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 in The Athletic's Free Agent Rankings


theinstrumental

Recommended Posts

Taylor Moton: Ranked 19th overall, first offensive tackle. They compare his likely deal to Ja’Wuan James four-year, $51 million contract and Jack Conklin's three-year, $42 million signing. I assume that he'll get something around there or we'll tag him.

Curtis Samuel: Ranked 28th overall, 8th wide reciver, after A Rob, Godwin, Golladay, JuJu, Corey Davis, Will Fuller, and T.Y. Hilton. They basically say what we know about him: he's fast, versatile, and his performance can be greatly improved or diminished by how the coaches use him. If someone gets obsessed, he might get paid, if everyone else finds a place, he might not. 

I'm very interested in what Samuel's market is going to be. It's a free agency and a draft heavy in wide receivers. As with Bradberry, he's a second-rounder who's made good, and losing both him, the opportunity cost of that pick (sunk cost, I know), and the cost of whatever it takes to replace him really hurts. I know it's unlikely, but I hope we can find a way to hold onto him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, bull123 said:

while many of you wont let go of beating the skins, I cant let go of signing shaq instead of bradbury

marty should have gotten fired for that alone...for losing josh as well

Good CB's are so hard to get

Losing Josh Norman was Gettleman's fault, but yeah they were very dumb decisions by both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

If Samuel goes, does that put us in line for a compensatory pick?

Really would love to see him stay here, but he's going to get some major bucks out there.

I think it could, of course, it depends on who we sign.  If he signs for market value, probably not that high....Not real sure how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bull123 said:

while many of you wont let go of beating the skins, I cant let go of signing shaq instead of bradbury

marty should have gotten fired for that alone...for losing josh as well

Good CB's are so hard to get

He didn't want to be here. See Eisen's podcast last year.  He legit said "I just felt like it was time for a change of scenery." and "They were going through some changes and I felt it was a good time to leave." 

He didn't even give MH a chance to have discussions to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Captain Morgan said:

If we can get Taylor 12 mill a year, I say we do it.  But it may all come down to how much he wants to stay.  A team with loads of cash could offer 14 or more a year.  

Hell, if Thompson is worth over 14, Moton is worth 13.5.  Cut Shaq, sign Moton if it comes down to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KatsAzz said:

Can someone post the type of compensatory picks we would get if we lose our different free agents?

No, because the formula is a secret, and we have no idea what free agents we will sign this offseason.

Had we not signed Teddy and Robby, James' contract and play this season would have netted us a 3rd this year, because we did sign them, the pick will be much lower, or not get one at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we do what we can to retain Moton.  He played every snap this year, that durability is hard to find and it at least cements one spot on that OL.  If the difference to match other offers is the equivalent of a Larsen contract, then let's just pay the man.  There's not much comparable on the market and we simply will get worse on the OL if we lose him. 

 

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...