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!

     

A Josh Norman holdout looming?


Jeremy Igo
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, jumpman910 said:

This can't be said enough.  People act as if josh should play for less money.  He's been making 5 round money the whole time which in the grand scheme of things isn't poo.  He should get every dime he can from an organization.  Just won't happen to be ours.  I'm happy for Josh regardless of what happens.  

The core of this team is built up the middle and though we know J-No is producing at a hugh level, I'm sure some other teams have left starting CB's hanging out to dry and there's no reason to not believe DG won't snatch some up in FA and the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bartin said:

JPP actually gained money by not signing the tag. Had he signed it prior to his fireworks accident then the Giants could have put him on the non-football injury list for the entire year and not paid him a dime. The reason he waited so long after the accident to sign was so that he could force the Giants to clear him physically before signing so they couldn't do that and thus guarantee that he would get paid.

Hm, didn't realize that.  For some reason I thought once the tag was signed that was guaranteed fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TheNewStandard said:

Hardy was not his fault...the decision was JRs. 

The longer Norman holds out, the less time we have to pick up a solid replacement and that's the department where DG is aces.

Make no mistake. The only fault with anything Panthers/Hardy related lies squarely on the shoulders of Greg Hardy.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Hm, didn't realize that.  For some reason I thought once the tag was signed that was guaranteed fully.

It is, but only to the extent that money can be fully guaranteed in NFL contracts. There is standard language in every contract that allows the team not to pay a player if they injure themselves outside of football doing non-approved activities. For example, riding a motorcycle and definitely not allowed and getting injured while riding one would give the team the right not to pay the player. Even tearing an ACL while playing basketball gives the team the right to withhold guaranteed salary. Blowing your hand off with fireworks also qualifies. Hell, I'm not even sure the Chiefs had to pay Eric Berry while he was receiving cancer treatment even though they did anyway because that would be one of the most tone deaf, PR disastrous decisions they could possibly make, but they still had the option. Now if they were lifting weights or participating in team activities and got injured then the team is obligated to pay the entire amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bartin said:

It is, but only to the extent that money can be fully guaranteed in NFL contracts. There is standard language in every contract that allows the team not to pay a player if they injure themselves outside of football doing non-approved activities. For example, riding a motorcycle and definitely not allowed and getting injured while riding one would give the team the right not to pay the player. Even tearing an ACL while playing basketball gives the team the right to withhold guaranteed salary. Blowing your hand off with fireworks also qualifies. Hell, I'm not even sure the Chiefs had to pay Eric Berry while he was receiving cancer treatment even though they did anyway because that would be one of the most tone deaf, PR disastrous decisions they could possibly make, but they still had the option. Now if they were lifting weights or participating in team activities and got injured then the team is obligated to pay the entire amount.

I was aware of that with normal day to day contracts, but I wasn't when it came to the tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we will sign him long term because as a nonexclusive franchise tag player he is free to negotiate with other teams to see what he could get on the open market.  Most times, teams dont hold other teams to the two first rounders unless they really dont want to lose them since the two firsts really is a deal killer for most teams.  If we dont think we can land him long term we will try and have him sign him tender and then find a trade partner who Norman will sign a long term contract.  Hopefully Norma's agent is talking to other teams to get some numbers from which to negotiate.  That way he gets paid and we get compensation.  Gettleman has shown he will pay fairly for talent we have developed and nurtured.  The question appears to be what each of them think is fair compensation.  I would think that 12 million a year for 4 years would be a pretty fair contract for both sides.  It isnt the franchise tag amount  but if 1/2 is guaranteed  (25 million) then he get some huge piece of mind if he gets hurt.  

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dldove77 said:

Make no mistake. The only fault with anything Panthers/Hardy related lies squarely on the shoulders of Greg Hardy.

Not true, Greg Hardy is still allowed to play in the NFL he was picked up by another team after he left here, Gettleman and Rivera wanted to play Hardy. NFL forced them to sit him till his case was resolved and it was JRs decision not even entertain bringing him back because of the attention it would bring not any penalties. Thats the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CPF4LIFE said:

Not true, Greg Hardy is still allowed to play in the NFL he was picked up by another team after he left here, Gettleman and Rivera wanted to play Hardy. NFL forced them to sit him till his case was resolved and it was JRs decision not even entertain bringing him back because of the attention it would bring not any penalties. Thats the facts.

Greg Hardy put himself in that position. No one did that to him. I don't see Thomas Davis putting himself in that position. Greg Hardy's life decisions got him where he is today. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Most times, teams dont hold other teams to the two first rounders unless they really dont want to lose them since the two firsts really is a deal killer for most teams.

Has any team ever signed a non-exclusive franchise tendered player to a deal and not had to give up two first rounders? I can't remember any. Not impossible I'm wrong, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

That's great and all, but it's the same poo all the fugging time. Right after they get paid and playing for nothing, they talk about the ring and glory. Fug him. He's playing with Luke, KK, Star, Davis, Ealy, Shaq, etc. If he truly wants the ring, he'll take a paycut. If not, he'll leave and get paid. You can't have it both ways. So I don't want to hear Josh 3-4 years from now wanting to play with a "contender". That's all.

Who says this wouldn't be to get every dime that the Panthers are willing to give, even if that's ultimately less than what other teams would offer? Maximizing earning potential can include getting the most from a given situation; in this case, it would be getting the most money while still playing "for a contender".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dldove77 said:

Has any team ever signed a non-exclusive franchise tendered player to a deal and not had to give up two first rounders? I can't remember any. Not impossible I'm wrong, though...

Yes. The Patriots franchised Matt Cassell after the year Brady got hurt and traded him for a 2nd(plus maybe more) to the Chiefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...