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!

     

REPORT: Tre Boston, Greg Van Roten, Mario Addison to test free agent market


TheSpecialJuan

Recommended Posts

put expected in the title, this isn't definitive plus i think we've all been expecting GVR and mario gone. but tre? that's unfortunate, hopefully we can resign him or he'll get no offers he likes and come back to us (again)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All but a foregone conclusion at this point. I'd love to have Mario back, but at his age he has to realize that this is his last shot at either a payday or to chase a ring and we're not a great fit for either pursuit right now. I'd love to have GVR back as a versatile reserve or potentially even a stop gap starter, but he still hasn't had a significant payday. He should and almost certainly will chase the $$$ and sign with whoever will pay him the most. Tre always does this. He always hits the market expecting to be paid like an elite safety then signs a reasonable deal with someone very late into the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tre should and likely will at this point take whatever long term deal gives him the most guaranteed money. I don’t think that’ll be from us, but if it’s close and others aren’t offering much (like in past years with him) then I’d be happy to take him back. He’s a solid playmaking FS and makes enough plays to make up for his miscues. Not the best in run D (though his big hits can bring some momentum and attitude  to the D and team and kind of make up for his whiffs) but that’s not hugely important for a FS.

 

He’ll never be anywhere near an Earl Thomas caliber safety but he is better than many safeties we’ve had in our whole history as a team... (not saying much considering the other safeties we’ve had but still)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's never sounded like the Panthers were trying all that hard to re-sign any of them.

It sounds like we made a legit effort with at least Mario, but I definitely understand it if he wants to test the market to see if there's a better opportunity out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It sounds like we made a legit effort with at least Mario, but I definitely understand it if he wants to test the market to see if there's a better opportunity out there.

At least based on what I've read, it sounds like we might only have made a minimal offer (if any) or just some basic "we'll take you back if you're cheap" overtures.

I remember Boston had this thing where he was group messaging a bunch of other team free agents. Never heard any more about that either.

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...