Pasquarelli: Pats in cap trouble

[Miguel]

Miguel,
The posters continually deriding Polian and the Colts' cap situation represent a small but vocal segment of Patriot fans as a whole. I'm not sure why you spend time trying to justify the Colts' strategy, when their SB victory was justification enough. If posters are so ideological as to find fault with an organization as successful as Indy, I doubt your thoughtful arguments will persuade them otherwise, if that is the desired effect.

Great advice.

 

[Miguel]

The fact is that the Colts got a $7 million salary cap "gift" when the most recent CBA was signed - because as everyone knows that 11th hour negotiation could have easilly gone the other way.

Calling your opinion a fact does not make it a fact.

As it was, even with the $102 million cap the Colts had to cut James.

FYI - The Colts did not cut James. They chose NOT to resign him. The wisdom of that decision was seen in February.

How many other players would need to be let go to shave another $7 million off?

Zero. Please note that I am not going to waste any more of my time on this thread. Like I said before, we will have to agree to disagree on how "lucky" the Colts were.

 

[He Ban Me]

Win another one, then you can be as smug as you want. The reason the Pats fans seem a minority, is that this board is overrun with Colts fans who are trying desparately to convince us how great their team is.

You don't have to. You won. Enjoy the title from now until Next February.

You don't have to come here and build yourself up any more. Don't broadcast your insecurity.

If Pats fans think that they will topple you next year, it's because they are Pats fans. It's what fans think about their team.

You're coming over here won't change anyone's mind, any more than it I went to your board. If I went to a Colts board and started yammering about how great the Pats were, you'r probably think of me the way I think of you right now.

You won. Why be a bad winner? We weren't overrun by Steelers fans the other year. But then, Steeler fans aren't insecure.

Go ahead, you and HE BONK ME tell me again why we Pats fans should think the Colts are so great, and how they will win it all again, and all that other stuff.

Hey space, funny line, again, original, wow!

When did I ever say that you should think the Colts are great? I have no idea if they will win it again. What I DO know is that our sky is not falling, we have top notch personnel on the field and in the front office, and we will field a competitive team next season. I think you guys hate just to hate. No other explanation for it.

 

[solman]

Miguel,
The posters continually deriding Polian and the Colts' cap situation represent a small but vocal segment of Patriot fans as a whole. I'm not sure why you spend time trying to justify the Colts' strategy, when their SB victory was justification enough. If posters are so ideological as to find fault with an organization as successful as Indy, I doubt your thoughtful arguments will persuade them otherwise, if that is the desired effect.

I agree that the Colt's superbowl justifies their strategy.

If before last season I gave you a choice between a guaranteed superbowl followed by four seasons without a serious shot at another, you would have gladly taken it.

Other than Patriot's fans, virtually any team in the NFL would have been happy to take the guaranteed ring.

But that superbowl victory came at the cost of heavily backloaded cap hits.

Now its time to pay the piper.

 

[solman]

What I DO know is that our sky is not falling, we have top notch personnel on the field and in the front office, and we will field a competitive team next season. I think you guys hate just to hate. No other explanation for it.

I hate idiocy, of which you appear to be an inexhaustible source.

You've repeatedly shown your ignorance in this thread. (The Colts are not in cap trouble, Yugoh is worth a first round pick, etc.) If you actually believe the idiocy you are spouting, then put your money where your mouth is.

During the 2007-2009 seasons the Colts will not win more than one playoff game, TOTAL.

I'll wager an amount of your choosing from $20 to $200 on that proposition.

I'm interested in finding out if you actually believe the crap you're spouting, or if you're just frustrated at the end of the Colt's run, and trolling to get rid of your frustrations. Send me a PM with an email address and we'll make arrangements.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Calling your opinion a fact does not make it a fact.

It's not an opinion that the new CBA almost didn't get done. It's a fact.

It's not an opinion that the Colts got an additional $7 million over the old CBA under the new one.

Now if you are telling me that the Colts wouldn't need to cut anyone with $7 million less in cap space and still could have signed their free agents and rookies, I'll take your opinion at face value.

But if we had $7 million less in cap space this year, I really don't think we'd see every free agent we currently have on the team.

 

[He Ban Me]

I hate idiocy, of which you appear to be an inexhaustible source.

You've repeatedly shown your ignorance in this thread. (The Colts are not in cap trouble, Yugoh is worth a first round pick, etc.) If you actually believe the idiocy you are spouting, then put your money where your mouth is.

During the 2007-2009 seasons the Colts will not win more than one playoff game, TOTAL.

I'll wager an amount of your choosing from $20 to $200 on that proposition.

I'm interested in finding out if you actually believe the crap you're spouting, or if you're just frustrated at the end of the Colt's run, and trolling to get rid of your frustrations. Send me a PM with an email address and we'll make arrangements.

Repeatedly? I posted 3 times. Where is the ignorance? SpaceCrime says we don't cultivate and groom replacements. Promptly, I showed that in '05 and '06, Colts spent some early rounders on Secondary Players. Those players have experience and will step in to starting jobs. Harper and David were decent players, but guess who Manning is going to pick on opening night? The following week, guess who Marvin will eat for lunch?

Cap trouble? Depends on how it is defined, I guess. I know this, the Colts will be below/at the cap every year. We cannot retain everybody. Manning, Harrison, Wayne are all worth it. Simon is actually THE mistake Polian made with regards to "overpaying" and causing cap problems. Hopefully they get something worked out. I'm not an expert on the cap, but I know that in Indy, the sky has been falling for a long time. If I were you, I'd worry more about those "cap friendly" receivers, because they either bust and you start over in '08, or you pay them, and limit your capabilities to sign others. In the end, every team has to make a choice, some guys have to go. I can't believe you are actually defending the value of some of those players we lost, I doubt you were singing their praises last season. Probably cursing that ROOKIE Bethea when he picked Brady deep. Or maybe Marlin, for ending the AFCCG for you. As far as Ugoh, I cannot claim he's a first rounder, WHO this season chose a first rounder that YOU can guarantee won't be a bust? Very few. Sure, it's a little lip service from Polian, but I believe him when he talks about their search for a LT.

You can take that wager and shove it up your backside. WOULD be interested to see what odds VEGAS would give you on that though, I'm sure they would love to take your money, they count on idiots like you.

 

[solman]

Cap trouble? Depends on how it is defined, I guess. I know this, the Colts will be below/at the cap every year. We cannot retain everybody. Manning, Harrison, Wayne are all worth it. Simon is actually THE mistake Polian made with regards to "overpaying" and causing cap problems.

I'm not going to say that Manning and friends aren't worth what they have been paid.

I AM saying that Manning et al have been paid more money than Indy could afford.

Indy financed this expenditure by borrowing against their future. Now (after this borrowing has resulted in a superbowl) its time to pay up.

BTW, I think that Indy could have financed another superbowl run in 2007, by digging an even deeper hole for themselves. Before this offseason, I predicted
as much. (Which is why my bet with Miguel covers the 2008-2010 seasons, but not 2007.) With FA and the draft behind us, I don't believe that they have done so.

Hopefully they get something worked out. I'm not an expert on the cap, but I know that in Indy, the sky has been falling for a long time.

I don't know where this comes from. I remember thinking that Indy was one of the favorites entering the 2006 season. I thought the columnists were fairly unanimous on this.

If I were you, I'd worry more about those "cap friendly" receivers, because they either bust and you start over in '08, or you pay them, and limit your capabilities to sign others.

In my mind, they are all gone after this year, and I expect the $11M freed up by cutting Stallworth and Washington to be used on replacements. If we actally re-sign/keep Moss, Stallworth or Washington, its bonus as far as I'm concerned.

As far as Ugoh, I cannot claim he's a first rounder, WHO this season chose a first rounder that YOU can guarantee won't be a bust? Very few. Sure, it's a little lip service from Polian, but I believe him when he talks about their search for a LT.

All the other questionable Polian moves can be justified as trading long term competitiveness for short term benefit (a trade off that looks great right after a superbowl victory) but this move really looks insane to me. I'd love to know what Polian was thinking.

You can take that wager and shove it up your backside. WOULD be interested to see what odds VEGAS would give you on that though, I'm sure they would love to take your money, they count on idiots like you.

Vegas would certainly take my action, but Vegas odds reflect the attitudes of the general public, not what they actually believe will happen. (They're offering 2 to 1 on a Patriots superbowl victory. They don't actually think that the Patriots are that dominant, but the public keeps betting on the Patriots, so they had to offer crazy bad odds.)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The one point I can make of any significance is that the Pats are moving toward the Colts' metrics, in terms of cap distribution.

Two years ago, we had 2 guys making $5M or more. Early this century, it was one guy.

In 2008 - not counting an attempt to retain Moss, if he wants $5M or more - it will be 7 guys.

The cap itself has exploded, but our curve from early this century (when we got the idea our structure was different by design, and that it was a good thing,) has marched progressively toward "what everybody does."

The one difference I can point to, especially this year, is that the Pats have often gotten great value out of their pick-ups in FA, as in the Moss case (but that does not account for the special "Moss risk," i.e., possible locker room cancer.)

Ideas like the Colts having the credit card out at all times, while the Pats are fiscally responsible, need to be substantiated. Looking at the Colts cap page through ianwhetstone.com, and boiling down their numbers to scatter plots, at first I thought I saw something very different between the two teams.

Yes, we do have a nice thick "middle class" curve section, but as we load up this off-season, we're well away from the "one or two very special player club" model. Judging from this year -- and it seems to be a trend -- we are adding guys into "the club Jr.," where Brady still stands alone but we seem like we'll pay a handful more guys disproportionate money, in terms of a raw distributive analysis.

The we get to the famously subjective judgments of value. We can say "yes, but our A. Thomases and [next year] Donte Stallworths [if we keep him,] are worth every penny, whereas your Marvin Harrisons and Dwight Freeneys are not."

These evaluations are truly beyond what we can make definitive, last-word statements on. But they are the stuff on which fan boards thrive.

The question of "unique [structural] model," though, seems to be fading into league history, from what I can see -- and may well have been a mirage in the first place, an epiphenomenon of the media and popular culture dissecting the effect of a youthful team (in 01-04) without accounting for the fact that they will, eventually, pressure the team itself to pay them.

Of course, we do not let every veteran go, but have shown that we are more than willing to do so. We have established the scarcity and desireability of the priviledge of playing for NE, and that has had a measurable effect, in some very special cases. That's no small achievement, in an era when players routinely look at their situation as purely dollars and cents. We have taken "winning", a commodity in which we are flush, and -- possibly by luck, possibly by design -- turned it into another competitive edge (Moss, Dillon.) You could say the Colts did the same, luring AV in part because he would still have a chance to compete for rings. They were willing to deal Edge, and replaced him very capably. They do not operate out of cloying fear, the kind that would send huge money chasing after Edgerrin. They operate sanely, and find the most capable new running back they can. (Well, second most... we took the one they wanted )

It will be interesting to watch the effect of the departures from Indy, just as we bled free agents (and even players under contract) into the negotiasphere for a couple of years after the 2001-2004 run. So far, however, they are treating the phenomenon just as we have, with the discipline they will need to maintain a long-term core.

It's funny we argue so vehemently about organizations that, like us, demonstrate the discipline to avoid the "house of cards" collapse that awaits teams that mortgage the future.

But then again, those are the very teams that are there to compete against us on the field, year after year.

PFnV

 

[Miguel]

Ok, this is my last post

It's not an opinion that the new CBA almost didn't get done. It's a fact.

It's not an opinion that the Colts got an additional $7 million over the old CBA under the new one.

Calling that $7 million (BTW, there was a chance that the limit would have been $98 million depending on how the TV money was calculated.) a gift is your opinion.

Now if you are telling me that the Colts wouldn't need to cut anyone with $7 million less in cap space and still could have signed their free agents and rookies, I'll take your opinion at face value.

Like I said before, the Colts did not even use the $102 million. Research these 4 questions.

1.) If 2007 was uncapped, would that make it more likely for Freeney to agree to an extension in 2006??
2.) What was Tarik Glenn's 2006 cap number?? How easy would it have been to lower it??
3.) Did Booger McFarland get a signing bonus from the Colts??
4.) What Colts players received extensions in 2006 that probably have not occurred if 2007 was going to be uncapped??

But if we had $7 million less in cap space this year, I really don't think we'd see every free agent we currently have on the team.

I do.

Here's the difference between you and me. You make posts without backing them with facts. I back up my posts with facts. The Pats are $6.75 million under the cap. They will gain $2.5 million in cap space on June 2nd. We are now up to $9.25 million in cap space. It should take no more than $2 million in cap space to sign the draft picks. Down to $7.25 million. Let's leave $1.25 million to sign players 52,53 and a 8-man practice squad. Let's have $1.5 million as an injury replacement reserve. We are down to $4.5 million in cap space before players not in the Top 51 list beat out players in the Top 51 for roster spots thereby creating even more cap space. And I am not including the cap space that would be freed up if Samuel agrees to an extension.

If the CBA was not extended, the 2007 season would be uncapped. In an uncapped year, the 4 participants in the 2006 conference championship games would NOT be allowed to sign an UFA from another team unless they lost an UFA. Since Graham and TBC would not have been UFAs this year in an uncapped year, that means that the Patriots would have been only able to sign one UFA (to replace Todd Sauerbrun) and that contract could not have had a higher 2007 cap number that what Sauerbrun has.

That means no AD, no Kyle Brady, no Sammy Morris, no Stallworth, no James on the 2007 Patriots.

Contrast the number of UFAs by the Colts signed from other teams over the past several years to the number of UFAs by the Patriots signed over the past several years. The Colts' modus operandi would not have been greatly affected by the Final Eight plan. They still would have been able to sign Rick DeMulling. The Patriots' modus operandi would have been.

I can make a very strong case but am not willing to spend the time that the Colts could have had the same team in 2006. I have just shown that the Patriots could not have had the same team in 2007. If you wish to believe that the Colts were lucky that the CBA was extended, please feel free to do so - just know that the person you consider smarter than Polian does not.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Re: Ok, this is my last post

Calling that $7 million (BTW, there was a chance that the limit would have been $98 million depending on how the TV money was calculated.) a gift is your opinion.

Like I said before, the Colts did not even use the $102 million. Research these 4 questions.

1.) If 2007 was uncapped, would that make it more likely for Freeney to agree to an extension in 2006??
2.) What was Tarik Glenn's 2006 cap number?? How easy would it have been to lower it??
3.) Did Booger McFarland get a signing bonus from the Colts??
4.) What Colts players received extensions in 2006 that probably have not occurred if 2007 was going to be uncapped??



I do.

Here's the difference between you and me. You make posts without backing them with facts. I back up my posts with facts. The Pats are $6.75 million under the cap. They will gain $2.5 million in cap space on June 2nd. We are now up to $9.25 million in cap space. It should take no more than $2 million in cap space to sign the draft picks. Down to $7.25 million. Let's leave $1.25 million to sign players 52,53 and a 8-man practice squad. Let's have $1.5 million as an injury replacement reserve. We are down to $4.5 million in cap space before players not in the Top 51 list beat out players in the Top 51 for roster spots thereby creating even more cap space. And I am not including the cap space that would be freed up if Samuel agrees to an extension.

If the CBA was not extended, the 2007 season would be uncapped. In an uncapped year, the 4 participants in the 2006 conference championship games would NOT be allowed to sign an UFA from another team unless they lost an UFA. Since Graham and TBC would not have been UFAs this year in an uncapped year, that means that the Patriots would have been only able to sign one UFA (to replace Todd Sauerbrun) and that contract could not have had a higher 2007 cap number that what Sauerbrun has.

That means no AD, no Kyle Brady, no Sammy Morris, no Stallworth, no James on the 2007 Patriots.

Contrast the number of UFAs by the Colts signed from other teams over the past several years to the number of UFAs by the Patriots signed over the past several years. The Colts' modus operandi would not have been greatly affected by the Final Eight plan. They still would have been able to sign Rick DeMulling. The Patriots' modus operandi would have been.

I can make a very strong case but am not willing to spend the time that the Colts could have had the same team in 2006. I have just shown that the Patriots could not have had the same team in 2007. If you wish to believe that the Colts were lucky that the CBA was extended, please feel free to do so - just know that the person you consider smarter than Polian does not.

Wow - sorry if I touched a nerve... but it is a fact that the new CBA almost didn't get done.

As I noted earlier Polian could have been banking on the "nuclear" option of the capless year this year and from then on out. I guess I'm not willing to give him credit for counting on the virtual destruction of the NFL as we know it as far as his cap and signing decisions. As most acknowledged last year once that happened there'd be no putting the genie back in the bottle - going back to a cap would be very very difficult.

Hence I suppose a good GM would also acknowledge a scenario of the current CBA being temporarilly extended rather than implementing the non-capped year, but thankfully it never came to that.

As far as the Patriots signings with $7 million less this season - you seem to be dealing with a "could have" scenario whereas I simply suggested a "would have" scenario.... i.e. would the Patriots have been more likely to trade Samuel with $7 million less in cap space, opting for a possible 1st round pick instead of working to squeeze his salary in?

Your points almost seem to suggest that the cap is irrelevant to being able to sign and retain players - that the fact that the new CBA has given teams significantly more money hasn't had any impact and would not have had any impact on the Colts or the Patriots - or possibly any other team for that matter. That's just not the case.

The new CBA has had a significant impact on the NFL - for example, the influx of cap $ and the existing franchise salaries make many of the franchise tag salaries a relative bargain... whereas under the old CBA teams would be hard pressed to find the salary space to keep such players.

We can agree to disagree but I still think its a fact that with all the moving parts in the CBA negotiations and the endless possibilities for stalemates, infinite forms of compromise, and unexpected outcomes defies anyone's ability to predict any more than one could predict who would have won the Kentucky Derby last week.

 

[He Ban Me]

I like Miguel

Solman, thanks for the decent response.

In the end, I think both teams do an incredible job with their clubs. Neither is perfect, both make mistakes. To me (and maybe Miguel can either prove me right or wrong), the glaring difference in the two ball clubs (with respect to managing the cap, etc..,) is that NE has received HUGE dividends from a sixth round QB. Has Miguel ever done an analysis on what the Patriots were able to do personnel wise with respect to that 6th round boon? I would be extremely interested to see an in depth analysis on all the benefits reaped from snagging a Hall of Fame QB in the 6th round.

Thanks

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Ok, this is my last post

I have just shown that the Patriots could not have had the same team in 2007.

Sorry to be contrarian, but you didn't. You showed that the rules do not permit such a thing.

That is like proving that the Patriots could not move $3 million of unused cap money from 2006 to 2007 by quoting the CBA.

The rules do not permit rolling cap money over from one year to the next, yet teams do it all the time with legal maneuvers that accomplish the very thing the rules do not permit.

Offhand, without trying, I can think of three ways that the Pats could sign FAs and have the same basic team that they have now in a uncapped year, and team capologists are smarter than I am.

 

[solman]

But that superbowl victory came at the cost of heavily backloaded cap hits.

[In the course of work avoidance, I learned some things about the Colt's salary cap structure. I figured that I might as well put it here for use the next time we have this discussion.]

By my reckoning, heading into the 2008 season, the Colts will have roughly $32M of dead money attached Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison.

This is money that has already been paid to those players, but which will not have been counted against the salary cap as of the start of the 2008 season. Neither player is under contract for a substantial discount to their market value, so this represents $32M of actual lost cap space.

It is scheduled to hit as follows:

$12M in 2008: $7.2M for Manning and $4.4M for Harrison
$12M in 2009: $7.2M for Manning and $4.4M for Harrison
$5.466 in 2010: $3.466 for Manning and $2M for Harrison
$1.667 in 2011: All for Manning
$1.667 in 2012: All for Manning

Currently the total cap hits of Manning and Harrison in 2008-2009 are expected to be:

Manning: $18.7M in 2008 and $21.2M in 2009
Harrison: $12M in 2008 and $13.4 in 2009

If Manning and Harrison were to agree to annually restructure their contracts so that:

A) Their annual salary is $1M/year
B) Their take home pay is unchanged
C) Their "official" contract end date is kept 6 years in the future (for maximum proration)

(I regard this as an absolute "best case" scenario) their cap hits would be:

Manning: $9.5M in 2008 and $12.1M in 2009
Harrison: $6.5M in 2008 and $7.8M in 2009

Heading into the 2010 season these two players would account for over $37.7M in dead money: $13.1M for Harrison and $24.6M.

There is a dollar for dollar trade off between Manning and Harrison's 2008-9 cap hits and the amount of dead money left heading into 2010.

By 2010, Harrison would have to agree to accept less take home pay (he is currently due for $10M and $11.4M in those years). Assuming that he did so, and was paid a fair wage, the Colts could gradually pay off the $37.7M over the course of five years (with acceleration upon retirement if it happens early). If Harrison (somewhat uncharacteristically) can not reach agreement with the Colt's on lowering his take home pay, the Colt's must book a significant cap hit sometime in the next two years. [If he doesn't restructure again, they could just cut him after two years and eat $2M, but if he doesn't restructure his two year cap hit is $25.4M]


What does all this really mean? The Colt's back loaded contracts equate to an annual salary cap penalty of roughly 5-10%. They could, for a year or two, reduce this to 0% at the cost of more substantial penalties down the road. They can not, realistically, do much better than this. They could choose to dismantle the team, and erase this hole at the cost of a single very difficult season.

It is hardly impossible for a team to succeed in the NFL while losing 5-10% of its cap space. Teams face and overcome that level of adversity from injuries all the time. But starting off the season with 5-10% of your talent injured is a serious impediment to making the playoffs, let alone winning superbowls. The Colts find themselves in a similar situation.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I like Miguel

To me (and maybe Miguel can either prove me right or wrong), the glaring difference in the two ball clubs (with respect to managing the cap, etc..,) is that NE has received HUGE dividends from a sixth round QB.
Thanks

The dividends would only be in the first contract years. Once Manning and Brady hit their second contract, they were both getting the huge bucks. I see the major difference being it was expected for Manning, not for Brady.

 

[Miguel]

By my reckoning, heading into the 2008 season, the Colts will have roughly $32M of dead money attached Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison..

Dead money usually refers to cap space taken up by players no longer on the roster. The 32 million that you speak of is unamortized signing bonus money proration.

I do not get this conclusion - "Neither player is under contract for a substantial discount to their market value, so this represents $32M of actual lost cap space" since Manning and Harrison are
1.)on the Colts roster
2.) among the best players at their position
3.) not the only players in the NFL with large unamortized signing bonus money. Examples - Vick, Brady, Palmer, Adalius Thomas,

Why is the entire amount considered lost?? Should it not be just the portion over their market value??? Example - why should the entire amount of Manning's unamortized signing bonus money be counted as lost space when other highly paid QBs (Brady, Vick, Palmer) also have large unamortized signing bonus??

 

[Miguel]

It is hardly impossible for a team to succeed in the NFL while losing 5-10% of its cap space. Teams face and overcome that level of adversity from injuries all the time. But starting off the season with 5-10% of your talent injured is a serious impediment to making the playoffs, let alone winning superbowls. The Colts find themselves in a similar situation.

Did not the Colts find themselves in the same situation last year??? Did they not win the Super Bowl???

Will the Pats starting off the 2008 season with 5 to 10% talent injured because Brady will have 16.96 million in unamortized signing bonus money AND Adalius Thomas will have 17.6 million in unamortized signing bonus money proration??

 

[mgteich]

I guess I don't understand many of the positions here. No matter, I will simply state mine.

The patriots and the colts are the best in the league at managing the cap. Both use the spreading of bonuses to manage the cap. Both occasionally use fake years (that is, contracts with end-year amounts that will never be paid). I do not think that either pays over market prices for their talent. Both have been lucky and unlucky with both draft pick and with free agents.

The colt cap hell is discussed each year, and is simply bunk. They have not been, are not, and are unlikely to be in cap hell under current management. Ditto for the patriots. Either could project to be $20M over to start free agency, and I would still believe that they could rise to the occasion and produce a playoff quality team.

Certainly neither is any cap trouble at all this year, and both are top 6 SB contenders. My list is NE, Chicago, Indy, NO, SD, and Balt.

 

[khayos]

Did not the Colts find themselves in the same situation last year??? Did they not win the Super Bowl???

Will the Pats starting off the 2008 season with 5 to 10% talent injured because Brady will have 16.96 million in unamortized signing bonus money AND Adalius Thomas will have 17.6 million in unamortized signing bonus money proration??

BTW if anyone accuses Miguel of being a Colts lover, I will personally insert your head into that cavity in your lower region. This man knows football.

 

[solman]

Dead money usually refers to cap space taken up by players no longer on the roster. The 32 million that you speak of is unamortized signing bonus money proration.

I'm making the point that this $32M is no more useful to the team than money attached to players who are no longer on the team. It is based on the premise that you challenge bellow:

I do not get this conclusion - "Neither player is under contract for a substantial discount to their market value, so this represents $32M of actual lost cap space" since Manning and Harrison are
1.)on the Colts roster
2.) among the best players at their position
3.) not the only players in the NFL with large unamortized signing bonus money. Examples - Vick, Brady, Palmer, Adalius Thomas,

Why is the entire amount considered lost?? Should it not be just the portion over their market value??? Example - why should the entire amount of Manning's unamortized signing bonus money be counted as lost space when other highly paid QBs (Brady, Vick, Palmer) also have large unamortized signing bonus??

Let me try to phrase my point more precisely.

Every long term deal represents a trade:
The team agrees to pay bonus money up front.
The player agrees to play for less than market value in future years.

At the time a long term deal is signed (with a free agent) the money "lost" to the signing bonus, and the risks of future diminished performance are roughly equal to the salary "discount" that the player agrees to accept.

As the contract progresses, these two quantities may become unbalanced.

AD is scheduled to make $1M, $1M, $2M, $5M, and $6M during his five year contract. These figures, especially the first three, represent a substantial discount to what he is worth. But the $20M in guaranteed money is roughly equivalent to the discount that AD has accepted. I say it is roughly equivalent, because the team and the player freely agreed to this contract, and presumably neither party would have agreed if it represented an inherently unfair tradeoff.

By the time season five rolls around there is an excellent chance that $6M will NOT represent a discount to what he is worth. Even if it does, it probably will not represent a $4.4M discount to what he is actually worth. The difference between this "discount" and $4.4M is the amount of "dead money" that I would say is associated with his contract at that time.

If AD is actually worth less than $6M that year, he will be cut. There will be no discount associated with him that season, and then the $4.4M will fit the classical definition of "dead money".

Over the course of 2008-2009 Manning and Harrison are scheduled to take home a total of $42.1M (actual take home pay). I am saying that this amount is roughly equal to the duo's fair market value over the course of those two seasons. Therefore, I reguard the entire $24M in prorated bonus attributable to those seasons as dead money.

I'll not use the term dead money to refer to these amounts in the future. My point was that these cap hits represent money that has already been spent and, because the players on which it was spent are no longer playing at a discount to their fair market value, is of no use to the team.