Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Is Beason going to restructure?

67 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

A pay cut would be much more preferential. Highly doubt that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

laughing-black-man-o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe last year we had a kill date in his contract where we could have walked away not owing him anything more, but we didn't know what Keek was like before and it passed the date when all was too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

According to Steve Reed: With the bonus proration there is no way to restructure in a way that will save cap dollars...cutting him will negatively affect the cap as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Gettlemen is prepping the stage for a complete roster gut if need be....

Beason will play this year as is....he won't make him part of the big picture. Beason has already recieved a comical amount of money for almost nothing....can't give him more guaranteed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

How many damn times do people need to ask about Beason restructuring? His contract is very, very difficult to do anything with. You can't cut him, you can't trade him and you can't restructure him.

NO PLAYER TAKES LESS MONEY TO HELP THE TEAM OUT!

The only way you see guys taking less money is because they don't want to get cut and the money the present teams wants to cut them to is at least market value. The player is going to get less money. It's either with his present team via a paycut or with another team who will pay him his market value. That number is the same.

We owe Beason over 16 million bucks towards the cap. Do you want to give Beason even more money and add years to his contract. So instead of having owing him 16 million we'll owe him 20, only spread out over 6 years instead of 4. Just so we could save a few million on this years cap. Makes no sense what so ever.

We'd only save 1.5 million this year if we cut him as a June 1st cut. And next year it's easier to make him a June 1st cut when the dead money will be a lot less than if we cut him this year.

I swear I want to punch the screen every time someone suggests we restructure Beason or someone talks about him doing the right thing for the team. Jesus Christ, where's the tylenol.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In theory, you could do what we did with both Kalil and Olsen: cut the base down (they cut to $750k), convert it to a signing bonus, and prorate the bonus hits over the years of the contract. That would mean cutting his base from $5.25m to say, $750k, and converting the remaining $4.5m to a signing bonus ($1.125m per year).

That would cut this year's cap hit of $9.5m down to $5.375m (savings of $4.125m), so he'd help out the team without losing a penny. Highly doubt he says no to that, but that would also add $1.125m onto the future years of his deal, and his hit the next two years is actually bigger than this year's as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In theory, you could do what we did with both Kalil and Olsen: cut the base down (they cut to $750k), convert it to a signing bonus, and prorate the bonus hits over the years of the contract. That would mean cutting his base from $5.25m to say, $750k, and converting the remaining $4.5m to a signing bonus ($1.125m per year).

That would cut this year's cap hit of $9.5m down to $5.375m (savings of $4.125m), so he'd help out the team without losing a penny. Highly doubt he says no to that, but that would also add $1.125m onto the future years of his deal, and his hit the next two years is actually bigger than this year's as it is.

Makes for a bigger problem later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Makes for a bigger problem later.

I agree, just saying it's possible. Frankly, I don't think we've ruled out cutting/trading him after June 1. But I have no basis for thinking that, it's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not bloody likely.

As has been restated many times...

Unleas beason takes a paycut (high.unlikely IMO).....

The panthers will gain nothing.by restructuring beason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Latest Articles

  • Recent Comments