AU-panther

Did you even read the article? The myth he is referring to is the idea that teams can't sign a player because of a lack of cap space. His point is that thru restructures and signing bonuses you can almost always free up enough money to sign a particular player. With a big enough signing bonus you can get most contracts down to a pretty low number in the first few years. Same with restructures. Heck, we could have about $40m in cap space if DG wanted us to with a few cuts and restructures. If you read the article he actually states that "secret to managing the cap" is keeping cash and cap spending close to the same. This prevents you from incurring future charges and also allows you flexibility. This philosophy is the exact opposite of what he is talking about with manipulating the cap to fit a guy in. The above scenario is exactly what happened to the Panthers. Hurney manipulated the cap in order to fit more talent on the team and DG inherited the future charges and the decreased flexibility, especially in 2013 and 2014. We actually have a little more cap space and flexibility this year but that doesn't mean we need to go out and overspend. Everyone likes to reference the Pats as big free agency players but in reality they are one of the most frugal teams in the league. While they occasionally get a "big name" player like Revis or Moss they very rarely over pay for a guy. They traded away a fan favorite pro bowler (Logan Mankins) in the middle of the season because they felt like his production to match with his cap hit. How would this fan base react to us trading away Kalil? Look at what they did with LaGarrette Blount. They had him on a cheap one year deal. He played well and left for more money. They didn't overpay to keep him. He later was released from his new team and the Pats resigned him to another cheap deal. Sounds like what happened to Ginn. What about the free agents that they let leave. They asked Brandon Browner to take a pay cut and when he wouldn't they let him walk. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/10/report-brandon-browner-wont-take-pay-cut/ Even with the Revis deal they didn't overspend. Although it was listed as a 2 year deal for all practical purposes it was a one year deal for $12m dollars. $12m for arguably the best corner of this generation seems quite fair. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/13/revis-gets-12-million-this-year-20-million-or-free-agency-next-year/

Their ability to build thru the draft is exactly why they are able to do moves like this.

New England won the Super Bowl with him as a #2. Not sure how though, a lot of people here had me convinced he was the problem in our offense. There is a lot of truth to this. We don' t seem to have that all around guy. Fast enough to get behind the defense, good hands, big enough to catch in traffic, and explosive enough to make something happen after the catch. Sounds more like a #1.

I don't understand why people keep trying to turn this into a McCoy vs Alonso argument. This wasn't a trade where each team was trying to get the better player. This trade was about the Eagles getting rid of a bad contract. Picking up a quality player with two years left on a rookie contract was just a bonus. Can they replace his production with the 8-10 million they are saving? What if they replace 90% of his production for 10% of the cost. That is a lot of money left over to improve other areas. What if the trade was McCoy for Alonso and Maclin or Alonso and Hardy? Would people have a different opinion then?

Cecil Short is slower and shorter then Hartline. http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/cecil-shorts?id=2495341 http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/brian-hartline?id=81831

The people over at overthecap.com have been doing some write-ups on every team's financial outlook for next season. Thought some might find it interesting. http://overthecap.com/panthers-2015-salary-cap-outlook/

Great points about the savings not happening until after June 1st and the fact teams are limited to only 2 designations a year. Another misconception that I often see is that the dead money is not split evenly between the 2 years. The current year's dead money is realized in that year and then all of the remaining years of dead money accelerate in the following year.

The fact that he has lasted in the league for 4 years is an accomplishment in itself considering he was an UDFA. Even if he spends the next 4 years as a backup RT for some team he has still reached a level that very few football players do. While I understand fans wanting an upgrade I never really understood some of the hatred directed towards him. Its not like he was some player who signed a huge contract and then decided to become complacent.

I don't expect Cam to take less but at the same time I don't expect the team to pay extra because Cam was on some rookie pay scale. Good teams pay players based on what they can contribute in the future. Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

It's not about how much money a person needs. It's about being paid what you are worth relative to your peers. How many here would be content to make less then a coworker who did less work? Cam might feel like he should be the highest paid contract in the league. If that is the true DG is going to have a tough decision to make. I know most here want to keep Cam long term, myself included, but at what point is it not worth it?

Ignorance isn't a hurdle for some people though.

If there is a 88 rated MLB and a 86 rated LT at the top of our board when it is our turn to pick, how many really believe DG is going to take LB? I really doubt his BPA philosophy is as strict as some on here want to believe. When you think about a players grade being relative to their percentage chance of being successful in the leage the idea of BPA makes more sense. If Team A drafts (BPA) 10 players that have a 35% chance of being successfull and Team B drafts (need) 10 players that have a 25% of being successfull whose roster will be in better shape long term? By drafted BPA you are decreasing your chances of having needs in the future.

1. Yes, because when I look at a roster I also consider the contracts. The current roster is younger and in better shape financially. 2. No. I knew we had some deficiencies in last years roster but I had hoped we could scheme around some of it. 3. Yes. From what we have seen so far I am a fan of what appears to be DG's philosophy towards building a team. Next two years will show us a lot about DG. He will have some large contracts to negotiate and some hard decisions to make about some of our older core players.

The 50 mil guaranteed is a good guess. The 80mil overall is low.

How do we know we haven't tried to sign Cam? Maybe he wants more then we are willing to pay. For those that want to keep Cam (myself included), do you have an upper limit in what you would pay him? Do people honestly believe he would sign for this amount?

Hardy would be crazy for signing anywhere close the minimum or even the 4-5 million dollar range like some have suggested. Likewise the Panthers would be crazy to not even entertain the idea of bringing him back if he was willing to sign for considerable less then market price. The structure of the deal and the amount of guaranteed money would probably be a bigger hurdle then the overall number.

I have no idea if the Panthers would be interested in resigning him but the chance of him being released would seem quite high. As Jeremy pointed out his salary($3.5m)is quite high for his production. Also the team is over the cap by $10,000,000. http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space Cutting him would save $2.5m in cap space for them. $4m dollar cap hit if he stays. $1.5m if he is cut. They could save even more if designated a June 1st cut. Here is a calculator that will illustrate this: http://overthecap.com/calculator/arizona-cardinals

Also the cuts won't count against us in the compensatory pick formula.

Even if we could afford the big name guys I'm not sure if we will ever be that team that makes the big splash in free agency. Those top tier free agents tend to be overvalued every year because of multiple teams bidding against each other. DG seems to be value oriented.