Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

01 Sep 2005

Corey Simon to Colts

Holy Perfect Match, Batman.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 01 Sep 2005

81 comments, Last at 15 Sep 2005, 1:13pm by Jim A

Comments

1
by Sean (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 1:48am

An excellent signing for the Colts (Warrick to the Seahawks wasn't too shabby, either).

2
by IzzionSona (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 1:52am

Of course, this signing by the Colts assures that they'll either win the Super Bowl this year, or become the early 2000's Titans, half a decade later.

Is there any data out there about owners mortgaging the future of their clubs in an effort to win big now and ram a stadium deal through, knowing that the stadium will set them up in the long-term and it won't matter if they have 5+ drought years brought on by the cap crash? Or are the Colts just betting on an uncapped year/massively increased cap as a proportion of revenue in the new CBA?

3
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 2:11am

Of course, the only problem with this is that Simon isn't that good. Really. Simon's main strength was that he's durable. He missed 2 games in 6 years. Good fit for the Colts for a year or two, but if they signed him to a large contract, they're going to be eating it in a few years.

4
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 2:15am

Yeah, I can't believe they mortgaged their future by signing this insane contract of... um... hmmm. Can't seem to find any real specifics. Apparently it's five years, and good for a DT. No word on how much is salary and how much is bonus (which is where the true future mortgaging comes in). No info on their cap situation this year or in coming years, and how this will affect it. Maybe we should wait for some details before going all chicken little, eh?

And why does it take five years to recover from a cap purge? Well-run teams like Baltimore and San Fran did it (from much worse situations) in 1-2 years, and Baltimore actually remained competitive in the midst of it. I think Polian is closer to Newsome than to Millen.

5
by Kibbles (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 2:55am

Edgerrin James can just start packing his bags. Everyone was saying that the Colts couldn't possibly keep both Harrison and James, and they did, but I think this means that there's absolutely positively no way that the Colts can keep James again next year.

Really, this signing makes me incredibly happy, mostly because I'm a Dominic Rhodes owner in a keeper league, and I was worried that the Colts would find a way to keep Edge around just to piss me off.

6
by Sean (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 4:35am

Re 3: It really doesn't matter if Simon isn't an elite DT, because eliminating weaknesses is as important if not more important than creating strengths. Simon, overrated or not, nevertheless is a sizeable improvement over what the Colts have on their roster. They've added three quality players to the defense this year with Simon, Sanders and Jackson, and that should help reduce their vulnerability to top offenses. All they need to do is get their defense to the point where it isn't a leaky boat and they are a 14-2 team.

7
by IzzionSona (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 8:52am

RE: Recovering from a purge

Well, Baltimore was always a defense-first football team, and history in the NFL has shown that replacement level offense with still decent defense does better at winning games than replacement level defense with still decent offense.

As a Colts fan, I can't help but fear the worst, especially when their cap is already relying on massive changes in the structure of the cap in the next CBA or some sort of accounting-gimmick reworking of Manning & Co.'s contracts.

And, to be honest, I don't really see any incentive for the Irsays to recover quickly from the cap crash once they get their new stadium. After all, the terms of the agreement will remove the Vegas threat for at least some amount of time.

8
by Jesus (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:05am

"All they need to do is get their defense to the point where it isn’t a leaky boat and they are a 14-2 team"

Really? I know of a bridge I'd like to sell you ...

Good grief man! This is the offense that scored ZERO points against the Jets in a PLAYOFF game!

9
by Andrew (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 10:45am

Prediction - this will turn out unhappily for the Colts and Corey Simon due to the jinx of Eagles players leaving them team in Free Agency after bitter contract disputes suffering bigtime injuries and/or getting immediately cut by their new team after only a season or two.

2002 - Jeremiah Trotter (missed 4 games to injury in 2002, cut after 2003)
2003 - Hugh Douglas (cut after extremely dissapointing 2003 season)
2004 - Duce Staley (missed 6 games to injury in 2004, limited action in 3 others due to injury, reinjured this pre-season)
2005 - Corey Simon (????)

10
by AnotherAaron (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 10:54am

I want an investigation.

How in God's name can a team that gives its QB a $34 million signing bonus and spends over half its cap space on rthe offensive side of the ball, afford this move?

11
by Drew (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 11:08am

Could someone give me the rundown on why the Eagles didn't want him anymore? He's still young and has a Pro-Bowl appearance under his belt. Was it a money thing?

12
by Mike (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 11:29am

Drew,

I'm guessing, based on the timing (right around the first cut down day, and a week before the second), it was a 53 man roster limit thing. The Eagles have so much depth, and like other good teams focus on developing young talent. Maybe they decided that Simon wasn't going to start, and once they added up the number of people who WOULD start, plus the young players and rookies they wanted to develop (for cheaper), they found they had used all the roster spots they wanted to on DT's. The article does say that they tried to trade Simon, but that his contract demands scared away potential trade partners (Baltimore).

13
by R. Moses (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 11:44am

The problem with Simon (and Darwin Walker as well) is that he played way too many downs in the 2003 season because of the injuries to Hollis Thomas, Paul Grasmanis and Brandon Whiting, the inexperience of Sam Rayburn and the copycat philosophy of the NFL by going with faster, but undersized (a la Tampa Bay) linebackers Mark Simoneau and Nate Wayne. Of course, the injury to Carlos Emmons (the best Eagles FA acquisition since William Fuller in the mid 90's) late in that season did not help either.

I think Simon's play diminished because of all that time on the field and the Eagles strategically used the franchise tag so they would not have to negotiate a new contract with him.

Good luck Simon and the Colts. Let's see what happens after week 10 when Dungy has to rotate his defensive tackles every second or third play from scrimmage because Simon is ineffective (tired).

14
by MDS (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 11:50am

I'm with Trogdor completely. It's absurd that people are talking about how this contract will affect the Colts' cap situation, when none of us knows the details of the contract.

My guess is that this is a contract similar to the one Ty Law signed with the Jets: The total number will look huge, but that's because of a very large option payment due after this season, which means it will never be paid, which means the Colts will get one year of Simon at not too much money, and then Simon will get to be an unrestricted free agent.

15
by tbwhite (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 12:59pm

Re: 9

Don't forget Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor in 2004 as well.

16
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 1:16pm

"Well, Baltimore was always a defense-first football team, and history in the NFL has shown that replacement level offense with still decent defense does better at winning games than replacement level defense with still decent offense."

Actually, research continues to show that teams that build through offense win more games over a long-term span than teams that build through the Baltimore model, which is sturdy defense + running back in a ball control offense = Super Bowl.

The problem is that the injury rates for defensive players are much higher than offensive players. An O-lineman, for example, can expect to incur about 40 percent fewer injuries in a four-year span than his counterpart across the line. And his injuries tend to be less severe -- more hands, less knee, leg and foot.

When you build through defense you might prove uniquely successful, but you must rebuild faster and more often, which really screws up your cap management and increases the need for perfect draft analysis.

In sum, the margin for error is razor-thin.

The Colts (and Pats, for that matter) have built their team perfectly. They have created outstanding offenses and have filled key, low injury-risk positions with the best possible talent tied up in long-term contracts.

As for the stadium deal, even the new revenue streams flooding into the Irsay's pockets won't detract from their biggest, fattest piggybank, which is the league's shared-revenue system, mostly from TV.

While the non-DGR (soon to change, possibly) cash will help the team's bottom line and perhaps allow them to make even more daring guaranteed money offers to elite free agents, the cap is still fed by shared revenues from league TV, clothing, licensing and other similar deals.

17
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 1:19pm

Drew:

Simon just wasn't worth it. Eagles've got like 4 starting-quality DTs now (Rayburn, Walker, Thomas, and Patterson), and the 5th has started in the past (Grasmanis).

They probably franchised him to get an extra year just in case they weren't able to get a DT early in the draft or he wouldn't work out. They did, and Patterson worked out, so they certainly don't need him bad enough to pay him $5M.

18
by Harris (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 1:34pm

Andrew, you forgot Shawn Barber. Who? Exactly.

The Eagles rotate their tackles a lot. Simon was expendable because Mike Patterson developed faster than expected, Thomas and Walker are healthy and Rayburn and Grasmanis were pleasant surprises last season. The Eagles would have had to cut one of those guys to make room for a DT who isn't great against run and wanted a huge contract. That wasn't going to happen.

This cut puts the Eagles about $15 million under the cap. It's about time to open the purse for Owens, Westbrook and Akers.

19
by Ray (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 1:39pm

I agree that the Eagles will be fine without him. I just really wish they could have at least gotten a 2nd round pick for him rather than just letting him go outright. Oh well. Best of luck to him in Indy. This does help their chances. He maybe overrated, but he his still an improvment.

20
by GBS (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 2:13pm

5 Years, $30 million with $13 million in bonii, according to Lenny's latest update. You may now argue cap ramifications, although more info about when and how the bonus money hits would probably help.

21
by Bad Doctor (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 2:29pm

eliminating weaknesses is as important if not more important than creating strengths. Simon, overrated or not, nevertheless is a sizeable improvement over what the Colts have on their roster.

Hmmm ... Philadelphia refugee, better reputation than actual performance, oversized contract, still defended as an upgrade if not an impact player ... hope for you Colts fans that this works out better than Eric Milton!

Simon was an undersized tackle who used to make an impact by using his superior speed to rush the passer. Years in the trenches have dimished that speed, and he's still undersized. Bad combination. As an Eagles fan, I'm only sorry to see him go for the sake of overall DT depth, not because of anything he brings to the table.

Does anyone have his stats from Football Prospectus?

22
by Ryan (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 2:41pm

I think most of you are forgetting that Simon will be lined up with Freeney and Mathis...people who sack like crazy. Simon is definitely above-average, maybe not Pro Bowl, but he's going to look like it when he has one-on-one plays against o-linemen. Or when he is taking the double-team and allowing the other guys to get a sack. All he has to do is be consistent.

23
by Aaron (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 3:11pm

I think the better news for the Colts is that Simon is not horrifyingly bad against the run. They've got the pass rush thing set already -- they need someone who can at least pretend to be playing the run for when the time comes in the playoffs that their offense doesn't jump out to a 14-0 lead.

The stats from PFP, for the guy who asked: 29 plays, 21 stops (72% rate), 11 defeats, and average tackle made 0.4 yards past the line of scrimmage. He made closer tackles than the other Eagles, but had the lowest stop rate among the DL. Although all the Eagles DL had a very low number of plays since, you know, everyone was stuck passing on them in the second half.

24
by Andrew (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 3:22pm

Drew #11:

Eagles made him a fair offer in 2003. He rejected it. The Eagles worked hard and developed their homegrown talent (Rayburn) and drafted some new talent (Patterson). End result, no need for Corey Simon, especially since he had shown he had problems stopping the run and declining sack production 9.5 - 7.5 - 2.0 - 7.5 - 5.5.

Ray #19:

The Eagles will get compensatory draft picks for Simon and their other free agent losses (Mayberry, Burgess).

GBS#20:

Only 5 years for $30 million? Eagles offered him 5 years at $34 million after 2003. Stupid is as stupid does Corey. Watch out for injuries!

25
by ChicagoScott (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 3:43pm

To Jesus (post #8)-- They got skunked by the Jets 3 friggin years ago. Since then, the Colts offense has pretty much whipped every defense except NE & Baltimore. Let's live in the present, not the distant past.

To AnotherAaron (#10)-- Every contract must be approved by the league before it becomes official so you can be assured that it is legit & under the salary cap.

I don't know the ins & outs of the salary cap caluclations but I can tell you this fact-- Manning & Brady are both counting for $8.4M against their team's caps this season. Yes, that's right. Manning has been roundly criticized for (supposedly) signing a huge contract that limits the Colts' ability to sign quality defensive players. Conversely, Brady has been praised for (supposedly) signing a cap-friendly contract. In fact, the cap hits for each QB are similar for the first 3-4 years of their respective contracts (both will probably be restructured in the middle anyway).

Of course, it seems like every football fan from the northeast now has a website (ESPN's The Sports Guy, ColdHardFootballFacts.com) built upon the guiding premise that
a) Tom Brady is a GOD.
and
b) Peyton Manning is a selfish player who can't win the big game.

But Manning's big contract IS still allowing the Colts to win now-- as proven by today's signing on Simon.

As a Colts fan who has watched good defensive players like Washington & Peterson leave in free agency with no big name signings by the Colts, I'm thrilled by this move! If the Colts D can get healthy, they will play well enough this season to get the #1 seed in the AFC.

26
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 3:47pm

Andrew, I'm not so sure he was all that stupid. If I know the Eagles, they sure weren't giving him $34 million up front. How much was guaranteed?

Since players now make nearly 60 percent of their total earnings in upfront bonuses, it makes no sense to take a higher amount spread out over five years. If you get hurt, the team will just cut you and you'll get the CBA-mandated settlement, not your full wages.

I had a figure in the back of my mind of what it would take for the Colts to woo him and that's pretty close to what GBS reported.

I'd like to know when the bonuses are due to be paid, but we'll find out later. As cap hits go, for a DT as good as Simon is and with as few leg, knee or ankle injuries as he's accrued, reportedly, over the years, I'd say he's worth about that.

At least we can now, officially, say: With this signing, Manning is now better than Brady.

27
by Sean (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 4:18pm

Re 8: I was at that Jets-Colts game, so it's not like it slipped my mind. But in case you haven't noticed, the Colts offense is radically better now, and their defense has improved tremendously as well. The Colts have gone 28-4 the last two seasons and have the easiest schedule of any AFC powerhouse team. 14-2 is very much a possibility.

As far as the Eagles letting Simon go, it's just an example of how they do business. They draft specifically so they don't find themselves getting held up by any player. They offered Simon an extension, but they were only going to pay him what they thought he was worth; after that, they went ahead and drafted for depth so that they could take that money and use it elsewhere without the team suffering.

As for Manning and his contract, it should be an obvious point, but Manning is going to re-work that contract many, many times over the next few years to free up money to retain players and to bring in free agents. He's never going to have a contract number that's unworkable, not as long as the Colts have a team in contention.

28
by Eric (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 5:13pm

I don't know about the "Manning IS going to re-work that contract" comment. He may, and it's even likely, but using the definate IS about something that might happen in the future, in a league as mercurial as the NFL, really rankles me. Also, it sounds like you are assuming he'll be giving money back, which sounds extremely unlikely for a player of Mannings caliber. Usually those things are simple restructures, where the same bill is due, just pushed off til later. That kind of thing can only be taken so far.

As for Mannings cap number=Brady's cap number. Brady's contract was unusual in that it's lowest years are not in the begining couple of years, but the middle. Next year and the year after will be much different.

29
by MDS (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 5:16pm

What are the Eagles going to do now that they have $5 million more in cap space than they thought they'd have? Restructure some contracts? Sign a couple of guys who become free agents in this weekend's final roster cuts?

30
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 5:28pm

Eric:

1) By the time that contract needs to be restructured, Manning may not be of the same caliber. If he is, sure, they'll push it back. But when he does start dropping off, he may simply take a pay cut. Others have.

2) Actually, it is normal for most restructured contracts to have less overall total value to the player. They just get more money up front. In actuality, with inflation, they probably make more money in the long term.

31
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 5:30pm

"What are the Eagles going to do now that they have $5 million more in cap space than they thought they’d have?"

Maybe they could, uhhh, feed TO's family? Worth every penny to keep him happy.

32
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 5:37pm

I guess it's true that Manning's contract might not be restructured. After all, there might not be a salary cap after 2007. But, if there is a cap, his deal will be re-worked, as will Brady's.

33
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 5:43pm

Well, smart money says that they'll try to push some of it onto next year's cap using the LTBE trick.

I'm hoping they don't sign Westbrook for too long of a contract. I like the guy, but he's a running back, and he does get injured. But, Westbrook's not exactly the standard "running back" prototype - he's as much a WR as a RB, so maybe he'll stick around longer.

The Eagles do have a coming contract explosion (*) in 2 years, so they'll probably try to head off some of those early this year.

(*: by "contract explosion" - it's not that the Eagles hit salary cap hell. They just have a whole lot of free agents after the 2006 season.)

34
by Eric (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 6:01pm

Pat:
on #1: I guess, but a QB doesn't usually decline before 32-33 years old, no? I believe he's got a massive roster bonus due before the 2007 season.
on #2: You might be right (I'm certainly not a cap guru) but it's my understanding that the vast majority of restructures are simply a 1 for 1 swap of salary for signing bonus.

35
by ChicagoScott (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 6:04pm

Forgive me for making this into yet another Manning vs Brady discussion:

Eric stated "As for Mannings cap number=Brady’s cap number. Brady’s contract was unusual in that it’s lowest years are not in the begining couple of years, but the middle. Next year and the year after will be much different."

Regarding Brady's cap #, I've seen different figures on different sites. I think that the league may have forced the Pats to revise the initial cap figures due to a 2006 bonus. Everyone praised Brady for being such a wonderful team player...& then the actual cap numbers went up significantly but no one noticed becuase they love Tom so much.

I think these numbers from patscap.com are accurate:
2005 $8.4M
2006 $14.4M
2007 $11.9M
2008 $13.9M
2009 $11.2M
2010 $6.5M

The next couple of years are hefty but then it comes down at the end.

36
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 6:11pm

If the Eagles do have a big cap bump coming in two years, and tons of room this year, it would make sense to try to accelerate as much of the his as possible to this year. Restructure some future bonus payments (roster bonuses or other very LTBE incentives) into this year's salary, and take the hit now. Combine that with what Pat suggested, rolling as much as possible into next year with creative incentives.

If I remember correctly, they had something like $10 million in free space even before they cut Simon, giving them near $15 million now. Assuming there's no players on the market now worthy of a big payday, that cap space can be put to use to alleviate future cap crunches now, and extend their current 5-year run into 8- or more years.

37
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 6:39pm

"Assuming there’s no players on the market now worthy of a big payday..."

Free TO!

38
by Oswlek (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 6:48pm

Chicago,

Brady has a roster bonus included in next year's cap figures that will most likely be converted to a signing bonus. I believe it is around 8 million, which would be around 1.7 per year over the remaining years. If this is so, the numbers are

8.1, 13.6, 15.6, 12.9 and 8.2.

39
by Todd S. (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 7:58pm

I wanted to clear up something about this stadium theory. Jim Irsay and the Colts already have the new stadium. Done deal, since the end of July. They would not have had to sign Simon to help them get a stadium deal.

I think Irsay genuinely wants to win a Super Bowl. I don't know if he'll get it done, but he's trying.

Also, the Eric Milton analogy example above is way off base. For one thing, the money in baseball is all guaranteed; not so with football. For another, Milton was a poor fit in the ballpark he agreed to play in (flyball pitcher in a homer-friendly stadium in Cincinnati). Unless Simon is somehow going to be ineffective playing indoors, I don't see how he'll compare to Milton.

40
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 8:57pm

on #2: You might be right (I’m certainly not a cap guru) but it’s my understanding that the vast majority of restructures are simply a 1 for 1 swap of salary for signing bonus.

Nope. Remember that inflation is real. If it was 1 for 1 swap of salary for signing bonus, it would cost more money for the team. Paying out $10M now is not the same as paying $2.5M for the next 4 years. So almost all restructures of contracts involve lower total overall payout, but higher up-front. Effective total cost probably stays the same.

If the Eagles do have a big cap bump coming in two years, and tons of room this year,

Nononono - the Eagles are not over the cap in the next few years at all. See here. This isn't like Tennessee, which was $27M over the salary cap before the year started. The Eagles have cap room past 2008. The problem comes in 2007 when they've got a bunch of free agents, though only a few of them are high priority, like Dawkins, M. Lewis, Hollis Thomas, and Hank Fraley. That's what the cap space ($10M) should (and will) be used for - that, and creative forward LTBEs. Note that while they've got 4 high profile free agents in 2007, they've also got (right now) a projected $37M free space in 2007. Some of that will be lost to signing a few of the 2006 free agents, but they're cheapo guys, like backup corners, safeties, and their punter.

The Eagles window of opportunity won't be closing until their big money investments fail: McNabb, Kearse, Sheppard, Brown, and to a lesser extent Shawn Andrews and Jerome McDougle. Virtually everyone else on the roster could be cut immediately without any serious harm to the current year's cap. (The Eagles have $2M in dead money this year: compare to the 49ers last year who had $27M in dead money).

(p.s.: note on that page how much they're paying for Greg Lewis: $500K/year for the next 3 years. Hello! $500K! Carl, what the heck are you crying about T.O. for?)

41
by Matt (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:05pm

But Manning’s big contract IS still allowing the Colts to win now– as proven by today’s signing on Simon.

Pardon me, but don't the COlts actualy have to you know win, for this to be true. Since they have done nothing but underahieve?

42
by South Jersey Mike (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:26pm

In 2007 the only FA on that list that the Eagles will try to keep is Michael Lewis and they will try to lock him up this year. The others are gone. Rayburn hasnt played a preseason down because of an elbow injury. Grasmanis and Thomas both have a history of injury so Im not sure the Eagles are as deep as some people think. I just wish they would stop patting themselves on the back for the salary cap management and win a Super Bowl.

43
by someone (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:45pm

Simon is a pretty decent player when he isn't out of shape - as someone said, well above average and the occasional Pro Bowl. He will improve the Colts for sure and isn't as bad as a lot of Eagles fans have suddenly decided. However, I feel the prima facie numbers of $30m total and $13m SB for five are way high for a player of his talent.

Consider the benchmark DT contract in the league is probably Shaun Rogers (IMO at least one of the top three DTs in the league and a fair bit better than Simon IMO). Signed in Jan 2005 ish, six years, $46m, $15m on the surface - in reality, a 5 year $27m deal with $12.5m in SB/almost-definitely will be earned RB. Marcus Stroud, again a somewhat better player than Simon IMO, signed a $31.5m five year deal. I think the Colts have really paid up for Simon to put him in the same tier as that type of player. Of course, they no doubt feel it might get them over the hump, and if it does, fine. But in isolation it looks expensive.

p.s. of course, this is going purely on the superficial numbers. If the deal is backloaded with inflated years and his per year average will be <$5m before he gets cut, then that would make more sense. Similarly, that $13m SB might be a variety of bonuses over a few years.

p.p.s Although he might be being overpaid, I think Simon stands a very good chance of being the Eagles player to perform well and not see a dropoff with his new team after leaving the Eagles. Douglas, Vincent and Taylor were all a lot older for their positions, while Trotter had a bone-on-bone knee and went to the wrong scheme. Simon's only been around six years and has been relatively injury-free IIRC - he should be able to perform well for a few years yet. I don't see him as a player on the decline as such.

44
by someone (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:47pm

Don't know what happened there.

p.s. of course, this is going purely on the superficial numbers. If the deal is backloaded with inflated years and his per year average will be < $5m before he gets cut, then that would make more sense. Similarly, that $13m SB might be a variety of bonuses over a few years.

p.p.s Although he might be being overpaid, I think Simon stands a very good chance of being the Eagles player to perform well and not see a dropoff with his new team after leaving the Eagles. Douglas, Vincent and Taylor were all a lot older for their positions, while Trotter had a bone-on-bone knee and went to the wrong scheme. Simon's only been around six years and has been relatively injury-free IIRC - he should be able to perform well for a few years yet. I don't see him as a player on the decline as such.

45
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:48pm

Pat, there's $5 million on the table. Wanna make a certain disgruntled WR very happy for, well, one year?

Free TO! He's the victim of a monpsony!

The evil Eagles, in collusion with other NFL owners and, well, the Trilateral Commission and the CIA, probably, have in their palm a resource, TO, with substantially greater value in his present use than in all others.

They are restraining him from exploiting the full value of that use, or from seeking better offers from others wishing for his services.

They are forcing the seller (TO) of the talent to accept a price for his services that isn't fair.

Free TO! Or at least give him $5 million.

46
by someone (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:49pm

grr one more try. looks fine in preview.

p.s. of course, this is going purely on the superficial numbers. If the deal is backloaded with inflated years and his per year average will be < $5m before he gets cut, then that would make more sense. Similarly, that $13m SB might be a variety of bonuses over a few years.

p.p.s Although he might be being overpaid, I think Simon stands a very good chance of being the Eagles player to perform well and not see a dropoff with his new team after leaving the Eagles. Douglas, Vincent and Taylor were all a lot older for their positions, while Trotter had a bone-on-bone knee and went to the wrong scheme. Simon's only been around six years and has been relatively injury-free IIRC - he should be able to perform well for a few years yet. I don't see him as a player on the decline as such.

47
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:54pm

What? You think $500K/year is fair for Lewis? I think it's a little more unfair for Lewis than $6M/year is for TO.

48
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 9:59pm

Someone, are you trying to use the less than sign? If so, it's interpreting it as the beginning of an html command and chopping off the rest of your comment. I don't know why it would look right in preview though.

And we don't have the full contract details yet, but the way things were phrased I would bet it's not a 13 million signing bonus, but 13 million in various bonuses over the life of the contract. At least I hope it is, anyway, or else it don't make sense.

49
by Carl (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 10:39pm

I agree with Trogdor (did I just say that?). We don't know the terms of the contract yet.

What we do know, however, is that there's $5 million off this year's cap hit for the Eagles.

Give it to TO.

50
by Trogdor (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 11:42pm

Carl, didn't you know that "I agree with Trogdor" is the unofficial motto of this site?

51
by ihateto (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2005 - 11:57pm

Shut up about Owens. He's a whiny little snot and doesn't deserve any incentive for his behavior.

52
by Dervin (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 2:03am

Agents and Players are really stupid. The Eagles have been doing the same stuff for years, they offer an under contract player a new contract a year or two in advance for pretty much fair market value. The agent/player gets insulted thinks they can get more on the open market and waits one or two more years.

The agent gets them pretty much the same deal the Eagles offered them two years ago. Except the player played for two years at an artificially reduced salary, and is two years older reducing the chance of the player reaching the money at the end of the contract and of course limiting their options for the contract after that.

53
by Mike (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 2:08am

Simon doesn't keep himself in shape. The last time he held out and missed training camp, he pretty much flopped around for the first half of the season, with at least an extra 50-60 pounds on his fat "bubble". He is a solid guy when in shape and stays injury-free. Good aquisition for the Colts, but too much $$$$ for the talent level, especially for the first half of this season...

54
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 2:09am

Carl #24:

I believe the Eagles were offering $9 million in SB, unknown amount in RB.

And while everyones always talks about being cut, the Eagles do not have a history of cutting players they have locked in to long term deals, unless the player makes themselves a nuisance (Brandon Whiting, Freddie Mitchell), or vastly underperforms (Nate Wayne). Its much more likely Corey would have gotten all the money from the Eagles.

55
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 2:15am

South Jersey Mike #42:

Ummm .. Rayburn just played tonight. He also had more sacks last year that Simon, and started taking on with Hollis Thomas a lot of Simon and Walkers duties, since they were asleep at the switch on the run.

If I know my Eagles, Rayburn is due for a contract extension at a modest price this year, just like Greg Lewis got one last year.

56
by SJM (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 3:05am

Carl:

TO signed a contract. Don't tell me he was prevented from being a free agent because of the trade. It was his and his agent's idea to accept the trade and sign the contract with the Eagles rather than wait and see if he was ruled an UFA, which from everything I've heard he almost certainly would have been. Don't tell me he is being prevented from earning his worth, because he is the one who prevented it, by signing the contract. If he wanted more earning power now, he could have gone to the Eagles with a one-year deal, or waited until the ruling and as a free agent signed somewhere for a one year deal. But he didn't. Too bad for him.

I hope the Eagles take that extra $5 mil and use it on another WR just to spite TO.

57
by someone (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 3:08am

Ahhh thanks Trogdor that's exactly what it was. I was just saying that $30m and $13m could be misleading numbers depending on backloaded years inflating the deal or the SB split into various boni over future years.

Also, while i think Simon is likely overpaid relative to other DTs, I think he's a good bet to be the Eagles player who breaks the line of ex-players who flopped with their new teams. Trotter had a bone-on-bone knee and went to the wrong scheme, while Vincent, Douglas and Taylor were all pretty old for their positions. Simon has been in the league only six years and relatively injury free IIRC, and I don't see him as a player on the decline as such. He should have a few years close to the peak of his game left, and he's going to a team that at first glance will suit his style (below average size 1-gap bowling ball style DT).

58
by Carl (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 3:50am

Hmmmm... The SB is going to have to be more than $6 million, or what's the point of taking it? He wouldn't agree to a large spread in wages because it wouldn't be worth it. For that, he could have taken the Eagles' tender and waited for free agency, trusting his luck with injuries.

When you think about it, though, it's not so odd to think of some upfront cash around $10 million. Steep, but not undoable if the salary is kind of low for the next couple of years (which is actually typical of a lot of DT deals).

What did DeWayne Robertson get from the Jets? Or Shaun Rogers and the Lions? Kevin Carter? I won't even get started on the Kris Jenkins deal.

Realistically, if it's in the ball park of $10 million, over the years that's been reported, what would you say, T? A cap hit of about $2.8 million?

That's not so horrible.

Is he worth that? Probably to the Colts he is. I bet they don't have a $3 million cap hit for the rest of the DTs!

For the Eagles, he was bumping $6 million against the cap, and they're already paying Kearse a little more than that, if I remember.

If I recall also, Freeney as a DE can't cost more than $1.5 against the cap for each of the next two years.

They lost Pollard's big pricetag. Morris got adjusted, as I recall. Vanderjagt should have been cut, but he'll be gone next year.

Heck, Simon's cap hit is twice that of Vanderjagt but I bet he can kickoff better than him.

59
by Corrie Colt (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 3:52am

Carl your right they can afford him

60
by South Jersey Mike (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 6:34am

Andrew, can I amend that to hadnt played until last night? I came home from work, put the game on and my eyes glazed over watched Detmer play quarterback. Can you elaborate on Whiting being a nuisance?

61
by Ray (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 10:48am

On the comments regarding the Eagles 2007 roster situation: I think it's no surprise at all that the Eagles have a ton of contracts coming up that year. After all, unless things start picking up soon with the CBA negotiations, won't that be the dreaded uncapped year? Seems to me like the Eagles are putting themselves into a position to go out and spead a ton of cash on new talent without having to worry as much about existing contracts if that uncapped year comes to pass.

62
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 10:52am

the Eagles do not have a history of cutting players they have locked in to long term deals, unless the player makes themselves a nuisance (Brandon Whiting, Freddie Mitchell), or vastly underperforms (Nate Wayne).

Well, Mitchell wasn't in a long term contract. It was just his rookie contract. And they only cut him a year before free agency.

And KC released him! Poor Freddie. Maybe next time he should shut up, read the playbook, and stop jumping around on the field and try to play.

63
by Purds (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 12:12pm

Just a bit of contract info from the Indy paper's website:

"Simon also has contractual incentive to play well. His deal calls for an $8 million signing bonus next season, at the team's option. So this is a no-lose for the Colts. If he's the player they think he is, he gets the money. If he's a bust, he's gone."

As a Colts fan, I am glad they brought in a defensive player, though I can't say I honestly know much about Simon. My feeling, though, is that he can't hurt the team, he likely makes them better, they had the money this year, and if the contract info above is correct, they can dump him next year if he's not worth the bonus.

64
by Purds (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 12:18pm

Oops. Let me just add a bit more from another story there:

"Simon's contract includes a $5 million signing bonus and $540,000 base salary this year, which translates into an economical $1.54 million hit against the salary cap. There's also an $8 million option bonus in 2006. It isn't guaranteed, so this could be a one-year experiment if Simon isn't everything the Colts believe he is."

Izzi? Pat? Anotheraron? Now what do youu say about it?

65
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 12:40pm

That's a good contract for the Colts. There must've been something else going on - the Eagles probably would've been willing to make a contract like that.

Well, if it ends up being a 1-year experiment, the Eagles did offer a contract like that.

66
by MDS (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 12:44pm

Thanks, Purds. Based on this information, it doesn't sound like a bad contract for the Colts at all. Right about what I would have thought. I doubt he'll get the $8 million option after this year, but if it works out for both sides he could still work out a new deal and stay in Indianapolis for more than a year.

67
by ElJefe (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 2:09pm

Heh. So he gets the money he would have made on the Franchise tender, and then likely gets a shot at Free Agency next year when the Colts decline the option. Exactly like what would have happened in Philly. Except, of course, if he actually plays well and the Colts pick up the option giving him less money than he would have gotten as a signing bonus as a Free Agent. That's about the best he could have hoped for, but he still comes out behind for not signing the Eagles tender (or the contracts allegedly offered by teams interested in trading for him).

Simon's a nice player, but I never really saw him as a Pro-Bowl caliber guy. He wasn't noticably dominant at the LOS, particularly last season when I would have expected him to be putting on a salary drive. I would have liked to see the Eagles keep him, but with the way he was likely to be used he wasn't going to be $4.5 Million better than the DTs the Eagles already have.

It's a nice pick-up for the Colts, but it will bear watching whether he wears down as the season progesses. Missing training camp probably doesn't help his conditioning, and I suspect the Colts will want him out there for more snaps than he played last season in Philly.

68
by someone (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 6:35pm

It's not a bad deal? Hmmm depends on whether they pick up the option and their cap situation. If they cut him before paying the OB, I don't personally think taking a $4m acceleration hit in the 2006 cap for one year's service from a player of his calibre is worth taking. If they take the $8m, they have definitely overpaid IMO considering $13m/$30m is in the Rogers/Stroud ballpark of contracts, as I said before. I still think it is an expensive deal in either scenario, even if he is making the base minimum for a number of years out of the five and there is a dummy year at the end to bring it up to $30m total. He is a decent player and could probably hit another Pro Bowl if motivated IMHO, but if they pick up that bonus he's got a top-five DT in the league contract and on a five year view, he aint worth that.

69
by gabe (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 7:23pm

Someone said "Jim Irsay really wants to win a SB"....Isn't that what all owners are trying????? the diff is that he is trying to BUY a SB. In a 3-5 years the colts will be bottom feeders due to these signings that have taken place over the last couple of years. What is more pathetic is that Dungy is a defensive guru(supposedly) yet they are not developing great players...That is skewed as well....The colts problems are not defensivelly no matter what everyone says. Come play off time, they meet a good team and Mr. October starts throwing passes to the other team. He CHOKES. As fact I will give last year's gamne against NE. The Patriots scored 20 points...not very low, not very high. The Colts season's average was well over 20 points with their qb throwing for a "record" 49. I remember he even had 6 td's in one game(Detroit). However in the play off game against NE the Colts scored 3 points. What??? Yes...everyone knows....3 measly points(should have been zero if not for dropped interception by e. wilson).Now how is that a defensive problem????So let me recap the colts startegy: Spend all the money on offense so you can score no points when it matters!!! However, blame it all on defense. And please spare me the colts defensive rankings in the regular season....If anyone looks at those stats than look at the offensive stats as well...you already know the glorious numbers....rushing, receiving, passing, scoring etc etc blah blah blah.

70
by Purds (not verified) :: Fri, 09/02/2005 - 7:26pm

Someone:

You must not be a Colts fan who has watched them play very well on offense but flounder to stop teams from eating up the clock against them.

So, let me pose the question this way: What would you have done if you were the Colts? Passed on him to get whom? Name the specific player they could have gotten. Remember, they spent their top two picks on defenders...

71
by IzzionSona (not verified) :: Sat, 09/03/2005 - 1:24am

Looking like a cap friendly deal, I can handle. And, given the uncertainty about the future CBA, and how bonuses will be converted, and such, I can see why the Colts like a deal structured like that.

But it bothers me that they're spending so much money on a "stud" DT, when they have such a patchwork defense anyway. It seems to me, that if you have a small amount of money to use on the defense, it's better to try for rotating hit-or-miss rookies through, and letting them go when you hafta pay them, than to sink a gob of money into a veteran or two, and having even worse rookies to choose from.

Then again, while offense is great at selling tickets, I wouldn't mind seeing the team be a LOT more balanced spending wise anyway. Peyton Manning may be the next coming of the Messiah (and I'll take him over a certain other QB any day ;p), but the Colts literally live and die by his ability to avoid mistakes in big games. And, as a certain coach who shall not be named has proven, it is capable to out-scheme Manning and cause him to make those mistakes. Me, I'm all for improving the defense. But signing a big ticket free-agent without cutting offensive spending isn't going to improve the overall level of the defense. Personally, I would have preferred they let Edge test the FA waters, and draft a low-1st RB if need be. Especially given the nature of the market this year.

72
by jasonlee (not verified) :: Sat, 09/03/2005 - 4:33am

I have not watched many Eagles games so I'm not familuar with Simon. I do know one thing, the Ravens are pretty freakin good at evaluating defensive talent....and they AGREED to give a 2nd and 3rd round pick in the 2005 draft to get the guy! I think that says a lot. The deal fell through because he wanted to much $$ but, because the Eagles waited so long to release the tag, he had to take less than what he was asking from the Ravens.

73
by Hal Jones (not verified) :: Mon, 09/05/2005 - 6:32am

Too many people are forgetting that Simon is going to be playing in a completely different syle of defense from the one in Philly. Now, he will have full access to rush the QB, along with Freeney, Mathis & the rest. If you're a Colt fan, which I am, this is a breath of fresh air. They finally spend some money on a great defensive player.
It's beyond me how so many people are so critical of Manning. All he did last year was have the best year any quarterback ever had. Ever! It's not his fault they havn't beaten New England. They dominated NE last year in the first meeting & they were running at will against them. Then James fumbles twice in the red zone & Vanderjet misses a tieing FG.

74
by Mr Shush (not verified) :: Wed, 09/07/2005 - 12:45pm

I thought that was Bert Jones in 1976.

75
by Frank (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 11:07am

It is my understanding that the eagles will get no compensation from the NFL regarding Corey Simon.

Is this true?

76
by Drew (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 11:48am

Unless I'm mistaken, they released him. So they wouldn't get anything in return.

77
by Frank (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 12:03pm

Thanks.

Well that contradicts the response in item #24.

Looking for Aaron to reply or perhaps some official link from nfl.com.

78
by Geoff C (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 12:21pm

Since the Eagles released him, the Colts won't give them any draft picks. However, it was my understanding that the NFL gave out compensatory draft picks for teams that lost more talent to FA then they gained. I don't know how the system works exactly but I assume Simon would factor into that somehow.

79
by Drew (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 12:33pm

Re: #77

Now that you mention it, they didn't really release him; they simply let him leave via FA. There is a compensatory pick system in place as mentioned in #78, although it tends to give fairly low draft picks. I think the highest compensatory pick anyone got last year was a 3rd-rounder.

80
by Frank (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 12:37pm

The problem is I think he had to be signed by another team before the end of the FA signing period, which was July 22nd.

So I don't think the eagles get anything.

81
by Jim A (not verified) :: Thu, 09/15/2005 - 1:13pm

Frank is right, the Eagles get no compensation because Simon was not signed during the FA period.

Click on my name for detailed description of how the NFL's secret formula for awarding compensatory picks works.