PDA

View Full Version : some Surtain from the Miami Herald


Wile_E_Coyote
02-05-2005, 09:35 AM
I don't think he likes playing in cold weather...

Colts interested in Surtain

http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif
BY JASON COLE AND ARMANDO SALGUERO
http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif
jcole@herald.com
http://www.miami.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Indianapolis might quickly emerge as the leading contender for Dolphins cornerback Patrick Surtain, but that doesn't mean Colts running back Edgerrin James will be the bait.

According to two sources, Surtain is interested in playing for the Colts, and Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning is interested in having Surtain play there as well.

''It's early in the process, but I think there's a lot of interest in making that happen,'' a source said. ``The Colts have the cap room and the need, no question.''

There are a number of other teams expected to be interested, including Cleveland. The only teams Surtain will not play for are Green Bay and Minnesota, another source said.

The Colts are expected to have approximately $20 million in salary cap space by the start of the league year (March 1). That cap space will allow the team to put the ''franchise'' tag on James (worth approximately $8.2 million) to keep him for another year and still give them about $12 million for free agency.

In short, the Colts will be able to keep James and still trade for Surtain.

The Dolphins are expected to want draft picks in return for Surtain rather than acquire James, whose contract demands will be similar to Surtain's. While James wants to play in South Florida, he also wants a signing bonus of approximately $14 million for a contract extension.

The Dolphins are shopping Surtain, who is scheduled to cost more than $8.3 million, because he also wants a contract with a signing bonus of about $14 million.

Bowser
02-05-2005, 10:02 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa!! How in the hell do the Colts have 20 mil of cap room with the deals that Manning and Harrison received??

Now, the obligatory WHY THE **** AREN'T WE ABLE TO DO THAT question.

eazyb81
02-05-2005, 10:02 AM
How can the Colts be that far under the cap after the huge contracts they gave Peyton and Marvin Harrison? Seriously, $20 mill under the cap? I don't think that is right.

Wile_E_Coyote
02-05-2005, 10:09 AM
I think they have a bunch of FAs, Chiefs do not

LiL stumppy
02-05-2005, 10:10 AM
The marvin contract wordked out wierd si it didnt take as much money away as it sounded

Mr. Laz
02-05-2005, 11:18 AM
Now, the obligatory WHY THE **** AREN'T WE ABLE TO DO THAT question.
answer ....

because we CHOOSE not to do that, it cuts back on profits

htismaqe
02-05-2005, 11:27 AM
answer ....

because we CHOOSE not to do that, it cuts back on profits

The cap has NOTHING to do with profits and you know it.

Mr. Laz
02-05-2005, 11:31 AM
The cap has NOTHING to do with profits and you know it.
your right and that's precisely my point


people look at the colts and say "how can they have any cap room"?


because the colts CHOOSE to stretch the cap ... it saves them cap room, but cost them profits.


we choose NOT to stretch the cap as much as other teams ... because it gets us more profits.


that's why it seems like other teams always have more cap room then us and while we are always "tight against the cap"

htismaqe
02-05-2005, 11:37 AM
your right and that's precisely my point


people look at the colts and say "how can they have any cap room"?


because the colts CHOOSE to stretch the cap ... it saves them cap room, but cost them profits.


we choose NOT to stretch the cap as much as other teams ... because it gets us more profits.


that's why it seems like other teams always have more cap room then us and while we are always "tight against the cap"

I'm not sure that's 100% the case, but I see your point.

We'd rather tie guys up with base salary than pay them huge signing bonuses. That's true.

But we're also one of the worst in the league at these stupid $10M+ roster bonuses (Grbac, Holliday), which eat up cap AND profits.

The Bad Guy
02-05-2005, 11:47 AM
I'm not sure that's 100% the case, but I see your point.

We'd rather tie guys up with base salary than pay them huge signing bonuses. That's true.

But we're also one of the worst in the league at these stupid $10M+ roster bonuses (Grbac, Holliday), which eat up cap AND profits.

How many times has that 10 million been paid out?

I can't think of one time that the Chiefs paid out a 10 million roster bonus.

All it does is eat up potential cap room, but in the end they don't matter because they are never paid out.

The Bad Guy
02-05-2005, 11:49 AM
The Colts owner has borrowed against assets to pay for his players. He broke the bank on Manning, Harrison and said he will do the same for James.

Our owner says they are cashed out.

Lamar Hunt has done wonderful things for this game and I truly appreciate it.

But I wish he was the owner of another franchise.

It would eat at me everyday that I haven't held a trophy named in my honor in forever - if ever, I don't know when they named it the Lamar Hunt Trophy.

Mr. Laz
02-05-2005, 11:51 AM
I'm not sure that's 100% the case, but I see your point.

We'd rather tie guys up with base salary than pay them huge signing bonuses. That's true.

But we're also one of the worst in the league at these stupid $10M+ roster bonuses (Grbac, Holliday), which eat up cap AND profits.
no disagreement here..

our main problem is still talent evaluation



but our front office still has that small market mentality of counting pennies.

last year Vermeil was even quoted as saying "we have the cap room but don't have the finances."


lamar/carl ... whomever decides it, still has a bottomline first


they just don't want to break even or make a few million, they seem to want to make as much money as they can and still be competitive.


not that you can blame them for wanting profit ... it's a business.



But it's also a weakness of the Chiefs "on the field" team.

htismaqe
02-05-2005, 11:57 AM
no disagreement here..

our main problem is still talent evaluation



but our front office still has that small market mentality of counting pennies.

last year Vermeil was even quoted as saying "we have the cap room but don't have the finances."


lamar/carl ... whomever decides it, still has a bottomline first


they just don't want to break even or make a few million, they seem to want to make as much money as they can and still be competitive.


not that you can blame them for wanting profit ... it's a business.



But it's also a weakness of the Chiefs "on the field" team.

I don't disagree with that at all.

Lancetastic
02-05-2005, 01:15 PM
The reason that the Colts have so much cap room is BECAUSE of the deals given to Manning and James, not IN SPITE of them. Because their bonuses were huge and most money was backloaded, the initial two years have a relatively small blow to the salary cap for these two players. Their deals will need to be renegotiated within the next 2-3 years or their cap numbers will swell to the point they cannot afford any other players. The Colts will pay handsomely down the road for having so much space down the road so don't blame the Chiefs' management for not following the Colts' blueprint because they too will have to pay the piper. In my opinion, the Colts probably have crippled their franchise in the upcoming years unless Manning is willing to take a massive paycut off his per-year salary. They did not renegotiate his original rookie contract and instead had a gun against their head after his contract expired and had to break the bank for it.

The roster bonuses paid to Holliday and Grbac did not hurt us against the cap on their own because we never paid them. The only cap hit we took (or will take as it pertains to Holliday) was (or will be) the remaining amount of their respective signing bonuses. Holliday was not thought to be the real deal so his contract did not include a massive signing bonus or a lot of money up front. The Chiefs will have cap-room once they get rid of Holliday and they have already restructured several contracts.

The Chiefs will take the most damage later on with Priest Holmes' contract as a lot of his bonuses, etc. are guaranteed as late as 2008 when I assume he will no longer be on the team. Fortunately, the cap will in all likelihood be over $100 million by this point so the hit will be deflected somewhat as it will be a smaller percentage of the overall cap figure by this time.

Instead of looking at the cap figures before free agency begins and getting angry about it, try to analyze what has caused the figures to be what they are and more importantly, why they mean nearly nothing until roster cuts and trades are made.

Mr. Laz
02-05-2005, 01:23 PM
The reason that the Colts have so much cap room is BECAUSE of the deals given to Manning and James, not IN SPITE of them. Because their bonuses were huge and most money was backloaded, the initial two years have a relatively small blow to the salary cap for these two players.

didn't we just say that?


the chiefs unwillingness to squeeze the cap is the reason why some others teams seem to have so much more cap room than we are.


btw i wouldn't count on the colts being "cripple" anytime soon. If your will to the hit to your profits and you know how to "twist" the cap you can avoid cap problems for years.(ie washington,faiders,broncos etc)

if your owner is willing to take the big money hit, you only have to have a 1/2 down years every 7 or 8.

the 49ers are a good example ... under their previous owner they tweaked and stretch the cap for years and years. Then they needed to have a few down years. But during the down years they changed owners and they have never been the same. Their current owner is cheap and doesn't want to spend the money or they would already be outa of their cap problems.

tk13
02-05-2005, 01:31 PM
The Colts owner has borrowed against assets to pay for his players. He broke the bank on Manning, Harrison and said he will do the same for James.

Our owner says they are cashed out.

Lamar Hunt has done wonderful things for this game and I truly appreciate it.

But I wish he was the owner of another franchise.

It would eat at me everyday that I haven't held a trophy named in my honor in forever - if ever, I don't know when they named it the Lamar Hunt Trophy.
Yeah, but to be fair, it's not a real wise business decision.... and more importantly while Irsay was doing this and cashing himself out for the good of the team, there was the threat that if they didn't get him a new stadium for doing this, they'd soon be the L.A. Colts... Irsay's said over and over again he can't compete like this. He's always the most vocal complainer about how the revenue sharing system is starting to go astray.

KC Jones
02-05-2005, 01:32 PM
The Colts will pay handsomely down the road for having so much space down the road so don't blame the Chiefs' management for not following the Colts' blueprint because they too will have to pay the piper. In my opinion, the Colts probably have crippled their franchise in the upcoming years unless Manning is willing to take a massive paycut off his per-year salary.

Yeah, they'll have to do something down the road to clear up cap space. OTOH, most articles I've read on the future of the salary cap are guessing that it will increase quite a bit in coming years. The players association is gearing up for it, because NFL franchises and the league itself has found new revenue streams and the players association wants the cap to stay proportional to overall revenue. So the Colts may not have to pay as high a penalty as you might think.

tk13
02-05-2005, 01:40 PM
I don't know about this squeeze the cap stuff either... Priest Holmes has made like $600,000 dollars base salary the last two years. If that's not "squeezing the cap" I don't know what is. When we signed Woods and Wesley last year, both guys are just making 6 figures in base salary the first two years before the numbers jump up in year 3 (2006).

I don't know how that's so much worse than what the Colts have done the last couple years. They signed even less free agents than we did last year, they didn't really make any moves. Then instead of using their draft picks and paying a first rounder, they repeatedly traded down over and over and over until they started out with a mid-2nd rounder, then had two 3rd rounders, and two 4th rounders.