OT : Grateful Freeney signs $72 million deal with Colts

[packers11]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2935483

Grateful Freeney signs $72 million deal with Colts

Defensive end Dwight Freeney has spent his entire football career chasing and sacking quarterbacks. Now, he's going to be paid as the premier player at his position.

Freeney, the Indianapolis Colts' franchise player, signed a six-year, $72 million contract with the team Friday that includes a $30 million signing bonus. He becomes the highest-paid defensive player in NFL history.


"To have me paid among the top players in the league -- not just as a defensive players -- means a lot of me," said Freeney, who flew to Indianapolis on Thursday night in anticipation of accepting the deal. "[Colts general manager] Bill Polian is the one who drafted me. I was hand-picked by him. He was going to do the right thing for the organization."

Polian drafted Freeney in the first round in 2002 and watched him develop into one of the game's most disruptive defensive players. Freeney registered 56½ sacks during his first five seasons with the Colts and has forced 27 fumbles during his career.

Freeney and the Colts had until Monday to hammer out a long-term deal. Had that not happened, Freeney and the Colts would have been forced to settle for the one-year tender at $9.43 million, which would have left Freeney to decide whether or not to hold out.

Neither Polian nor Freeney wanted that to happen. Freeney expressed throughout the offseason that he wanted to remain a Colt. He attended most of the team's offeseason activities while Polian and Freeney's agent, Gary Wichard, worked on an agreement.

Freeney will receive $37.72 million over the first three years of the contract. In doing the deal, the Colts will save $3.68 million of salary-cap room that they can use to keep other players whose contracts are expiring. The Colts had $3.4 million of cap room before reaching agreement with Freeney.

"This really shows a commitment," Freeney said. "I have to thank [Colts owner] Jim Irsay and Bill Polian. They have done most of their big deals with the offense prior to this. Now, they've gotten to the defense and the guys who can go out and make some big plays on defense."

Depending on the way insiders view contracts, Patriots defensive end Richard Seymour had been the league's highest-paid defensive player if you consider the new money in a three-year, $28 million contract he signed in 2006. The Patriots view that deal as a $7.5 million-a-year contract if you include Seymour's salary in 2006.

Freeney's contract takes the top defensive pay scale to the $12 million-a-year range.

"I feel great about this because no one usually gets paid for the impact they have on the team," Freeney said. "To have a contract that pays me among the top players in the league and not just for being a defensive player means a lot. Normally, tight ends get paid with other tight ends and offensive linemen get paid with other offensive linemen."

This deal will have a significant impact on other top pass-rushers who are in negotiations to re-sign with their teams. New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith, Carolina Panthers defensive end Julius Peppers and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs are pass-rushers who were waiting to see how Freeney's negotiations turned out.

"It's great to see the Colts are paying a guy who stops a quarterback like a quarterback," Freeney said.

Senior writer John Clayton covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

[packers11]

Kampy's contract looking to be a steal in my opinion...

[KYPack]

I wouldn't pay him that, but whoa, that GM at Indy really handles the cap well.

Have a question, tho.

What does this mean, do ya think?

-"It's great to see the Colts are paying a guy who stops a quarterback like a quarterback," Freeney said. "-

Huh, he plays his position like a QB, er what?

[CaliforniaCheez]

The good news is that now that Freeney's contract is done his agent can now focus on his other client, Brandon Jackson.

Hopefully Brandon Jackson now becomes a priority for agent Richard Wichard.

[the_idle_threat]

Freeney should be grateful ... he's just about washed up and now WAYYYY overpaid.

[Spaulding]

$12 million/year for a non QB?? I know the cap is going up but that is insane. If nothing else to tie that much money on one of 22 starters on your team.

The price of gas just went up again my friends - time to go hybrid I guess.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Peyton Manning and Dwight Freeney budgets take up a fifth of the team's cap. The remaining 80% has to be spent on the other 51 players.

The Colts are gambling that the cap will increase enough over the years in order to have fewer minimum wage players. I suspect in 2 years they will be losing younger players in free agency and the team will be in decline.

This can be bad for Freeney. It is possible to have to high a contract and have that cap casualty target on you.

I heard of the Randy Moss deal the vikings gave him. I said the very moment, "He will not complete that contract." I have now been proven correct.

The mega record breaking deal the Packers made with Brett Favre has been tweaked a few times but it is one of the few that will be completed.

[Tarlam!]

The mega record breaking deal the Packers made with Brett Favre has been tweaked a few times but it is one of the few that will be completed.

That deal goes till 2010, or something. Have you looked at your watch?

That is a deal that will not be completed. IMHO

[MJZiggy]

That deal was designed specifically to never be completed.

[CaliforniaCheez]

The mega record breaking deal the Packers made with Brett Favre has been tweaked a few times but it is one of the few that will be completed.

That deal goes till 2010, or something. Have you looked at your watch?

That is a deal that will not be completed. IMHO

It was a 10 year deal in 1996 which was extended.

As to my watch, what part of Brett Favre do you not understand?

[packers11]

Cali...

I think he signed a new extention one in 2001 for 10 more years...

"In March 2001, Favre signed to a "lifetime" contract with the Packers, the first in team history which also made Favre the first $100 million player in NFL history."

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/mar01/packers03030201.asp

yes it was in march of 01... HOLY SH!T look at the stats to the right, and to think he has caught up and will break most of them this year... Amazing...

[RashanGary]

The Colts have a HOF QB in his prime. They have a couple year window here and they aren't burried YET. They are doing well to take these stabs while they have the chance just like NE is doing.

The Packers time was yesterday and will be tomorrow. The Colts time is right now. VERY different situations. If we were as close as them, I'd be OK with bad signings like this. One SB today (if you think you're that close) is worth giving up tomorrow. You just better hit, unlike in the Sherman years.

It's the NE, Indy and SD era. I think SD has the best chance becuase they are younger and stand a better chance to stay healthy but aging teams like Tampa have been known to put enough together to make that final push too. Indy might fall into that category or they might just fall apart with no big payoff like we did.

[Bretsky]

The Colts have a HOF QB in his prime. They have a couple year window here and they aren't burried YET. They are doing well to take these stabs while they have the chance just like NE is doing.

The Packers time was yesterday and will be tomorrow. The Colts time is right now. VERY different situations. If we were as close as them, I'd be OK with bad signings like this. One SB today (if you think you're that close) is worth giving up tomorrow. You just better hit, unlike in the Sherman years.

It's the NE, Indy and SD era. I think SD has the best chance becuase they are younger and stand a better chance to stay healthy but aging teams like Tampa have been known to put enough together to make that final push too. Indy might fall into that category or they might just fall apart with no big payoff like we did.


I look at this as a much more simple concept.

Super Bowl or not, in today's largely increasing salary cap era, you don't let a star quality playmaker leave the team.

You make it happen; Kudos on Indy for doing this.

If Freeney was on the Packers right now I'd want Green Bay to do the same.

[Tarlam!]

As to my watch, what part of Brett Favre do you not understand?

Gee, Cali, you're right. I am unworthy.

[RashanGary]

I don't know Bretsky, I think this is a bad signing becuase it might eventually do to Indy what Sharpers contract did to us. Also, pass rushing DE's tend to fall off a little early. He might not be a great player for much more than 2 or 3 years.

I don't know if I'd want Freeney right now for that contract but if you compare him to the UFA rate like with Nate Clements it's not so bad. I'd rather sign my own like Freeney for the same price as a guy like Clements gets on the UFA market but I'm not so sure this is a good deal for the team. I don't have a full grasp on how inflation is going to work so I could be wrong. It's just my first reaction. It might just be the price to play poker now-a-days. I haven't really compared it to other similar players with inflation calculated in. It does look better than Clements deal so it's not like a gigantic UFA type rip off but it still seems a little steep as I don't consider Freeney a premium player. I think he's lost a little bit of his edge already. He used to be unstoppable.

[GrnBay007]

Dwight Freeney has spent his entire football career chasing and sacking quarterbacks.

You always have to wonder if they will still be as "hungry" to chase those QB's after a contract like that. When the fortune comes in, it's interesting to watch who the players/athletes are that fight for the win and who the money guys are.

[Bretsky]

I don't know Bretsky, I think this is a bad signing becuase it might eventually do to Indy what Sharpers contract did to us. Also, pass rushing DE's tend to fall off a little early. He might not be a great player for much more than 2 or 3 years.

I don't know if I'd want Freeney right now for that contract but if you compare him to the UFA rate like with Nate Clements it's not so bad. I'd rather sign my own like Freeney for the same price as a guy like Clements gets on the UFA market but I'm not so sure this is a good deal for the team. I don't have a full grasp on how inflation is going to work so I could be wrong. It's just my first reaction. It might just be the price to play poker now-a-days. I haven't really compared it to other similar players with inflation calculated in. It does look better than Clements deal so it's not like a gigantic UFA type rip off but it still seems a little steep as I don't consider Freeney a premium player. I think he's lost a little bit of his edge already. He used to be unstoppable.


With the market changing it is becoming more and more important to sign the right guy as opposed to worry about what fair market value is IMO.

Because fair market value is a heck of a lot higher than any of us deem it to be right now. If the GM worried about the past fair market value he wont' be signing any unrestricted free agents for sure, and probably not even his own stars right now if they are becoming unrestricted. Gosh we were lucky Kampman became unrestricted when he did. If he was unrestricted a year later he'd be a heck of a lot richer right now.

Indy wanted to keep Freeney and they were confident he was the right person to keep.

A year from now salaries will go up again. Did they overpay ? Probably in our terms. But it was still probably a good deal for them.

They also wanted to keep Freeney and if he continues to perform they probably signed the right guy. If they didn't pay Freeney this somebody else probably would have paid him more.

Teams, IMO should show flexibility and make great efforts in finding ways to keep their difference makers when they are fortunate enough to find one.

[GoPackGo]

I don't even put Freeney in the top 25 defensive lineman list. Mathis is a better D-lineman than Freeney. Indy will regret this contract.

Freeney's numbers in 2006
Games played=16, tackles made=29, sacks 5.5


lofl :lol:

[falco]

I think this has a lot to do with why TT isn't spending big bucks in FA. All those teams spending $50 mil on mediocre players are going to be strapped when their playmakers want $72 million to stick around.

Although to be honest, I thought part of why TT was remaining frugal was so he could pickup Freeney when the colts couldn't pay him next year...

[RashanGary]

I agree partially B.

I think you have to do everything you can to get and keep playmakers. I think very few, if any, hit the UFA market now and I think the UFA is higher priced than if you resign yoru own so it becomes even more important to draft well.

Losing Walker hurt. Losing Wahle hurt but it was irresponsible spending that lead to some of that and it will be irresponsible spending that would lead to it again. While those Joe Johson or KGB signings seem great at the time, they don't always work out that way in the end. I agree that it's about finding the right guy but I think that fans tend to think the right guy is out there on the market every year when that is not always the case.

[Bretsky]

I agree partially B.

I think you have to do everything you can to get and keep playmakers. I think very few, if any, hit the UFA market now and I think the UFA is higher priced than if you resign yoru own so it becomes even more important to draft well.

Losing Walker hurt. Losing Wahle hurt but it was irresponsible spending that lead to some of that and it will be irresponsible spending that would lead to it again. While those Joe Johson or KGB signings seem great at the time, they don't always work out that way in the end. I agree that it's about finding the right guy but I think that fans tend to think the right guy is out there on the market every year when that is not always the case.

Not all fans are looking for the great signing though; some just want a few guys that would help. You have to pay a lot more in free agency for the playmakers as we saw this year.

I do think there will be decent players available each year that can help the squad and/or start more than we can expect most rookies to.

[RashanGary]

Thompson has a short but so far good record with free agency B.

He got Woodson and Pickett, two of the best dollar for production FA's of last years class in his first year with any money.

He passed this year on what was considered to be the worst FA class in quite some time.

Griffin seemed like he was taylor made for us but Vonta Leach got a similar pay day so Griffin couldn't ahve been too highly regarded around the league. I think we have to let this thing play out before we assume this FA was a mistake.



TT's record:

Year 1 - Had no money due to the person before him
Year 2 - Woodson, Pickett and Manuel (A good high priced one, a good mid priced one and a bad low priced one) Good value overall as his only mistake was a cheapy.
Year 3 - Passed on what is considered to be a weak class. We have the "what FA's did you want" thread and time will tell how those turn out.

So far we can't anylize this year but in the time that we can look at what he did and look at it through the test of time, I think he's passed with flying colors. I think you are a little impatiant but you probably think I'm a little conservative and boring :)

[Rastak]

Thompson has a short but so far good record with free agency B.

He got Woodson and Pickett, two of the best dollar for production FA's of last years class in his first year with any money.

He passed this year on what was considered to be the worst FA class in quite some time.

Griffin seemed like he was taylor made for us but Vonta Leach got a similar pay day so Griffin couldn't ahve been too highly regarded around the league. I think we have to let this thing play out before we assume this FA was a mistake.



TT's record:

Year 1 - Had no money due to the person before him
Year 2 - Woodson, Pickett and Manuel (A good high priced one, a good mid priced one and a bad low priced one) Good value overall as his only mistake was a cheapy.
Year 3 - Passed on what is considered to be a weak class. We have the "what FA's did you want" thread and time will tell how those turn out.

So far we can't anylize this year but in the time that we can look at what he did and look at it through the test of time, I think he's passed with flying colors. I think you are a little impatiant but you probably think I'm a little conservative and boring :)

He signed a guy this year and he signed guys in year 1. You list is really incomplete......

[RashanGary]

Patler has gone through this many times, but if you sign guys who you don't have to pay anything to and then cut them, it's not really a FA failure, it's called a rotating door.

Even if you sign a guy for 750,000 and he fails it's a very small failure, almost not even worth mentioning. If you sign a 7.5 mil per year guy with a 10 mil bonus then it's a big deal.

I see what you're saying Ras, but I just don't think that missing on minimum wage guys is really a failure. I think it's almost expected.

[RashanGary]

I don't consider Frank Walker a FA signing. It's more like bringing in a undrafted rookie for a look see. If he fails, it's sort of expected. I expect him to fail anyway.

[Bretsky]

Patler has gone through this many times, but if you sign guys who you don't have to pay anything to and then cut them, it's not really a FA failure, it's called a rotating door.

Even if you sign a guy for 750,000 and he fails it's a very small failure, almost not even worth mentioning. If you sign a 7.5 mil per year guy with a 10 mil bonus then it's a big deal.

I see what you're saying Ras, but I just don't think that missing on minimum wage guys is really a failure. I think it's almost expected.


So Ted Thompson gets a free pass for signing Klemm to start as an OG in year one since he had limited money ? I don't think Klemm was a minimum wage guy.

But then Ted Thompson also gets a free pass for choosing to only sign Frank Walker when he had around $25,000,000 going into free agency.

To me that seems like selective rule making.

If we are going to take into effect money, then we should also take into account the amount of free agent signings in comparison to the money we had going into the free agency period.

Year one with limited money to spend, TT signed Klemm with the intention that he could start. Wrong call. O'Dwyer for minimum, but who cares about that one. He also chose to flip a transition tag on Bubba Franks and extend him as well. I can't remember anybody else TT off the top of my head. Was there anybody that helped that year ?

Last year he entered free agency with over 35 Million and added Pickett (good) Woodsen (good), Manuel (not good so far), and Ben Taylor (not good). He also chose to front load Wooden's contract so an excessive amount of his deal would use up the a decent percentage of the abundance of cap space he had left.

Some of us argued GREAT MOVE because then we'd be able to make some very solid free agent signings this year. Those who argued that are silent now.

This year, in all fairness, is TBD. We had around 25,000,000 in free agency and extended Nick Barnett to a contract bigger than most of the "everybody was overpaid guys" would have said Barnett was worth at the end of the season. In my opinion, the Barnett deal was a fair deal in this market and a good signing by TT.

The facts will also say we have the fifth most cap space left in the NFL and we were also top 5 going into free agency. We've signed Frank Walker.

An obvious struggling offense last year. We lose Ahman Green. We had plenty of money and some brutally obvious weaknesses on offense. Would it really have hurt us that bad to sign a FB, TE, or WR rather than hope and pray for the rookies to develop much faster than they usually do ??

In reality, that's all Woody keeps on saying as well.

Immediate help is actually an option, even though we chose not to utilize free agency to find it on the offensive side of the ball.

Hey, at least we have cap flexibility for next year.

[RashanGary]

So Ted Thompson gets a free pass for signing Klemm to start as an OG in year one since he had limited money ? I don't think Klemm was a minimum wage guy.

But then Ted Thompson also gets a free pass for choosing to only sign Frank Walker when he had around $25,000,000 going into free agency.

To me that seems like selective rule making.

No, it's not selective rule making at all. It's anylizing situations within context, something most of you with an anti-TT bias seem incapable of doing.

If we are going to take into effect money, then we should also take into account the amount of free agent signings in comparison to the money we had going into the free agency period.

This statement can stand alone as an indictment against you, Woody and all of those who can't keep five dollars in your pocket. There is no need to spend money just because you have it. You spend money when something worth buying that you need is available. It's not like shopping for a toaster. The NFL FA market is hit or miss, it's not as simple as just going ot get what you want as Sherman showed us multiple times

Year one with limited money to spend, TT signed Klemm with the intention that he could start. Wrong call. O'Dwyer for minimum, but who cares about that one. He also chose to flip a transition tag on Bubba Franks and extend him as well. I can't remember anybody else TT off the top of my head. Was there anybody that helped that year ?

I know you're not going to understand how this is different than not spending it just becuase you have it but when you don't have it, it's impossible to spend. I don't even really know how to say this if you don't already understand it, b

Last year he entered free agency with over 35 Million and added Pickett (good) Woodsen (good), Manuel (not good so far), and Ben Taylor (not good). He also chose to front load Wooden's contract so an excessive amount of his deal would use up the a decent percentage of the abundance of cap space he had left.

Ben Taylor was a minimum guy and was a good ST's player and ST depth. Not bad for a minimum guy, did you expect him to be Ray Lewis?

Some of us argued GREAT MOVE because then we'd be able to make some very solid free agent signings this year. Those who argued that are silent now.

I can only speak for myself, but I seem to carry a far more mainstream view in relation to you or Woodbuck so I'm probably speaking for more more than just myself here. Anyway, those of us who may have said "we'll have more next year" were more or less saying "we'll have more when something of value comes up". We simplify it because we try to find ways to help others see the big picture.


This year, in all fairness, is TBD. We had around 25,000,000 in free agency and extended Nick Barnett to a contract bigger than most of the "everybody was overpaid guys" would have said Barnett was worth at the end of the season. In my opinion, the Barnett deal was a fair deal in this market and a good signing by TT.

I agree that Barnett was a good deal. He would have been the 2nd biggest FA, he probably would have approached the Nate Clements deal, instead we got him for far less. This is just another reason that staying away from the UFA market pays off.

The facts will also say we have the fifth most cap space left in the NFL and we were also top 5 going into free agency. We've signed Frank Walker.

Again, we don't need to just spend it because we have it. We all agreed that this FA class sucked and we'll anylize this further when the time comes

An obvious struggling offense last year. We lose Ahman Green. We had plenty of money and some brutally obvious weaknesses on offense. Would it really have hurt us that bad to sign a FB, TE, or WR rather than hope and pray for the rookies to develop much faster than they usually do ??

In reality, that's all Woody keeps on saying as well.

Immediate help is actually an option, even though we chose not to utilize free agency to find it on the offensive side of the ball.

Hey, at least we have cap flexibility for next year.

Acctually, we have flexiblity for when we have the oppertunity to use it effectively. I'm happier with that than blowing it on guys who aren't any better than what we have but would have costed more.

[Bretsky]

""""This statement can stand alone as an indictment against you, Woody and all of those who can't keep five dollars in your pocket.""""


Are you kidding me ???

How would you have any idea about whether or not I can keep five dollars in my pocket ? How would you have any idea about my financial picture in my personal life ?

It's very ignorant to compare my views on Ted Thompson, who is running an NFL team in an entertainment industry, with my own financial picture and how I support a family.

I'll just leave it at that.


B

[RashanGary]

Didn't mean it that way at all. It was a metaphor (or cliche or something) used to colorfully describe your views on balancing a cap or lack there of in this case.