Panthers and the Salary Cap

[CRA]

looks more like some team is going to gain some valuable veteran leadership. But we will see who is butthurt when these are gone and we are at this same point next year wondering who we can get in the next draft or which 1 year contract has-been we need to try and sign.LOL , it cold outside!

Sometimes vet leadership is overplayed. Yeah, you need a guy here or there.....but NFL is largely a talent driven league.

[davos]

This offseason is going to be interesting as hell.  

 

You can't always nail it with bargain shopping in the free agency and we'll start to have some wiggle room now that DG has been patient these first 2 seasons.  

 

So, if we continue to be somewhat patient with signing talent to longer guaranteed deals, like some mentioned 2016 will be a nice season to really start to put in place a solid team.  This coming one may be more transitional with a few exceptions depending on what's out there.    

 

I guess the question would be, does it make sense to get a new coach this offseason to transition into a new system from 2015-2016 or should this warrant a reason to be patient in a new HC search as well?  (I don't want RR back by the way)

 

There's a lot of factors including Cam's development, talent available, etc. so now that this season is pretty much over, it's time to get excited about this.  

 

The tricky question I think is: How do we transition to a new system and squad while keeping our young guys in place without stunting their growth anymore?

 

     

[heel31ok]

Sometimes vet leadership is overplayed. Yeah, you need a guy here or there.....but NFL is largely a talent driven league.

sometimes you shoot yourself in the foot.once may be an accident , more than that speaks to incompetence.talent is not the question.

[Marguide]

 instead of not having the foresight to know that Greg Hardy was going to be accused of domestic violence and miss 90+% of the season.

 

 

 

Many keep trotting out this hindsight angle when the Hardy decision was questionable whether he played the full year or not. This has nothing to do with his availability or the DV charge. 

 

Some of us just don't believe it is wise to rent a player for 1 year at a cap charge of $13 million when there are many other holes on the team. Sure the $13 million goes away after this year, but we also have absolutely nothing to show for that money. We did nothing to improve our roster in future years by spending money on Hardy.

[X-Clown]

Many keep trotting out this hindsight angle when the Hardy decision was questionable whether he played the full year or not. This has nothing to do with his availability or the DV charge.

Some of us just don't believe it is wise to rent a player for 1 year at a cap charge of $13 million when there are many other holes on the team. Sure the $13 million goes away after this year, but we also have absolutely nothing to show for that money. We did nothing to improve our roster in future years by spending money on Hardy.

the guys i listed are guys that everyone said we should have used hardys money to sign. My point is that "all these holes" would not have been filled had we gone that path. We still would be searching for tackles but would have bigger financial commitments in future years to shitty tackles, for marginal upgrades at best.

[pstall]

Awesome write up.

I wonder if DG can trade somewhere to stockpile some draft picks?

[AU-panther]

I am one of the people you are talking about. While not necessarily advocating signing 3-4 players to multi-year deals, we could have signed a couple without a significant negative impact on our cap and been in much better shape going into next year.

 

Remember, Hardy was never intended to be anything more than a 1 year rental. We spent that $13 million but it gives us nothing going forward in putting together a complete roster.

 

Case in point? Look at Cotchery's contract, and compare it to Golden Tate's. Yes, Tate is the more expensive player long term, but his deal would have been completely workable for us. Let's be honest, would you feel better going forward knowing you had Golden Tate as your #2 receiver or having Jerricho?

 

Those options were out there, but Dave opted to go with Hardy, apparently thinking he was necessary for our 2014 Super Bowl run.

 

My comments were actually directed more to the people who feel like we could have kept multiple players such as Ginn, Captain, Mitchell, and Smith for what it cost to keep Hardy.  These people tend to look at this year in a vacuum with no regard for the cap ramifications in the future.

 

Your point of view seems to center more around using Hardy's cap space to invest in a player over an extended time that could help the team in the future.   Which is a valid argument.  My point of contention with a lot of the comments I see is what Hardy's $13m is equal to.

 

We could have easily afforded Tate for what we spent on Hardy.  Actually Hardy's tag would have almost covered Tate's salary for 3 years.  By the fourth year the cap would probably be higher anyway.  

 

Would Tate have helped more then Hardy this year?  My guess is no.  Would Tate help more in the next 3 years?  yes

 

Every decision carries short term vs long term ramifications.  We could have just let Hardy walked and rolled over the savings until next year.  We could cut Kalil and TD next year and that could help us 5 years from now.

 

Wanting to invest in a player such as Tate for multiple years vs tagging Hardy for a single year is a valid argument, but at the same time tagging Hardy isn't as absurd as some people would claim. I would guess a lot of GMs would have given him a long term contract.  Defensive ends that can consistently get to the quarterback are highly coveted in the league.  Those that can also play the run are even more so.  For all we know we might have traded him at some point.

 

Did the "super bowl run" play into some of our off season decisions? probably

We did go 12-4 last year.  Most would agree the strength of our team was our defense and i think it is pretty evident that Hardy was a big part of that defense.  

 

I've stated before that us going 12-4 might have been the worst thing to happen to DG.  A lot of people might have got an unrealistic view of where this team was at.

 

.

[Icege]

I've stated before that us going 12-4 might have been the worst thing to happen to DG. A lot of people might have got an unrealistic view of where this team was at.

.

Agreed 100%

A lot of folks took last season as a "We have arrived!!!" These are also the same people that whine about Gettleman's silence during the season. When he does speak, they don't listen. Otherwise they would've heard him when he said that we have two seasons to get the books in order. They also would've heard him say that he's trying to build a consistent winner and that he doesn't speak to the press during the season.

He's trying to rebuild a team that drafted dog poo surrounding outside of two players for three seasons and gutted what little depth they had in preparation for the lockout. In the words of Rivera: It's a process. He's nailed some picks/signings and whiffed on others.

Hardy was essentially a short term solution. So was Harper/DeCoud. Long term solutions? Star, KK, KB, Ealy, Benwikere. Hell, in one draft he matched what Hurney was able to do. He didn't have the best luck in FA this past offseason like he did before. His drafts though have been solid. He's learning too. We'll see what he's learned from this season's failures.

[TN05]

Smith looks like the aging old guy we watched all last season.

He bottled up his rage and caught some lucky breaks leading up to the Carolina games.....you watched 89 since his revenge game? He hasn't been doing much.

He did his job - they are now covering him more, opening up the field for Torrey Smith. Of course his stats will dip a bit.

[Mol3m4n]

My comments were actually directed more to the people who feel like we could have kept multiple players such as Ginn, Captain, Mitchell, and Smith for what it cost to keep Hardy. These people tend to look at this year in a vacuum with no regard for the cap ramifications in the future.

Your point of view seems to center more around using Hardy's cap space to invest in a player over an extended time that could help the team in the future. Which is a valid argument. My point of contention with a lot of the comments I see is what Hardy's $13m is equal to.

We could have easily afforded Tate for what we spent on Hardy. Actually Hardy's tag would have almost covered Tate's salary for 3 years. By the fourth year the cap would probably be higher anyway.

Would Tate have helped more then Hardy this year? My guess is no. Would Tate help more in the next 3 years? yes

Every decision carries short term vs long term ramifications. We could have just let Hardy walked and rolled over the savings until next year. We could cut Kalil and TD next year and that could help us 5 years from now.

Wanting to invest in a player such as Tate for multiple years vs tagging Hardy for a single year is a valid argument, but at the same time tagging Hardy isn't as absurd as some people would claim. I would guess a lot of GMs would have given him a long term contract. Defensive ends that can consistently get to the quarterback are highly coveted in the league. Those that can also play the run are even more so. For all we know we might have traded him at some point.

Did the "super bowl run" play into some of our off season decisions? probably

We did go 12-4 last year. Most would agree the strength of our team was our defense and i think it is pretty evident that Hardy was a big part of that defense.

I've stated before that us going 12-4 might have been the worst thing to happen to DG. A lot of people might have got an unrealistic view of where this team was at.

.

Hardy was a big reason that Munnerlyn, Mikell, White, Florence, and Mitchell looked so good last year though.

[Marguide]

 

 

I've stated before that us going 12-4 might have been the worst thing to happen to DG.  A lot of people might have got an unrealistic view of where this team was at.

 

.

 

Agreed.

 

It's just hard to put your finger on what the long term strategy was/is. If he thought we were close enough to justify the Hardy rental, why blow up the rest of the team? My guess? He didn't intend to blow it up. Maybe he thought he could get back some of the pieces we ended up losing at a still low price. Maybe he thought he'd get a deal done with Nicks and/or one of the tackles available but they all chose to go elsewhere.

 

We have to remember that we had to put the tag on Hardy before any of the other signings happened. I think maybe he just got caught with his proverbial pants down.

 

Again, forgetting about the domestic violence stuff, I'd bet if Gettleman had it all to do over again, he either would have let Hardy walk or tried to trade him for whatever he could get. He may have also learned his lesson that waiting until the dust settles in FA, even if you are going after the relatively cheap guys, can end up biting you in the ass.

[MHS831]

Icege, thanks for taking the time to do this.

[pstall]

Agreed.

It's just hard to put your finger on what the long term strategy was/is. If he thought we were close enough to justify the Hardy rental, why blow up the rest of the team? My guess? He didn't intend to blow it up. Maybe he thought he could get back some of the pieces we ended up losing at a still low price. Maybe he thought he'd get a deal done with Nicks and/or one of the tackles available but they all chose to go elsewhere.

We have to remember that we had to put the tag on Hardy before any of the other signings happened. I think maybe he just got caught with his proverbial pants down.

Again, forgetting about the domestic violence stuff, I'd bet if Gettleman had it all to do over again, he either would have let Hardy walk or tried to trade him for whatever he could get. He may have also learned his lesson that waiting until the dust settles in FA, even if you are going after the relatively cheap guys, can end up biting you in the ass.

I think Dave tags Hardy since he believes a great pass rush can mask a decent/mediocre secondary. Not the other way around but we will never know.

[AU-panther]

Agreed.

 

It's just hard to put your finger on what the long term strategy was/is. If he thought we were close enough to justify the Hardy rental, why blow up the rest of the team? My guess? He didn't intend to blow it up. Maybe he thought he could get back some of the pieces we ended up losing at a still low price. Maybe he thought he'd get a deal done with Nicks and/or one of the tackles available but they all chose to go elsewhere.

 

We have to remember that we had to put the tag on Hardy before any of the other signings happened. I think maybe he just got caught with his proverbial pants down.

 

Again, forgetting about the domestic violence stuff, I'd bet if Gettleman had it all to do over again, he either would have let Hardy walk or tried to trade him for whatever he could get. He may have also learned his lesson that waiting until the dust settles in FA, even if you are going after the relatively cheap guys, can end up biting you in the ass.

 

I think your point about the timing of the tag is important.  No GM wants to lose an elite player for nothing.  By tagging him you get his production for a year and give yourself more time for a trade.  In most cases you do it to create leverage for a long term deal, most players hate playing under one year deals.

 

As far as strategy goes I think it was to repeat what worked in 2013, a strong front 7 on defense and Cam carrying us on offense.  With the 2013 defense we really didn't need that great of an offense.  All of this while committing as little money as possible to the 2015 and 2016 cap.  Pretty much every move DG has done so far has been of the short term variety.

 

Free agency can be a bit of a catch-22 situation.  If you wait too long there might not be much left to choose from.  If you act too quickly you tend to overpay.  If we draft well in the future we shouldn't be so dependent on free agency.