REPORT: Panthers and Brian Burns not at all close to extension

[Swirly]

I'd make it incentive based. Extra million for each sack over 12 sacks. 

[tukafan21]

9 minutes ago, Swirly said:

I'd make it incentive based. Extra million for each sack over 12 sacks. 

No, just a hard no

There is nothing wrong with including incentives, but that one would hamstring our cap situation.  If he went out there and dropped a 20 sack season, which isn't out of the question if he plays 17 games and has a great year, that's an extra $8 million he'd earn.

The only way to make that work is to ensure we're well under the cap during the season and play the year with probably a good $10-12 million in free space to ensure we don't have issues with any of his incentives.

If he then only gets the 12 sacks, that's $8-10 million we didn't spend that season, or basically an above average starter at another position.

[TheSpecialJuan]

https://x.com/rapsheet/status/1699509016798347304?s=46&t=xeIgh_-Vr2aKxBkBJdfnKA

[ChuckWag78]

2 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

https://x.com/rapsheet/status/1699509016798347304?s=46&t=xeIgh_-Vr2aKxBkBJdfnKA

34M per year. Now let's get Burns done!

[Leaky_Faucet]

1 hour ago, BlackPanther22 said:

Not trying to come across as rude or anything but.....are we sure that we can trust your info?

That is up to you. In the particular situation you are referencing, the information given to me was that the Panthers were interested in Carr which was shortly followed by a scheduled visit with said player and prior to the trade with the Chicago Bears. (Which I personally believe was entirely a David Tepper move and nobody else- no evidence just opinion). 

I will be clear with folks that I do not work in the building, and my information is not always firsthand so there will be discrepancies. If FOs and GMs can fake other GMs and FO's out, they surely can me as well and I apologize for any inaccuracies I may have posted previously. 

On the Burns situation my information has been pretty clear on the following. A) originally far apart on annual salary which is tentatively agreed upon now. B) Guaranteed amount is the main roadblock, signing bonus isn't there but that can be worked out in different ways. For those unfamiliar with contract negotiations, there are multiple dials that get turned to create a suitable deal for both parties. Length, Annual Salary, GTD amount, and bonuses are typically those dials. So perhaps, GTD money went down because annual salary went up, I don't really know. I am just passing what I have been told. 

A poster last night said that the Raiders are moving money around in a bid for him. I still have not heard anything on this. I have been told by a different individual that teams have called but that is it. I imagine this is information that will stay pretty close to the FO until if/when it happens. I will say that from my PERSONAL point of view if Burns misses a game(s) his probably of being traded increases significantly. I do not the impression from this staff that distractions are going to be entertained very long. 

 

[Double Trouble]

We turned down two firsts and a second to pay Brian Burns 28-30m a year lol fantastic

[carpanfan96]

34 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

No, just a hard no

There is nothing wrong with including incentives, but that one would hamstring our cap situation.  If he went out there and dropped a 20 sack season, which isn't out of the question if he plays 17 games and has a great year, that's an extra $8 million he'd earn.

The only way to make that work is to ensure we're well under the cap during the season and play the year with probably a good $10-12 million in free space to ensure we don't have issues with any of his incentives.

If he then only gets the 12 sacks, that's $8-10 million we didn't spend that season, or basically an above average starter at another position.

They would be considered ultbe and if he hit them, it would be added to the next seasons cap. 

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

They would be considered ultbe and if he hit them, it would be added to the next seasons cap. 

ehhhhh, you sure about that?

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure myself, but I was pretty sure that I read once that incentives still need to be worked into that season's cap number and you have to make sure you have enough room in the cap to satisfy any potential incentives.

Which is also why incentives are usually a set number based on hitting a mark, easier to make sure you have the cap room available, as opposed to just "X amount of money for every Y stat over Z number"

So it's not a big problem for teams to keep 5-6 million a year in extra cap room for possible incentives and then if they don't hit, that extra cap gets rolled over into the next season anyways.

Edited September 6, 2023 by tukafan21

[carpanfan96]

1 minute ago, tukafan21 said:

ehhhhh, you sure about that?

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure myself, but I was pretty sure that I read once that incentives still need to be worked into that season's cap number and you have to make sure you have enough room in the cap to satisfy any potential incentives.

Which is also why incentives are usually a set number based on hitting a mark, easier to make sure you have the cap room available, as opposed to just "X amount of money for every Y stat over Z number"

Anything thats considered unlikely to be earned would get added as a bonus to the next year's salary. 

It's the incentives that are considered ltbe that need to be included in the cap for the current season. 

 

 

[carpanfan96]

Here's a website talking about it. 

Link

 

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

Anything thats considered unlikely to be earned would get added as a bonus to the next year's salary. 

It's the incentives that are considered ltbe that need to be included in the cap for the current season. 

 

 

hmmm, that's interesting.

But if we're saying what is likely vs unlikely, I wouldn't put that number for Burns at 12 sacks.

If he can stay healthy for 17 games, with an upgraded offense, better scheme/coaches, I think the incentive number should be 15 as I think he'll easily surpass 12 sacks.

If he plays 17 games this year, I don't expect him to come in at less than 15 sacks

[carpanfan96]

Just now, tukafan21 said:

hmmm, that's interesting.

But if we're saying what is likely vs unlikely, I wouldn't put that number for Burns at 12 sacks.

If he can stay healthy for 17 games, with an upgraded offense, better scheme/coaches, I think the incentive number should be 15 as I think he'll easily surpass 12 sacks.

If he plays 17 games this year, I don't expect him to come in at less than 15 sacks

League has values for positions based on player performance on what would be considered ltbe and nltbe

[carpanfan96]

Oh and to add no way Burns and his agent accept anything below 25m because that's what Bosa is getting on average in guaranteed money. 

Think 28-30m on salary and 60-70% of contract value as fully guaranteed 

Edited September 6, 2023 by carpanfan96

[carpanfan96]

If I was to say for sure on what Burns ends up getting, this is my best guess right now. 

5 years, 142.5m with 90m guaranteed