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!

     

Panthers Converted OT Matt Kalil's $10M Option Bonus Into A Signing Bonus Guaranteeing He'll Be On Roster In 2018

bobsfoodbasics

By bobsfoodbasics,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

So this should provide cap savings given the option bonus isn't prorated but signing bonuses are so his cap hit will go down which is the whole point of why it was converted.

You responded to a tweet that says "this doesn't create any cap savings" by saying "this should provide cap savings"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ace_Aladdin Newbie

Ace_Aladdin

Posted
Posted

 

Why would Panthers make this move if it didn’t help CAP wise,  if he was going to be on the roster regardless?

Maybe it’s freeing up cap space in the future  for a new long term contract for someone else?

Kalil is 90% off the books after this season?

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

You responded to a tweet that says "this doesn't create any cap savings" by saying "this should provide cap savings"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mr. Scot said:

You responded to a tweet that says "this doesn't create any cap savings" by saying "this should provide cap savings"?

Yep because I think that is wrong. If it doesn't create cap savings you don't convert it to a signing bonus you simply exercise the option. Either way he gets paid. 

Some of us don't believe everything we see in a tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ace_Aladdin Newbie

Ace_Aladdin

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

Yep because I think that is wrong. If it doesn't create cap savings you don't convert it to a signing bonus you simply exercise the option. Either way he gets paid. 

Some of us don't believe everything we see in a tweet.

Unless it pushes someone’s propaganda 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted

I THINK by doing this then it would allow us to cut bait with him in 2019 and lower the cap penalty if we did so. So while there are no short term savings, it puts us in a position to cut him more easily if he sucks or he's injured, etc. 

 

*edit*

 

Apparently I am wrong and this is not the case. In fact, it may mean the exact opposite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ace_Aladdin Newbie

Ace_Aladdin

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

I THINK by doing this then it would allow us to cut bait with him in 2019 and lower the cap penalty if we did so. So while there are no short term savings, it puts us in a position to cut him more easily if he sucks or he's injured, etc. 

Why would we do that unless you are freeing up space for a New  Core player contract?

So in 2019 the only paid player on the OL would be Trai Turner busting this myth that OL has 2 much investment and can't extend Norwell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Yep because I think that is wrong. If it doesn't create cap savings you don't convert it to a signing bonus you simply exercise the option. Either way he gets paid. 

Some of us don't believe everything we see in a tweet.

I realize you believe your opinion is more valuable than that of the people that cover the team, but I'm going to take their word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

I THINK by doing this then it would allow us to cut bait with him in 2019 and lower the cap penalty if we did so. So while there are no short term savings, it puts us in a position to cut him more easily if he sucks or he's injured, etc. 

Spotrac noted that we could exercise the option by March or it automatically converts to salary which becomes full guaranteed so then 11 million will be fully guaranteed for 2018.  Exercising and converting it to a signing bonus should move a significant amount of that 10 million to the future which absolutely cuts his cap hit for 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ace_Aladdin said:

Why would we do that unless you are freeing up space for a New  Core player contract?

So in 2019 the only paid player on the OL would be Trai Turner busting this myth that OL has 2 much investment and can't extend Norwell.

 

It's a future move for 2019 if need be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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.
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      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?
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      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...