Bills and other small market teams to have the financial stability of the Patriots. That is like comparing the financial stability of Walmart vs. a regional department store chain. I think Wilson is going overboard, but he does have somewhat of a point.

As for penalizing the teams who spend over the cap, what does it matter if the Bills are consistently $10 million under the cap going forward because they can't afford bonuses of higher priced players? The cap penalites are nothing of a penalty if the small market teams are priced out of the big market free agents. Who cares if Daniel Snyder's cap is lowered by $1-2 million if the Bills go into the season $10 million under the cap. If the signing bonuses continue to increase exponentially, the smaller market teams will have their own cap penalties themselves.

I'm saying that the new cash cap makes it a bad idea to spend more cash in one season (including signing bonuses) than the cash cap level (which I think is 59/57th of the hard cap).

If the Bills want to keep pace with the Patriots, they only need to spend about $2M cash beyond the cap each season.

If we take the Bills ownership literally at their word, they intend to spend $109M this year while optimal spending level will likely be $111M. That's hardly a huge disadvantage.

I understand that you're saying someday in the future the hard cap will be $150M, the optimal level cash level will be $153M, and they'll only want to spend $140M.

If half a dozen teams are forced to do that, then I'm all for additional revenue sharing.

On the other hand, if only a couple of teams (which haven't even taken basic steps to address their cash shortfall like selling naming rights) are in this position, let them move the team or sell it to more competent owners.

solman · 02-20-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Maybe it will be 2010. I don't remember how long the cap correction is to take place. But it won't go up $7 million a year every year. It will start to slow down sooner or later.

You were right about 2009 (and 2011) being the go slow years. I think that organic revenue growth will still cause the cap increase those years to substantially exceed $4M, but its not as far fetched as I originally thought. Especially if the TV deals also flat line in those years.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 02-20-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankees/Colts

Unfortunately the heart of your defense and its two key players are the two oldest. Again, do you remember your defense last season without Bruschi and Harrison?

The heart of your defense is currently under a non exclusive franchise tag that is going to cost you over $11M against the cap this season unless Irsay pony's up $20M or so in bonus money to get him signed to a long term deal by July 15th. And it's soul is an extremely fragile young SS who missed most of last season so he could play against us and in the playoffs.

We have upwards of $24M in cap space with which to retool even if we maintain the tag on Samuel and 3 picks in the first two rounds pending more if we trade Samuel and add picks and cap rather than retain him.

Our defense last season did just fine until it caught the flu in January. Yours plays well in ocassional spurts, while ours is so consistent when it coughs up a furball it's front page news.

You can't stay on point (cap) so you revert to selective memory ramblings that only include recent Colt and not so recent Yankee glories...LOL

***Miguel*** · 02-20-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solman

More precisely, I am betting that in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons, the Colts will not win more than 1 playoff game. I'd be happy to take additional action on this proposition..

What are the terms of the bet???

***Yankees/Colts*** · 02-20-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

Our defense last season did just fine until it caught the flu in January.

The flu story is awesome.

And, it grows by the hour.

What happened the previous two games vs. the Colts? Malaria?

How about the two previous, non-blizzard, games before that?

In the last three games vs. the Colts your defense has on average given up 35 points a game. In 32 possessions in those games, your defense has forced SIX(6) punts, total.

Quote:

You can't stay on point

Well, I had to address your silliness.

solman · 02-20-2007, 03:25 PM

I wrote:

I am betting that in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons, the Colts will not win more than 1 playoff game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel

What are the terms of the bet???

Even odds. Between $20 and $200 your call. Escrow at your option.

If you win I'll kick in another 50% or $20 (whichever is smaller) to your food pantry.

AdamJT13 · 02-20-2007, 03:29 PM

To answer a few questions from this thread --

-- The Patriots ended the 2006 season with 76 cents of cap room, not 78 cents.

-- Freeney's prorated bonus charges are $484,285 for 2007 and $484,288 for 2008. If he doesn't sign an extension before his contract voids, the 2008 portion will accelerate into 2007.

-- Freeney's scheduled 2007 base salary of $1,001,000 currently counts against the Colts' cap and will until the contract officially voids.

-- So, if Freeney doesn't sign before free agency opens, his total cap charges for 2007 will be $9,612,573 at that point (until either he signs a new contract or until the end of the free-aency period, when his tender amount will be recalculated). His cap charge right now is $1,485,285, so the Colts' cap room would be reduced by a net $8,127,288 (the tender amount of $8,644,000, minus the previously scheduled base salary of $1,001,000, plus the accelerated bonus charge of $484,288).