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!

     

What Would Have Been Your Reaction?

The Huddler

By The Huddler,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Mojo Risin Mentor

Mr Mojo Risin

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

What if we sign Armstead? 

Paying big money to a guy who has never played a full 16 games or even 15 games in his 9 year NFL career (and only 8 games last year), while playing one of the most physical positions in football would be an absolute disaster. I'm sure Rhule would do it though

Edited by Mr Mojo Risin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panthers Rhule Veteran

Panthers Rhule

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, The Huddler said:

Lets say we won the Watson sweepstakes..

 

What would have been your honest reaction and opinion on giving Watson 230 million dollars fully guaranteed? 

 

 

 

 

Saddened. I would have to admit that I was wrong and I would change my name.

19 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

What if we sign Armstead? 

I'm not a fan of this one. I'm hoping we WERE in because of Watson. I don't think this would be a good signing. It's imagining potential again. He only plays half a season. If we were a playoff team and I thought I could have him there then yes but for us? I don't like it. 

But it does depend on the contract. 

Edited by Panthers Rhule
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stuart Smith Mentor

Stuart Smith

Posted
Posted

Watson realizes how much of the public perceives him, he realizes he possibly will never make any money from endorsements. I would have been very disappointed had the Panthers gave him that regardless of pending litigation. He is 28 and 25 lifetime. Kirk Cousins is 61W 62L and 2 ties in his career. One person cannot do it by himself. My opinion is that a lot of incentives should be tied to a $40 million dollar a year contract,  however it’s not my money.

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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...