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!

     

Peter King: Panthers have no interest in trading #1 pick

TheSpecialJuan

By TheSpecialJuan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

rippadonn Grand Master

rippadonn

Posted
Posted
Just now, ForJimmy said:

LOL @rippadonnyou were pivoting the other day saying you liked him as a sleeper pick!  Number 6?!?!

Of course, his stats and his skills and tape and track record were undeniable.

He mismanaged his recovery from a major surgery against his doctors orders. It showed up later. He got cut by the champs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rippadonn Grand Master

rippadonn

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Nope. I'm laughing at you. It sucks for Carson Strong.

One good pick you've made? I'd put one leg Carson up against your Zach any day.

Lol. I said I wasn't talking to you today. Good day sir.

Edited by rippadonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Even if we know who we want there's zero competitive advantage to letting that be known right now and the NFL would greatly prefer to keep some intrigue to the #1 overall pick for viewership.

I honestly think they're telling the truth.

This is an extremely careful bunch. They're not going to jump to conclusions. The eise thing is to wring every ounce of information they can out of the process before coming down on a final decision.

I'd guess they have leanings (Breer mentioned that) but the final decision is yet to come.

And I've got no issue with that. It's a smart way to go.

  • Pie 2
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...