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!

     

Teddy Bridgewater likely on the outs in Carolina


Verge
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Gotcha.

Let's approach it another way, do you believe it's in the best interests of the Panthers to pay out Teddy's contract in-full and also cut him thereby getting absolutely nothing in return?

Is that a sensible path?

 

Majority of the salary is now a sunk cost (to what degree is variable across a spectrum), so the decision comes down to what the team values for that sunk cost. If they place higher value on the roster spot/flexibility in having other players potentially see the field/etc then that's what they're buying with the cost associated with the decision to cut/trade. If they place higher value on having Teddy on the roster for X/Y/Z reason(s) then that's what they're buying with the sunk cost of the decision to retain.

My opinion is that while neither is optimal the team is better off in the former scenario, but there is a long time to go between now and the season. Teddy's presence itself is binary amongst the spectrum of possible financial outcomes. At this point the team seems fine with possibly being without Teddy even if, at a minimum, a good portion of the salary remains. It stands to reason they are leaning toward the former option rather than the latter, supported by the comments at the end of the season and start of the offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KSpan said:

Majority of the salary is now a sunk cost (to what degree is variable across a spectrum), so the decision comes down to what the team values for that sunk cost. If they place higher value on the roster spot/flexibility in having other players potentially see the field/etc then that's what they're buying with the cost associated with the decision to cut/trade. If they place higher value on having Teddy on the roster for X/Y/Z reason(s) then that's what they're buying with the sunk cost of the decision to retain.

My opinion is that while neither is optimal the team is better off in the former scenario, but there is a long time to go between now and the season. Teddy's presence itself is binary amongst the spectrum of possible financial outcomes. At this point the team seems fine with possibly being without Teddy even if, at a minimum, a good portion of the salary remains. It stands to reason they are leaning toward the former option rather than the latter, supported by the comments at the end of the season and start of the offseason.

Unlike the other 99.8%...

...you do deserve credit for  a modicum of logic and a somewhat cogent position.

Good onya mate.

Edited by SizzleBuzz
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

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...