With just three weeks to Opening Day and only four days until my annual "Die Hards" fantasy draft (My keepers are Tulowiski, Pedroia, Youklis, Kinsler, Sandoval), I want to take just a few minutes to discuss the state of my beloved Reds.  First let me direct you to the excellent Brewers site Brewers Bar where I answered some questions about the Reds. He is doing Q/As with all the teams in the NL Central, and the Cubs and Pirates have already been posted.  I did the interview a few weeks ago, and already I can feel myself getting sucked in to the season.  I still feel that the Reds are still one year away, but if they still had Adam Dunn in left the time would be now.  Sigh.

What interests me pertains to the discussion from yesterday about MLB parity and the lack of a salary cap.  As I stated, there were 7 MLB teams that did not make the playoffs in the decade.  The Reds are one of them.  Four of the clubs are so badly run that I don't believe they could compete under any circumstances (Baltimore, the Royals, Pirates and Nationals).  Those teams are rarely competitive, but it doesn't have as much to do with money as it does terrible ownership.

The other three non-playoff teams have a case for 'economic predjudice'.  Toronto has had good clubs with lots of talent, but can't get past the Yankees and Red Sox.  Of course, Tampa managed to do just that, so maybe the Jays should shut it.  The Rangers are a team on the rise now that they have Nolan Ryan running the show, so perhaps they'll break through in the next couple of years.  Then comes the Reds.

If there is a poster child for economic injustice in baseball, the Reds are basically the only team that qualifies.  They've had lots of talent but little depth for a decade.  They had chances to pull huge trades, like when Scott Rolen was coming to Cincy, but the deal was voided by ownership thanks to salary pressure.  In the Reds favor is that they are in a division with other modest market teams.  Honestly, there is no need for 'economic realignment' in baseball.  There already is economic alignment.  It's called the NL and AL Central divisions!  If the Reds had had $15-20 million more in revenue this decade, they would have made the playoffs.

Listen, it sucks being a fan of team that has been held back by economics, but ultimately, I don't think the system is broken just because one team is caught in no man's land.  What it has done is finally force the Reds to get smart about mining Latin America for talent and to focus on young pitching.  Now if the team could just figure out that Adam Dunn is cheap at $9 million per and Wily Taveras is expensive at $3 million, the arrow would be pointing up even higher than it already is.

It's spring and I'm hopeful.  The Reds need a miracle to contend, but at least there is a visible path for once.  If all those pitchers can just...no.  I'm not going talk myself into it.  It just makes it hurt worse later.

Profootballtalk has posted a list of what teams WOULD have for a cap figure this year if there actually was a cap.

There are two important things to note:

1.  The Colts have the second highest number in the AFC. Currently Indy is just below last year's number, but still has to sign the RFAs and the draft class.  The result should be a modest payroll increase for the defending AFC Champs.  The only team higher?  The Raiders (go figure).  The Colts are tied for the 8th highest number overall, which should tell you how much money is being spent in the NFC (which is rife with the biggest markets in the NFL).  The real consequence of a capless NFL could be that the balance of power swings to the NFC.  The AFC has big markets like New York, Boston, and Houston, but on the whole is populated by a slew of small town clubs.  Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Nashville, Indianapolis, and Kansas City are among the smallest markets in pro sports.

2.  Lots of teams aren't spending money at all. PFT also gives the 8 teams that are on track to spend well below the salary floor.  No surprise that the Jags are on that list.  The Colts have four games against the bottom feeders next year and three against the big spenders. Of course of those three games only the Cowboys should be good (unless Oakland and Washington suddenly turn it around).

The free agent season still has to shake itself out, but the long term ramifications of a capless league are staggering.  One argument I don't want to hear is how the NFL will become like baseball in terms of pariety.  The NFL already wishes it was like baseball in terms of parity.

Since 2000, 22 23 of 30 MLB teams have made the playoffs (77%).  21 teams have made the LCS (70%).  14 have made the World Series (47%).  8 won titles (26%).

Since 2000, 28 of 32 NFL teams have made the playoffs (88%), but only 21 of 32 made a conference championship (66%).  Only 13 have made the Super Bowl (41%).  Only 7 won titles (22%).

The only reason the NFL has a high percentage of teams that have made the playoffs over this span is because they allow a higher percentage of teams to qualify.  37.5% of the league makes the NFL playoffs compared with just 26.7% of MLB teams.  Even with the salary cap, the NFL has less parity and competition than baseball.

When Bill Simmons says nicer things about our GM than some Colts fans do, then you know the world has gone totally crazy.

Near the end of the afternoon, I was talking to Polian, someone whom I was hoping would be an a-hole (since he runs my least favorite football team and all) but couldn't have been a nicer and smarter guy. He's one of those people you spend 20 minutes with and end up saying afterward, "It totally makes sense to me why that guy was and is so successful." And again, I wanted to hate him. So we were saying our goodbyes and I asked why he was skipping the last group of panels. He answered that he was doing some scouting with his friend Brian Burke, the GM of the Maple Leafs. Burke had a player he liked. Polian was tagging along.

I was confused. We were less than 36 hours into the NFL's craziest free-agent signing period ever. We were just six weeks away from the NFL draft. Why would Polian want to spend a Saturday night at a high school hockey tournament in Massachusetts?

"Because I respect Brian and the way he thinks," he said. "I might learn something."

Here's Bill Polian, one of the best football executives of all time, someone hitting the tail end of his career with nothing left to prove … and he still felt as though he had something to learn. That's also why he came to Dorkapalooza, and that's why Dorkapalooza is here to stay. You can never run out of things to learn.

You all know where I stand.  I unreservedly love everything about Bill Polian, especially the fact that he's weirdly truculent, defensive, and acts like everyone else is stupid. If anyone can relate to a guy like that, I can.  All I ask is that he keep fielding a winning team.  He can piss off everyone else.  He can run the most tight lipped team in the league.  He can insult and belittle the media and the fans.

I

don't

give

a

crap.

Just keep winning, Bill.  That's all I care about.  Well, that and not cheating.

Today is something of a landmark day here at 18to88.com.  In honor of having finished the first draft of my book on Colts' history, we are officially dropping the pen names we've been using for the past three years.

Originally, we were just screwing around when we started this blog, and never figured anyone would read it.  We took the names to honor Bob Sanders to whom we will forever be in debt for winning us a Super Bowl simply by turning our opponents to stone with his Medusa-like dreads. Honestly, we never thought much about the screen names until after the 88 Reasons to Hate the Patriots, when we enjoyed the anonymity they provided.  Personally, I enjoyed having an identity that was separate from my normal life, but over time the names "Demond Sanders" and "Deshawn Zombie" have outlived their usefulness. For almost a year now, our names have been posted on the website although discretely.  Many of you access the site through my Facebook page as well.

Now with the impending release of the book (details coming soon.  I would expect it around the start of training camp or the regular season), there is less need than ever to maintain the screen names. I'm afraid they'll just confuse people as we move forward from here.  Now that we finally have a financial incentive to do so, we are moving into the realm of respectability.  My sincerest hope is that this doesn't become a 'jump the shark' moment, though we are considering adding our Cousin Oliver as a regular writer.  My guess is that many of you have already seen through this post as a thinly veiled attempt to have something to write about during a slow week.  Busted!

Seriously though, there will be no other major changes coming.  Nate Dunlevy can't spell any better than DZ can.  He's also just as big a know it all football snob.  He just has infinitely less cool initials. I expect Luke Dunlevy to be just as surly and absent as Demond Sanders, though he is a much better on line vendor of  tree equipment.

So while I'll still probably sign most of my 18to88 emails and comments "DZ", from here on out it'll be real names only on 18to88.  Here's a photo that nicely sums up my life.  So many things that matter to me are encompassed in it, including one of my best friends here in Argentina.  As you can see, it's pretty much the same stuff you already knew.

Hi, I'm Nate.

Nice to meet you.

Recently, the Football Outsiders published a list of 10 players who should be cut in this uncapped year so as to free their teams from the signing bonus money that must be accounted for.  The idea is that the player could then immediately be resigned by the team, thus wiping out the future impact of past bonuses.  Bob Sanders made that list for the Colts.

Bob Sanders, S, Indianapolis Colts
No one doubts Sanders' incredible talent, but since he signed a $37.75 million contract extension in December 2007, he has played in four of a possible 32 regular-season games. More than $7.3 million in bonuses remain on the Colts' cap over the next three years; the team is better off cutting Sanders and re-signing him to a new, cap-friendly deal.

The problem with this plan is that the cut player would be a free agent, able to sign with any team.  If Bob Sanders was suddenly a free agent, I guarantee you he would get a deal for more than the $2.2 million the Colts are slated to pay him this year.  Teams have money to spend, but there aren't enough good players to spend it on.  That doesn't mean the point of the article is wrong, just the application.

Personally, I believe the CBA uncertainty will last past this season and into the next league calendar year.  The Colts have several players who could well be on the chopping block next year.  Anyone due a big roster bonus or with a lot of unaccounted for bonus money could potentially be released after the season in order clean up the cap situation assuming the cap ever comes back (which is a HUGE assumption).  Unless a new CBA miraculously materializes before next March, the Colts will still be able to employ "the wipe the slate clean" strategy.  There's no rush to employ it right now.  Why not wait until the last possible minute to try this tactic?

The following Colts could be candidates for this process.  They are all big names and could be resigned immediately if the team could work out a deal with them.  Normally, a team has some incentive to keep a player because cutting them can occasionally be more expensive cap wise than keeping them.  That isn't the case as long as there is no cap, however. Remember, the main reason a player qualifies for this list is to clear out his already paid, but unaccounted for bonus money.

1.  Bob Sanders. After this year, the Zombie will still have about $4-5 million in bonus money unaccounted for.  His salary jumps to $5 million next year and $7 million the year after that.  Now, if Bob plays all year and is healthy, he is 100% absolutely worth that money.  If he doesn't play, he's gone come next February.

2.  Dwight Freeney-Surprised?  Don't be.  The Colts have to account for $10 million in bonus money paid him.  His salary hits $11 million in 2011, and would be a cap hit of $16 million.  No one loves Freeney more than me, but he's at that magic age.  If he shows any signs of slippage, the Colts cannot afford to miss the chance to get out from under his deal.

3.  Dallas Clark-Again, don't be shocked to see his name.  He still has just shy of $6 million of bonus money to be accounted for.  Tight ends tend to decline right about the age that Clark is now hitting.  If he has an injury plagued 2010, the Colts will have to consider getting out from under his contract.

4.  Kelvin Hayden-Nearly $9 million in unaccounted for bonuses, and a huge salary jump.  Corners are fungible in the Colts system, and while I like Hayden, 2009 was not his finest season.  He needs to stay healthy or else.

5.  Gary Brackett-He's on the list only because I haven't seen how his contract breaks down.  I assume it would be 'hypothetical cap friendly' for two to three years, but just in case it isn't, the Colts could part ways.  It's extremely unlikely, however, because the Colts paid him $12 million in bonus money.  If they wanted him for just one year, they could have franchised him for $9 million.  Still, all 30 year old linebackers have to be aware of getting axed.

By the way, the following Colts will be free agents next year.  For now I'm assuming there won't be a CBA and the same rules as this year would apply.

Adam Vinatieri (UFA), Joseph Addai (RFA-only 5 years of service), Ugoh (RFA)

I assume that Vinatieri will be gone.  Ugoh will probably not be tendered unless he has a great year.  Addai is trickier.  I would guess the Colts wouldn't mind having him back at a reasonable one year tender, but would REALLY love to get a draft pick for him.

Other free agents could include all the guys who are currently RFAs depending on what deals they eventually sign.

Jim Irsay has said recently that he expects to make Peyton Manning the highest paid player in the league.  Contract negotiations are expected to start soon.  Whenever a major marquee star like Manning begins to negotiate at deal, fans start to clamor for the player to 'take less money'.  After all, Manning already accomplished the rare feat of not only scoring a $100 million deal, but actually collecting virtually every cent of it.  Combined with his millions from endorsement deals, it's natural to assume he doesn't need the money, and should take less 'to help the team'.

While players do have some leeway to make negotiations smooth and not contentious, the truth is that while it would help the team for Manning to take less money, it might not help his teammates.  The truth is that the players union watches the contracts of the biggest stars closely.  There is a lot of pressure on key players to score as big a contract as possible.  It's not just hubris for the player; it's for the good of all the players. The reason the players union opposes things like a hard cap for rookie salaries is the same reason I have no doubt that Jeff Saturday (the Colts union rep) will remind Peyton that he has an obligation to his brethren to get every dime he can:  big contracts raise the tide for all players.

Manning is in a difficult (though enviable!) position.  If he takes less money (say $15 million a year) from the Colts, fans cheer, but the other players won't be happy with him.  Suddenly, any quarterback in the league who makes more than Manning is overpaid.  The Colts gain leverage over every other player on the roster (We can't pay you that much!  We only play Manning $15 million!).  Certain players, and make no mistake Manning is one, HAVE to aim for being the highest paid guy in the league for the good of all the other players.  The Union wants salaries to climb.  They thrive on mega deals.

There are moments when the weight of a huge contract has negative repercussions for players on the team.  Jake Scott was one of the few players the Colts would have resigned but didn't because of money.  Ryan Lilja got cut because $3 million is to much to pay a backup guard.  However, guys like Saturday know that because he plays and works with Peyton Manning, he got a new contract last year, whereas he might not have if the Colts had David Garrard taking snaps.

Invariably, when Manning signs his mega deal, people will whine and cry about how much money he makes.  For awhile, people foolishly criticized Manning for his 7 year $100 million deal and praised Tom Brady for his 6 year $60 million contract saying that the Patriots would obviously be more competitive because of the 'extra cap space'.  The fortune tellers looked into their crystal balls and saw doom for the Colts in 2008, 2009, and 2010 when Manning's cap hit would be between $18-21 million a year.  Surely such a number would doom the Colts to having to cut a slew of other players in order to make room for that much money!  The Patriots would be able to score big name free agents (Can you image Adalius Thomas in a Pats uniform! They'll be unstoppable!).

Of course we know now that since signing that deal Manning won 3 MVP awards, 2 AFC Championships and a Super Bowl.  During that time, I can only think of two or three Colts that were allowed to walk simply because of money (Marcus Washington, Jake Scott, and maybe Darrel Reid).  The truth is that players like Manning pay for themselves. The cap was tied in part to revenue, so when players like Peyton Manning drive revenue to the league, they create the extra cap space necessary to pay for themselves.

So, when the Colts finally get the new deal done for Manning, let's not have any boring conversations about how it should have been smaller.  You can trust the Colts to be smart with their money, and as for Manning, he has an obligation to his fellow players and teammates to get the best deal he possibly can.

He just being a good teammate.

Last year we had a long involved discussion of the NFL's new draft plan.  Under the new plan, teams will draft based on where they finished in the playoffs rather than just on their regular season record.  Let's revisit that plan for a moment to see what effect it will have.

In question are the last 12 picks.  I've listed the current draft order.  The number after each team is the number of positions that team gained or lost thanks to the new system.

21. Cincinnati (10-6) GAINED TWO SPOTS
22. New England (10-6) GAINED TWO SPOTS*
23. Green Bay (11-5)  GAINED THREE SPOTS
24. Philadelphia (11-5) GAINED THREE SPOTS
25. Baltimore (9-7)  LOST THREE SPOTS
26. Arizona (10-6) LOST ONE SPOT*
27. Dallas (11-5)  GAINED ONE SPOT
28. San Diego (13-3)  GAINED TWO SPOTS
29. New York Jets (9-7)  LOST 8 SPOTS
30. Minnesota (12-4)  LOST 1 SPOT
31. Indianapolis (14-2)
32. New Orleans (13-3)

*Fewest possible spots gained or lost.  Ultimate draft position would have been determined by coin flip.

So, we can see the big loser in this new system is the Jets, who got docked a whopping 8 slots in the draft for making the AFC Championship game.  One of the major arguments against this plan at the time was that it would create an imbalance between the conferences.  This year the plan cost the AFC 5 draft slots while the NFC gained 5.  The system clearly helps wild card teams with good records who lose on the road in the playoffs. Already good teams like the Packers and Eagles get an extra boost, while surprise teams like the Jets take a major hit.  This plan could heavily impact the AFC East next year.  Under the old system, the Jets would still be drafting before the Patriots every round.  Now the Jets pick seven spots AFTER New England every single round.  In what promises to be a tight division race, that's the kind of advantage that could pay off for the Pats.

Ryan Lilja has been released.

I confess, this news makes little sense.  One thing is for sure, the move isn't strictly about money.  If it was, the Colts would not have paid Lilja the roster bonus he was due.  In fact, paying Lilja was a classy move.  He took a deep pay cut in order to stay with the team last year, and the Colts honored that by giving him money they didn't have to.  This was a brilliant move because had they stiffed Lilja, they never could have convinced anyone else to do a similar restructuring.  Why would the team cut one of the only two linemen on the club who seemed to have a decent year?

Here are my theories:

1. Indy is looking for a new left tackle and wants to move Charlie Johnson back inside.  This is a move you only make if you already have a bead on someone.  CJ plays at 305 lbs to Lilja's 290.  The Colts clearly think that $3 million is too much to pay for a back up guard.  It's hard to argue with that.  Lilja would have been one of the top 15 highest paid Colts, and you can't lay out that kind of money for a guy who isn't starting and doesn't play an impact position.
2. The Colts inability to pick up short yardage in key situations the past two seasons is something that won't be tolerated again.  Clearly, the Colts think that Caldwell made the right call to run at the end of the first half, but the line failed.  Frankly, I think that's insane logic, but the club is clearly trying to upgrade the run blocking.  If the line had done their job, Caldwell would still have been wrong, but I wouldn't be able to complain about it as much.
   
3. If Indy can survive a full season with CJ at left tackle, the pass pro will be fine no matter who plays up front.  We've noted recently that sacks have more to do with the quarterback than the line.  Therefore, the best measure of an offensive line is the run game.  Indy's sucks.  They might as well try to go bigger and move bodies off the line because Manning isn't going to get hit no matter who is out there.  That's an exaggeration, but there is something to it.

The comings and going of individual players doesn't interest me that much, to be honest.  A wholesale philosophical shift in the way the Colts construct the offensive line does.  Lilja was a productive player, and a valued member of the team.  He's not getting cut because someone could do what he did better; he's been released because he can't do what the Colts want to do next year.

What that is exactly remains to be seen.  There's another shoe to drop here, and it is going to play left tackle.

What I really want to do today is go into more depth about Raheem Brock's time with the Colts, but like so many topics these days, I'm saving it for the book.  The book, by the way, is almost finished.  I only have the chapter on 2009 left to go (and a TON of editing).  So, the Raheem Brock 'Classic Colt' passage will have to remain under wraps for now.  I realize the posts have been a little more infrequent than during the season, but please know that I write about the Colts almost every day, you'll all just have to wait a few months for the results, however!

So you'll all have to settle for some links today:

Oehser talks about free agency. For me, I don't think anyone can judge Gary Brackett's deal without seeing the way it breaks down.  It's likely a 4 year $25 million or a 3 year $19 million deal.  Usually in these kinds of contracts the final year or two comes at a huge salary that the club will never pay.  It's best to think of this as about a $6 million dollar deal.  Only $12 million of it is guaranteed, remember that.

1.Doing what they do. There was some debate Friday in the blogosphere and on some local airwaves about the $33 million, five-year deal to which the Colts signed MLB Gary Brackett. The deal, which included a $12 million signing bonus was indeed high – higher than just about anyone would have expected for Brackett several months ago. And as Irsay indicated would be the case a week before, it did put Brackett among the NFL's highest-paid middle linebackers. Was it a high price to pay? Sure. Was it higher than Brackett might have gotten on the open market? Likely not, not with Brackett suddenly in the past several months being increasingly viewed leaguewide as a savvy veteran leader whose value to a defense can't be measured by his physical measurables. In that light, it seems likely that the Colts couldn't have re-signed Brackett for less than what they paid. At that point, the question became, “Did the Colts want him back?” Once they determined they did, the re-signing was inevitable, and not only did him returning to the Colts fit their free-agency “M.O.” the high price they were willing to pay did, too. The Colts don't play in free agency with other team's players, but they are anything but thrifty when it comes to re-signing their own. They adhere to the philosophy that it is better to overpay for your own players with which you are familiar than to rake risks with that same amount of money for players with which you are unfamiliar and perhaps inherit other team's problems. So, if the Colts did overpay to keep Brackett, they did so in the same way they have built and retained the team for more than a decade. In one sense, the move was a departure, because it's well-documented that the team has allowed linebackers to leave in free agency, but in another sense – once they determined Brackett as a core player, it wasn't a departure at all.

JC sends us this one about the Bird era in Indy.  My problem with the NBA is that there is no way out of middle class hell without bottoming out.  The Pacers traded a bunch of good but crazy players for a bunch of boring crappy players as continued fallout from the brawl.  Finally this year, they are going to wind up with a top 5 pick (and plenty of cap space soon), so there is a way out of the mess.

Bird, president of basketball operations since 2003, is trying to make the Pacers matter again. While Johnson sits courtside at Staples Center watching his team attempt a championship repeat, Bird is above the Pacers bench at half-empty Conseco Fieldhouse wondering when his club will catch a break.

“It all happened that night in Detroit, and we’ve been fighting it ever since,’’ said Bird. “As far as losing, nobody likes to lose, especially me. I’ve been fortunate enough to be on great teams my whole career, even in college, even in high school.

“It’s been tough, but it’s part of the process. We had to get rid of some of the players and rebuild. We knew it was going to be tough, and it is.’’

The Pacers haven’t advanced to the postseason since 2006. The Brawl led them to trade Ron Artest, while Stephen Jackson, who served a 30-game suspension for his part, got into more trouble, and the Indiana fans grew tired of seeing Pacers on police blotters instead of All-Star teams. Bird has cleaned up the team’s image, but wins haven’t been part of the change.

Kravitz says O'Brein must go.  It's funny how Carlisle is having another good year in Dallas isn't it?

Offensively, though, they've had their greatest decline. This used to be a fun team to watch: competitive, fluid. This year, a still life, 18th in the league in scoring.

I was absolutely floored when I read O'Brien's recent quote in which he suggested the reason the offense was stagnant was because he didn't have Jeff Foster distributing the ball out of the high post.

What? Your offense was built around a guy who never should have been given an extension and has been falling apart the past three years? Excuse me?

And while it's ultimately a good thing that they're assured of a top-five draft choice, the question is, do you really want O'Brien coaching that new player?