tukafan21

1.5 sacks and a TFL in the first quarter, most predictable thing ever, if I'm his agents I'm now asking for almost the same thing as Bosa or just playing out the season. So fuging angry right now that we couldn't get a deal done before today, been saying this is exactly what would happen for weeks now.

You’re right, those 4 games where Chase was injured and Higgins put up numbers equivalent to what would have made him 3rd in the league in catches and yards proves he couldn’t be a true #1

Because I don't think either side would be willing to risk pre-agreeing on that kind of money and decision on the results of a single game. Particularly because it could set up an ugly situation where Burns played well but didn't get any sacks or TFL, which very much can happen with a pass rusher. He could get double teamed like crazy while others wreck havoc, which would be of credit to him and his agents would argue it, but the team would argue that he had no sacks. It would only set up a potentially ugly fight come Monday, just wouldn't make sense for any side of this to want to do that.

A guy in my league has by far the worst scenario I've ever seen in a league before. Our draft was Labor day and we do a $300 budget auction draft with an 8 spot starting lineup (we have 2 flexes but no defense or kicker) and his starting lineup in week 1 consists of only $101 of his budget and a player he picked up off waivers after the draft. He spent $42 on Mahomes and then in trying to get the bidding higher on Hurts, accidentally got stuck with buying him for $31 and he hasn't been able to trade him yet. He spent $77 on Kelce who then got hurt the day after our draft. He spent $69 on Kupp, a few days before going on IR And then he also spent $18 on Kamara who of course is suspended for the first few weeks. That's $195 of his budget that he can't even play in week 1 if he wanted to BRUTAL

If that was the case, Burns would have been upbeat all week instead of pouting and his family wouldn't be tweeting about him being upset right now.

That's exactly what I've been saying and why I said going into the season with him playing out the contract shouldn't be an option. If he puts up 15+ sacks, we're not getting him for a penny less than what Bosa got, because he knows someone would pay that on the open market. Every day he doesn't have a new contract I become more open to the idea of trading him, particularly since if he starts hot, his price is only going to go up and we can't get a deal with whatever he wants at this point. We're at the point where my main hope is we get a long term deal done before the game tomorrow, but if that can't happen, I kinda just want him to sit and we decide to trade him, I don't like him playing out the year, it won't end well for us.

Not unless they come to a deal before the game I could be wrong of course, not like I have any insider insight into the situation, just a gut feeling.

If he sits out, it's not for leverage in negotiations, it's to preserve his health while waiting on a contract he is likely expecting around $100 million guaranteed. He has to show up by about week 10 anyways to get the season towards FA. If someone said losing up to $10 million would be your best path to guaranteeing $100 million, I don't think you'd worry about losing that 10

Can we also please get a clarification on "Burns has practiced all week" because I keep seeing people say that. But I swear, I feel like I've also seen reports that he's only done individual drills and nothing with the full defense. Which if it's the case, then that's not him practicing, it's him doing the bare minimum to keep his leverage at maximum levels.

It's fair to point out, but like you said, there just isn't a way this is the case. How could the team not hold up their side of some deal short of them saying, "don't worry, no matter what we'll give you a contract offer that you'd accept before week 1 starts" As that's not something they could say as it would screw them even worse in their negotiating position than they already did by turning down that trade. Not saying they're offering something fair, maybe they're not, but there is not way they had some sort of deal with Burns that they're now reneging on.

Yes, players get hurt in practice at times, but the risk is supremely small in doing so. I'd have had no issue with Jones or Bosa holding out if I was a fan of their teams, just as I wouldn't have had issue with Burns doing it either. I take issue with Burns playing the "I'm doing what's best for the team" card all offseason to then threaten to sit out the week before the game, it screams dirty negotiating tactics to me. Had he been holding out, we'd have been preparing for months to play without him, but by doing what he did, he's holding our defense hostage with this threat because he knows we're not ready to play without him. It's the opposite of doing what's best for the team, even if he plays in the end, because he's causing a serious distraction at the moment. And again, stop comparing Burns to any of these players as not a single one of them is a fair comparison. Bosa/Jones completely held out so their teams knew what was up the whole time. While Evans/Higgins just aren't even remotely similar situations as neither team wants to bring them back next year anyways, so holding out by either of them only hurts themselves as they can't show out for a new contract by another team in the offseason, all they could have done would be to hold out to force a trade.

Huge difference between Burns and those 2 guys Evans is 30 and was never going to hold out as he knew the Bucs weren't going to re-sign him anyways, he just put a deadline on it to eliminate contract talk during the season. Higgins is a key cog on a very real SB contender who also knows there is about a 99% chance they won't re-sign, holding out would do him no good when his path to a big contract is balling out this year and hitting free agency next year. Burns is a player the team wants to keep and is also looking at a contract that likely would be about 30% more per season than Higgins would be looking at, all while playing a position that is much more physically demanding on your body and thus more likely to see an injury. And nobody has said he discussions haven't been productive or amicable, but I struggle to see a scenario where after all this time we couldn't agree to a deal before they flew to Atlanta, and then are able to work one out tonight or in the morning. If Burns was going to play without a new contract (as everyone assumed he would all offseason if one wasn't reached) he wouldn't have done what he did this week and threaten not to play. The only way I think he plays tomorrow is if this was literally a plan between the team and Burns the whole time, so the Falcons didn't think he'd play, but I don't see that being likely either.

I don't think so, I don't think he plays without a deal done, if he travels and then ends up not playing, it will be a significantly larger cloud hanging over the team tomorrow than if he just didn't make the trip. This whole situation is really starting to make me angry with how Burns has handled it. If he was going to hold out, just do it from the start and I'd have no issue with him doing so. Really not a fan of him talking all summer about how we're building something here and he knows it's important for him to be here and be a part of it, only to threaten to hold out in the days leading into the first game. If I'm running the team and he's not signed before the game starts tomorrow and playing, then he's never suiting up for the Panthers again, he'd be inactive until a trade is able to be worked out (and again, I've been someone who has been screaming for months to just pay him what he wants, so I don't say this lightly).

You can't say you get what I'm saying, agree with it, but say you were only saying what you did to simplify it. Because the details on that particular aspect of contracts is EXACTLY what matters here. You're saying that the only thing hat matters is the guarantee, but it's not because of what I laid out. The practical guarantee matters, which you seem to acknowledge, so you can't then state "the only thing that matters is the guaranteed number" in the way you did. They're two completely different things that 100% change things.

You tell him, "we love you, we think you're going to be one of the best pass rushers in this league for a while. But we're not waiting for you to use the reigning defensive player of the year's contract to use as leverage over us, as you're not there as a player yet. This is what we're willing to offer you, if you think you're worth more because you think someone significantly more accomplished than you will get much more, then we have to trade you" The agents and the players understand the business, he's not going to get upset at them telling him that because there isn't anyone in the world who knows the slightest bit about football who could look at what they've accomplished in their careers so far and deny those facts. If he wants to turn down TJ Watt money while trying to get closer to Bosa money, then he's out of his mind and at that point we should be trading him. $28-30 million a year should be more than enough to get it done for Burns and should be low enough to make us okay with it. Guarantees can be figured out with smart contract structure, that we haven't been able to get that done yet is a reflection on the front office in my opinion, not Burns.

Again, no it's not, it's why I'm thinking at this point we just need to go out and use Tepper's very deep pockets to steal one of the better cap managers in the league, say from the Saints or Eagles. Like I posted a little earlier, guaranteed money matters, but the "realistic guaranteed" money is what matters more, and that comes down to how the contract is structured. Teams can structure these contracts with the guaranteed money, but in a way that there is no way for the team to get out of it before other portions of the contract become guaranteed. For example.... Say a team signs someone to a 4 year, $100 million dollar contract with only $40 million guaranteed paid upon signing..... It can be structured to where year 1 and 2 have the player's salary being the vet minimum while year 3 is a salary of say $40 million and then $20 million in year 4. The player can't be cut after year 1 as they'd then have paid the player the $40 million guaranteed money while then taking on a $30 million dead cap hit. No team is cutting an elite player after 1 bad season when they'd then have to carry a $30+ million cap hit while doing so. They then also worked the contract so that Year 3 with the big salary is guaranteed if the player is on the roster Day 1 of the league year following the first year of the contract. At that time they then are able to re-structure the contract to convert that $40 million salary to a roster bonus. If the player is performing as expected, it can be done in an extension that really pushes that cap down the road, if not, it can be done with voidable years to still push it down the road without actually extending the player. In that example, they only got $40 million guaranteed, but in reality, it was actually an $80 million guarantee with how it was structured because everyone knew there was no way they'd be cut after one season and thus trigger the extra $40 in guaranteed money.

This is a completely irrelevant post to the discussion at hand though. The question is whether Fitt put himself in a terrible place from a negotiation stand point or not, and there is literally no way of framing where things stand right now without that answer being a resounding yes. Sure, maybe it works out, but he's the one who put himself behind the 8 ball on this particular negotiation.

Eh, I get what you're saying as that's the current situation, but it's also a bit of a revisionist history by judging only from where things stand currently. A big part of the reason the Rams are even in the position they are right now, looking at a potential Top 5 pick, is because they own their own pick next year for the first time in years. If we made that trade last year and they still had 2 more years without their Firsts, it's a guaranteed certainty that their offseason plays out entirely differently. They'd have kept Ramsey and pulled a Saints offseason by working cap magic to kick the can down the road and put a more competitive team on the field this season, no question about it. They went into this season likely telling themselves that if they had a hot start, they'd use those draft picks to trade for players at the deadline (like maybe a Mike Evans) and if they didn't, they'd stay status quo and end up with a high draft pick.

I've disagreed with CRA on some posts here today, but this isn't one of them. There is no way to frame this situation without the realization that Fitterer screwed himself on these negotiations, regardless of what Burns is asking for. He turned down 2 first round picks for him, it became public, and now we're 22 hours away from the season kicking off and it's not even known yet if Burns is going to be willing to play. He should have either made that trade, worked out an extension with Burns before turning the trade down, traded him before/during the draft, or signed him LONG before now. Letting it get to this point, no matter what he's asking for, has put Fitterer in a downright terrible negotiating position, it really doesn't get much worse.

The problem with the way you're putting it is that it only works that way when looking at everything individually, not the collective. There are only so many players at every level, for example, let's say each position really only has 3 truly ELITE players, then each position has another 7 great players, another 10 really really good, another 10 that are pretty good, etc, etc. Yes, in a vacuum and when looked at individually, only those 3 elite players in a position group should get that very top end money, then a step down for the next 7, another step down for the next 10, and even within those groups there is a sliding scale of course. When the options are overpaying for someone in that second level or not having anyone in the Top 25 of a position, teams overpay because it's better than the alternative. Sure, sometimes you can pass on the overpay and use the same money towards 2 other players who can be more effective for you than the 1, but that's not always the case. When you have someone with Burns' upper end potential, you overpay to keep him because it's better than the alternative of losing him. As the saying goes, sometimes a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush

I'm not going to bother with digging into it with all these contracts, but there is also a difference between guaranteed money and "guaranteed" money with how teams structure contracts these days to manipulate the cap. A lot of time there aren't actual guarantees, but the contracts are written in a way that there are essentially non-guaranteed guaranteed money. They'll do something where Year 3 of the contract isn't guaranteed at signing, but it becomes guaranteed if you're on the roster on Day 1 of the league year after the first year of the contract. Those are the type of things where even if the player has an injury or epic bust of a season, they aren't going to cut the player before year 2 starts solely because of the dead money hit they'd have to take. That's a way for players to get "guarantees" that aren't actually considered in the guaranteed money up front when the deal is signed. Same thing with how contracts can be structured to where some of the early years of the contracts are full salary payments, knowing they won't/can't be cut due to dead money hits, and in each offseason the team takes that upcoming year's salary, re-structures it as a roster bonus and then vet min salary for the season to keep pushing the cap down the road. Miller is on the back end of his career, so that guarantee seems right, but it wouldn't shock me if the Chubb deal had some of the above things in the structure of the contract to where he knows he's actually "guaranteed" more money than that in the end.

I'm definitely not against it, I just hope that when the time comes, we don't feel the need to do that and can use that money elsewhere. There is a very real possibility that Mingo shows #1 potential by the end of the year, if he does that and TMJ has his best year yet, I think we could look at them as the Top 2 next year and put that $15-20 million towards another need. The other problem with going after him is that it seems very unlikely that he'll ever hit unrestricted FA. Unless the Bengals need to use their franchise tag on someone else, I'd be shocked to see them let him walk away for free, they'll tag him to be able to trade him for a good draft pick. I don't really want to have to give up our 2nd rounder and then give him a $20 million a year deal on top of it, not when we're already lacking draft picks at the moment.

No, the delusion is thinking Higgins isn't a clear cut #1 WR in this league, which he is, even if he's the #2 on his current team. I said this the other day, people really struggle to differentiate the difference between a #1 in real life football and in fantasy football. No, Higgins is not a #1 WR in fantasy football, just a high end #2. But there are 32 teams in the NFL, to think Higgins isn't AT WORST a Top 20 WR and quite probably a Top 15 is just people kidding themselves. And any WR in the Top 20 in today's NFL is easily a #1 WR, with Higgins likely solidly in the Top 15 at the position, it's clear as day that he's a #1. In the 4 weeks that Chase was out injured last season, Higgins had 26 catches, for 371 yards and 2 TDs. Extrapolated out across 17 games, thats 110 catches for 1,576 yards, and 8.5 TDs. That would have been good for 3rd in both catches and yards in the league last season. In what world are those NOT #1 WR numbers?

I was already okay with giving him 28-30 before this, hadn't realized how much the cap had really risen since Watt's deal, this makes it seem even more of a no brainer to give him the money.