Panthers have made an offer...

[CamWhoaaCam]

I think 28mil a year is what he will likely get.

 

I think guaranteed money will be the key.

[trucpfan]

 If he signs a deal higher then expected I hope its somewhat based off incentives for the extra let's say 20 but could be up to 28 a year with the goals being all pro and sack numbers could be a win win for both sides.

[MHS831]

On 7/16/2023 at 2:59 PM, stratocatter said:

We let Julius Peppers walk. I guess that is a joke or something. Okay Ha. Ha. 
 

I do see the possibility that Burns becomes truly disruptive in a 3-4 and transcends the average.

But if he does not, with what he is about to be paid, he won’t be a good deal. 

We did not re-sign him.  I guess you are arguing that Peppers chose to leave--but that is one way of looking at it--as an organization, letting him go without compensation or resigning him is letting him walk.

[TheSpecialJuan]

 

[AU-panther]

On 7/15/2023 at 1:53 PM, thunderraiden said:

If you take less than the equivalent of 4 first round picks you're a moron. Thats how much a top 10 edge rusher is worth because the hit rate is 25% in the first round...

Your logic is incomplete.

You don't just replace Burns production with just the draft picks, you replace his production with the $25m you save. 

The eagles had similar production out of Reddick for $15m.  The draft picks are just bonus.  

but...

What if you  make the argument that Reddick or any other replacement isn't quite as good as Burns.  Maybe you spend $15m to get 80-90% of Burns production then spend the other $10m to improve another position?  Is the goal to have the most talent at one position or overall?  How much can you improve another position for $10m?  A good bit I would guess.  

I'm not saying don't pay Burns, once you reach a certain overall talent level on your team you should spend the extra on true difference makers, and Burns might be that but to say the trade was bad because the chance of draft picks being better is terrible logic because you are totally ignoring the cap savings.

Fans tend to think about trades and personnel moves in a vacuum, that isn't how it works.  Every trade, every deal has a ripple effect.  

 

[Pup McBarky]

51 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

What if you  make the argument that Reddick or any other replacement isn't quite as good as Burns.  Maybe you spend $15m to get 80-90% of Burns production then spend the other $10m to improve another position?  Is the goal to have the most talent at one position or overall?  How much can you improve another position for $10m?  A good bit I would guess.  

I'm not saying don't pay Burns, once you reach a certain overall talent level on your team you should spend the extra on true difference makers, and Burns might be that but to say the trade was bad because the chance of draft picks being better is terrible logic because you are totally ignoring the cap savings.

This is the Huddle. Stop making sense.

[MechaZain]

Should thanks the stars if we can lock in Burns for $25m/yr. Myles Garrett got that with similar production three years ago.

[KSpan]

6 hours ago, AU-panther said:

Your logic is incomplete.

You don't just replace Burns production with just the draft picks, you replace his production with the $25m you save. 

The eagles had similar production out of Reddick for $15m.  The draft picks are just bonus.  

but...

What if you  make the argument that Reddick or any other replacement isn't quite as good as Burns.  Maybe you spend $15m to get 80-90% of Burns production then spend the other $10m to improve another position?  Is the goal to have the most talent at one position or overall?  How much can you improve another position for $10m?  A good bit I would guess.  

I'm not saying don't pay Burns, once you reach a certain overall talent level on your team you should spend the extra on true difference makers, and Burns might be that but to say the trade was bad because the chance of draft picks being better is terrible logic because you are totally ignoring the cap savings.

Fans tend to think about trades and personnel moves in a vacuum, that isn't how it works.  Every trade, every deal has a ripple effect.  

 

Exactly. Value distribution and maximization, potentially (if not likely) getting even more than you had before. Also possibly less but that's the nature of risk/reward, but the profile on that trade was pretty good.

[Aussie Tank]

6 hours ago, MechaZain said:

Should thanks the stars if we can lock in Burns for $25m/yr. Myles Garrett got that with similar production three years ago.

He’s not in Garrett’s league mate

[Panther53521]

7 hours ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

 

I would take that deal any day. That deal would help the Panthers

[Beast_3000]

21 hours ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

 

He had 14.5 sacks last year. I’m sure his value will be discussed in Burns contractual discussions.

[csx]

I doubt he will be getting 25 per year 

Edited July 20, 2023 by csx

[mrcompletely11]

1 hour ago, Beast_3000 said:

He had 14.5 sacks last year. I’m sure his value will be discussed in Burns contractual discussions.

He was also drafted in 2020 at the end of the 3rd round

[KSpan]

16 hours ago, Panther53521 said:

I would take that deal any day. That deal would help the Panthers

Absolutely, but I don't see Burns being willing to go anywhere near that low.

33 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

He was also drafted in 2020 at the end of the 3rd round

Not at all relevant.