Colts fielding a cheap team this year...

[PatsWSB47]

People keep doubting, Polian keeps proving. Thats all there is to it. I am starting to doubt that the colts will be in cap hell before Peyton retires

Not to worry, what they lose in cap space they make up in the competition committee

 

[gangreenman]

Yeah they need all that extra money to pay off the refs again.

Its funny, cause as a Jets fan I remember thinking every offseason (untll now) that the Pats would be worse because they lost more then they gained...

Now I'm saying that because I'm a homer on a rivals board. :rocker:

 

[solman]

Your saying that his opinion is total nonsense does not make it so.


Why iks this interesting??

A player Harrison's age has to know that he will not see the big money numbers at the end of the deal UNLESS he is worth it.

It is interesting because cutting him will create a serious cap hit, but not cutting him will involve paying him far more than he is worth.

Essentially they are dependent on him agreeing to negotiate.

I am eager to see if this lack of leverage (on the Colt's part) shows up in Harrison's new deal.

 

[solman]

So when the Colts will be in cap hell???

They are already there.

They lost a huge chunk of their starting defense, and didn't have the money to pursue quality replacements in free agency.

They lost Tarik Glenn and had to give up their #1 pick in 2008 to acquire a replacement who appears to be a huge downgrade.

They have enormous sums of money tied up in the back end of the Peyton, Freeney and Harrison deals (which can not be offset by a measly $15M in cap space.)

For me, cap hell means having to replace large numbers of quality veterans with largely untested players, and not even having the option of taping the free agent market. The Colt's are there now.

Either they will get huge performances out of these new guys, or they will not win a playoff game for a long time.

 

[Water Boy]

See
http://www.patscap.com/manning.gif

My numbers are in line with all of the media reports that I have seen.

Thanks Miguel. Wouldn't it make sense for the Colts to pay off some of Manning's gigantic salary this season.?

 

[Miguel]

It is interesting because cutting him will create a serious cap hit, but not cutting him will involve paying him far more than he is worth.

Essentially they are dependent on him agreeing to negotiate.

I am eager to see if this lack of leverage (on the Colt's part) shows up in Harrison's new deal.

That is only true for the 2008 season. After the 2008 season the leverage returns to the Colts.

 

[Miguel]

Thanks Miguel. Wouldn't it make sense for the Colts to pay off some of Manning's gigantic salary this season.?

There is a rule about not redoing a player's deal for 12 monthsto increase his salary so what you are suggesting is not possible.

 

[Miguel]

They are already there.

They lost a huge chunk of their starting defense, and didn't have the money to pursue quality replacements in free agency.

The Colts could have taken part in free agency but chose not to. Except for Adam and Simon, the Colts have not signed any big-name free agents.

For me, cap hell means having to replace large numbers of quality veterans with largely untested players, and not even having the option of taping the free agent market.

That's not the typical definition of cap hell.

Either they will get huge performances out of these new guys, or they will not win a playoff game for a long time.

I know that is your opinion. It appears that the only reason Patriot64's opinion is nonsensical is that it differs from yours. Not cool.

 

[solman]

I know that is your opinion. It appears that the only reason Patriot64's opinion is nonsensical is that it differs from yours. Not cool.

PATRIOT64 claims that:

1. Anyone who knows football agrees that Polian is as good as Pioli.

2. As long as Polian is the Colt's GM they will be competitive.

I think I was quite generous when I labeled those statements as nonsense.

 

[Michael]

Yeah they need all that extra money to pay off the refs again.

Or maybe they had to pay the heating bill for last year's AFCC game. :bricks:

 

[spacecrime]

For me, cap hell means having to replace large numbers of quality veterans with largely untested players, and not even having the option of taping the free agent market.

That's not the typical definition of cap hell.

I don't know. What is cap hell if not having your options curtailed because of lack of cap space, and being forced to let players go due to lack of money to pay them? I'd put the Jaguars in the same spot. And the Patriots were there in 2000. Titans seem to be there frequently. Ravens after the SB. 49ers a couple years ago. Pats, Ravens and 49ers got out of cap hell with wholesale cuts and reliance on UDFAs and vet min players for a year or two. Jags and Titans linger in cap hell because they don't make the bold house-cleaning move. We'll see what the Colts do next year.

Not paying a player more money than you think he deserves isn't cap hell. Not being able to pay him even if you wanted to - that's cap hell.

 

[Miguel]

Not paying a player more money than you think he deserves isn't cap hell. Not being able to pay him even if you wanted to - that's cap hell.

And that applies to what Colt in 2007???

 

[Miguel]

I don't know. What is cap hell if not having your options curtailed because of lack of cap space, and being forced to let players go due to lack of money to pay them?

Then according to your definition and to this board in 2006 the Colts were in cap hell last year.

The Colts were comfortably under the cap throughout the offseason. It has been their modus operandi NOT to take part in free agency. They have probably signed the fewest number of UFAs over the past several years and especially big-name free agents. They did the same thing in 2007 that they did in 2004/2005/2006 - rely on their coaching staff's ability to coach up their players.

 

[Jimke]

Then according to your definition and to this board in 2006 the Colts were in cap hell last year.

The Colts were comfortably under the cap throughout the offseason. It has been their modus operandi NOT to take part in free agency. They have probably signed the fewest number of UFAs over the past several years and especially big-name free agents. They did the same thing in 2007 that they did in 2004/2005/2006 - rely on their coaching staff's ability to coach up their players.

They also still have all 9 of their draft picks on the team.

 

[spacecrime]

And that applies to what Colt in 2007???

RB Rhodes. A guy whose salary demands were not very high, whose production was key in 2006, but whom the Colts could not afford because they did not have room to keep him. If the Pats had no cap room, and had to let Faulk walk and rely solely on Maroney, Patsfans would be up in arms. Even with Faulk and Maroney, the Pats still signed a workman Rhodes-like backup RB. The Colts: we don't need Rhodes or any vet RB. We will use an UDFA. It isn't that an UDFA is all we can afford - we just don't believe in proven vets. We believe that every UDFA who wears a horseshoe will preform for us and we can depend on each one to be NFL caliber.

Don't worry, be happy.

The Colts were comfortably under the cap throughout the offseason. It has been their modus operandi NOT to take part in free agency. They have probably signed the fewest number of UFAs over the past several years and especially big-name free agents. They did the same thing in 2007 that they did in 2004/2005/2006 - rely on their coaching staff's ability to coach up their players.

I know what they did. I was giving my definition of what cap hell is, since you told soman his definition (having your options curtailed because of lack of cap space) was not a definition of cap hell.

Working out your salaries so that you stay under the cap is not cap hell, I agree. To a point. What they did with Manning in 2007 to fit Freeny, giving Manning $20 mil cap hits, is a little extreme, as anyone but a Cplt fan can see.

Letting go playes whose salaries do not keep pace with their prodcution is not Cap hell either, (according to my definition).

Not being able to keep players you would keep if only you had the money, whose salary/production ratio fits your range, soley because you have other contracts that are very high is different than having that choice. Having no more players whose contracts you can push off into the future is a good sign of cap hell. You are at the limit, and your options are limited.

It is the same old scenario. My team isn't being FORCED to let players go. They are CHOOSING to do so.

I understand the Colts are not free agent high rollers. To say that they never do is not true. They have signed FAs. They are not signing any right now, and haven't since Manning's contract got big. Are they not signing FAs currently because two-three players' contracts have sucked up a lot of the cap, or have they let the contracts of a couple players suck up all the cap space because they weren't going to use it on other players anyway?

To say that they are choosing not to sign FAs may or may not be true. It is only a choice if they could because they could if they wanted to. If they could not, then it isn't a choice.

I can say I choose not to own personal jets and vacation homes in Monaco. I can say it, but the fact is that even if I wanted to I could not.

Patsfans could say that in 2000 and 2001, the Pats philospohy was not to go after high priced FAs, just as you Colts fans are saying now. But the fact is that even though it is true that the Pats did not go after high-priced FAs those years, and let a number of defensive players go they would have preferred to keep, they did so because they were in cap trouble, not because of some made-up philosophy. Yeah, some players did not fit BB's philosophy. But some did but BB couldn't afford them. The Pats could not sign guys like Priest Holmes to a contract, even though they wanted to, because they did not have cap room. So were our 2000 Pats like your 2007 Colts? We didn't sign Priest Holmes because we didn't want to? I don't think so.

The 2000-2001 Pats were in cap trouble. The 2007 Colts are not.

And they call Patsfans homers.

 

[Miguel]

. To say that they never do is not true.

I said "They have probably signed the fewest number of UFAs over the past several years and especially big-name free agents" which means that the Colts have signed free-agents.

Your post, IMO, is just a repeat of what was said by DaBruinz in this thread.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...howthread.php?t=33371&page=4&highlight=double

If the Colts were in cap hell in 2006, then every fan of every team should hope that their team faces cap hell.

 

[Miguel]

Having no more players whose contracts you can push off into the future is a good sign of cap hell. You are at the limit, and your options are limited..

IMO, this is incorrect.
The Colts could have chosen to push off money with the following contracts:
Harrison, McFarland, and Glenn before he retired. They chose not to.

 

[Miguel]

Are they not signing FAs currently because two-three players' contracts have sucked up a lot of the cap, or have they let the contracts of a couple players suck up all the cap space because they weren't going to use it on other players anyway?

FYI - In 2006 the Patriots had over $28.2 million in cap space devoted to 3 players (Brady, Seymour, and Colvin) - the most amount of cap space devoted to 3 players by any team in the NFL and my Patriots were able to sign free agents.

 

[spacecrime]

The 2000-2001 Pats were in cap trouble. The 2007 Colts are not.

And they call Patsfans homers.

Your post, IMO, is just a repeat of what was said by DaBruinz in this thread.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...howthread.php?t=33371&page=4&highlight=double

If the Colts were in cap hell in 2006, then every fan of every team should hope that their team faces cap hell.

I said 2007 actually, not 2006, but your sentiment is well taken. The cap-strapped 2001 Patriots won a superbowl, and so did the cap-challenged 2006 Colts. This does not mean the first step to a superbowl is to get into cap trouble, though.

I don't know what definition Dabruinz has for cap hell, and don't care. Keeping track on my own is tough enough, though I still agree with solman's (if you disagree with his and mine, just what is your definition?), and I believe that the Colts did not keep players this offseason (2007) they would have liked to keep but couldn't because of the cap.

You believe that they didn't want any of the players that they lost and lost them all by choice, not because of cap issues.

That's okay. Fans look at their teams and other teams from different viewpoints.

I guess we will have to look at 2007 and losing guys like Rhodes in retrospect, rather than in foresight.

 

[Miguel]

I said 2007 actually, not 2006, but your sentiment is well taken. The cap-strapped 2001 Patriots won a superbowl, and so did the cap-challenged 2006 Colts. This does not mean the first step to a superbowl is to get into cap trouble, though.

I don't know what definition Dabruinz has for cap hell, and don't care. Keeping track on my own is tough enough, though I still agree with solman's (if you disagree with his and mine, just what is your definition?),

My definition of cap hell is being unable to field a playoff-contending team because of cap issues. Titans and the 49ers being the most recent examples. I do not think that the 2006 Colts were in cap hell even though that team fits,IMO, your and solman's definition of cap hell. Since I think that the Colts are the 3rd best team in the league, I do not think that they are in cap hell this year.

For the record I do not believe that the Colts did not want all of their departures. I do believe that if the Colts had wanted a player at a certain price and that the player was amenable to playing for the Colts at the Colts' price, then that player may be a Colt today since the Colts did have several opportunities to create even more cap space than they currently have.

So the Colts lost a good number of defenders. Big Deal. Their defense was PUTRID last year. This may be a classic case of addition by subtraction.