Richardson trade flat-out bargain for Colts

September 19, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Colts are getting a commodity of unknown value in running back Trent Richardson.

His rookie statistics last season were ho-hum as he played through injuries and was surrounded by a mostly lousy supporting cast.

And while much has been made about the first round draft choice the Colts gave up for him, monetarily speaking, Richardson could be the biggest bargain on the Colts’ roster.

Before last season began, Cleveland signed the No. 3 overall pick in the 2012 draft to a four-year, $20.5 million contract, which included a $13.34 million signing bonus. In addition, the contract paid Richardson a base salary $390,000 last year. Per the contract, he is due to make $1.32 million this year, $2.25 million next year and $3.18 million in 2015.

NFL sources said the trade between the Colts and Browns didn’t involve any cash. That means, Colts owner Jim Irsay will pay just $6.75 million to a top three draft selection for three years of service. Richardson’s three-year paycheck from Indianapolis will be more than $400,000 less than the colts will pay back-up quarterback Matt Hasselbeck over the next two seasons.

If the music-loving Irsay was going to use a lyrical quote to express his emotions after the Richardson trade, he might borrow from the British rock band The Who and scream: “I call that a bargain, the best I ever had.”

Yes, there’s a chance that Richardson, who has already undergone two knee surgeries in his young life, could founder. But the 22-year-old could also deliver six to eight really productive years running the football.

The biggest risk for the Colts is that the team falls short of its lofty expectations this year, and that first round draft pick that was shipped to Cleveland turns out to be much higher (earlier in the draft order) than most now think it will be. Most people who watch the NFL closely agree that there’s a fine line this year for the Colts, and if they cross over it, they could just as easily end up 5-11 as 11-5.

Most would agree, that if the Colts achieve all they believe they can this year and the draft choice Irsay and General Manager Ryan Grigson just traded to Cleveland ends up being in the mid 20s to high 20s (there are 32 NFL teams), the Richardson acquisition would be well worth it. If the Colts land on the wrong side of that thin line and they end up having traded away a top 10 draft pick, a lot fewer people will be nodding their heads in agreement with Irsay and Grigson as they are doing now.

I haven’t found anyone yet who thinks Richardson is going to be as good as former Colts Marshall Faulk or Edgerrin James. Some think he’ll be doing good to top what Joseph Addai accomplished during his prime.

Still, Richardson’s talent is alluring. And the price tag made the trade for the Colts almost irresistible. Only time will tell if it was fool’s gold.




 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Its the Coach
    Unfortunately last year was due in large part to the coaching chemistry. That is different this year. Coaching matters. (See New England Patriots and all of the assistants that worked under Belichek.)
  • T RICH
    You are mistaken on what he will cost the Colts. Yes, they will only pay him the 6.75M out of the Irsay's pocket over the next 3 years, but the hit to the salary cap will include an additional 3.335M each year, as the 13.34M SB is prorated over the 4 year contract. So the salary cap hit each year is: 5.6M next year and 6.5M the following year. Not exactly a bargain for a guy whom averages 3.5 YPC. Kind of misleading once again Anthony.
  • Out of pocket
    Anthony, I couldn't agree with this post more. Anyone who follows the NFL understands well how the salary cap works. There are a million ways to manage the cap and stay within it. So I'm sure Trent's pro-rated signing bonus isn't going to make or break the Colts. These teams are also for-profit businesses and money out of pocket matters (a lot) at the end of your fiscal year. I can bet you the relatively small price tag for Richardson was a big consideration for the Colts in doing this deal.
    • Clueless Darren
      Small price tag? His hit to the Colt's salary cap this year is 4.656M, minus the two games for Cleveland. The entire backfield for the St. Louis Rams (Richardson, Pead, Stacy, Cunnigham and Reynolds) is 2.63M. Running backs are a dime a dozen, and they already have a really good one with Bradshaw (at only 1.9M this year). Starting linemen are not so easy to find, and they may want to think about protecting Luck instead of wasting a draft pick on a running back.
    • Clueless posters
      Anthony is correct. The signing bonus is all on the Browns. Per Grantland.... The Colts are also getting Richardson at a greatly reduced price. While they do miss out on one year of a cost-controlled Richardson by trading for him during his sophomore season, they're not forced to repay any of Richardson's already paid $13.3 million signing bonus to the Browns, who will see the remaining unassigned (in terms of the salary cap) $10.1 million of that bonus accelerate onto their cap in 2013 ($3.5 million) and 2014 ($6.7 million). Instead, the Colts basically have Richardson signed to a guaranteed three-year deal for an average of about $2.2 million per season. If Richardson succeeds in his new digs, the Colts will get a franchise running back at less than half of his original price and at pennies of his true market value.

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

    2. Shouldn't this be a museum

    3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

    4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

    5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

    ADVERTISEMENT