Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Our Cap Issues, Free Agency, Retaining Our Core


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#11 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,920
  • Reputation: 5,441
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 2,496
  • Reputation: 1,969
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 08-September 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 807
  • Reputation: 119
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 11,999
  • Reputation: 963
  • LocationLexington, NC
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,137
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

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.....

#16 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,920
  • Reputation: 5,441
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:40 PM

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.


I think that Beason and Gross would restructure. I also think Gamble coudl get a bigger contract on the open market than a sign reduced one from us.

#17 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,920
  • Reputation: 5,441
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon
HUDDLER

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:42 PM

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.....



I am not advocating that we should keep him.

With Keek here, an injured Beason is not worth the cap space. I would let him go if he were not willing to play for significantly less....which I don't think he would.

Some very hard personnel decisions are ahead for the Panthers....and I foresee several Huddle meltdowns when they occur.

#18 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,137
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

I am not advocating that we should keep him.

With Keek here, an injured Beason is not worth the cap space. I would let him go if he were not willing to play for significantly less....which I don't think he would.

Some very hard personnel decisions are ahead for the Panthers....and I foresee several Huddle meltdowns when they occur.


I think there will be a period here where the boards collective head explodes. I would guess close to half of Hurney's core as defined after 2010 will likely be gone.

#19 IamSoClutch

IamSoClutch

    CaptainCam

  • Joined: 16-January 13
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,398
  • Reputation: 664
  • LocationKinston, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 04 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

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


Thomas Davis???

#20 IamSoClutch

IamSoClutch

    CaptainCam

  • Joined: 16-January 13
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,398
  • Reputation: 664
  • LocationKinston, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 04 February 2013 - 01:09 PM

how long will it take for us to be out of these bad contracts? 2015???


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users