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!

     

*SPECULATION* Rapoport: Panthers Among Potential Suitors For Trading For 16 Million Dollar Scatback Jarvis Landry


Saca312

Recommended Posts

DISCLAIMER: This Is A Rapoport Take. Meaning, it's on par with his world famous Ron Rivera to LA take and Jarvis Landry to the Saints because LSU.

This is not sourced. This is merely speculation. I apologize sincerely for the confusion.

*****************************************************************************************

Apparently Hurney's interested in paying 16 million dollars to a slot receiver at best.

Hopefully this is merely speculation and nothing more. Despite what you think about Landry and his skillset 16 million dollars is way too much, and I have doubts he'll be negotiating a reasonable deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if this does happen, there's always potential to negotiate for a better contract while he's franchise tagged. 

The bigger issue is the risk of him not accepting any offers while giving up a lot of trade capital for him. I can't see this being a plausible or good move, but it is Hurney after all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mr. Scot also has a point, which makes us being possible suitors for Landry even more perplexing.

We have to give up a LOT of draft capital just because he's a franchise tagged player.  Not only that, but we'd be taking up the franchise tag price as well, which wouldn't be wise for our current cap situation. Even via trade, there's no doubt the Dolphin's will be begging for a lot in return for Landry.

Hurney would be an even bigger idiot than I'd have ever thought if this ever comes to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

And please spare me the Landry cult. I don't need to be converted to whatever deity you see in Landry or slandered for not thinking he's the next coming of Jerry Rice or something.

I think he's a solid WR and I would love to have him in a vacuum, but I wouldn't want him at the type of contract that he's likely to demand (and get). And I certainly wouldn't want to swing a trade for him under the franchise tag. Oh hell no. Hard pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Apparently Hurney's interested in paying 16 million dollars to a slot receiver at best.

Hopefully this is merely speculation and nothing more. Despite what you think about Landry and his skillset 16 million dollars is way too much, and I have doubts he'll be negotiating a reasonable deal.

you post too much. landry is a playmaker. stop stealing things from reddit. I want this to happen. I mean he's no paul richardson or a risk of a draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...