It is short term. It’s a 2 year deal that doesn’t hurt us at all. We have 40 billion dollars in cap space

I can’t remember ever seeing a 2 year NFL deal that wasn’t really a one year deal with an option. We’ll see.

Even if there are some Y2 guarantees, I don’t think the hand-wringing is necessary. If Ballard wanted to go on a crazy spending spree, why didn’t he last week? This is just a low risk, high reward type of move with limited repercussions on 2020 if it doesn’t pan out.

You think it's troubling to be less than concerned about a 2 year deal that, even if fully guaranteed (it's not), means the difference between $120 million and $130 million in cap space in 2020? And that would be off the books after 2020? That seems a bit alarmist to me.

The plan last season was to get Lewis playing more 3-Tech, which according to Ballard is what he is best suited for.

So, I expect Lewis to take snaps away from Autry and possible unseat him as the starter. The Houston signing allows that to happen.

The plan for hunt was to be a de. It didn’t stay that way

I don't think Houston will be a 3 down player. Pass rush specialist role I would think.

No it didn't and Lewis played mostly or all the time at DE last season. My point was the direction that they have been planning on is Lewis at 3-tech.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out for sure, as the draft may influence those plans as well.

I agree that Lewis will play inside some and that was the plan. I just think he will be playing de on early downs. I could be wrong. That is just my own speculation

Justin Houston
 

Nice acquisition for the Colts

You're acting like the Colts signed him to a $100M contract. Even if there is no option on the 2nd year, 2 years at $24M is very reasonable for a player coming off of a 9 sack 5 FF season. Yes, there's some age and injury concerns, but not that concerning since he's played 27/32 games over the past 2 seasons and been very productive when doing so (9.5 sacks as well in '17).

You guys are missing my point. If you want to argue the merits of the signing based upon Houston's production, that's fine and I won't necessarily disagree. My concern was the bigger picture in that this seemed to be a departure from the prior strategy that Ballard has employed, and the dangers inherent in signing guys on the downside of their careers to big contracts.

As far as the cap issue, I was taking issue with those of you whose justification for the Houston signing was not his performance, but rather that we have plenty of cap space so we shouldn't worry about it. That is an undeniably bad strategy and silly. No matter who we sign or how much cap space we have at the time, the signing should be smart (again, I'm NOT saying that this wasn't a good signing, just taking issue with those who use our available cap space to justify the signing).

I really don't care if we use all of this years cap space on decent to average guys on 2 year deals, that are really a 1 year contract. We will still have that space free the following year if those guys don't pan out. I do think it would be better to front load a few contract extensions early to help out with future cap space. But you could argue that we are overpaying our own guys now when we don't need to. The best option is probably what Ballard will do, and that is to mix and match both. Sign a few guys to short term deals, with little real salary cap impact down the line but also use up some of the cap with new deals for our own guys ahead of when we really need to do them.

Chaka I really think you are making to big of a deal about one signing. I don't think that Ballard is deviating in any real sense from what he wants to do. It is not a huge contract in terms of years and the money isn't outrageous. He seems to be a good locker room guy. From a price point view he was the best player available. He is an upgrade from what we had last year.

Even with signing Funchess and Houston I still see this offseason as incredibly conservative. I see no purpose in hand-wringing and no point in justifying anything. We still have a metric shit-ton of cap space and are probably done signing meaningful contracts. The cap will go up again and we'll have top 5 space again next season.

I'll have high expectations for Funchess and Houston but if they don't work out I'll be critical of the signing, not the money. Funchess is unproven, Houston might be too old. They are our marquee signings. The money won't matter, but how they produce (or don't) matters a lot.

And to go one step further, regardless of whether or not Funchess and Houston produce, the vast majority of improvement was always going to come from the progression of young players already on the roster.

Some Houston contract details, per Holder:

https://twitter.com/HolderStephen/st...94019817562112

Not fully guaranteed, but not a one year deal w/option either. Sorry Dam...

Being on the hook for $3.5 million isn't exactly the sort of thing that prevents a player from being released if a team needs to. This is essentially an option, which is what I said. If you look at sports where player options are a thing, they have buyouts. Think of it as a $9 million option with a $3.5 million buyout.

Yes, that's how I see it too. :cool:

I hesitate to respond at the risk of igniting a whole new debate, but I’ve got a number of issues with what you've said:

1) To begin with, your numbers are slightly off. The second year has $4.5 million guaranteed (according to Holder, the second year $1 million roster bonus is also guaranteed, though I’ll admit that’s kind of confusing). In sum, 100% of his 2019 salary is guaranteed, and 50% of his 2020 salary. Much larger than a typical buyout, as you characterized it.

2) This is nothing like an option – in fact, it’s the exact opposite. An option is for the team’s benefit. A buyout is for the player’s. There’s a reason buyout clauses aren’t very common in the NFL, given the risk of injury. We could end up paying $18.5 million for one year of a 30-year old Houston.

3) Further, $4.5 million (or even $3.5 million) is nothing to sneeze at, even in the cash-rich NFL. We just signed Geathers for $2.75 million, most of which isn’t even guaranteed.

4) Based upon Holder’s characterization, we’re tying up a minimum of $18.5 million (and up to $23M) in cap space on Houston – that’s an average of roughly 5-7% of our combined total cap space each of the two years on a single player. Such a large expenditure merits scrutiny.

In fairness, the one point you don’t bring up is that we don’t know what the guarantees apply to. I doubt Holder has seen the contract. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, the “guarantees” in some of these NFL contracts are only for injury, or only go into effect upon meeting certain criteria (being on the roster on a given date, etc.). By way of example, Colin Kaepernick signed a contract with the 49ers a few years ago that was reported to have had something like $60 million in guarantees, but a closer look at the language revealed that the “guarantees” were only effective if he was injured. So he could still be cut (and was cut) with limited cap impact.

1) Roster bonuses aren't guaranteed unless you're on the roster on a specific date, hence the name. It was how the Colts opted out of Manning's last contract with them.

2) Team options have buyouts in sports where they're prevalent. Hence it IS like a team option.

3) If the Colts don't want Houston in 2020, they'll cut him before the roster bonus date and be on the hook for $3.5 million, which won't even make a dent in their cap space. Further, a Houston cut would increase the Colts 2020 cap space overall by $5.5 million.

4) Houston is making $23 million over 2 years where the Colts are flush with cap space, and even then it's frontloaded. $9 million in 2020 will only happen if he's a good-elite pass rusher, and that's a bargain price to pay for that type of talent in the NFL.

I understand that's how it USUALLY works, but Holder is saying otherwise in this case, so I'm working with that info for the moment. You are assuming something else. Nevertheless, I acknowledged that it was confusing to me.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that there BOTH options and buyouts in the same contract in other sports? If so, I still don't see what relevance that observation has here. The point is that this is nothing like an option as you had originally said.

But it begs the question of whether we should have signed him at all. By this logic we could "increase" our cap space by $18.5 million if we didn't sign him at all.

Please stop using the Colts cap space as an excuse for the contract. It's not a good one as I've explained in countless prior posts. If he's worth the money, he's worth it regardless of our cap space.

You should read up on contracts, options, and how the NFL salary cap works, because your comments here are reflecting a poor understanding of these concepts.

Point by point:

1) Roster bonuses are only ever guaranteed if you're on the roster on the day the bonus requires. This money is always referred to as guaranteed when the figure is reported, but it isn't actually guaranteed unless the team decides to keep the player on the roster.

2) Yes, options have buyouts. That's what makes them options, the team has the OPTION to pay the full salary and keep the player, or pay a lesser amount, the buyout, and terminate the contract. It's structured a little differently in the NFL, but the functional effect is the same.

3) No, it doesn't. Justin Houston is a very good player who could still possibly produce at an elite level. Considering the player and the position, the Colts got a very good deal.

4) I still don't understand why you believe this contract is bad, or at the very least not good. You haven't really explained that well. If you think Houston is washed up, you're entitled to that opinion, but you're arguing against his production in that case, and he's actually produced quite well in the past 2 seasons. I see no other logical reason why anyone could consider this contract a not good contract.

Put it this way: compare Justin Houston's last two seasons to Jadeveon Clowney's, then compare their 2019 salaries and tell me who is getting the better deal: the Colts or the Texans? NFL teams pay a lot of money for pass rushers.

Dear God a Dam/Chaka point-by-point response argument is my nightmare come to life.

Good quotes from Ballard at the owners meetings this week:

https://theathletic.com/892290/2019/...nnual-meeting/

Hopefully limiting his snaps will maximize what he can give the team (and keep him healthier).

Thanks for the advice Thurgood, I can see you’ve got an amazing grasp of “contracts, options, and how the NFL salary cap works”.

Dude, like many you don’t even seem to recognize what you don’t know. The term “roster bonus” indeed implies that it is contingent upon being on a roster, which is precisely why I said (from the outset) it was confusing that Holder called it guaranteed. However, the truth is that you and I have no idea what that contract says or how the guarantees work, but you somehow feel supremely qualified to speak, condescendingly no less, about the terms anyway. I pointed this out in an earlier post to help you out, but you ignored it for some reason. Regardless, I’ll work with the info Holder (who might actually know something) has provided, until I learn otherwise.

As far as your “option” argument – whatever. An option gives the holder the option to buy or sell something at a pre-arranged price/time. A buyout clause allows someone to extinguish an obligation at a preset price/time. One creates an obligation, the other extinguishes it. They are different concepts – look it up.

Lastly, as for Houston himself, I’ve got nothing against the guy and never said it was a bad signing. I’ve merely expressed a bit of concern over spending a lot of money on a guy on the downside of his career, and who has been injured a lot over the last few years and will be changing teams and positions. I think if the Raiders entered into the same contract with him, nobody here would be raving about what a great signing the Raiders had made. Regardless, I’m still excited to have him – it’s just not the type of signing that I’d envisioned the Colts making. That’s all I’ve said. All my other comments were directed to those who sought to justify the signing based not upon Houston’s skills or other football qualifications, but rather on the simple fact that we have a lot of cap space. That is nonsense.

And yet you continue to read them for some reason, despite my requests that you not do so.

Its like watching two old guys arguing about the chicken salad in a deli

Nah I'm not I just scroll and scroll and scroll until I finally get past them.

True. Further, I can't believe it is Dam who is the logical one. When does this ever happen?

Well, I think you'd find that if you'd clean the Cheeto dust off your scroll wheel every once in a while, it'll work better.

Dude, if you can’t see the misinformation and garbage he’s spewing, then I can’t help you.

The only thing he has said that might be considered as wrong is the word "option". It is possible that he meant it as you say and that he is merely putting spin into it (he does this on other points), but the fact remains that the team has an option with Houston; they can pay him to leave or they can pay him more to leave. His contract is not going to be an issue for us this year, or next. That is where Dam is 100% correct on this matter.

I feel dirty saying Dam is 100% correct, so please give it up.

Haha - Fair enough. I've got no beef with you and I've said my peace on the subject. His facts are wrong, but his opinions are what they are and you can judge for yourself what you agree with. No issue there. There's no need to beat this particular dead horse any further.

You can have a rudimentary understanding of these things without being a supreme court justice or an expert in contract law.

Unless you're holding out your copy of the contract on us, all any of us are doing here is speculating. That said, you can observe prior contracts with similar clauses in them and generally predict what to expect from this contract. Data is a wonderful thing in that regard. My explanation is based on how I've seen the roster bonus clause operate in every other NFL contract, and how I've seen those contracts reported in terms of total salary and guarantees. It's possible that Ballard wrote an entirely new contract clause that operates completely differently than any other roster bonus I've seen, but unlikely, especially since that would disadvantage the team.

You're referring to "option" in the security sense. Even then, it's a similar concept. Apply a sunk cost in exchange for an opportunity to purchase or sell a security at a previously agreed upon price at a given point in time. In the case of a team option (which is typically what these clauses are called in baseball where contracts are fully guaranteed unless otherwise specified), the buyout is the sunk cost (guaranteed money in the second year of the contract in this case) with the option for the team to purchase his services for the second season.

The issue I've taken this whole time is you calling this contract "a lot of money". For the caliber of player the Colts are getting, I just can't see that argument as valid. As an example, the Texans will play Clowney $17.128 million next season if they don't work out a long term deal for him, and when you include the postseason, Houston has more sacks than Clowney over the last two years. You don't seem to be taking into account the value NFL teams place on pass rushers in your argument.

It happens all the time. Glad you're finally recognizing it.

You keep saying my facts are wrong but don't seem to give an example of that. What fact do I have wrong?

Killing me smalls, just killing me

Athletic article from Holder on Houston. Has some good clips showcasing what Houston offers the Colts.

https://theathletic.com/904992/2019/...ustin-houston/