oh no. was a white guy uncomfortable? are you ok? poor guy.

Thanks....but I'll be alright!

So the fact that the front office could potentially follow the deal to the letter of the deal is something that lacks integrity.

I mean sure, if you don't know the definition of the word.

Such malice is just not fun to read.

Welp, there's a bunch of shitty racist no good very bad people here.

So I've heard anyway.

Yeah, that’s it. Lol.

Colts fans are no more racist than any other fan base.

You’re just really loony when it comes to race. Always have been.

You keep saying it’s shitty but give no reason why. It’s almost like you’re full of shit.

If Philly wanted a 1st round pick, they should have held out for a first round pick with no strings attached.

If a situation arises where the Colts are clearly out of contention and Wentz is still playing hurt, they’d be fools NOT to bench him. They’d be hurting themselves for no reason.

colts fans are clearly more racist than other fanbases. explain griff whalen otherwise?

sure you have pats fans that are the most racist but still, pretending indiana isn't a hotbed of racist trash is just ignorant. i live in north carolina, there are more proud racists here than anywhere i have ever been but that doesn't excuse indiana

if wentz can't play then you sit him. if he can play, then you play him. it is that simple. let the chips fall where they may.

i say shitty and explain it pretty clearly. if you lack morals, integrity and ethics then you are a shitty person. do you not understand integrity? nate doesn't.

See, you’re a moron.

WTF does Griff Whalen have to do with anything? For every Griff Whalen there’s a Deon Cain or Roy Hall.

So now what?

Hopefully nobody as dumb as you is in the front office.

like that is the fucking same. people thought cain and hall would be good. people worshiped the ground whalen walked on

well one thing is for sure.

the colts front office has men running the show. not spineless cunts

I don’t understand your version of integrity because it makes zero sense. Sitting the Tennessee version of Wentz if they’re already out of contention not only makes perfect sense, it would be the right thing to do.

Ballards job is to make the Colts better. It’s not to worry about which of the available options in the Wentz trade makes Omaha uncomfortable, even if it’s following the terms of the deal EXPLICITLY.

Honestly, your position on this makes no sense. It’s really freaking weird.

You’re an idiot. People didn’t worship Hall?

Hell, Cain was the next Pierre Garçon right up until he was cut. You don’t remember that?

Hopefully they're not stupid men. Which I hear can be found in all states in the union.

'spineless cunts'? dumb insult.

Ebelose drawing up garbage defenses.

This team just fuckin folds on Defense I blame the coaching.

Fucking pathetic!

Omaha is right. If Wentz is healthy and playing well, you can't sit him just to protect your draft pick. You just can't. Sitting him may help you in the short term, but long term you've pretty much ruined your ability to make such trades in the future. Nobody will trust you, so they'll demand all trade proceeds up front. That means you'll have to overpay and can't work with the flexibility of contingencies. That restricts your ability to make deals and gives your competitors an advantage because they'll have more negotiating options than you. Maintaining your reputation moving forward is worth far more than than the difference between a 1st and 2nd round pick.

Now. if Wentz gets hurt or sucks, then all bets are off. Then they can justify benching him to play somebody who might be a legitimate alternative moving forward. That means playing a prospect like Eason/Ehrlinger, not a retread like Hundley. If you start a one-year rental like Hundley over a healthy Wentz, then it looks like you're tanking on purpose.

I'm not getting this argument at all. First of all, the deal is being satisfied. If the Eagles wanted a first round pick with no contingencies they should have negotiated it.

Second, if the Colts did something like this in they okay I really doubt the Eagles wouldn't have made this trade this year. It's not like they were getting better deals for Wentz be anyway.

Even though the NFL is a Billion dollar business, it is still in many ways a club, and the owners make deals all the time and how you honor those deals goes a long way is how the rest of the league thinks about your franchise. The deal the Colts and Eagles made was clearly made on Carson Wentz being healthy enough to play 75% of the season...I believe the Colts will honor that agreement.

if the colts didn't want to give up a 1st, they shouldn't have offered it. see how that works?

you don't understand the argument because you lack integrity. lots of people do.

no. you are wrong

No, I’m not. You just lack any semblance of objectivity in matters like this.

Like I said, you’re a loon on this stuff.

Not sure if this will help illustrate the principle, but imagine you are a player with a contract that includes a $1M bonus for starting at least 15 of your team’s games in a season. You play well, but the team does poorly and ends up 4-10 heading into week 15. How would you feel if the team abruptly decides to bench you so they can start a lesser player just to avoid paying your bonus? When the time comes to negotiate your next contract, would you be interested in agreeing to such clauses? Perhaps more importantly, if you are a free agent considering several teams, and you learn that the Colts are treating players like this, wouldn’t that discourage you from choosing the Colts? Or at the very least wouldn’t that make you negotiate your contract differently with them?

The reality is that teams often bend over backwards for players in this situation. Even when the player legitimately doesn’t reach his incentive, but instead comes very close, teams often pay the incentive just to keep the player happy. Why would they do that? It only hurts them, and they’re not legally required to pay the bonus, right? That’s all technically true, but they pay it because they want happy players and they don’t want a reputation for being cheapskates who will take advantage of every loophole to screw over their negotiating partner (the player). It just doesn’t look good when you do this.

As fans it’s fun to see the Colts make a “good” trade where they get a lot of value without giving up much. But the truth is that in negotiating a deal with anyone, the best outcome is one where everyone profits – not one where one team dominates the deal, and the other team gets very little. If Carson Wentz plays well, even if the Colts have a bad season overall, you hand over the 1st round pick without hesitation. The Eagles delivered their part of the bargain, and so did the Colts. Everyone did well on the deal, and neither team will hesitate to work together again in the future.

They did offer it. If he plays 75% of his snaps. That little detail.... Are you just too stupid to grasp it?

It wasn't very clear that it was just "if he's healthy he'll play x amount of the season." It seems it was clearly made on his health, his effectiveness and the Colts being in the playoff race. If one of those factors isn't coming into play then they put that in so the Colts could recoop their pick.

I get the salary comparison, but that one is not quite the same. For one small bonuses like that are a drop in the bucket for an NFL team's revenue stream. There's not much loss for the team if they have to fork over another million to a player for just playing him.

Now, what if there were some real tangible reward for the team to sit the player for that last game? Like the team gets more cap space the next year or something if player X doesn't hit his bonus this year. At that point how much would we see the honor vs. the team benefit?

The bargain in this case is Wentz playing 75% of his snaps. That's it. The hope for the Colts is that he would be good enough and they would be in playoff contention. So far the first part is true...so far the latter part remains to be seen if it's true. If they are in playoff contention in a weak ass AFC South in Week 11, yeah, of course you play him. If they are 1-9 then...why play him? At that point he could get hurt and then you run the risk of having a hurt QB (who was playing in meaningless games) and not having a very high draft pick to brunt the damage to yourself. And at that point the Eagles will have got a high second round pick, so it's not like they got screwed on the deal here. On no planet is Carson Wentz worth a Top 5 pick.

For the record...I totally get what you are saying, and the Colts are perfectly within their rights technically to do just what you are suggesting. But in my opinion, if Carson is healthy and remains their best option to win games, regardless of their record, he will play. Hopefully, it becomes a moot point as the Colts catch fire and win 8 or 9 of the remaining 12 games!

Agreed. I only would want to see this under the most dire of circumstances. If the Colts aren't within 3 or so games if the Titans in Week 11, that's where it's dire for me.

First of all, what fucking club are you talking about? How would anyone here know the nature of the intimate relationships between the 32+++ owners in this league? In addition, it's not like the owners are negotiating trades amongst themselves, They hire General Managers and Team Presidents to handle that.

Second. When has Indianapolis ever came out ahead on a trade? Corey Simon?

There are plenty of stories available about previous owner meetings and interactions between owners to lead any reasonable person to believe there is a private club like atmosphere among the owners, but you're right, I have no inside info on that, just stating my opinion for what it is worth. We have seen owners in the NBA and the MLB forced out because of damage they have done to their reputations, no reason to believe the NFL is any different, so being honest and having the respect of the other owners is very important.

I realize that the owners themselves, in most cases, do not get personally involved in every trade a team makes, in fact I almost added that in my comment to head off comments like yours, but regardless of an owners level of involvement, just saying "that was my GM not me", would be a pretty lame thing for an owner to say. Maybe someone should ask Ballard or Irsay about their plans to sit Wentz in case of a losing season to protect their first round pick....at least that way they would have them on record!

You’re a bit of a moving target on this. Are you saying sit him just to save the draft pick, or sit him for other reasons? Those are two different things. If there are other legitimate reasons to sit Wentz that happen to also save the draft pick (injury, poor performance, etc.), then so be it. That’s fair game. And if the Colts are 1-9, then it’s somewhat unlikely (though admittedly not impossible) that Wentz will have been playing great. Perhaps you can make a credible argument at that point that the Colts need to explore other options and see how the team performs with a different QB. Again, in my view that means playing a prospect, not a retread. And you need to factor in the damage that this would cause to your long term relationship with Wentz.

The critical point is that you can’t sit him solely to save the draft pick. I’m not saying you have to play Wentz just because it will enable you to forfeit the 1st round pick, but you do need to deal with the other teams in good faith and handle Wentz the same regardless of whether the 1st round pick hangs in the balance. As Omaha said, you let the chips fall where they may.

Moreover, though some might disagree, even if your intentions are pure and you decide to sit Wentz for some reason that isn’t obvious, I think you also need to be aware of how it will look to other teams, and balance the desire to sit Wentz with any potential damage to public perception. For the Eagles, this has played out ideally so far – Wentz has played pretty well (so no reason to sit him), yet the Colts have been losing (given them a higher draft pick). If you pull the rug out from beneath them and try to sit Wentz for no good reason, they’ll never forgive you and other teams will certainly take note of this treatment as well.

Lastly, in my player contract example, the voluntary $1M bonus would absolutely come from the team’s future salary cap - the rules don't let you pay a player without taking away from your cap - so teams are doing this despite the negative impact on their cap (and I disagree that $1M is a drop in the bucket).

The Buckner and Nelson trades come immediately to mind.

Yep, that is why the league forced Daniel Snyder to sell the WFT, oh wait.

Well he changed the name instead....:D

o



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9n8Xp8DWf8


o