Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 3 votes

According to Person we're keeping Williams...


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#121 The Golden Child

The Golden Child

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,848 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:22 PM

Actually, I made a math error too on the cut in 2014 scenario. That said, here's the easy way to think about it...

If we do nothing and let DWill play out his contract, he costs us 27.6 million in cap space over the next 3 years. Cut him this year, and he costs us 9.6 million over those 3 years, for a savings of 18 million. If he plays this year and gets cut next year, he costs us 8.2 this year and 6.4 over the final two years, for a total of 14.6 or a savings of 13 million over the 3 years.

The actual math is as follows:

2013 post June 1 cut gives a cap charge of 3.2 million this year, and 6.4 million in dead money for 2014, at which time he's off our books. All of this is for unallocated bonus charges. So instead of scheduled charges of 8.2, 9.2, and 10.2 in 2013 thu 2015, his total charge is just 9.6. saving 18.

2014 pre June 1 cut gives us a charge this year of 8.2 as scheduled plus 6.4 million next year (unallocated signing bonus) and obviously nothing in 2015. Total savings from what is currently scheduled is 13 million. Actual savings against the cap by year would be $0 in 2013, $2.8 million in 2014, and $10.2 in 2015.

2014 post June 1 gives us a charge of 8.2 this year, 3.2 next year (unallocated bonus) and the final 3.2 in unallocated bonus in 2015. Actual savings per year would be $0 this year, $6 million in 2014, and $7 million in 2015.

Clear as mud, right?

As a fan, I would not be at all upset if we decide to keep DWill this year as I think he is still our best back despite what many think. I actually hate Stew's contract more than DWill's as we heavily backloaded Stew's making it very tough to do anything with him. Unless we can find a desperate team that will take on upcoming guaranteed money in Stew's deal, we are stuck with him for awhile. At least with DWill's, we have some options in how we handle it.


Nice job, thanks for breaking that down.

#122 CardiacCats

CardiacCats

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:51 PM

Gamble is 100% gone now, I think Gross is a 50/50

#123 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,469 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:53 PM

Definately for keeping DWill some way as I give Stewart zero chance of surviving a full season as the feature back.
Let's see how this might work under the Cap.
Hopefully Gettleman pleasantly surprises us riding out these horrid Hurney contracts and is still able to address some needs through Free Agency.

#124 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,889 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:30 PM

Gamble is 100% gone now, I think Gross is a 50/50

Only way Gross is gone is if he retires.

new GM should be fired on the spot if he dumps Gross and keeps Williams. sure Gross needs a restructure.....but dumping him means you have no OL. Kalil and 4 guys who should be backups to start the 2013 season, lol.



#125 Moose Hoover

Moose Hoover

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 12:25 AM

I'm still a little confused, so I'll ask one question I think will clarify. Do we save anything in 2013 by cutting DWill pre June 1st?

#126 darkstarskater13

darkstarskater13

    NEWB

  • NEWB
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 12:44 AM

Outside of the cap hit we would take in 2014 i personally dont see enough logic in keeping an aging RB. Deangelo wasn't producing in the early half of the season when we needed him most. He wasnt breaking off the big runs like he was in 2011, granted our OL was miserable this season. He averaged 3.6 YPC if you take away the very fluky game against the saints in Wk 17, also accordingly to PFF he graded out with a -2.7 in rushing this season. While i may point out that J-Stew graded out with a -0.8 in rushing this season. Definitely not great numbers but still better than what deangelo graded out at. Plus theirs other RB in free agency that have very similar skill sets like williams.
1) Cedric Peerman (UFA) (Grade +2.6) Note the grades are for rushing according to PFF ratings.

2) Mike Goodson (UFA) (Grade +2.8)

3) LaRod Stephens-Howling (Grade +1.7)

Guys like them are similar to what williams brings to the table and are also much much cheaper.

Thats just my personal take on it though.

#127 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 01:45 AM

I'm still a little confused, so I'll ask one question I think will clarify. Do we save anything in 2013 by cutting DWill pre June 1st?


No. His scheduled cap hit this year is $8.2 million. If we cut or trade him now, we take a cap hit of $9.6 million for unallocated bonus, so it actually costs us an additional $1.4 million over what is scheduled in his contract.

On the off chance some team wanted to trade for him, that additional $1.4 million might be considered an acceptable penalty if the compensation was good enough (like maybe a 3rd rounder). This seems unlikely for a number of reasons, so chances are he either stays here or we do something with him post June 1st.

#128 CPF4LIFE

CPF4LIFE

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:44 AM

They didn't invest the same at RB. They didn't spent 2 first rounders in 3 yrs on RBs.

Bradshaw for example....7th rounder. He produced so his big deal was 4yr, 18 mill. They told him to kick rocks when his "big deal" was being discussed and that they wouldn't talk comical numbers like Williams got (5yr, 43 mill).

They haven't over invested like us



The point is he got a new deal and so did Brandon Jacobs, and they just used a first rounder on another RB. Like yall have been saying if the position is so devalued, why did they give those guys new contracts in the first place instead of just letting them walk and replacing through the draft? And i never said they got big deals.

#129 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,889 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:34 AM

The point is he got a new deal and so did Brandon Jacobs, and they just used a first rounder on another RB. Like yall have been saying if the position is so devalued, why did they give those guys new contracts in the first place instead of just letting them walk and replacing through the draft? And i never said they got big deals.


Apples and oranges.

All teams have RBs. All teams pay them money.

The big fat deals is what everything talked about is about. Williams would be a dream if he had a Bradshaw type contract....

Just bc a team extended a RB or drafted one....doesn't then mean they went all full retard like us

#130 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,937 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:35 PM

The point is he got a new deal and so did Brandon Jacobs, and they just used a first rounder on another RB. Like yall have been saying if the position is so devalued, why did they give those guys new contracts in the first place instead of just letting them walk and replacing through the draft? And i never said they got big deals.

the big deals are the big deal....no one has done that. only us. no one has placed that much value or made that much of an investment in that position. no one.

no one has worked that hard or spent anywhere close to that much of their cap on that position. very few teams will pay deangelo type money to one RB....and it's not like he's a top 5 RB, but he's getting paid like one. and we did that to two RBs.

why? because we made the mistake of valuing the position too much. we made the mistake of not realizing just how easy it is to replace those players for much less money.

what the giants did with their RBs is nothing compared to what we did. no one compares with us and that's not a good thing. it was done with no regard for the direction the new offense was going to go and hurney was totally oblivious to the direction the league was going.

we should have out that investment into the WR position if it was going to be in any skill position, but really we shouldn't have that kind of investment in any one position with the exception of QB.

development and growth of the team should never be compromised so that we can keep old players around. all players are replaceable. with the exception of cam and kuechly, we should never spend the kind of money we did on just a handful of players like hurney did after the 2010 season. it hurt the team.

#131 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:25 PM

If we were looking to shop him at the combine, would we leak it that we intend to keep him in order to keep teams from waiting for us to cut him? Wasn't it a bit odd that article included a reference about teams that were interested in him last year (Green Bay)? If nothing is going to happen to him, and we are $10 million over the cap and plan to make some free agent acquisitions, isn't it a bit early to have made this decision when no other decisions are being made?

#132 The Golden Child

The Golden Child

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,848 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:27 PM

If we were looking to shop him at the combine, would we leak it that we intend to keep him in order to keep teams from waiting for us to cut him? Wasn't it a bit odd that article included a reference about teams that were interested in him last year (Green Bay)? If nothing is going to happen to him, and we are $10 million over the cap and plan to make some free agent acquisitions, isn't it a bit early to have made this decision when no other decisions are being made?


Interesting point.

#133 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,673 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:32 PM

Interesting point.


Thanks. We are entering the smokescreen and mirrors days. The first paragraph sounds like a leak to the media to me. Person is the only one pushing it.

DWill is perfect for a contender making a run because he doesn't fumble much and is a good blocker.

#134 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,457 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:33 PM

If we trade Williams then all of his cap hit accelerates and we owe 9.6 million. We are not going to do that for a third rounder which is likely the best we are going to do. We need to reduce his cap hit and keep him for a year or two not trade him and fall further into cap hell.

#135 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,889 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:44 PM

Williams extension likely is the 2nd worst deal in Panther history...

Time to move on from it. Nice guy, was a great player....but Hurney screwed us and essentially handicapped Williams from finishing what should of been some great years for him as an individual.


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.