Peyton Manning won't delay $28M bonus (1 Viewer)

[TwinTurbo]

I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.

Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.

You're assuming that the Colts would have used any extra money wisely and invested in players that could have contributed to winning without Manning. But based on the Manning-less team of this season, the extra money would not have helped unless they would have uncovered a Manning clone. It's 100% the Colts fault for agreeing to that type of contract for a player with a serious neck condition. Guys like Manning and Brady have already won a Superbowl and suffered serious injuries along the way, so you can hardly call them selfish for wanting to get a huge payday before they ride off into the sunset and can no longer play.

 

[Bayhawks]

Some of the posted capology about Peyton's contract didn't sound right. Here's the best I can piece it together from various news articles and then filling in the voids myself:

In 2011 he signed a $90m, 5 year deal with a $20m signing bonus. The $20m gets prorated over the 5 years of his contract. He also has a $28m option bonus due to him at the start of the 2012 year which is what the current hoopla is about, Indy wanting to push back the date by which they have to decide. Option bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract the same as signing bonuses are (even though the team hasn't had to yet decide to exercise the option or not). So the total prorated amount each year is $20m signing + $28m option = $48m over 5 years = $9.6m prorated each year.

His salaries and cap hit are:

2011: $3.4m + $3m roster bonus + $9.6 prorated = $16m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $17m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $18m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $19m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $20mTotal base salary: $39mTotal roster bonuses: $3m in 2011

Total signing bonus: $20m

Total option bonus: $28m

Add them up and that is $90m.

As far as the choices before Indy, they can:



Cut Peyton before paying him the $28m

This would mean the $16m from his signing bonus that hasn't hit the cap yet would be a cap charge in 2012. However they would also get a $5.6m rebate because they were charged that in 2011 as a prorated amount of the $28m option bonus they ended up not paying. So cutting Peyton would be about a $10.4m cap hit against their 2012 cap. Peyton would walk away with a total of $26.4m in cash for the 2011 season, that money having been spread over the 2011 and 2012 caps for the Colts at $16m and $10.4m respectively.

Give Peyton the $28m and keep him for the year

His cap hit would be shown as above, $17m. If they then cut him or traded him in 2013 they would have a $28.8m cap hit, so if they pay him the $28m odds are they keep him at least until 2014 when the cap hit would drop to $19.2m. Unless he retired and paid some of the bonus(es) back.

Give Peyton the $28m and trade him in the 2012 off-season

His cap hit would be $38.4m. No way that is going to happen.

Trade Peyton before the $28m is due

They can't do this because the bonus is due on March 8th, and you can't trade players until March 13th. If they could trade him before having to pay him the option, the other team would pay him the $28m and he would either cost the Colts $16m or $10.4m in cap hit. I'm not sure which, don't know if the Colts would get the $5.6m refund that they paid in 2011 as proration on the option bonus that was later paid to him by another team. If I had to guess I'd say no but not sure.

Thank you for posting this. Am I understanding this correctly in that if they cut him, he counts $10.4 million against the cap in 2012, but if they keep him, he counts $17M against the cap? If that's the case, I think (unless they know his neck is done) it's very unlikely that they DON'T keep him. $6.6M is a lot of money, but in the big picture, it might let them hold onto Peyton for the next 3-4 years, and then transition into a decade (or more) with Luck at QB (hopefully for them he'll adjust like Rodgers did in GB).

 

[GregR]

Some of the posted capology about Peyton's contract didn't sound right. Here's the best I can piece it together from various news articles and then filling in the voids myself:

In 2011 he signed a $90m, 5 year deal with a $20m signing bonus. The $20m gets prorated over the 5 years of his contract. He also has a $28m option bonus due to him at the start of the 2012 year which is what the current hoopla is about, Indy wanting to push back the date by which they have to decide. Option bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract the same as signing bonuses are (even though the team hasn't had to yet decide to exercise the option or not). So the total prorated amount each year is $20m signing + $28m option = $48m over 5 years = $9.6m prorated each year.

His salaries and cap hit are:

2011: $3.4m + $3m roster bonus + $9.6 prorated = $16m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $17m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $18m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $19m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $20mTotal base salary: $39mTotal roster bonuses: $3m in 2011

Total signing bonus: $20m

Total option bonus: $28m

Add them up and that is $90m.

As far as the choices before Indy, they can:



Cut Peyton before paying him the $28m

This would mean the $16m from his signing bonus that hasn't hit the cap yet would be a cap charge in 2012. However they would also get a $5.6m rebate because they were charged that in 2011 as a prorated amount of the $28m option bonus they ended up not paying. So cutting Peyton would be about a $10.4m cap hit against their 2012 cap. Peyton would walk away with a total of $26.4m in cash for the 2011 season, that money having been spread over the 2011 and 2012 caps for the Colts at $16m and $10.4m respectively.

Give Peyton the $28m and keep him for the year

His cap hit would be shown as above, $17m. If they then cut him or traded him in 2013 they would have a $28.8m cap hit, so if they pay him the $28m odds are they keep him at least until 2014 when the cap hit would drop to $19.2m. Unless he retired and paid some of the bonus(es) back.

Give Peyton the $28m and trade him in the 2012 off-season

His cap hit would be $38.4m. No way that is going to happen.

Trade Peyton before the $28m is due

They can't do this because the bonus is due on March 8th, and you can't trade players until March 13th. If they could trade him before having to pay him the option, the other team would pay him the $28m and he would either cost the Colts $16m or $10.4m in cap hit. I'm not sure which, don't know if the Colts would get the $5.6m refund that they paid in 2011 as proration on the option bonus that was later paid to him by another team. If I had to guess I'd say no but not sure.

Thank you for posting this. Am I understanding this correctly in that if they cut him, he counts $10.4 million against the cap in 2012, but if they keep him, he counts $17M against the cap? If that's the case, I think (unless they know his neck is done) it's very unlikely that they DON'T keep him. $6.6M is a lot of money, but in the big picture, it might let them hold onto Peyton for the next 3-4 years, and then transition into a decade (or more) with Luck at QB (hopefully for them he'll adjust like Rodgers did in GB).

Yes, that is correct, but I would keep in mind the future ramifications.I wouldn't so much say it only costs them $6.6m more to keep him in 2012. I would say it costs them $6.6m more in 2012 to keep him and it also costs them another $16.8m in cap room in future years (on top of the $12m left after 2012 for his signing bonus)

If he returns to old Peyton Manning level of play you could argue he's worth it. But the Colts don't know for sure that's going to ever have the same physical ability. That's a lot of cap hit to take on for a player who might not produce at all.

 

[humpback]

Okay, then we're discussing two different points here. My initial post was discussing posts that contend that the Colts can't afford to "have that money tied up in one position." IF they believe Peyton is healthy, I don't see why they would be unwilling to pay Peyton AND draft Luck, since the rookie salaries aren't as crazy high as they used to be.Look at it this way. If Peyton hadn't missed this year, and had played up to his normal standards, but the Colts had lucked (pun intended) into the #1 pick through a trade, would anyone be suggesting the Colts would cut Peyton, because they wouldn't want to pay both QBs? I highly doubt it.

Yeah, I'm not talking about being able to afford it, I'm sure they can. I agree, if he were healthy, it would be a different discussion entirely, but that's not the case. My initial post just said that I highly doubt they take that big of a financial gamble, and I think that presumably having Luck makes it even less likely they would.

 

[cstu]

Manning is not coming to Baltimore. They're going to have to franchise Rice this year (or give him a long-term deal) and work hard to keep RG Ben Grubbs under the cap, and figure out what to do at C if/when Matt Birk retires. Flacco is in the last year of his rookie deal next year and the team is committed to him for next year, and I think the long term after that.

They can't afford Manning, plus they've gone this route before with Grbac and then McNair and now they want to groom and keep their own long-term guy. If anyone is gone next year, it's Cam Cameron, not Flacco.

Lets see how Flacco does this week before we assume anything about Flacco long-term

He got them to the championship game, they're not going to dump him.

Did he?When everyone in the world looks at your team and points to the QB as the weak link that may keep you out of the Super Bowl, I think you've got to realize that the team's commitment to Flacco is probably not near as firm as they make it sound (because they have to) in press conferences.

The grumbling is so loud now that Flacco is defensive in press conferences.

He might not be the QB of the future, but I don't see them dumping him to go all-in on one, maybe two years, with Manning.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.

Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.

You're assuming that the Colts would have used any extra money wisely and invested in players that could have contributed to winning without Manning. But based on the Manning-less team of this season, the extra money would not have helped unless they would have uncovered a Manning clone. It's 100% the Colts fault for agreeing to that type of contract for a player with a serious neck condition. Guys like Manning and Brady have already won a Superbowl and suffered serious injuries along the way, so you can hardly call them selfish for wanting to get a huge payday before they ride off into the sunset and can no longer play.

Yes, I am assuming had Manning taken less the Colts would had more money to invest in other parts of the team and had a better chance at winning championships. Yes it is true that the organization might not have hit on all or most of these other players, but it is hard to argue the team wouldn't have been better overall.I agree that it is insane that the Colts gave him 20 Million when it appears that he wasn't even able to throw a football. So Manning took the money anyway (who wouldn't I guess) and his gratitude to the team for rewarding him and giving him 20 million that they clearly shouldn't have is to demand 28 million more. It may be perfectly legal, but it stinks; imho he is screwing the Colts and their fans big time. IMHO, in a more fair world, the Colts ought to be able to trade Manning to a contender of his choice and get a couple of picks in return; there ought to be a way to make that happen. I don't think it would be all that hard to do, but Manning would have to work with the team to make it happen and I do not think he will.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The bonus money is spread out over the length of the contract.

For salary cap purposes, signing bonuses are spread out over the life of the contract. Roster bonuses are counted 100% in the year they are paid.

Right-I should have specified I meant signing bonuses. BTW-the March bonus is an "option" bonus; how would that be counted?

I haven't followed the details of Manning's contract situation, but an "option bonus" can work a number of different ways depending on what the option entails.The original post in this thread called Manning's looming bonus a "roster bonus," but that appears to be incorrect. Your post calls it an "option bonus," so let's go with that.

The general rule is that any money that's fully guaranteed at the time that a contract is signed can be pro-rated for cap purposes over the life of the contract. Any money that is not fully guaranteed at the time that a contract is signed counts against the cap in the year it is paid.

Signing bonuses are fully guaranteed by the team as soon as the contract is entered into (unless the player decides to terminate the contract early, e.g., by retiring). They can be prorated.

Roster bonuses aren't guaranteed until some future date, contingent upon the player still being on the roster at that time. They cannot be prorated.

Option bonuses can work a number of different ways. When an option is exercised by a team, it changes the length of a player's contract. It could shorten the contract — that is, it could function as a buyout provision. In that case, the full amount of the option bonus would count against the cap immediately. Exercising the option could also lengthen a contract by adding additional years. This is apparently the case with Manning's option bonus. If Manning currently has X years remaining on his contract, the Colts can make it X+Y years by exercising their option. If they do that, the exercise of the option acts as a contract extension — as if Manning's current deal for X years is voided, and in its place he receives a new deal for X+Y years. The option bonus thus effectively becomes a signing bonus for the "new" deal. It is fully guaranteed upon the exercise of the option, and can be prorated over the course of the remaining X+Y years.

So, in short, it's kind of complicated.

 

[Donnybrook]

Thank you for posting this. Am I understanding this correctly in that if they cut him, he counts $10.4 million against the cap in 2012, but if they keep him, he counts $17M against the cap? If that's the case, I think (unless they know his neck is done) it's very unlikely that they DON'T keep him. $6.6M is a lot of money, but in the big picture, it might let them hold onto Peyton for the next 3-4 years, and then transition into a decade (or more) with Luck at QB (hopefully for them he'll adjust like Rodgers did in GB).

I believe that you are not factoring the other free agents on the team. If the Colts plan to keep Manning then they may need to keep players like Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday and Robert Mathis. Peyton gives them a small window to get back to the Super Bowl. With Luck behind center it a long term rebuild. They can save cap space by replacing these players with draft picks and younger cheaper free agents. If the team wins 6 games or more this year, the season will be considered a success. Everything Irsay has said and done leads me to believe the Colts will be starting from scratch with Luck.

 

[Steelfan7]

Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.

There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.

That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.

Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?

Why are you only counting the cap number for next year, but the total amount paid last year?

Because the cap number is (to the best of my understanding) the player's salary, plus any bonus money earned that is applied to the cap for that year. Peyton's salary for next year is less than $8M, but part of the $28M bonus would be applied to that year, making the total cap number $16M. Last year, his SALARY was $23M, so his cap hit was $23M.

The amount of cash they'd have to pay out to Peyton and Luck would be a lot more than $23M, and more than they paid last year.

No, it wouldn't (unless there's something I'm missing), and that's my point. People who keep saying the Colts can't tie that much money up at QB are wrong, they already have.

it just doesn't make sense for a team with so many holes to have that much tied up at one position.

This is another issue completely, but one I think they (& other teams with expensive QBs) are able to work around.

You are missing the point that we are talking real cash up front bonus payouts Irsay will have to pay for both QBs.

 

[cstu]

Yes, I am assuming had Manning taken less the Colts would had more money to invest in other parts of the team and had a better chance at winning championships. Yes it is true that the organization might not have hit on all or most of these other players, but it is hard to argue the team wouldn't have been better overall.

I agree that it is insane that the Colts gave him 20 Million when it appears that he wasn't even able to throw a football. So Manning took the money anyway (who wouldn't I guess) and his gratitude to the team for rewarding him and giving him 20 million that they clearly shouldn't have is to demand 28 million more. It may be perfectly legal, but it stinks; imho he is screwing the Colts and their fans big time.

IMHO, in a more fair world, the Colts ought to be able to trade Manning to a contender of his choice and get a couple of picks in return; there ought to be a way to make that happen. I don't think it would be all that hard to do, but Manning would have to work with the team to make it happen and I do not think he will.

I don't see how he is screwing anyone since the Colts are welcome to cut him. When the Colts gave him this deal they should have known this was a possibility.

 

[Bayhawks]

Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.

There is a lot of talk about the Colts not being able to tie up so much money in 1 position (if they keep Manning AND use the #1 pick on a QB). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luck's contract would be very similar to Cam Newton's right? That was 5 years, $22 Million total, wasn't it? Assuming the Colts give Manning his bonus on 3/8, he will count $16M against the cap. That, plus Luck's $4M-$5M against the cap is not impossible to work around.

That would be about 42 mill or more in up front money Irsay would have to pay out for a position where one of them is sitting. ]No way.

Why-they wouldn't be spending any more money on the QB position than they did this year.Say Luck gets 20% more than Cam. That's a little under $27M over 4 years (or was it 5?) or $6.75M/year (assuming 4 years). Peyton's cap hit (if the Colts give him his bonus) is $16M. So $16M plus about $7M means they'd have $23M invested in their QB position.

In 2011, Peyton was paid $23M, plus the Colts paid Collins $4M (salary plus guaranteed bonus). So, last year, they had AT LEAST $27M invested in their QB position (plus what they paid Orlovsky and Painter). So, if the Colts keep Manning and draft Luck, they won't be spending any more on the QB position than they did in 2011. Why wouldn't Irsay do that?

Why are you only counting the cap number for next year, but the total amount paid last year?

Because the cap number is (to the best of my understanding) the player's salary, plus any bonus money earned that is applied to the cap for that year. Peyton's salary for next year is less than $8M, but part of the $28M bonus would be applied to that year, making the total cap number $16M. Last year, his SALARY was $23M, so his cap hit was $23M.

The amount of cash they'd have to pay out to Peyton and Luck would be a lot more than $23M, and more than they paid last year.

No, it wouldn't (unless there's something I'm missing), and that's my point. People who keep saying the Colts can't tie that much money up at QB are wrong, they already have.

it just doesn't make sense for a team with so many holes to have that much tied up at one position.

This is another issue completely, but one I think they (& other teams with expensive QBs) are able to work around.

You are missing the point that we are talking real cash up front bonus payouts Irsay will have to pay for both QBs.

I'm not missing the point. It just wasn't the point I was discussing. I've already stated that (IMO) if the Colts believe Manning is healthy, they won't cut him simply because of the "real cash up front bonus payouts" for Manning & Luck.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I haven't been following along, why are we doing this (everything in boldface)?

 

[Bayhawks]

Thank you for posting this. Am I understanding this correctly in that if they cut him, he counts $10.4 million against the cap in 2012, but if they keep him, he counts $17M against the cap? If that's the case, I think (unless they know his neck is done) it's very unlikely that they DON'T keep him. $6.6M is a lot of money, but in the big picture, it might let them hold onto Peyton for the next 3-4 years, and then transition into a decade (or more) with Luck at QB (hopefully for them he'll adjust like Rodgers did in GB).

I believe that you are not factoring the other free agents on the team. If the Colts plan to keep Manning then they may need to keep players like Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday and Robert Mathis. Peyton gives them a small window to get back to the Super Bowl. With Luck behind center it a long term rebuild. They can save cap space by replacing these players with draft picks and younger cheaper free agents. If the team wins 6 games or more this year, the season will be considered a success. Everything Irsay has said and done leads me to believe the Colts will be starting from scratch with Luck.

I'm not factoring that in, to be honest. And in the big picture, keeping Manning (& drafting Luck) may not make sense, because the other key players are getting up there in age & need to be replaced soon. However, the talk of "they can't afford Manning AND Luck" doesn't seem to be accurate to me, based on the numbers as they stand now, especially when you consider the fact that the Colts already tied up that much money in their QB position in 2011.

 

[humpback]

I'm not factoring that in, to be honest. And in the big picture, keeping Manning (& drafting Luck) may not make sense, because the other key players are getting up there in age & need to be replaced soon. However, the talk of "they can't afford Manning AND Luck" doesn't seem to be accurate to me, based on the numbers as they stand now, especially when you consider the fact that the Colts already tied up that much money in their QB position in 2011.

You keep saying this, but it just isn't true. We're not talking about the cap, we're talking about actual dollars paid out. If they pay Peyton his bonus of $28M, his salary of $7.4M, and they pay Luck somewhere around $15M in bonus and salary (which is conservative), that's over $50M total for 2012. They may be able to afford it, but they didn't pay that much in 2011- no one did or ever has.

 

[kylechoffman]

Manning and wayne to AZ and fix up the d a bit - contender.

 

[Short Corner]

I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.

Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.

So you're saying if a player is injured, he should give back the money the team owes him? Can you point to examples where this occurs with any regularity?

Better yet, can you point to one case where a team paid out an unguaranteed contract to an injured player?

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm not factoring that in, to be honest. And in the big picture, keeping Manning (& drafting Luck) may not make sense, because the other key players are getting up there in age & need to be replaced soon. However, the talk of "they can't afford Manning AND Luck" doesn't seem to be accurate to me, based on the numbers as they stand now, especially when you consider the fact that the Colts already tied up that much money in their QB position in 2011.

You keep saying this, but it just isn't true. We're not talking about the cap, we're talking about actual dollars paid out. If they pay Peyton his bonus of $28M, his salary of $7.4M, and they pay Luck somewhere around $15M in bonus and salary (which is conservative), that's over $50M total for 2012. They may be able to afford it, but they didn't pay that much in 2011- no one did or ever has.

No, WE'RE not, you are. I've already posted that we were discussing two different points. You are talking about "actual dollars paid out," I'm talking about the cap, because that is what the NFL teams consider.You are right in that the "actual dollars paid out" in 2012 would be higher than the salary cap ramifications, but the salary cap ramifications are what will impact this decision by Irsay & the Colts.

BTW-the somewhere around $15M bonus/salary number IS NOT conservative for Luck. With the new CBA and slotted rookie draft picks, he will get slightly more than Cam got last year, which was slightly under $15M in bonus/salary.

 

[Mile High]

I heard Schefter elaborate on this on Mike & Mike.He said that Manning understands that if he pushes it out, it gives all the leverage to Indianapolis to choose what to do with him, and Manning isn't interested in being traded to a team that he doesn't feel great about, particularly if they have to give up a ton to the Colts for his rights. By keeping this date, he's forcing Indy to either commit to him or cut ties, plain and simple.It's ballsy, if true. I'm surprised (and impressed) by Manning's stance here.

Your impressed? Why?He took 20+ million from the team last year and did squat for them. Even if you buy the line about him not having any idea he had any problem with his neck (I don't) when he took all that money you would think he would feel some obligation for taking all that money and never even making it to tc.Now he is holding the team over the barrel for ANOTHER 28+ million and people are impressed?Why not work with the team who gave you all that money and got nothing in return? He could work it out so that he could still dictate which team he goes to, but his team could get something for him in return. Instead he tells him team to shove it and he will go to whoever pays him the most.Peytons nickname isn't PayMeTons for nothing. As I have said before, he has always squeezed every dime he could out of that organization and the team has suffered for it. Whats that you say? He took less than he could have last year? 69 Million garuanteed over 3 years for a 36 year old QB on the decline. one who can't even make it to training camp in year one and he cut his team some great deal? Give me a break.First ballot hall of famer for sure, but also a selfish guy who cares more about money than winning.

You're assuming that the Colts would have used any extra money wisely and invested in players that could have contributed to winning without Manning. But based on the Manning-less team of this season, the extra money would not have helped unless they would have uncovered a Manning clone. It's 100% the Colts fault for agreeing to that type of contract for a player with a serious neck condition. Guys like Manning and Brady have already won a Superbowl and suffered serious injuries along the way, so you can hardly call them selfish for wanting to get a huge payday before they ride off into the sunset and can no longer play.

Yes, I am assuming had Manning taken less the Colts would had more money to invest in other parts of the team and had a better chance at winning championships. Yes it is true that the organization might not have hit on all or most of these other players, but it is hard to argue the team wouldn't have been better overall.I agree that it is insane that the Colts gave him 20 Million when it appears that he wasn't even able to throw a football. So Manning took the money anyway (who wouldn't I guess) and his gratitude to the team for rewarding him and giving him 20 million that they clearly shouldn't have is to demand 28 million more. It may be perfectly legal, but it stinks; imho he is screwing the Colts and their fans big time. IMHO, in a more fair world, the Colts ought to be able to trade Manning to a contender of his choice and get a couple of picks in return; there ought to be a way to make that happen. I don't think it would be all that hard to do, but Manning would have to work with the team to make it happen and I do not think he will.

If Manning played this past year Indy wouldn't be drafting Luck. Indy got lucky, Manning was hurt at the time the next great QB was there to be drafted.

 

[msommer]

Some of the posted capology about Peyton's contract didn't sound right. Here's the best I can piece it together from various news articles and then filling in the voids myself:

In 2011 he signed a $90m, 5 year deal with a $20m signing bonus. The $20m gets prorated over the 5 years of his contract. He also has a $28m option bonus due to him at the start of the 2012 year which is what the current hoopla is about, Indy wanting to push back the date by which they have to decide. Option bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract the same as signing bonuses are (even though the team hasn't had to yet decide to exercise the option or not). So the total prorated amount each year is $20m signing + $28m option = $48m over 5 years = $9.6m prorated each year.

His salaries and cap hit are:

2011: $3.4m + $3m roster bonus + $9.6 prorated = $16m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $17m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $18m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $19m2012: $7.4m + $9.6 prorated = $20mTotal base salary: $39mTotal roster bonuses: $3m in 2011

Total signing bonus: $20m

Total option bonus: $28m

Add them up and that is $90m.

As far as the choices before Indy, they can:



Cut Peyton before paying him the $28m

This would mean the $16m from his signing bonus that hasn't hit the cap yet would be a cap charge in 2012. However they would also get a $5.6m rebate because they were charged that in 2011 as a prorated amount of the $28m option bonus they ended up not paying. So cutting Peyton would be about a $10.4m cap hit against their 2012 cap. Peyton would walk away with a total of $26.4m in cash for the 2011 season, that money having been spread over the 2011 and 2012 caps for the Colts at $16m and $10.4m respectively.

Give Peyton the $28m and keep him for the year

His cap hit would be shown as above, $17m. If they then cut him or traded him in 2013 they would have a $28.8m cap hit, so if they pay him the $28m odds are they keep him at least until 2014 when the cap hit would drop to $19.2m. Unless he retired and paid some of the bonus(es) back.

Give Peyton the $28m and trade him in the 2012 off-season

His cap hit would be $38.4m. No way that is going to happen.

Trade Peyton before the $28m is due

They can't do this because the bonus is due on March 8th, and you can't trade players until March 13th. If they could trade him before having to pay him the option, the other team would pay him the $28m and he would either cost the Colts $16m or $10.4m in cap hit. I'm not sure which, don't know if the Colts would get the $5.6m refund that they paid in 2011 as proration on the option bonus that was later paid to him by another team. If I had to guess I'd say no but not sure.

Good effing posting.If Peyton cannot demonstrate his health by March 8th by whatever means Grigson and Irsay deem sufficiently rigorous, he'll be cut and become a 10.4m cap charge. His contract will then be void. Other teams will then throw themselves at him and he'll likely have a choice. Wait with signing until he can pass a physical, sign with provisos that he won't be paid unless he passes a physical before the season (or some other arbitrary date) or retire. Any team signing him without a passed physical needs their managements' collective heads examined.

 

[Reaper]

here's a top 10 stab at landing spots...i'd take him in ny as a jet fan...1: Miami Dolphins- O-Line is solid, good receiving core, owner would make the splash, weather is nice2: Arizona Cardinals - weather is good, lfitz is all world… nfc west is doable although sf is now a factor3: Kansas City Chiefs - solid wrs, decent o-line good run game; outdoors/cold4: Minnesota Vikings - indoor selling point, but ponder must be pondered5: Washington Redskins - but same divison as Eli and Shanny is a wildcard, wrs are soso6: Houston Texans - solid wrs, top d, very winnable division7: New York Jets - cap is bad, but could take delayed structured guarneteed deal, rex loves him, d is solid, outdoors/cold8: Seattle Seahawks - good home field, but does sea want him? 9: Baltimore Ravens - if flacco falls apart this week, maybe….10: San Francisco 49ers - maybe 2 mos ago, with alex smith now, not so much, but smith is on a one year deal?

No way the Vikes take him after going through Favre.

Why do people keep saying this about the Jets and Vikes...Last I remember the Vikes were contenders with Favre and a much better team than what we just witnessed.As a Jets fan I loved it and witnessed some of the best thrown balls and QB play I've seen on the Jets - And that was with no training camp and little adjustment period - If he stays healthy they had a chance - That season had a lot more ups than this past one..Heck, I'll take Favre over Sanchez RIGHT NOW.AND Manning is younger and better than Favre ever was IMO even at this point, if healthy.

 

[humpback]

I'm not factoring that in, to be honest. And in the big picture, keeping Manning (& drafting Luck) may not make sense, because the other key players are getting up there in age & need to be replaced soon. However, the talk of "they can't afford Manning AND Luck" doesn't seem to be accurate to me, based on the numbers as they stand now, especially when you consider the fact that the Colts already tied up that much money in their QB position in 2011.

You keep saying this, but it just isn't true. We're not talking about the cap, we're talking about actual dollars paid out. If they pay Peyton his bonus of $28M, his salary of $7.4M, and they pay Luck somewhere around $15M in bonus and salary (which is conservative), that's over $50M total for 2012. They may be able to afford it, but they didn't pay that much in 2011- no one did or ever has.

No, WE'RE not, you are. I've already posted that we were discussing two different points. You are talking about "actual dollars paid out," I'm talking about the cap, because that is what the NFL teams consider.You are right in that the "actual dollars paid out" in 2012 would be higher than the salary cap ramifications, but the salary cap ramifications are what will impact this decision by Irsay & the Colts.

BTW-the somewhere around $15M bonus/salary number IS NOT conservative for Luck. With the new CBA and slotted rookie draft picks, he will get slightly more than Cam got last year, which was slightly under $15M in bonus/salary.

I'm talking about both points because both certainly are worth discussing. Do you honestly think NFL teams and owners don't even consider the amount of the checks they write, they only care about the cap? That's ridiculous, the size of that check absolutely will have an impact on this decision, probably a larger impact than the cap ramifications since that's been shown to not be very substantial (as you've said yourself).Cam got a $14.518M signing bonus. Can't find what his salary was for 2011, but I'm assuming it was enough to get up to $15M or so total. I'm assuming Luck will get a slight bump on those numbers, thus $15M is conservative. In any event, it's pretty funny to me how you want to nitpick about possibly a couple hundred thousand dollars at the absolute most for Luck, but ignore $25+ Million dollars cash being paid out to Peyton as not even being a consideration.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

If Manning played this past year Indy wouldn't be drafting Luck. Indy got lucky, Manning was hurt at the time the next great QB was there to be drafted.

I'll take it

 

[daveR]

I'm not factoring that in, to be honest. And in the big picture, keeping Manning (& drafting Luck) may not make sense, because the other key players are getting up there in age & need to be replaced soon. However, the talk of "they can't afford Manning AND Luck" doesn't seem to be accurate to me, based on the numbers as they stand now, especially when you consider the fact that the Colts already tied up that much money in their QB position in 2011.

You keep saying this, but it just isn't true. We're not talking about the cap, we're talking about actual dollars paid out. If they pay Peyton his bonus of $28M, his salary of $7.4M, and they pay Luck somewhere around $15M in bonus and salary (which is conservative), that's over $50M total for 2012. They may be able to afford it, but they didn't pay that much in 2011- no one did or ever has.

No, WE'RE not, you are. I've already posted that we were discussing two different points. You are talking about "actual dollars paid out," I'm talking about the cap, because that is what the NFL teams consider.You are right in that the "actual dollars paid out" in 2012 would be higher than the salary cap ramifications, but the salary cap ramifications are what will impact this decision by Irsay & the Colts.

BTW-the somewhere around $15M bonus/salary number IS NOT conservative for Luck. With the new CBA and slotted rookie draft picks, he will get slightly more than Cam got last year, which was slightly under $15M in bonus/salary.

I'm talking about both points because both certainly are worth discussing. Do you honestly think NFL teams and owners don't even consider the amount of the checks they write, they only care about the cap? That's ridiculous, the size of that check absolutely will have an impact on this decision, probably a larger impact than the cap ramifications since that's been shown to not be very substantial (as you've said yourself).Cam got a $14.518M signing bonus. Can't find what his salary was for 2011, but I'm assuming it was enough to get up to $15M or so total. I'm assuming Luck will get a slight bump on those numbers, thus $15M is conservative. In any event, it's pretty funny to me how you want to nitpick about possibly a couple hundred thousand dollars at the absolute most for Luck, but ignore $25+ Million dollars cash being paid out to Peyton as not even being a consideration.

I think you're missing an important piece of the puzzle. This isn't MLB where there's no sal-cap. In this NFL CBA, the owners are limited on the top end by the cap, but they are also limited on the bottom end. By contract, they are obligated to spend around (someone look up the specifics) 90-95% of the cap number. This means that the money they might, or might not, spend on Manning must be spent somewhere. So-o-o, the "real dollars" argument is moot.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think Jets fans (or anyone else speculating on the Jets and Manning) need to listen to the owner above all else. He appears willing to entertain the possibility. And when an owner with his resources wants to make something happen, they usually can (presuming of course Manning is available and would be willing to go there).

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7480639/new-york-jets-owner-woody-johnson-backs-santonio-holmes-kill-peyton-manning-talk

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm talking about both points because both certainly are worth discussing.

That's your opinion & you are entitled to it. I'm not discussing "actual cash" because I feel it's not relevant.

Do you honestly think NFL teams and owners don't even consider the amount of the checks they write, they only care about the cap?

Not all NFL teams/owner, but the Colts/Irsay have shown with their past actions that the cap numbers are more important to them than the "actual cash." They've paid HUGE "actual cash" numbers to Peyton at least twice previously (last year, and 2004); perhaps this is because they recognize he is their most popular player and is a big reason why they are the 11th most profitable NFL franchise, and why they are always sold out, despite having ticket prices that are more expensive than the NFL average.

Cam got a $14.518M signing bonus. Can't find what his salary was for 2011, but I'm assuming it was enough to get up to $15M or so total. I'm assuming Luck will get a slight bump on those numbers, thus $15M is conservative. In any event, it's pretty funny to me how you want to nitpick about possibly a couple hundred thousand dollars at the absolute most for Luck, but ignore $25+ Million dollars cash being paid out to Peyton as not even being a consideration.

I wasn't nitpicking, just refuting your comment that around $15M in bonus and salary is conservative. BTW-Cam's 2011 salary was $375K.

 

[humpback]

That's your opinion & you are entitled to it. I'm not discussing "actual cash" because I feel it's not relevant.

Yes, my opinion is that handing over a check for $28M to a guy with major health concerns absolutely is a factor. Hard to believe anyone would think otherwise.

Not all NFL teams/owner, but the Colts/Irsay have shown with their past actions that the cap numbers are more important to them than the "actual cash." They've paid HUGE "actual cash" numbers to Peyton at least twice previously (last year, and 2004); perhaps this is because they recognize he is their most popular player and is a big reason why they are the 11th most profitable NFL franchise, and why they are always sold out, despite having ticket prices that are more expensive than the NFL average.

All well and good, but saying the cap numbers are "more important" isn't the same as saying the cash is "irrelevant".

I wasn't nitpicking, just refuting your comment that around $15M in bonus and salary is conservative. BTW-Cam's 2011 salary was $375K.

Okay, so that brings Cam's total to $14.893 million for 2011. I'd gladly wager that Luck gets in excess of $15M next year if you'd like, or we can just go with the same $14.893 for Luck, add that to the $35.4M for Peyton and come up with $50.293M total to QBs in 2012 (not including 3rd string). Not much of a difference, but I guess it doesn't matter since that's irrelevant.

 

[Kiddnets]

I think Jets fans (or anyone else speculating on the Jets and Manning) need to listen to the owner above all else. He appears willing to entertain the possibility. And when an owner with his resources wants to make something happen, they usually can (presuming of course Manning is available and would be willing to go there).http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7480639/new-york-jets-owner-woody-johnson-backs-santonio-holmes-kill-peyton-manning-talk

Thats the Jets....bad season so to reclaim back pages and sell PSLs they will hang their hat on a QB past his prime coming off a huge injury...one hit away from retirement.

 

[humpback]

I think you're missing an important piece of the puzzle. This isn't MLB where there's no sal-cap. In this NFL CBA, the owners are limited on the top end by the cap, but they are also limited on the bottom end. By contract, they are obligated to spend around (someone look up the specifics) 90-95% of the cap number. This means that the money they might, or might not, spend on Manning must be spent somewhere. So-o-o, the "real dollars" argument is moot.

Actually, the per team floor doesn't kick in until 2013, so it isn't applicable at all here. Even if it were, the point seems a bit ridiculous for a few reasons- that floor is based on cap dollars, not actual dollars paid, and even if they don't pay Peyton that bonus he's still going to count a decent amount against their cap next year. Secondly, yes, those cap dollars would have to be spent somewhere, but it wouldn't have to be spent on a QB who may not play a down. They have plenty of their own free agents they could spend those cap dollars on, not to mention other fa's.We've already discussed the cap ramifications of paying this bonus, which aren't huge (even if we're wrong, I'm relatively certain the Colts have calculated it). Moving the date for the bonus would have no impact on the cap ramifications anyway, so if anything that point is moot in this discussion. IMO, moving the deadline for the bonus isn't about the cap, it's about wanting more time to decide if they want to take a $28M cash gamble on Peyton's injury.

 

[Buckna]

I'm not factoring that in, to be honest. And in the big picture, keeping Manning (& drafting Luck) may not make sense, because the other key players are getting up there in age & need to be replaced soon. However, the talk of "they can't afford Manning AND Luck" doesn't seem to be accurate to me, based on the numbers as they stand now, especially when you consider the fact that the Colts already tied up that much money in their QB position in 2011.

You keep saying this, but it just isn't true. We're not talking about the cap, we're talking about actual dollars paid out. If they pay Peyton his bonus of $28M, his salary of $7.4M, and they pay Luck somewhere around $15M in bonus and salary (which is conservative), that's over $50M total for 2012. They may be able to afford it, but they didn't pay that much in 2011- no one did or ever has.

No, WE'RE not, you are. I've already posted that we were discussing two different points. You are talking about "actual dollars paid out," I'm talking about the cap, because that is what the NFL teams consider.You are right in that the "actual dollars paid out" in 2012 would be higher than the salary cap ramifications, but the salary cap ramifications are what will impact this decision by Irsay & the Colts.

BTW-the somewhere around $15M bonus/salary number IS NOT conservative for Luck. With the new CBA and slotted rookie draft picks, he will get slightly more than Cam got last year, which was slightly under $15M in bonus/salary.

I'm talking about both points because both certainly are worth discussing. Do you honestly think NFL teams and owners don't even consider the amount of the checks they write, they only care about the cap? That's ridiculous, the size of that check absolutely will have an impact on this decision, probably a larger impact than the cap ramifications since that's been shown to not be very substantial (as you've said yourself).Cam got a $14.518M signing bonus. Can't find what his salary was for 2011, but I'm assuming it was enough to get up to $15M or so total. I'm assuming Luck will get a slight bump on those numbers, thus $15M is conservative. In any event, it's pretty funny to me how you want to nitpick about possibly a couple hundred thousand dollars at the absolute most for Luck, but ignore $25+ Million dollars cash being paid out to Peyton as not even being a consideration.

I think you're missing an important piece of the puzzle. This isn't MLB where there's no sal-cap. In this NFL CBA, the owners are limited on the top end by the cap, but they are also limited on the bottom end. By contract, they are obligated to spend around (someone look up the specifics) 90-95% of the cap number. This means that the money they might, or might not, spend on Manning must be spent somewhere. So-o-o, the "real dollars" argument is moot.

The per-team salary cap cash floor does not take effect until 2013. A 2 year phase in was one of the concessions the cheapskate teams like the Bucs, Bengals, etc. wrung out of the new agreement.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not all NFL teams/owner, but the Colts/Irsay have shown with their past actions that the cap numbers are more important to them than the "actual cash."

Over the long run, the cap number is equal to the actual cash spent. It's not really two separate issues.If the Colts pay $28 million to Manning in actual cash, all $28 million will ultimately count against the cap, even if it's not all this season. The amount of actual cash they pay limits, dollar for dollar, what they can spend on other players, either this season or down the road. Even if Irsay doesn't care at all about "actual cash" but cares only about the cap, that's far different from not caring at all about the 2013 and 2014 caps but caring only about the 2012 cap. Unless the Colts are mortgaging away their future to put all of their eggs in the 2012 basket, "actual cash" is still extremely relevant to the discussion.

 

[Donnybrook]

Why do people keep saying this about the Jets and Vikes...

Last I remember the Vikes were contenders with Favre and a much better team than what we just witnessed.

...

Were you unconscious for most of the 2010 season?

 

[Just Win Baby]

If Peyton cannot demonstrate his health by March 8th by whatever means Grigson and Irsay deem sufficiently rigorous, he'll be cut and become a 10.4m cap charge. His contract will then be void. Other teams will then throw themselves at him and he'll likely have a choice. Wait with signing until he can pass a physical, sign with provisos that he won't be paid unless he passes a physical before the season (or some other arbitrary date) or retire.

Even if Peyton is cut by March 8, that doesn't mean teams can easily just sit back and wait on him for months to prove his health and sign. The teams that need upgrades at QB need to know what do to with regard to other free agent QBs (e.g., Flynn) and in the NFL draft.

 

[Bayhawks]

Not all NFL teams/owner, but the Colts/Irsay have shown with their past actions that the cap numbers are more important to them than the "actual cash."

Over the long run, the cap number is equal to the actual cash spent. It's not really two separate issues.If the Colts pay $28 million to Manning in actual cash, all $28 million will ultimately count against the cap, even if it's not all this season. The amount of actual cash they pay limits, dollar for dollar, what they can spend on other players, either this season or down the road. Even if Irsay doesn't care at all about "actual cash" but cares only about the cap, that's far different from not caring at all about the 2013 and 2014 caps but caring only about the 2012 cap. Unless the Colts are mortgaging away their future to put all of their eggs in the 2012 basket, "actual cash" is still extremely relevant to the discussion.

I understand that. However another poster is suggesting that Irsay won't be willing to spend that much "actual cash" this season, like they were an organization that was pinching pennies, just making ends meet each month. In reality, as you pointed out, the "actual cash" will equal out to the cap amount, so if they spend more "actual cash" this year, they will spend less "actual cash" (on the QB position) in future years. What he isn't acknowledging is that cutting Peyton to save "actual cash" this year won't actually save them any money, and could cost them money, especially if Luck isn't successful right away (ticket sales could drop).

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M

According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.

Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.

Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

 

[Reaper]

Why do people keep saying this about the Jets and Vikes...

Last I remember the Vikes were contenders with Favre and a much better team than what we just witnessed.

...

Were you unconscious for most of the 2010 season?

Possibly.

But, he took them to a Championship game while there.

As long as his neck checks out, I would think Manning at this point would be quite a few levels above whatever Favre did past 40 years old.

And I would think Jets or Viking fans would relish the opportunity to be a contender NEXT year. Not.. "oh Favre Sucked so, why would they want a Better QB 7 years younger!!"

 

[humpback]

Not all NFL teams/owner, but the Colts/Irsay have shown with their past actions that the cap numbers are more important to them than the "actual cash."

Over the long run, the cap number is equal to the actual cash spent. It's not really two separate issues.If the Colts pay $28 million to Manning in actual cash, all $28 million will ultimately count against the cap, even if it's not all this season. The amount of actual cash they pay limits, dollar for dollar, what they can spend on other players, either this season or down the road. Even if Irsay doesn't care at all about "actual cash" but cares only about the cap, that's far different from not caring at all about the 2013 and 2014 caps but caring only about the 2012 cap. Unless the Colts are mortgaging away their future to put all of their eggs in the 2012 basket, "actual cash" is still extremely relevant to the discussion.

I understand that. However another poster is suggesting that Irsay won't be willing to spend that much "actual cash" this season, like they were an organization that was pinching pennies, just making ends meet each month. In reality, as you pointed out, the "actual cash" will equal out to the cap amount, so if they spend more "actual cash" this year, they will spend less "actual cash" (on the QB position) in future years. What he isn't acknowledging is that cutting Peyton to save "actual cash" this year won't actually save them any money, and could cost them money, especially if Luck isn't successful right away (ticket sales could drop).

I assume you're referring to me, and I'm not sure what else to say besides go back and read the posts. I'm not suggesting that Irsay won't be willing to spend that much actual cash this season like they were an organization that was pinching pennies. I said they won't be willing to spend that much actual cash on a player who has a very real chance of never stepping on the field again. I specifically said that if Peyton was healthy, the conversation would be entirely different. Not sure why you're miscontruing that.Saying cutting Peyton wouldn't save them any money and could cost them money is entirely your opinion (and the first part is just incorrect). It's plainly obvious that cutting him would save them money in the short term. Whether that would be offset by declining revenues over the long run is entirely speculative. If there was no upside to cutting him only downside, why would the Colts be even discussing it? No brainer, pay him his money, it's a win/win.

 

[Donnybrook]

Why do people keep saying this about the Jets and Vikes...

Last I remember the Vikes were contenders with Favre and a much better team than what we just witnessed.

...

Were you unconscious for most of the 2010 season?

Possibly.

But, he took them to a Championship game while there.

As long as his neck checks out, I would think Manning at this point would be quite a few levels above whatever Favre did past 40 years old.

And I would think Jets or Viking fans would relish the opportunity to be a contender NEXT year. Not.. "oh Favre Sucked so, why would they want a Better QB 7 years younger!!"

Vikings simply don't have an offensive line to support Manning. I don't belive he would want to play behind it and I don't believe the team has enough talent especially on the defense to be a contender. I honestly think bringing in Manning now would be a waste of money.

 

[massraider]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

And that's that. I don't think the cap numbers, or even the "real" dollars, is the issue. It's just getting Luck on the field, all the practice reps, and getting him up to speed. It's gotta happen sooner or later, do it now with the new GM, new coach, etc.It sucks that the Colts cannot trad Manning, but really, they were lucky enough for Manning to break his neck the year the best QB prospect in years came out, so shed no tears. It's a good thing for Manning, as well. If he's not getting the money anyway, let him get healthy (if he ever does) and choose his situation.

 

[Bayhawks]

I assume you're referring to me, and I'm not sure what else to say besides go back and read the posts. I'm not suggesting that Irsay won't be willing to spend that much actual cash this season like they were an organization that was pinching pennies.

You've posted several times that the Colts won't pay out $50M in "actual cash" to the QB position.

I said they won't be willing to spend that much actual cash on a player who has a very real chance of never stepping on the field again. I specifically said that if Peyton was healthy, the conversation would be entirely different. Not sure why you're miscontruing that.

I'm not mis-construing anything. I've also specifically said that my point is based on assuming Peyton is healthy. But you continue to respond to my posts as if I didn't post that. Again, MY POINT IS THAT IF PEYTON IS HEALTHY, THEY CAN (AND IMO, WILL) BE ABLE TO PAY BOTH MANNING AND LUCK. You continue to say "they've never paid that much actual cash," or "they won't pay that much actual cash at one position." I apologize if I misunderstood you, but those statements don't mention anything about Peyton's health.

Saying cutting Peyton wouldn't save them any money and could cost them money is entirely your opinion (and the first part is just incorrect). It's plainly obvious that cutting him would save them money in the short term. Whether that would be offset by declining revenues over the long run is entirely speculative. If there was no upside to cutting him only downside, why would the Colts be even discussing it? No brainer, pay him his money, it's a win/win.

That's part of my point. The Colts AREN'T discussing it, at least not publicly. WE are discussing, ESPN is discussing it, REPORTERS are discussing it. I haven't read/heard anything from the Colts where they have discussed cutting Manning. I'm merely offering the contrary opinion that they could (and might) keep Manning AND draft Luck, and that it wouldn't be as huge of a financial burden as so many people think.

 

[Bayhawks]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

And that's that. I don't think the cap numbers, or even the "real" dollars, is the issue. It's just getting Luck on the field, all the practice reps, and getting him up to speed. It's gotta happen sooner or later, do it now with the new GM, new coach, etc.It sucks that the Colts cannot trad Manning, but really, they were lucky enough for Manning to break his neck the year the best QB prospect in years came out, so shed no tears. It's a good thing for Manning, as well. If he's not getting the money anyway, let him get healthy (if he ever does) and choose his situation.

Again, that is not that. This is someone not affiliated with the Colts saying what they think is best. NO ONE from the Colts has said anything about this. I know Irsay tweeted something back in the fall about Luck "doing the Rodgers thing," and he recently commented (when it was reported Peyton wouldn't push the deadline for his bonus back) that they hadn't even discussed that. How much of this is true or not, I don't know; but just because a reporter says the Colts should or will do this or that doesn't make it so.

 

[humpback]

Bayhawks, maybe you're confusing me with another poster, maybe even one on another message board, but go back and read my posts. In almost every single one of them, I've mentioned his health. I said it in my initial post in this thread, which is the one you responded to. I've said in more than one post that this would be a different conversation if he were healthy.

You are correct, I have said they have never paid that much money in one season for the QB position, which is simply a fact. I also said the reason why they won't do that now is because of the questions with his health. You've said a bunch of things that are just incorrect in this thread which I responded to, but that doesn't change what my stance has always been. This thread is about the March 8th deadline. The reason that deadline is an issue is because of his health- they have to decide by that date if they want to take a $28M gamble that he's going to be healthy. It's possible they determine before March 8th that he will be 100% and they give him the bonus, but I doubt it. That's a huge gamble (again, because of the health factor in case that wasn't clear).

 

[Bayhawks]

Bayhawks, maybe you're confusing me with another poster, maybe even one on another message board, but go back and read my posts. In almost every single one of them, I've mentioned his health. I said it in my initial post in this thread, which is the one you responded to. I've said in more than one post that this would be a different conversation if he were healthy.

You are correct, I have said they have never paid that much money in one season for the QB position, which is simply a fact. I also said the reason why they won't do that now is because of the questions with his health. You've said a bunch of things that are just incorrect in this thread which I responded to, but that doesn't change what my stance has always been. This thread is about the March 8th deadline. The reason that deadline is an issue is because of his health- they have to decide by that date if they want to take a $28M gamble that he's going to be healthy. It's possible they determine before March 8th that he will be 100% and they give him the bonus, but I doubt it. That's a huge gamble (again, because of the health factor in case that wasn't clear).

Here's your initial post (in red below). No mention of his health or of this being a different conversation if he was healthy. Perhaps that is what you meant, but it isn't clear from this post.

Firing Caldwell has to be the final nail in the Manning coffin, doesn't it? If Manning has to learn a new system anyway, he'd likely be happy to go somewhere else where its not a rebuild.

Releasing Manning at this point seems to be the only logical result. If Irsay wants to pay him $28MM for past accomplishments and loyalty, he isn't a very smart businessman - and being where he is I have to guess he is a smart businessman.

Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.

And I realize this thread is about Manning not extending the bonus deadline, but my initial post was asking a question specific to the affordability of both QBs. I realize it was a bit of a hijack, but I've made it clear several times that I'm talking about the Colts being able to afford both QBs.I did go back, and I got your posts and another poster confused (or rather combined). I responded to your post with my initial post, and then another poster responded to me, saying there was no way Irsay would pay them both. My apologies.

 

[massraider]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

And that's that. I don't think the cap numbers, or even the "real" dollars, is the issue. It's just getting Luck on the field, all the practice reps, and getting him up to speed. It's gotta happen sooner or later, do it now with the new GM, new coach, etc.It sucks that the Colts cannot trad Manning, but really, they were lucky enough for Manning to break his neck the year the best QB prospect in years came out, so shed no tears. It's a good thing for Manning, as well. If he's not getting the money anyway, let him get healthy (if he ever does) and choose his situation.

Again, that is not that. This is someone not affiliated with the Colts saying what they think is best. NO ONE from the Colts has said anything about this. I know Irsay tweeted something back in the fall about Luck "doing the Rodgers thing," and he recently commented (when it was reported Peyton wouldn't push the deadline for his bonus back) that they hadn't even discussed that. How much of this is true or not, I don't know; but just because a reporter says the Colts should or will do this or that doesn't make it so.

I don't care who said what, I don't even know what you guys are yapping about. Those numbers Hoss quoted just make the football decision easier. Unless there is a curveball, the Colts have to either pay a QB $28 mill really soon that they aren't sure is healthy, or roll with the future. I think they roll with the future.Just my opinion, not anything based on what I think makes sense for the Colts, financially and on the field. Yeah, IMO, that's that.

 

[humpback]

Bayhawks, maybe you're confusing me with another poster, maybe even one on another message board, but go back and read my posts. In almost every single one of them, I've mentioned his health. I said it in my initial post in this thread, which is the one you responded to. I've said in more than one post that this would be a different conversation if he were healthy.

You are correct, I have said they have never paid that much money in one season for the QB position, which is simply a fact. I also said the reason why they won't do that now is because of the questions with his health. You've said a bunch of things that are just incorrect in this thread which I responded to, but that doesn't change what my stance has always been. This thread is about the March 8th deadline. The reason that deadline is an issue is because of his health- they have to decide by that date if they want to take a $28M gamble that he's going to be healthy. It's possible they determine before March 8th that he will be 100% and they give him the bonus, but I doubt it. That's a huge gamble (again, because of the health factor in case that wasn't clear).

Here's your initial post (in red below). No mention of his health or of this being a different conversation if he was healthy. Perhaps that is what you meant, but it isn't clear from this post.

Firing Caldwell has to be the final nail in the Manning coffin, doesn't it? If Manning has to learn a new system anyway, he'd likely be happy to go somewhere else where its not a rebuild.

Releasing Manning at this point seems to be the only logical result. If Irsay wants to pay him $28MM for past accomplishments and loyalty, he isn't a very smart businessman - and being where he is I have to guess he is a smart businessman.

Agreed- he already paid him almost that much last season to not play, I can't imagine any scenario where he takes that huge risk again, especially considering the investment they're going to have in Luck (most likely). He's as good as gone IMO.

And I realize this thread is about Manning not extending the bonus deadline, but my initial post was asking a question specific to the affordability of both QBs. I realize it was a bit of a hijack, but I've made it clear several times that I'm talking about the Colts being able to afford both QBs.I did go back, and I got your posts and another poster confused (or rather combined). I responded to your post with my initial post, and then another poster responded to me, saying there was no way Irsay would pay them both. My apologies.

No worries. FWIW, the "taking that risk" part in my initial post is referring to the risk of Peyton not playing again.

 

[GregR]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

I think that Rotoworld post is going to mislead people more than it would inform. People are used to seeing cap figures with good reason, they paint a clearer picture of the situation than do yearly cash outlay that don't include letting you know how much of that is paying for future years.They could have just axed the first paragraph and only given the second and it would have left the majority of readers with a better understanding of the situation.

 

[cstu]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

I think that Rotoworld post is going to mislead people more than it would inform. People are used to seeing cap figures with good reason, they paint a clearer picture of the situation than do yearly cash outlay that don't include letting you know how much of that is paying for future years.They could have just axed the first paragraph and only given the second and it would have left the majority of readers with a better understanding of the situation.

I agree it's misleading but it's still real money that they can't use to pay other players. $28M could buy some good free agents.

 

[Bayhawks]

Manning, Luck combo would cost Colts $50.5M According to ESPN NFL Business Analyst Andrew Brandt, it will cost the Colts $50.5 million to keep Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck on the roster in 2012.Manning's option is $28 million in addition to a $7.4 million salary while the No. 1 overall pick will receive approximately $15.1 million in bonus plus salary in 2012. If the Colts are dead-set on selecting a QB with the first pick, as owner Jim Irsay suggested, the only move that makes sense is declining Manning's option. Cleaning house from top to bottom, Manning's contract would be a salary-cap millstone around the franchise's neck while trying to improve the talent around Luck or Robert Griffin III.Source: Andrew Brandt on Twitter

I think that Rotoworld post is going to mislead people more than it would inform. People are used to seeing cap figures with good reason, they paint a clearer picture of the situation than do yearly cash outlay that don't include letting you know how much of that is paying for future years.They could have just axed the first paragraph and only given the second and it would have left the majority of readers with a better understanding of the situation.

I agree it's misleading but it's still real money that they can't use to pay other players. $28M could buy some good free agents.

With the gutting of the Colts coaching staff, Indy (IMO) is becoming a worrisome FF situation. 1) If they sign Manning, he's going to have to adjust to an entirely new coaching staff, it seems. Now I understand that Peyton knows their offense inside and out, and I'd assume that if he returns, the new coaches would work with his system, and not vice-versa. But assuming the Colts manage to sign their key free-agents, they aren't as young as they once were. The O-line is not as good as it was 3 years ago, Wayne looked bad last year (although his QB play could be blamed, Garcon didn't seem too negatively impacted), Collie is a head-shot away from a concussion, Clark can't seem to stay healthy, the running game is seriously questionable, & the D is bad.2) If they cut Manning and go with Luck, it wouldn't surprise me for them to not re-sign their FAs like Wayne/Saturday, instead focusing on youth. This does not bode well for FF purposes either.The more I think about it, the less and less appealing Indy looks to me, from a FF perspective.

 

[Bri]

Manning is selfish ##### and he is the reason the colts couldn't get quality pieces to put around him.

I hope he never plays again.

Could have swore I read a piece earlier in Peyton's career that he agreed to restructure his contract once so the Colts could do exactly that. But I might be thinking of some other high-profile QB. I think it's been 3-4 years since it happened.

He did back in 2007http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2773817

Seems to me that it's the Colts turn then. I remember "how much money does Jordan need" articles about Michael Jordan wanting to make so much money despite already being so very wealthy. I don't think Peyton's wrong here and he's probably got tons of $. Maybe not "like Mike" but I'm sure it's plenty. The point is he turned the franchise around, the owner made money hand over fist thanks to Manning, Manning took a hit(link above) and now it's the owner's turn to pay.

If they want Peyton to eat 28m then let him be the GM and decided what players lineup around him. I mean what more can the guy do for the Colts? He did his job, he needs to get paid.

 

[Bri]

No player is worth a 28m bonus. Not in terms of putting together an entire team within the nfl salary cap system

how much did Tebow earn the Broncos owner the last two years?

 

[Bri]

With the gutting of the Colts coaching staff, Indy (IMO) is becoming a worrisome FF situation. 1) If they sign Manning, he's going to have to adjust to an entirely new coaching staff, it seems. Now I understand that Peyton knows their offense inside and out, and I'd assume that if he returns, the new coaches would work with his system, and not vice-versa. But assuming the Colts manage to sign their key free-agents, they aren't as young as they once were. The O-line is not as good as it was 3 years ago, Wayne looked bad last year (although his QB play could be blamed, Garcon didn't seem too negatively impacted), Collie is a head-shot away from a concussion, Clark can't seem to stay healthy, the running game is seriously questionable, & the D is bad.2) If they cut Manning and go with Luck, it wouldn't surprise me for them to not re-sign their FAs like Wayne/Saturday, instead focusing on youth. This does not bode well for FF purposes either.The more I think about it, the less and less appealing Indy looks to me, from a FF perspective.

In this regard, I don't know that there is a QB I would worry about less than Manning. The guy is so infamously a student of the game and so meticulous, if anyone can pickup a new offense wouldn't you figure it's him? Re-picking up a new offense, Manning is eons better prepared than Luck.