Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hurney, the worst contract negotiator of all time? Panthers in worse cap shape in 2014


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#51 Stroupe-a-loop

Stroupe-a-loop

    Señor Member

  • Joined: 06-September 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,672
  • Reputation: 393
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

From reading your (very nice btw) post explaining the aspects of cap hits and players salaries I have come to the conclusion that unless a player accepts a pay cut then restructures/extentions are nothing more than immediate relief that is thrown onto the backside of a contract usually in the form of guaranteed/signing bonus!

I will admit that I am very interested in how a player can restructure and be given more guaranteed money while alleviating the cap hit both short and long term...........please explain to me how


You have to look at it as cap figures vs. actual money which are not the same thing. The players want the actual money and the team wants the manageable cap figure. So if we straight up cut Deangelo, he would lose a lot of actual money and our cap figure wouldn't be any better really. So you go to him and say instead of cutting you, why don't you agree to a more team friendly contract and keep a much higher portion of the money. It's just that it normally works in both parties best interest to restructure.

There are more detailed explanations but I think that's a pretty good layman way of looking at it.

#52 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,885
  • Reputation: 3,405
  • LocationShallotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:10 PM

Um, the new GM isn't just going to look at the 2013 cap when making decisions. 2014 matters....


Good job missing the point.

#53 DeeJay

DeeJay

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 08-January 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,327
  • Reputation: 390
  • LocationHell Paso Texas
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

Not as bad as jerry jones......

Gettlemen 2014

#54 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,885
  • Reputation: 3,405
  • LocationShallotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

There will be roster/contract moves THIS year that will greatly affect our 2014 cap. We will more than likely cut/restructure a large amount of the people mentioned in the OP, THIS YEAR, which means that their cap implications for 2014 (with the exception of a few june 1st cuts) will be exactly zero. You guys are looking at these numbers under the assumption that a lot of that won't be fixed this year. Sure, some of our players cap figures will go up in 2014, but that's the nature of almost every player contract in the league. about 80% of all NFL contracts are back loaded. Looking at cap hits for players going into the last years of a contract TWO years from now, is an exercise in futility and borderline asinine.

#55 top dawg

top dawg

    The Creative Cat

  • Joined: 11-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,334
  • Reputation: 2,940
  • LocationWITHIN MY MIND'S EYE
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:16 PM

This thread is one of the more amusing threads that I have read in awhile. Good stuff, guys.

#56 Gin and Juice

Gin and Juice

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,670
  • Reputation: 360
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

You have to look at it as cap figures vs. actual money which are not the same thing. The players want the actual money and the team wants the manageable cap figure. So if we straight up cut Deangelo, he would lose a lot of actual money and our cap figure wouldn't be any better really. So you go to him and say instead of cutting you, why don't you agree to a more team friendly contract and keep a much higher portion of the money. It's just that it normally works in both parties best interest to restructure.

There are more detailed explanations but I think that's a pretty good layman way of looking at it.



actual money=signing bonus? Correct? They are guaranteed that once they sign the contract! Everything else is based upon being on the team and /or performance. If we cut a player, then we are still charged his remaining signing bonus, how much is still determined by when we cut him, correct?

Using Dwill, if we cut him.......then we still owe him what's left of his signing bonus, but we are off the hook for base salary! So, then Dwill signs with another team and will be paid by that team while getting the remaining portion of his signing bonus here. Right?

Now, I would prefer to use Beason as an example. Someone explain how we could have him restructure without taking an actual/guaranteed and base salary cut while making his deal cap friendly?

#57 Gin and Juice

Gin and Juice

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,670
  • Reputation: 360
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

And I'm not trying to be argumentive.......I'm trying to understand this fully

#58 thunderraiden

thunderraiden

    Thunder God Member

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,849
  • Reputation: 611
HUDDLER

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

actual money=signing bonus? Correct? They are guaranteed that once they sign the contract! Everything else is based upon being on the team and /or performance. If we cut a player, then we are still charged his remaining signing bonus, how much is still determined by when we cut him, correct?

Using Dwill, if we cut him.......then we still owe him what's left of his signing bonus, but we are off the hook for base salary! So, then Dwill signs with another team and will be paid by that team while getting the remaining portion of his signing bonus here. Right?

Now, I would prefer to use Beason as an example. Someone explain how we could have him restructure without taking an actual/guaranteed and base salary cut while making his deal cap friendly?

Except no one is signing d-will to a monster contract. Most good teams have a younger replacement in place and they wouldnt be going after him. Plus you have d-will moving, his fam who has put roots here leaving, d-will going to a shitty team. Basically everything ppl hate about the unknown. Then you have the fact we paid him boatloads already and now he can either help us that overpaid him or face the unknown and get paid much less for nothing but a shitty finish to his career, where he might last a season before getting replaced by a third round pick and cut.

#59 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:40 PM

Good job missing the point.


I didn't miss your point....of course what happens this offseason impacts the 2014 cap.

My point is only the new GM is going to look at how players impact more than the 2013 cap....therefore you can't tell people they shouldn't talk about 2014

#60 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,138
  • Reputation: 5,290
Moderators

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:43 PM

actual money=signing bonus? Correct? They are guaranteed that once they sign the contract! Everything else is based upon being on the team and /or performance. If we cut a player, then we are still charged his remaining signing bonus, how much is still determined by when we cut him, correct?

Using Dwill, if we cut him.......then we still owe him what's left of his signing bonus, but we are off the hook for base salary! So, then Dwill signs with another team and will be paid by that team while getting the remaining portion of his signing bonus here. Right?

Now, I would prefer to use Beason as an example. Someone explain how we could have him restructure without taking an actual/guaranteed and base salary cut while making his deal cap friendly?


He would take a base salary cut which is how you lower his cap impact.

Issue is with an injury plagued guy is the upfront cash you give him....with the big dollars we are dealing with he would be a disaster cap wise if we had to turn around and cut him bc Beason couldn't comeback to old form


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users