Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Contract Status and Cut Players


jdpanther5

Recommended Posts

It's been widely reported how much Gettleman hated losing his FA class of a couple years ago (Ginn, Mitchell, Captain, etc.) after many of his low-risk, 1-year deals cashed in after a 12-win season. Ever since, Getts has made a point to get players for multiple years if at all possible. We also know Dave isn't one to sacrifice future viability for short-term fixes. For these reasons, I've felt player contracts - specifically, the length of the contracts - were an understated driver in how the roster would fall into place. Spoiler: they were. Let's look into it a bit:

Running Back

Fozzy Whittaker - 2 years, $680k average

Brandon Wegher - 3 years, $525k average

Jordan Todman - 1 year, $765k

So not only was Todman only under control for one year, but he was also the most expensive of the perceived bubble guys. Gettleman keeps a pair of promising RBs under contract for multiple years at near-minimum amounts, all the while cutting the most pricey player who could bolt in a year anyway. 

Wide Receiver

Philly Brown - 2 years, $515 average

Kevin Norwood - 3 years, $600k average

Jarrett Boykin - 1 year, $700k

Brenton Bersin - 1 year, $510k

Mike Brown - 1 year, $585k

Damiere Byrd - 3 years, $526k average

Again, multi-year deals win out. Byrd is the exception, but he was always practice squad bound. Worth noting that, had Seattle cut him, Norwood would've likely signed a one-year minimum deal in hopes of signing long-term next year after proving himself. By trading for him, we secure his low-cost rookie-scale deal for another 3 years. Ginn also signed for two years. 

Offensive Line

Lots of guys here; basically Foucault did have two years left, but every other cut player was on a one-year deal. Nate Chandler is under contract for another three and made the team from the bubble. Scott was extended in the offseason and made the team. Amini will get the opportunity to finish out his rookie deal (relevant to compensatory picks).

Linebacker

David Mayo - 4 years, $680k average

Ben Jacobs - 1 year, $585k (then restricted)

Adarius Glanton - 1 year, $510k

Jason Trusnik - 1 year, $950k

Mayo and his cheap, long-term contract survive while again the most expensive bubble player is shown the door. Mayo's contract never comes close to Trusnik's one year, the closest being 2018 when it still falls $250k short. 

Secondary

Teddy Williams - 2 years, $950k average

Dean Marlowe - 3 years, $530 average

By now you're seeing the pattern: Heath, Byndom, Young, White, Lester, and Ball all were on one-year deals; none made the team. 

Gettleman clearly places a great deal of importance on how long guys are locked in, taking a long view when most of us are more focused solely on the upcoming season. 

Notes

QB: All made the team. 

TE: Every TE aside from Olsen and Dickson were on one-year deals. So not relevant here. 

DL: Predictably, only vets made the cut. Though perhaps it's worth noting that all but Cole (our oldest player), Love, and Horton (upcoming RFA) are under contract beyond this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analysis, though I think the DL bit falls outside the theory.  IMO, if Horton and Cox are on even playing field as far as the contract influence goes, then Cox should have had the advantage with youth and upside.  Love too probably.  I would have rather had kept Redden.

Not trying to take away from your theory, though.  Seems solid.  I assume Gettleman (and/or Rivera) just preferred the vets when it came to DL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man that was like an anti Panther United post.  Excellent post.  That's something to think on,  where most of us look at performance at the GM level you have to factor cost/contract length as well.

That trade for Norwood makes a lot more sense as well.

Good stuff.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analysis, though I think the DL bit falls outside the theory.  IMO, if Horton and Cox are on even playing field as far as the contract influence goes, then Cox should have had the advantage with youth and upside.  Love too probably.  I would have rather had kept Redden.

Not trying to take away from your theory, though.  Seems solid.  I assume Gettleman (and/or Rivera) just preferred the vets when it came to DL.

It's definitely the outlier, I think injuries may have forced their hand a bit. Maybe if Star is healthy they keep a developmental guy like Redden (3-year deal) vs. a more game-ready guy in Love. I obviously can't prove that though. 

Probably worth noting that Alexcih and Cox, two guys that fell just short, were on one year contracts. Miley, who came down with a mysterious/previously unknown injury today and was placed on IR, has 3 years left. Person even reported that they were going to designate him for return from IR, but that obviously didn't happen. 

Not sure what started you down this path...but it was the right choice.  Nice right up, theory and execution.  Kudos.

I've always been a nerd when it comes to the business side of sports, specifically cap management. I'm worse with the NBA and its much more complicated system, I could talk about Bird Rights and cap holds for hours...I'll stop now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can also explain why some guys are on shorter contracts in the first place. Basically, every rookie gets a multi-year deal, but the lengths vary. 

1st round picks: 4 years + option year

All other drafted players: 4 years

Undrafted players: 3 years

Most late-round to undrafted guys are stuck on minimum deals for a few years, and there is really nothing they can do about it. After they've been cut once, however, they can now negotiate their next deal. 

Now, they're unlikely to get much more than the minimum after being cut, but why agree to another long-term deal? It's not guaranteed in the NFL, you could sign today and be cut tomorrow, might as well take your minimum over only one-year.

If you overachieve, in a year you're a free agent again and can cash in. Meet expectations? Maybe another year or two for cheap. Fall short and now you're a FA without a job? Well, had you signed long-term you would've been cut anyway, so nothing would be different. 

This is why rookies are inherently more attractive to teams than even veterans with only one year of experience. The vets all want to bet on themselves with a one-year deal, but your rookies are locked in for at least 3.

Hell, if they outright cut Miley he may have come back next year, but only for a year. By placing him on IR they preserve his rookie contact. Plus he's cool with it because he still gets paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Worth noting that, had Seattle cut him, Norwood would've likely signed a one-year minimum deal in hopes of signing long-term next year after proving himself. By trading for him, we secure his low-cost rookie-scale deal for another 3 years."

This was a smart move by Gettleman.  Needed help at WR receiver and got a guy they liked in the previous draft anyway. Kudos to him for grabbing him while still on his rookie contract. Gettleman proved this past draft he does not value 7th round picks anyway. He wants players that can make an immediate impact on the team.  Giving up a conditional 7th rounder is a win win. 

Awesome work GMan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

may be worth noting that Trusnik, and maybe Todman, did have the vet exemption thing going on - that type deal that allows a team to sign a one year deal, give a minimum bonus and the vet min, but counts less.   With $12.5+ mil under the cap, I don't know that the team made a choice to save $50-75k for backup RB (if assuming Fozzy v/s JT), but who knows.

The term of contract is definitely a heavy weight on this situation, good catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It all sounds great. The only unknowns are injuries and how they will need to be addressed. Horn has a history as does the newly added Jaelen Phillips and Cooker has yet to play an entire season as well. And then there are the Ikey's - totally unexpecteded injuries that put a major wrench in your plans. I do think its a great plan though.
    • If we pay Bryce like a franchise QB we're completely and utterly buttfuged.
    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
×
×
  • Create New...