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- KK Short has been cut


trueblade
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Toomers said:

All the money they spent being “competitive”. You know like.....

Teddy and 34-42M that you have insisted wasn’t a bad deal. 
 

KK-13M

Okung-13M

Weatherly, Roberts, Apple, Whitehead. 
 

How would that chart look with close to 100M beside the Panthers. 

Oh, you mean the money that Hurney spent trying to keep his job?

We still would have had to spend most of that per the CBA agreement referenced above.

I know folks here like to think we can start scrubs all year and roll over $150M to go crazy with free agents, but that's not realistic.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

with an 80 million dollar contract it’s almost impossible to play up to that value each year. injuries get in the way and it’s a team sport. obviously we didn’t get quite the return in his performance but ppl wanted to spend the same amount of money on josh norman at the time and he never came close to his 2015 performance, where i  think short did at least get close to his own for those first few years. also he was a crucial part of our defensive line in 2015. we had the supporting talent on that line but we just needed somebody to step up and be a playmaker after greg hardy’s departure. 

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Icege said:

Oh, you mean the money that Hurney spent trying to keep his job?

We still would have had to spend most of that per the CBA agreement referenced above.

I know folks here like to think we can start scrubs all year and roll over $150M to go crazy with free agents, but that's not realistic.

 Cause that number is based on cash paid out that year. Not the same thing, And since most contracts have dead money from bonuses already paid, or current ones with future bonuses, this is never an issue. Teams have been rolling over ridiculous amounts for years. They didn’t have to spend a thing. Have an understanding of a rule before using it as proof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stbugs said:

It’s over a 3 year period so technically with rollover you could spend 50%, 50% and 167%. That’s why you see sometimes those teams with 100%+ like the Colts and Browns a few years ago. That’s why the Browns had no trouble dumping a ton of cash on Landry and OBJ and still have money left over.

You also wouldn't happen to be aware of how the $40M in player benefits per team from 2020 was handled, would you? Did that count as cash (that could be rolled over)?

Edited by Icege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Toomers said:

 Cause that number is based on cash paid out that year. Not the same thing, And since most contracts have dead money from bonuses already paid, or current ones with future bonuses, this is never an issue. Teams have been rolling over ridiculous amounts for years. They didn’t have to spend a thing. Have an understanding of a rule before using it as proof. 

Since you seem to believe that you understand everything, why don't you put together the contract numbers together that would have worked? 🙂

Considering that you weren't aware that there was a minimum floor for the salary cap, I'm ready for a good laugh.

PROTIP: You'd have freed up just $80M over the 4yr period (3yrs is for 2021 - 2023 seasons) if spending the minimum... so... good luck on finding that other $20M

Edited by Icege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Icege said:

Since you seem to believe that you understand everything, why don't you put together the contract numbers together that would have worked? 🙂

Considering that you weren't aware that there was a minimum floor for the salary cap, I'm ready for a good laugh.

What contract?

  And we have discussed the “salary” floor many times on here. Usually when someone tries to cover up an incompetent signing. I sure knew enough to know it didn’t matter to the Panthers last year, or any team that I can remember. Evidently it was your Hail Mary attempt by providing something you didn’t understand. Let’s go back to those “it’s not bad contract” threads and debate who understands the salary cap. I’ve got years of posts showing my knowledge. Where are yours? 

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stbugs said:

No idea, was that the CV opt out?

Found a write up detailing the $40M distributed per team. Looks like all of it was destined for retirements, tuition assistance, and the other benefit programs. Some sites have included that chunk with the overall cap which has been stupid confusing, but apparently those were strictly for benefits and not for roster building.

I'm willing to bet that your right on that being where the opt out payments came from though. I wonder if it was treated like when a team doesn't spend the minimum and any unspent went strictly to the benefits packages for the team should they not have many opt outs.

Edited by Icege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, stbugs said:

It honestly should have only been 1 not so great year (2018). It was designed as a 3 year deal and the restructure made it a 4 year one instead of doing the smart thing and just cutting bait last year.

I completely forgot it was a restructure on his original 2017 deal. 

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

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...