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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

    2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

    3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

    4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

    5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

    ADVERTISEMENT