70 replies to this topic

[SIGCHI222]

Name the year it was in "Good" shape.

Same story, same dance, same outcome. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We will be no worse than any other team in the league regarding salary cap.

Please tell me the story of team "X" in year "X" that because of salary cap issues sucked so bad that the team went out of business and all of their fans became John Kilgo groupies.

[pantherclaw]

It's probably easier to stay under the cap when you draft and sign so few good players.

there is no talent on this team.
It's official, you're a genius.

[Smithers]

Cutting Gamble is a no-brainer. Saving so much money on one player who did not see the field much this year makes it likely to happen. Combine that with the solid play of our younger corners, and Gamble is as good as gone.

[Kurb]

FWIW Dallas and Philly are in cap hell too.


That Grantland article were it was speculated that the only rational reasoning for the contracts of 2010 was Hurney remaining the only person willing to have the GM job seems pretty damning now.

[MB1234]

The Panthers aren't going to add any major free agents, but all they have to do is restructure a few contracts to be under the cap. Yes, it will push money into future years, but the cap is going to go up dramatically in 2014 when the new TV money kicks in.

Look at the contracts Mickey Loomis (and other GM's) have done with contracts. Especially Drew Brees- his cap hits escalate big time in 2014, when the cap is going up. You don't get to be an NFL GM by being stupid, regardless of what some mouth-breathing fans want to believe.

Marty Hurney may not have been a great personnel GM, but he came up through the ranks as a cap specialist. The Panthers have never "had" to cut anyone to get under the cap. They dumped players after 2009 to get dead weight off the books during the uncapped lock-out year. The cap hits were all taken during 2010 so they didn't affect future years. This was available to every team in the league to "get rid of money from past mistakes."

Where the Redskins and Cowboys screwed up (at least in the eyes of the other owners who thought it gave them an unfair advantage and broke an unspoken rule) was to use 2010 to pay extreme amounts of money to current players during that uncapped year and then still have a lot of money to spend going forward.

Watch the Redskins- they always sign free agents (and will find a way this year), and they have to take a $36M dollar hit imposed by the other owners over the next couple of years. The salary cap is made to be manipulated, and a GM and his staff is a lot better equipped to do that than an NFL blogger or fans.

I could personally care less- As a paying PSL owner, I expect Richardson to spend money. This article is sensationlistic. Come March 1st, there is nothing to worry about. I imagine a self-made billionaire is better at business than you, I, or Pat Yasinskas.

All of those players listed are going to be on the Panthers next year. The only exception could be Chris Gamble. It's fodder for January, nothing more. Even Yasinskas knows this

[carpanfan96]

That espn money has already been used, cap for 2014 will be around 120

[Murph]

There may be additional options. That article does not say how many millions will be saved by restructering Gross & Beasons contracts. Could it be 1 million each in savings or 4 million each? If closer to the latter then keeping Gamble may be possible. Hangman, Jason Williams, Armanti & Graham Gano could all be released & that would free up another 3-4 million combined. In the end I think Gamble is still gone which I hate.

[thefuzz]

Goes back to what I said for years.

Hurney was much worse as a GM than most were willing to believe, and Fox was a better coach than many were willing to accept.

I did hate on Fox quite a bit, but always thought he was a good coach.

[Gallagher]

Cutting Gamble is a no-brainer. Saving so much money on one player who did not see the field much this year makes it likely to happen. Combine that with the solid play of our younger corners, and Gamble is as good as gone.

Combine that with the solid play of our younger corners, and Gamble is as good as gone.

Combine that with the solid play of our younger corners

the solid play of our younger corners

Josh Norman showed that he might, might, have what it takes to start in this league, but all Josh Thomas showed was that he can consistently get beat. Not saying we keep Gamble, who is getting older, on his massive contract, but we either need to: 1. restructure Gamble, 2. draft a stud CB by at least the 4th, or 3. Sign a FA CB.

[Smithers]

Combine that with the solid play of our younger corners, and Gamble is as good as gone.

Combine that with the solid play of our younger corners

the solid play of our younger corners

Josh Norman showed that he might, might, have what it takes to start in this league, but all Josh Thomas showed was that he can consistently get beat. Not saying we keep Gamble, who is getting older, on his massive contract, but we either need to: 1. restructure Gamble, 2. draft a stud CB by at least the 4th, or 3. Sign a FA CB.

Stuttering problem?

Anyways...you must not have watched many games. Norman was actually benched because of his poor play, while Thomas stepped up pretty well. Thomas did not get beat very often...and if he did, why did our defense play so well down the stretch? Sure...the D line improved a lot, which helps the secondary. Regardless, Thomas played well considering his level of experience. I agree that we will need to add someone else in the draft or FA, but doing so is very feasible while still allowing us to save a lot of money.