Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[AU-panther]

1 hour ago, panthers55 said:

But that is the big myth. The cap can be manipulated a dozen ways and teams like New Orleans have consistently got who they wanted and paid whatever. They paid a ton for Carr when they were over the cap and are favorites to win the division.  So no you and others here are wrong in your thinking that the cap will hurt our roster building and Burn's money will hurt us moving forward.

The idea that the cap is a myth is actually a myth.  People think the Saints have cheated the cap for the last 10 years but it just isn't true.  Fans notice the big contracts that they add but they forget about the players they cut to free money or the large amount of dead money they carry some years.  Pretty much all of their moves the past few years were predictable by people who understand the cap.

For those that don't believe in the cap why did the Chiefs let Hill go?  Just think about that for a minute.  That alone does show you that the cap is real, and you don't have to decide where to spend your money.

 

 

[WhoKnows]

50 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

No one throws a hissy fit like a Panther fan done wrong. LOL

Lol, so says Mr. Fly by pooing! Seems like you throw way more hissy fits and like this post you really don’t contribute anything other than complaining about other people’s posts!

[CRA]

5 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

Does burns deserve more than Payne and Simmons? 22.5 and 23.5m respectively 

Nothing really matters but the guaranteed money.   Burns isn’t worth 120M+ guaranteed  All the other comparable guys have been around 40-60ish in recent deals.  
 

[WhoKnows]

6 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

You still are not at all grasping what I'm saying.

First and most importantly, this all started by me just saying that it's completely absurd and disingenuous to say that fans pay the player's contracts and thus they have the right to complain about how that money is spent by the teams.

Yes, I absolutely understand how advertising works and even how, but more accurately, what, can be tracked back to specific ads, have spent over a decade working in advertising for major brands.  Yes, they know what channels work, but what I was saying, is that they can't track specific spend back to TV ads, it's not possible.  There is a difference between knowing what channels work for your brand's marketing and tracking specific spending to specific advertising channels.  Some you can do, some you can't, TV ads is one you can't.

Hence why I was saying that people buying random products that were advertised during NFL games in no way shape or form can be construed into that fan's money going towards paying the players.

And no, my argument on fan spend is nothing like yours.  You were saying that if all fans of the sport stopped watching and switched to another sport, that it would have an affect.  Well no poo, but that's also never going to happen, the entire sport's fanbase isn't going to just up and drop it.

Maybe my individual person example is an extreme, but the theory is the same and still valid.  The franchise with the highest merchandise revenue and the franchise with the lowest, will still spend the same amount of money on their players.  Yes, their facilities may be much nicer as they have more money to spend on the franchise as a whole, but fans actual money spent on merchandise/concessions again have ZERO impact on the money spent on player contracts.

Which I feel is the more accurate comparison to fans in Soccer overseas, because there, the money teams can spend on the players is fundamentally based in how much money the clubs bring in through things like merchandise.  That's how their rules are set up, teams can only spend a specific portion of revenues on players, so the more money a team makes, the more they can spend on players.

 

I get what you are saying but I’ll still disagree. Baseball is like soccer where they can spend based on revenue that’s not even. That said, the source of revenue in those sports is still the fan base like the NFL. Just because the NFL has more sharing (Yankees get way more TV revenue than the A’s) and rules on spending doesn’t change the fact that without NFL fans they’d have no revenue. That was my main argument to the people I was replying to at first. 

[pantherclaw]

4 hours ago, countryboi said:

34 million a season that’s fuging QB money. 

As much as everyone is good for players making rheir money while they can, this is what's wrong with the NFL. No player is worth the value of these contracts that are being handed out. Unfortunately,  that's life in the NFL. 

[Proudiddy]

2 hours ago, Toomers said:

How can so many people not get it. This isn’t a choice about if people want Burns to have Teppers money. I think everyone on here would rather Burns took 50M/yr from Teppers pockets. But this isn’t MLB. Every team gets the same amount. Every year. So no matter how it’s set up, if you over pay, it creates a potential weakness somewhere else. 
 

    Which players should give up their share to pay Burns. Because if you pay a guy 30M, and he’s worth 22M, some part of the roster gets less attention. Imagine not being able to sign Corbett, so you have to stick with Jordan. 

No.  I get it.  The middle ground between Tepper's money and Burns' desired contract is the salary cap.  But as I said, it's so easy to manipulate, that ultimately this is an exercise in futility for them to haggle over gtd and bonus money.  They just need to get it done.

[pantherclaw]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Then he should bet on himself. If he's elite this year in a 3-4 then he'd likely eclipse Bosa's numbers next off-season.

Then you and everyone else will have that to complain about.

[pantherclaw]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

That's the risk.

That's why you buy now, his value will only rise. 

[pantherclaw]

3 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

WTF is this not your money crap? Do you guys know who pays for these NFL owners and players to get rich? We do, the NFL fans who buy poo either from the team directly or from the players or from the TV networks who get money from advertisers selling poo to NFL fans.

The whole it’s not our money is a crock of poo and gets annoying. We all in here have contributed to players salaries pretty directly. As if these billionaires are actually paying these players out of their pocket. Does anyone not realize that the salary cap/what players get is based on the revenue sharing amounts? Acting like Tepper is rolling any of his Appaloosa money into player’s pockets to cover some short change to keep the NFL business afloat is comical.

Still not your money. 

Nice attempt of taking owner ship just because your a fan. 

[pantherclaw]

2 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Burns is about to be public enemy number 1 by the Huddle when he signs his new contract. Every play that isn’t a sack will lead to anger.

He has been an enemy of the huddle. 

[CRA]

1 minute ago, pantherclaw said:

He has been an enemy of the huddle. 

Fitt would be public enemy #1.  Burns just catching shrapnel every game he doesn’t do something. 

[pantherclaw]

2 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Just the truth.

Truth hurts the most. 

And if the most humorous!  

Love the truth!

[Toomers]

42 minutes ago, Martin said:

So you are saying Highsmith did much better when Watt got all of the attention, but not as good when Watt was out? Am I reading that right? If so you could also assume Burns would blow those numbers out if the water playing opposite Watt. So you’re kind of making the opposite argument you were thinking, right?

I posted facts about them together. That disputed the statement that Highsmith’s jump in stats was because Watt was out. I agree. It’s usually the opposite argument when discussing those two. But not this time. Just another attempt at “numbers before his nap”

[Stuart Smith]

3 hours ago, frankw said:

People in this fanbase have spent years complaining about the Panthers investing steep contracts in positions like running back and linebacker. Investing in a talented 25 year old pass rusher who has the next several years to develop into a dominant force on this defense is not the same as that.

Basically I'm getting the sense from some of ya'll that you're saying Burns is coasting and he's only going to get lazy with the new contract. You guys should just say that and own it.

I could think that about some players. However, through this entire process Burns had supported his team. The fact that he is a positive influence in a contract situation is refreshing.