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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point by point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good quotes from Ballard at the owners meetings this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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