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 bring back Ian Thomas

ncfan

By ncfan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

This is why all that salary cap wizardry is plain stupid.  You can move numbers around all you want, but when you are committing money to Ian Thomas, Sam Darnold, Robbie Anderson, Pat Elflein, etc it's useless.  This is garbage roster building.

Correct.

The choice of who gets paid and who doesn't matters way more than what the terms are.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PNW_PantherMan Grand Master

PNW_PantherMan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I don't think the contract itself is that bad. It's an overpay, but not a huge one. And the terms are mostly up to Suleiman, anyway.

Rhule is still the guy that determines who stays and who goes 

Not gonna lie, I'm starting to think of this clip when it comes to Fitterer's responsibilities.

"Well I bring the paper from Matt Rhule's office to Samir's"

"Couldn't Matt Rhule just tell Samir himself who to sign?"

 

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Not gonna lie, I'm starting to think of this clip when it comes to Fitterer's responsibilities.

"Well I bring the paper from Matt Rhule's office to Samir's"

"Couldn't Matt Rhule just tell Samir himself who to sign?"

 

It may not be far off.

I've described Fitterer's role as basically director of college scouting. I suspect Morgan will function like a director of pro scouting.

But no, neither of them have final say on who stays, who goes, who gets paid and who doesn't.

That's all Rhule.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlitzMonster Mentor

BlitzMonster

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Thank you for posting this. The folks in here that keep saying well NO was able to do magic so the cap space doesn’t matter, don’t get this. NO was doing the finagling to get Brees, Kamara, Thomas, Armstead, Ramzcyk etc. to have a few more years together. They were throwing big money and extensions at their top talent. We are doing the same except we are throwing a ton of money at guys who contribute poo and we get rid of them quickly. $16M for 3 more games of short. $31M for one year of Teddy, $30M for two years of Robby. $23M for one year of Sam to start (trying hard to replace him this year), $13.5M for 6 games of Okung and so on all in the last 3 years.

Way, way too much dead cap from impetuous decisions, changing their mind and just poor talent evaluation.

It's like a high school kid is in charge of our roster building.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, stbugs said:

Honestly, for the house cleaning in a year or two, I’m thinking Pickett may be the best. He only costs us a LT. Going all out for Jimmy G or Cousins will cost us more picks and likely hang a $100M guaranteed money to kill this team even longer. At least Pickett is a cheap mistake because mark my words, we will make a mistake on our next QB.

No offense, but that's not exactly a "bold prediction".

That's kinda like predicting that at some point this season, Rhule will be outcoached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Thank you for posting this. The folks in here that keep saying well NO was able to do magic so the cap space doesn’t matter, don’t get this. NO was doing the finagling to get Brees, Kamara, Thomas, Armstead, Ramzcyk etc. to have a few more years together. They were throwing big money and extensions at their top talent. We are doing the same except we are throwing a ton of money at guys who contribute poo and we get rid of them quickly. $16M for 3 more games of short. $31M for one year of Teddy, $30M for two years of Robby. $23M for one year of Sam to start (trying hard to replace him this year), $13.5M for 6 games of Okung and so on all in the last 3 years.

More of that salary cap “nInja” from the team’s cap “specialist”…

.8AD64DD9-E630-40AC-B702-19ACC731893B.gif.6eecefb2c0edb3f85c51b51ab3bd827c.gif

  • Flames 1
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...