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 trade rumors


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MHS831 said:

Trading Burns would be stupid.  He is like 24 and just starting to find his groove.  he will be a stud for the next decade.

Are we absolutely sure though that he’s not worth a couple first round picks and maybe a 2nd or 3rd to go along with it? I mean teams are practically willing to trade the type of draft capital normally seen for franchise QBs, I love Burns but he is no Julius Peppers nor is he a franchise QB

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

7 hours ago, ECHornet said:

What former or current Panthers ended up worth top contracts after we paid them who weren’t unanimously supported as ‘worth it’ before paying them? 

I don't even think the fans unanimously wanted us to re-sign Peppers in his prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ECHornet said:

It seems pretty clear that opinions vary on if Burns is worth a top DE contract. 
 

So I’ll ask this…

 

What former or current Panthers ended up worth top contracts after we paid them who weren’t unanimously supported as ‘worth it’ before paying them? 

I'd make a case for Charles Johnson. Granted he had Peppers on the other side early on, but he had 1 "break out" year before Panthers gave him that huge deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in the NFL is guaranteed. Injuries happen and draft picks bust.

IDK what Burns is asking for or where a new coaching crew would play him, edge hopefully, so it is way premature to pretend anyone here knows what's best beyond guessing. My hope is to ride out the year and make those decisions after other things are decided. Even if we trade him we can franchise him after his 5th year so there is plenty of room for a trade down the line if that is the route that becomes best.

I imagine there have been contract discussions or at least preliminary talks. A mega deal doesn't really excite me with where we are currently. He is a very good player but our general direction is in question leaving me thinking now is not the time to fug with the cap more in future years before we have a clear cleanup path set.

  • Pie 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


  • 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...