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!

     

Has anyone looked at our Cap situation for 2023?

SCO96

By SCO96,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Khyber53 Grand Master

Khyber53

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Cdparr7 said:

We are actually like 9 million above the cap from roll over money from this year. But that balances out when you account for draft picks.

You can restructure Moore and Moton and save about 10 million. 
 

You can cut Shaq and save about 13 million. 
 

You can cut Zane, Elflein, and Wilson and save about 9 million.

That gives you 31 million. 
 

You can also trade Burns and get draft picks and save another 16 million but all the fans that just started following the team in 2018 would get mad.

I don't like your math, but there it is and the numbers don't lie. 

We need to stop restructuring and giving out huge signing bonuses that just grind us up for years to come. Dead money has been killing us for a decade or so, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
45catfan Grand Master

45catfan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Khyber53 said:

I don't like your math, but there it is and the numbers don't lie. 

We need to stop restructuring and giving out huge signing bonuses that just grind us up for years to come. Dead money has been killing us for a decade or so, right?

 

What is killing us is signing players to huge contract then cutting/trading them.  CMC and Robbie Anderson accounts for 99.3% of our dead cap on the books for next year currently.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SCO96 Veteran

SCO96

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

This should free up about $23M.  We are about -$13M in effective cap space, so net about $10M which isn't much to shop with.

We definitely wouldn't be be able to obtain the cream of the crop in the FA class this year with that cap room would we?

This is why we need to hang on to those picks we have in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
45catfan Grand Master

45catfan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SCO96 said:

We definitely wouldn't be be able to obtain the cream of the crop in the FA class this year with that cap room would we?

This is why we need to hang on to those picks we have in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds this year.

No, but those are just the basic moves that a cap novice like me can easily see on the surface.  I'm sure there's more tricks to get further under the cap.  As long as we don't start adding voided years to contracts like the Saints to "fudge" the books, then I'm okay.  We did that with Ioandidis last year, basically he was a very expensive one year rental.  I hope that doesn't become a trend because like I said earlier, we are great shape cap-wise beyond 2023 as of NOW if they don't screw it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evil Hurney Mentor

Evil Hurney

Posted
Posted

The Panthers are in a decent spot cap wise. Per Spotrac, here's where each NFCS team ranks for the next 3 years (assumes rollover):

image.png.7054e0a23634a657307e6c68f994a850.png

Big picture, the team can borrow from future years to pay current FA deals if needed.

The Saints, Rams, Packers, and Browns are in bad spots as far as borrowing as they each have less than $100M of new money to spend over the next 3 seasons. Granted they can cut people to create some cap space, but as it currently stands they have a lot less flexibility. For context the Bears have the most with an estimated $500M of new money to spend over the next 3 seasons. The Panthers have around $280M to spend.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SCO96 said:

Completely and Parr:

Are you guys saying that you would cut Shaq if you were in the front office?

I'm not saying I disagree with you at all, but he did lead the team in tackles. He and Luvu both had over 100+ tackles. Our defense is would be significantly worse without him on the field in 2022. No other LB's on the roster reached 50 tackles. If we went that route wouldn't that mean we'd likely have to draft a replacement this off-season?

I'd be inclined to say yes; which is why I don't like the idea of trading away multiple high draft choices in multiple seasons to move up to the top 5 in order to draft a QB. We already need  playmakers at LB, S, DT, DE, CB, TE, and WR. Losing Shaq creates another void to feel. And, let's be honest...the answer isn't already on the roster.

For his decline in play and the cap savings shaq would be a 100% cut if I was a gm.  I never understood the love or the contract shaq gets.  He is an average linebacker with no discernible traits.  He is not bad but not overly good.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cdparr7 Grand Master

Cdparr7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mrcompletely11 said:

For his decline in play and the cap savings shaq would be a 100% cut if I was a gm.  I never understood the love or the contract shaq gets.  He is an average linebacker with no discernible traits.  He is not bad but not overly good.

I agree, paying 24 million for an average LB too close to 30 is not wise just because he is a fan favorite. Nobody else would pay that much money for him, why should we?

Also tackles can sometime be misleading. You still get credit for a tackle if you miss your gap and run the guy down 10 yards later. TFLs, Sacks, FF, and INTs give you a clearer picture.

Can anybody think of the last time Shaq made a Luke/TD/Morgan/Beason like play in a game? I just see a lot of tackles 5 yards past the LOS and a ton of dropped INTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pantherclaw Grand Master

pantherclaw

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

The Cap is a myth.

It more like guidelines really. 

It's not my money. 

Kick the can.

Who gives a sh!t?

Did I miss any?

 

I always come into these threads every year, just to see which corner stone player they wish to cut and see their mythical plan that they would execute if they were GM's. 

Then in the end, cornerstone players get paid, and others don't.   

  • Beer 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

    • tukafan21
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...