Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Our Cap Issues, Free Agency, Retaining Our Core


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Superior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts
  • LocationMelfa

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:06 AM

First I want to say is Congrats to the Ravens. Maybe not the best team but clearly the team playing the best down the stretch.

Mr. Gentleman has his work cut out for him. Beason, D Will and Gamble really need to restructure and help us get under the cap. I would love to see us keep all three but I believe in the end we will end up letting D Will go.(Sadly) Beason and Gamble could very well agree to restructure. Especially Beason.

I think the Gettis waiting project might be at its end. I love Gettis's speed but if you are so injury prone that you are on the bench. Speed means nothing.

I have always been hard core on giving the young guys their chance to become the #2 WR we need. LaFell has be adequate but I think we need someone more dangerous. While D. Bowe might be out of our dollar figure there are some good options. I would like to see a WR addressed during free agency.

I think there are a few NFL ready DTs available in the draft and we could address that position #1 and a DB or OT in the 2nd.

Retaining our Core players is crucial. Kalil, Newton, Stewart, Olsen, Smith on offense, CJ, Hardy, Kuechly, on Defense. And I believe all of them are under contract for 2013. Of course Beason, Gamble and a few others are apart of our core but we need some relief from them to keep them.

#2 Firefox

Firefox

    This Board Rocks

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:32 AM

Some great posts here this morning.

And why would a player NOT restructure?

Pay me NOW instead of later. Yeah that's the ticket !!!

#3 mwright350

mwright350

    Thy Jimmies shall be Rustled

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • LocationChina Grove, NC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:24 AM

Some great posts here this morning.

And why would a player NOT restructure?

Pay me NOW instead of later. Yeah that's the ticket !!!


An inconsistent or older player might not want to restructure. If you've got time left to get that one more huge payday at the end of your current contract but wouldn't / aren't likely to after the restructured deal? Lot of guys wouldn't be in a hurry to give that up without a winning organization behind them.

Also NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. They might restructure to push off the cap hit then get boned when they're cut before the big part of their contract hits later....and the guaranteed money is less than the money if they played.

There are reasons. A lot of guys do it but there are valid reasons for no wanting to.

#4 IamSoClutch

IamSoClutch

    CaptainCam

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,721 posts
  • LocationKinston, NC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:44 AM

i will be completely shocked if gamble restructure. i feel beason will because of thomas davis and i believe gross will also

#5 Rubi

Rubi

    Squid Smasher

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,294 posts
  • LocationCharlotte

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:50 AM

I don't see any of these guys restructuring. Would you throw away millions of dollars because your employer asks you to?



#6 Panther_Brotherhood

Panther_Brotherhood

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 417 posts
  • LocationBaton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:52 AM

Gross and Beason I think come back. Gamble will probably leave and i think D-WIll leaves. It'll hurt to see D-WIll leave the most just because of the way he played the last quarter of 2012. We saw those flashes of 08 in some of those runs, and the NO game he tore it up, but I think we need to look for a RB with similar abilities in later rounds. Stewart is no guarantee either.

#7 chknwing

chknwing

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,445 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:54 AM

so when do the first moves start? At what point can negotations begin etc. Also anyone have a list of key dates for free agent period etc?

#8 Argus Plexus

Argus Plexus

    Super Kami Guru

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,655 posts
  • LocationCape Fear Area

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

I love how people throw around the word restructure, having no idea what it means, as if it's some kind of magic wand.

#9 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,860 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:22 AM

We simply need Gentlemen to "redefine" our core. No point restructuring and causing additional future cap issues to keep big names if they aren't part of the core going forward.

Jon Beason......for example, should not be part of the core. Luke is.

We are in bad shape not just in 2013 but 2014 and the future. You don't restructure and dump HUGE cash at someone who spent 2 yrs on IR who might be a OLB if he gets healthy again. That is Hurney magic and will create a potential bigger issue if he never returns to form.

#10 UNCrules2187

UNCrules2187

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:31 AM

It drives me crazy that so-called Panthers fans don't even know the name of our GM. It's GETTLEMAN, not Gettelmen, Gentleman, or Gentlemen.

As for restructuring, players aren't "throw(ing) away millions of dollars" - they're getting the salary they would have gotten sooner through a bonus and extending a few years out to knock the cap figure down.

#11 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,951 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:37 AM

As for restructuring, players aren't "throw(ing) away millions of dollars" - they're getting the salary they would have gotten sooner through a bonus and extending a few years out to knock the cap figure down.


That is not completely accurate. The future years of a players contract are not guaranteed. If their contract value in future years is now significantly out of whack with what the player would garner on the open market, then players will often restructure for less money in order to continue playing for their team.

For instance, we may value Beason higher than a team in FA would (given the injury). If we request to restructure his contract, the lower contract that we offer may be slightly higher than he would garner on the open market (but significantly less than the monster contract that he signed). In this case, restructuring would be for less money.

#12 UNCrules2187

UNCrules2187

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

That is not completely accurate. The future years of a players contract are not guaranteed. If their contract value in future years is now significantly out of whack with what the player would garner on the open market, then players will often restructure for less money in order to continue playing for their team.

For instance, we may value Beason higher than a team in FA would (given the injury). If we request to restructure his contract, the lower contract that we offer may be slightly higher than he would garner on the open market (but significantly less than the monster contract that he signed). In this case, restructuring would be for less money.


Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that. But it does make sense for players like Beason who would probably be paid a fraction of what he would earn even from a restructure with the Panthers on the open market. A MLB with a potentially bum achilles, knee, and shoulder, a guy who's played, what, 4.5 total games in the last two years, isn't going to garner much on the open market.

#13 Firefox

Firefox

    This Board Rocks

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 671 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

I don't see any of these guys restructuring. Would you throw away millions of dollars because your employer asks you to?


A restructure doesn't "throw away millions". You get it NOW instead of later, and in the form of a guarantee up front. No risk of loosing unguaranteed money (salary) later on.

And BTW, you can't restructure in the last year of a contract. $5 mil = $5 mil.

#14 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,328 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:49 AM

Thomas Davis didn't loose money, they just put it behind multiple option bonueses each year. Players aren't going to take less money, might change the contract around a bit but thats it.

#15 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,860 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

For instance, we may value Beason higher than a team in FA would (given the injury). If we request to restructure his contract, the lower contract that we offer may be slightly higher than he would garner on the open market (but significantly less than the monster contract that he signed). In this case, restructuring would be for less money.


A Beason restruture still comes with HUGE risk and negative potential impact for a team already in the read for both 2013 and 2014.

They just need to part with him. Cut your losses. Take it on the chin. Not extend a potential problem with his history further. Beason isn't Smitty where we are putting all our hopes and dreams in one man at the position.....


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.